44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 10:20:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from what I understand, omicron has changed the whole scenario we are in, so the context has shifted. However, that does not undermine the effectiveness of our vaccines in significantly reducing hospitalizations, severe illness and outcomes such as death. Vaccine mandates are still effective in reducing the spread of COVID‑19, specifically the spread of severe outcomes, and alleviating the burden on our health care systems, which we saw come very close to breaking down completely in the omicron wave. We have to continue this fight. The higher the vaccination rates, the better, and vaccine mandates have been proven in many jurisdictions to push those vaccination rates up as high as possible, which is good for our country and for our economy. I fully believe every Canadian should choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated. If they choose not to do so, that is their choice, but there are going to be some consequences associated with that.
160 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 11:21:32 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.
Madam Speaker, change is never easy. I hear Canadians having a difficult time adjusting to a new life by taking extra care when they go shopping or eat at a restaurant, but these are measures that we need to take to protect those who cannot get vaccinated.
Does this prevent everyday Canadians from living their daily lives?
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there is indeed an emergency in this country. Indeed, there are a series of emergencies.
There is the emergency of the family whose 14-year-old daughter has attempted suicide after two years of isolation from sports, social interaction and other healthy activities that sustain a happy and heartful mind. There is the emergency of the federal public servant who, for unrecognized medical reasons, cannot get vaccinated and is now deprived of an income and a job. There is the emergency of the trucker who was hailed as a hero while driving our goods and services across international borders unvaccinated for over two years, who suddenly was declared a public health threat and deprived of his job as well. There is the emergency of the 32-year-old still living in his mom's basement, because under the pretext of COVID, the government printed so much money that it now costs $836,000 for the average house. There is the emergency of the single mother trembling as she walks down the grocery aisle because she cannot afford a basket of affordable goods, because the government has inflated her cost of living. There is the emergency created by the regulatory gatekeepers who keep people in poverty by blockading first nations people from the ability to develop their own resources and blockading immigrants from the ability to work in the very professions for which they are trained and qualified.
These are the emergencies we should be addressing, but instead the Prime Minister has created a new emergency. What is his motivation? Of course, it is to divide and conquer. How did this all start? Let us remember that the Prime Minister suddenly imposed a brand new vaccine mandate on the very truckers who had been free to travel across borders without a vaccine, and he did it at a time when provinces and countries around the world were removing vaccine mandates. He did it to a group of people who are by far the least likely to transmit a virus, because they work and sleep all by themselves 22 hours a day.
Media asked his health minister and his chief medical officer for evidence supporting the decision. Neither had any. In fact, the medical officer said it was time to return to normalcy, yet the Prime Minister, in spite of all these facts, brought in this new mandate to deprive people of their living, because he knew that it would spark in them a sense of desperation. If he could deprive them of their incomes, they would be so desperate that they would have to rise up and protest, and then he could further demonize them, call them names, attack their motