44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 7:49:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is part of it. It is certainly a reflection. It is also why I have been speaking so repeatedly to this issue: It is because the Bloc and the Conservatives continue to say that things are fine in this corridor, but they are not. I am not being partisan in pointing that out. It is part of their talking points and it keeps coming up over and over again and it is wrong.
I also believe there are other reasons. The financing issue is significant. We will find out later on through a public inquiry, an inquiry that I really want, that there were American-paid protesters in the protest in Windsor. We know that Americans were there. There were all kinds of different influences taking place, and I want a full investigation into those matters. A public inquiry is very important, because it involves not only Parliament but the general Canadian population, and it is accountable more than before. I think this is one of the reasons the Prime Minister did not even want to do this at first, because a full public inquiry would shed some light on a very difficult issue.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:29:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does not believe that protesters have the right to do whatever they want. They certainly do not have the right to protest in a way that hurts an entire community, but that is already in the past. I prefer to look toward the future.
What lessons should we learn from what has happened?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:30:22 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of lessons to be learned by the Prime Minister. His rhetoric has certainly not helped the situation in the slightest. I saw on TV that the Prime Minister said many of these protesters are racist, sexist, misogynistic and hold unacceptable views.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric has not helped the situation in the slightest. It would be eminently more beneficial if we had a better prime minister to deal with this situation in a positive and constructive manner.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:33:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act. This is the reformed War Measures Act that gives the federal government and police sweeping and never-before-used powers. Let us acknowledge what has happened. The Emergencies Act suspends civil liberties.
I said earlier this week that this is a deep stain on our country's reputation as a defender of rights and that the dictators around the world would be delighted with Canada. Government MPs scoffed when I said that in the House of Commons. If Canada does this, who could say tyrants, with protesters in their capital cities, could not do the same?
It was not long until we heard answers. China’s state media was first, declaring Beijing had greater moral and legal authority to invoke its national security law in Hong Kong than Canada did against its truckers. Russia Today served up outsized reporting, four times that of the BBC and Al Jazeera, to gin up its viewers, and then there was the best. When I say the best, I mean the worst. The best was Iran’s former leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tweeting out support. Oh, Canada, what horrible company for our nation to keep with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran cheering on the Liberal government. It must feel a little uncomfortable where Liberal, NDP and possibly Green MPs sit.
While the street blockade had to be resolved in Ottawa, the conditions to invoke the Emergencies Act have not been met. This is why I will vote to repeal this dreadful infringement by the federal government. Should most other MPs vote to endorse the Prime Minister’s use of force, they will set a very low bar on future governments to suspend civil liberties. What should concern us, particularly opposition MPs who are willing to support the government’s motion, is the test to invoke the Emergencies Act in the future will be today’s feeble justifications. Here is the actual requirement:
...a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the [lives,] health or safety of Canadians [that cannot be effectively dealt with by provinces or territories]
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
It must be a situation “that cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada”.
Unlawful blockades in Surrey, Coutts and Windsor were dispersed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Should Parliament label protesters on Wellington and its surrounding streets in Ottawa as a genuine national emergency, a future government could easily find others, such as another protest outside Parliament, illegal immigration or eco-radicalism. Lawmakers should be careful on which path they lead our country.
The members opposite who would support this motion affix their names to it in perpetuity. They will authorize and endorse the suspension of constitutional rights. Government members argue civil liberties are not infringed merely because the law’s preamble says that charter rights are protected, yet prohibiting public assembly is an infringement on civil liberties. Seizing private property without due process is an infringement on civil liberties. Withholding assets without the right to recourse is an infringement on civil liberties. Freezing bank accounts and forcing banks to share private information with security agencies, without any court oversight or even criminal charges being laid, is a gross violation of fundamental rights. Limiting travel is an infringement on civil liberties. There are over 100 police checkpoints in our nation’s capital.
Today’s invocation of the Emergencies Act is an out-of-proportion use of federal powers. Are MPs opposite going to vote to endorse this unwarranted withdrawal of civil liberties?
The government’s actions, along with those of the police, will be studied and analyzed for decades to come by academics, researchers and students just as the draconian War Measures Act has been for the last 50 years. I do not believe their judgment will be a pleasant one. Indeed, I am already struck by the large and growing divergence in perspectives and reporting on this matter by our domestic media and foreign press.
Canada's media and elite opinion, albeit with some exceptions in both camps, have largely echoed the government's position. They say Ottawa protesters are not peaceful while downplaying the suspension of rights. Some simply parrot the government line. Others dismiss the legitimate concerns Canadians have about lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. What we do not see is a full-throated defence of Charter freedoms from Liberal reporters and opinion pundits whom we look for when rights are curtailed at home or abroad. This is in sharp contrast to foreign reporting.
What exactly is being reported beyond our borders?
A Newsweek editor wrote mid-week, “Canada is...arresting dissidents. A country that considers itself a democracy arresting people for the crime of organizing a mass grassroots nonviolent protest should horrify” us.
The Economist, which has long celebrated Canada's Liberals in its pages, wrote:
[The Prime Minister]'s crackdown on protests could make things worse....
Canada’s government should have drawn a clear distinction between harmful acts and obnoxious or foolish words. Peaceful protests are fine; blocking crucial highways so that others cannot go about their business is not.
This is a clear distinction between border points and the Wellington Street protest. The Economist article continues:
[T]he truckers have every right to express their disagreement. A wise government would [have] listen[ed] to them and respond[ed] politely, taking their complaints seriously....
[But the Liberal Prime Minister] has done the opposite.
Another respectful British magazine, The Spectator, was much more harsh, writing:
Peaceful civil disobedience is an established means of drawing attention to injustice when ordinary means of recourse have been exhausted....
... Canada’s elites...are fixating on the presence of truckers in the capital and at the borders only as [a national] embarrassment.... They aren’t interested in hearing about the impact of the mandates on citizens’ lives....
It has not been possible for the truckers and their supporters to have their grievances addressed by ordinary civic means....
This civil disobedience is all [the Prime Minister] can cite in justification of the Emergencies Act. The [government] rationale is that ongoing protest and peaceful civil disobedience constitute a threat to national security and to the economy....[A] credible government would have avoided this situation entirely by addressing, or at least expressing a willingness to evaluate, the suffering it is inflicting on its own people.
The title of this provocative article is “[The PM]'s totalitarian turn”, but its conclusion is identical to that of the liberal magazine, The Economist, along with Europe's Financial Times, which is that the Government of Canada got it wrong.
It goes on in other publications. The New York Times asserted, on Monday, that Canada “Declares National Emergency”, allowing temporary suspension of civil liberties.
Ottawa-based reporters did not like that or that The New York Times included coverage as well as photos of police arresting protesters near our Parliament yesterday, at gunpoint.
The Wall Street Journal, which is the largest U.S. newspaper, editorialized that the truckers' protest could have been handled without abusing the law. “Government's job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties.” Canada has failed on both scores.
Foreign press's conclusion is that our Prime Minister crossed a democratic line.
Canadians want the blockade to end, but it never should have come at the expense of the rule of law, crackdowns, abuse and totalitarian methods in Canada, say western press. Oh Canada, that is a deep stain and national embarrassment.
I miss my Canada, but there is some hope. The Wall Street Journal's editorial offers a warning and perhaps a way out, writing, “Protesters aren't emergencies, and Western leaders had better get used to handling civil disobedience firmly without traducing civil liberties.”
How should Parliament respond? The only question for us is this: Does this legislative body support trampling civil disobedience and protest by undermining rights and freedoms? We cannot undo what has happened. Invoking the Emergencies Act is on the Prime Minister and his Liberal cabinet, but we do not need to be culpable. We can stop it. Parliament can act. We must not approve our juvenile Prime Minister's decision and gross misuse of federal law. Parliament can reject the Emergencies Act. It should, because Canadians, along with the rest of the world, are watching and seeing whether we will get it right.
1447 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:17:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is exactly right, which I think is the impetus of many of the speeches over this weekend and probably going into tomorrow.
There are other tools that law enforcement has in their tool box that would have addressed all of this. It addressed the illegal blockades at the borders previous to the Emergencies Act, but certainly to that specific case two years ago. That was where protesters were blocking critical infrastructure across the country for more than 17 days and the Liberals put out every minister possible to talk to those folks. They sent out the RCMP to dismantle those blockades. Did they do any of that this time?
Did a single member of the Liberal Party go out across the street and speak to a protester and hear what their concerns were? Did a single one do that? I do not think so.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:20:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member asked if anyone on the other side had talked to any of the protesters. I did speak to one of my constituents when she came back from Ottawa, and we had a very good conversation.
Is it okay, based on his speech, that a couple of hundred people can take over a city that inhabits tens and thousands of people and terrorize them, inconvenience their lives and harass their movement? Does he think those hundreds of people speak for all those tens of thousands?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:43:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. First of all, is the member at all concerned that today's top bar for using the Emergencies Act will become the threshold going forward, that a future government could look upon other protesters or other challenges and invoke the Emergencies Act?
Second, has the member, and other members of the NDP, considered denying the government's use of the motion on Monday, since it will already have been in effect and will have permitted the government to do what had had to be done, but saying that it could go no further and that it needs to end on Monday?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:32:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and mention that I, too, have had several conversations with several protesters. I think it is important to have those conversations. My question stems from the member's comment regarding the fact that our government did not proceed with any actions prior to the invocation of the emergency measures act, which is completely incorrect. We did provide RCMP at the request of provinces and territories on every occasion.
In fact, following that, the Government of Alberta sent a letter to our federal government and I will read a portion of it quickly into the record. It states:
The RCMP, along with local and provincial officials, have been working closely in an attempt to persuade the demonstration participants to remove their vehicles but have been unsuccessful. In addition, as a result of private industry concerns over negative consequences, the RCMP have been unable to secure the appropriate heavy duty equipment required to remove vehicles and other items such as trailers and tractors from the area. Attempts to procure these services with—
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:34:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I really appreciated it.
He is right. It is deplorable that people's opinions have turned into an issue, an argument among friends and family, and between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. All of this has clearly exacerbated the divisions in Canadian society.
With all due respect to the member, I know that his party has finally reversed its position and asked the protesters to leave, but I still find it appalling to have seen members of the Conservative Party on social media, waging some kind of disinformation campaign about the motion the member mentioned. They said they were asking for a plan to lift public health measures. Certain Conservative Party members said that they were asking for the health measures to be lifted and that that was what the vote would be on, so they had to tell members to vote in favour of the motion.
Does the member not find that this exacerbated divisions and that it did a great disservice to the cause?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:48:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I, like the hon. member, believe in peaceful protest. I, like him, believe that we should try to de-escalate when possible. I have participated in peaceful protests before. If I ever attended one where others showed up who detracted from my message and, in fact, damaged my ability to deliver that message, I would leave. That is what we have seen in the past weeks in Ottawa. They did not leave.
I do not paint everybody with the same brush. There were peaceful protesters out there with the message.
Why does the hon. member think the protesters did not leave, and if he was in those circumstances, would he do the same and leave so his message would not be damaged?
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:48:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for not painting everybody with the same brush, as some of his Liberal colleagues and the NDP do. That is to his credit. I live within the protest zone and every single day I walk to and from work through the protesters, I can tell him from experience that I never felt intimidated. I was never accosted. Yes, there were some people speaking loudly and some with strong views.
However, did it take the Emergencies Act, the sledgehammer of War Measures Act-type legislation to resolve this? No, the Prime Minister had all those tools available to him to resolve this crisis. He chose not to. That is to his discredit. That is his failure and his alone.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:09:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is customary when we start a speech to say we are honoured to stand and are privileged to do so, but today is not one of those days. I do not believe anybody is happy about having to stand or sit and speak to the issues we are dealing with. In fact, it is very unfortunate.
I do not intend to repeat what others have said. We have been doing this for four days. I am not going to give free legal advice because, in my experience, free legal advice is worth exactly what one pays for it. I am going to speak, however, about the tone of the debate.
Several weeks ago, peaceful protests started across the country, in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and right here in Ontario. People were standing together. People were defending freedom and fighting against oppression. I proudly participated in those rallies with colleagues from both sides of the House of Commons. We even took pictures together. However, I am not talking about what happened here in Ottawa or Windsor or Emerson or Coutts. I am talking about standing side by side with Ukrainian Canadians and my parliamentary colleagues united in defence of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Those people were fighting for freedom.
What happened in Ottawa and Emerson and Coutts and other parts of the country, what happened on the streets in Ottawa, occupying streets and borders, harassing people and breaking the law, are not peaceful protests. People participating in the protests here could not be more free. They drove across the country and they are free to do so. They are free to stay in Ottawa as long as they want. They are free to leave when they want. They are free to stay where they want. However, when they were driving across the country, they were not free to park in the middle of the Trans-Canada Highway because that is illegal, nor is it peaceful.
Until recently, the protesters in Ottawa, with their claim to be fighting for freedom outside this seat of democracy we are sitting in, were making a mockery of the rights of Canadians who take the right to protest seriously. Freedom is not defended by bouncy castles. Freedom is not defended by sitting in a hot tub. It is certainly not defended by drinking beer in the middle of the street. It is defended by conviction and belief in building a stronger, better society for all and strengthening the fabric of our nation, not destroying it.
The occupiers here in Ottawa over the last few weeks have hijacked the term “freedom” and it is just wrong. In fact, the only freedom impacted by the protests here are of other Canadians, the people in Ottawa. Thousands of people cannot go to work. They feel unsafe leaving their home. They cannot go for a walk with their child. They cannot take their dog for a walk. It is ironic and it is tragic.
I know that some Canadians are frustrated, angry and exhausted. They are tired of everything that has been going on for the last couple of years. Everybody in this chamber today is exhausted. I understand, believe me. COVID-19 has been difficult on everybody. We all want this to end, but the real enemy here is not the governments or politicians; it is the virus itself. We have to remember that. We have not forgotten in the last few weeks about the health care workers who continue to fight for the lives of Canadians. I thank them again.
As time went on, it became clear that this occupation was not going to end on its own. The occupiers were free to leave. They had the chance to leave and they chose not to. Peace, order and good government is a phrase we are all familiar with. It is in our Constitution. This debate should be a sharing of ideas on how we move forward together, but sadly, it has become a toxic political debate.
When Ottawa declared an emergency, no one was opposed. The situation was the same when Ontario declared a state of emergency. The official opposition members have been calling on the federal government to introduce measures as well, for weeks, and yet, when the government does and invokes the Emergencies Act, the official opposition opposes the move. Let us look no further than the Premier of Alberta. Two weeks ago, he was crying for help and now he is crying foul. Do we need to wonder why this situation exists?
What does this all mean? The Emergencies Act gives police more tools. It strengthens their ability to fine and imprison, and to designate secure and protected critical places and infrastructure. It ensures essential services are rendered and prohibits the use of property to support illegal blockades. It allows the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences when required. There is no army. We are doing what has been asked of us and what needs to be done.
Police forces have been using these rules over the past few days. Our forces from across Canada at various levels of jurisdiction came together and worked seamlessly to de-escalate the occupation of our capital, and they are to be thanked for their professionalism and complete dedication to ensuring the safety of everyone involved. My colleagues have mentioned the change today outside the House of Commons from days previous.
I would also like to thank the thousands of truckers and frontline workers who have worked through all of this. The storyline has been distorted to suggest that we stand against truckers. Nobody in this chamber stands against truckers; in fact, it is completely the opposite. They were critical in getting us this far, and we are with them now, as we always have been.
I want to give a special thanks to those who work at the Ontario Food Terminal in my riding. We are grateful to them. It has been especially important to recognize their contributions over the last few weeks. The truckers and workers at the food terminal have been working hard and tirelessly to keep goods and services moving for Canadians. It is a critical food hub for Ontario and many other parts of Canada. We depend heavily on imported fruits and vegetables at this time of year, and border disruptions put our supply of perishable food at risk. These disruptions are completely unacceptable.
The Emergencies Act measures are time-limited, geographically targeted, reasonable and proportionate to the threats. The act is only being used to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across Canada.
People are trying to tie this act to the War Measures Act. Let me be crystal clear that this is not the War Measures Act. With this act we are not calling in the military and we are not overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor are we limiting freedom of speech or freedom of peaceful assembly. This has been proven over the last few days. Canada is a rule-of-law country. The authorities have been cautious, careful, professional, respectful and patient, resulting in peaceful protesters leaving the streets of Ottawa. The Emergencies Act only applies to those involved in illegal activity. It is that simple.
I next want to address something that has been repeated by the opposition time and time again, which is that this government should meet with leaders of the protests, as if this would make the whole thing go away and solve all the problems. This is nothing more than a distraction, as we all know, because there are no real leaders. This is not a cohesive group that is united in one cause. I have spoken to people on all sides of the issue and I continue to. I do it every day by phone and email, and yes, in Ottawa.
Besides, if the Conservatives truly believed that meeting with any one group or individual would solve this problem and that was a real option, they would have done it. Instead, random MPs, including their now want-to-be leader, are taking pictures with random protesters. Now that aspiring leader is nowhere to be seen, following the selfies and photo ops which he has for so long criticized others for doing.
The government's action was about keeping Canadians safe and protecting people's jobs. Let us restore freedom to the people of Ottawa, Windsor, Coutts, Emerson and British Columbia and elsewhere. Let us restore confidence in our institutions. Let us restore order together, please. We need to work together. The question is not what happens if we do this; the real question is what happens if we do not. We need to be the ones fighting to protect our freedoms, not fighting with each other and trying to one-up each other.
In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while this emergency is in effect. Parliament has the ability to revoke the declaration of the emergency, as set out clearly in the act. There is no suspension of liberty here; we are trying to give people their liberty back. Peace, order and good government is what we were elected to provide, so let us do it.
1551 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:55:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what this question is about. To have one's own opinion about protesters and blockades, that is fine, but what we are talking about today is the Emergencies Act, and whether it should be used going forward and whether we in this House think the government needs that unbridled power—
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:12:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in solemn but resolute support of the Emergencies Act.
The past weeks have given me time to reflect on the words and actions of those who came to protest public health measures. One of the words we heard most from the demonstrators was “patriotism”. This frequently repeated word compelled me to consider its meaning. An act of patriotism is ultimately an act of self-sacrifice. It is a selfless act on behalf of our families, friends and communities. During the past two years we have seen extraordinary acts of selflessness by Canadians who sacrificed and stood together to keep each other safe during a pandemic.
Canadians found the strength to persevere in our shared values, our determination, our dedication and our commitment to community: Canadian truckers, front-line nurses, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, grocery store staff, our law enforcement officers and every essential worker across the nation, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso just mentioned.
Although many of the demonstrators label themselves as patriots and were invoking the memory of our veterans and their sacrifices, they forgot the lessons those veterans taught. During World War II, a typhus vaccine was developed and administered to Canadian soldiers. They did it to protect each other and their units. They did it so they could protect their nation. Not only did these vaccines work, but vaccine technology also grew rapidly. In the 1950s and 1960s, vaccines for polio, influenza and tetanus all emerged, and today, polio is a thing of the past. It is gone. It is gone because of the dedication and hard work of scientists, doctors and the millions of people who placed their trust in them.
Over the past two years, Canadians pulled together and cared for one another. They wore masks, physically distanced and got vaccinated. It is because of this that federal and provincial restrictions are slowly lifting across the country now, but we still need to hold strong.
Regretfully, most demonstrators refused to heed the advice of doctors. They neglected the example set by our veterans and chose to ignore the fact that we do not live in a society racked with polio. This is their right, but having made this choice of their own free will, Canadians who refuse vaccines must also accept responsibility for their choice. Others believe that federal and provincial public health measures went too far and chose to exercise their charter right to protest. That is their right.
Unfortunately, according to the intelligence assessments prepared by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, extremist groups were using the protests as a cover. These groups' motivations extended well beyond grievances about public health measures and policy. Instead, their intent was to use the protest to advance an anti-democratic agenda.
With the intent of using trucks to blockade Ottawa's downtown core, demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. Some even demanded an immediate and unlawful change in government. These actions emboldened others to blockade the downtown Ottawa core. Demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. They blocked border points at the Ambassador Bridge, at Coutts, Alberta, at Emerson, Manitoba, and the Pacific Highway crossing in B.C. The Ottawa hospital and the Windsor mayor received bomb threats.
Not only did these blockades costs hundreds of millions of dollars due to the loss of trade, but they interrupted the very supply lines these protesters claimed to be protecting. As the Ottawa occupation dragged on and even more anti-government demonstrators arrived, the unlawful conduct of the demonstrators continued.
The citizens of downtown Ottawa were subjected to constant and excessive horn honking and fireworks, a DJ blaring loud music, causing days of sleep deprivation for many residents. The demonstrators' disregard for mask mandates forced businesses to choose between employee safety and staying open. Most closed and remain closed today. The people of Ottawa reported numerous cases of illegal parking, idling, verbal, sexual and physical assault, intimidation and, worse still, death threats, an attempted arson, parliamentary staff followed home and children being used as shields.
Protest by its nature is disruptive, which we accept in a free and democratic society, but protests cannot be used to take hostage the charter rights of other Canadians as a means to force the government to accept political or ideological demands. This conduct gave way to a state of lawlessness in downtown Ottawa and compromised every resident’s section 2 right to security of the person.
While these actions may not represent the majority of participants, it is also more than “a few bad apples”, as the official opposition would say. Weapons seized from the Coutts border blockades and bomb threats received by the mayor of Windsor escalated this crisis. These actions are not peaceful; they are not lawful and they are not the actions of Canadians who share the values that got us through the pandemic.
The financial and additional enforcement powers, as well as streamlining jurisdictional concerns, have helped police authorities to responsibly disperse or arrest the unlawful demonstrators in Ottawa. It must be remembered that these demonstrators do not represent most Canadians. Roughly 85%, or more, of Canadians got vaccinated, and most of those who did not have not engaged in these disruptive protests.
Much more unites Canadians than divides them. The senseless and harmful acts of the past days do not reflect the attitudes of most Canadians. Initiating the Emergencies Act was a difficult but necessary decision to protect the rule of law and give Canadians their freedom.
925 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Terrebonne very eloquently expressed the reasons why the threshold has not been satisfied under the Emergencies Act. What we have instead is an unprecedented overreach on the part of the government that threatens the foundations of democracy. As the member pointed out, the blockades along the Canada-U.S. border were dispersed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The protesters here in Ottawa have been dispersed, and yet here we are debating the Emergencies Act.
Would the member agree that the motivations behind this on the part of the government are in fact quite sinister and that it is not about what was happening here in Ottawa or what was happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it is about crushing those who disagree with them?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.
I agree that Ottawa residents have suffered enough. I hope that I explained in my speech, and now in my answer, that this blockade should never have taken place.
The government's mistake was to allow the protesters to settle in and get organized. Things should never have gotten to that point. Extremists should never have gained so much visibility.
It was a mistake for the government to let this happen. It should have acted earlier, and it should never have gotten to the point of illegitimately invoking this law.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:55:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I also appreciate very much.
I could not agree more with her. I looked at the protesters flying American flags, Canadian flags, Quebec flags and so on. It is easy to conflate all the causes and make comparisons to anti-Semitism. However, we are really far from that. If we were in a situation like the one Poland and Germany experienced in the dark years we would prefer to forget but can never forget, the Emergencies Act would obviously be called for. However, we are not there.
Conflating situations like this is dangerous. First, it does a disservice to the memory of victims of the Holocaust. Second, it undermines the sound, informed and intelligent management of situations here at home.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:08:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
His account of what happened to his family is unfortunately similar to what I have been told, and what my aunt and family friends have told me, about October 1970, and I totally understand the horror he must have experienced back then.
What is happening now is not about the army, it is about protesters. I kept reading and rereading, and I wondered what powers the police did not have before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Were they unable to issue fines? Were they unable to co-operate? Were they unable to enforce a court order? What powers did they not have that were suddenly given to them?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:12:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although it is an honour today to rise in the House of Commons to discuss and debate imposing the Emergencies Act, I do so with a heavy heart. I am fiercely proud to be Canadian. I love our country and everything about it. That is why I am here today. It is a big part of why I ran and had the courage to put my name on a ballot, and that is why I must use my voice today as we take these historic measures. Undeniably, this is one of the most important debates that we will have in the House.
The debate is about a solution to a very big problem. It is a problem that we have seen exceed the ability of the Ottawa police force and other police forces across the country to address on their own. It is multifaceted, it is menacing and it is an attack on our democracy. The protesters here in Ottawa just outside this building, the seat of our federal government, stated that their goal was to take down the government: to overthrow this democratically elected government. This certainly raises alarm bells in my head.
As we know, on Friday, all parties agreed to cancel the debate in the House on the Emergencies Act because of the emergency that was happening just outside this building. It was not considered safe for us to come to this building to debate the Emergencies Act. Let us all pause on that. I would say that when the elected representatives of this country are unable to safely debate in the House, it is an emergency of national significance.
I have received many emails, phone calls and messages from residents in my riding of Kanata—Carleton about these measures. I have been actively participating in and listening to this lengthy debate, and I would like to use my time today to share my view and to provide answers to the questions that many people seem to still have. I would also like to clarify that it is my job to represent the residents of Kanata—Carleton to the best of my abilities. This is not about partisan politics, and it does not matter what stripe of politics I believe in. It matters that I rise and represent the will of my residents. That is exactly what I am here to do today.
Why did we invoke the Emergencies Act? Canada is a rule-of-law country. By declaring a public order emergency under the act, we followed the law and we are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act for a public order emergency to be declared, and these conditions have been met. Everyone in this chamber knows that the situation, particularly here in Ottawa, grew in intensity and in level of threat over the past 25 days. The threats at our land borders have mostly been managed to date, but with the benefit of planning and experience. The financing of the illegal occupation here in Ottawa has, as has now been exposed, required additional legislative powers to end it. The Ottawa Police Service acknowledged days ago it did not have the capacity to deal with this situation as it evolved over the last—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
554 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:40:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. In addition to taking action to deal with the problems the protesters raised, the Prime Minister could have avoided provoking these protests from the start. He is the one who attacked the jobs of the truckers, public servants and others, even as the rest of the world was lifting these restrictions and vaccine mandates.
Now he can take action to lift these restrictions and allow people to work and return to their workplaces. He should have stood up in the House of Commons to reject this unjustifiable power grab and give back to Canadians the freedom they are entitled to.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
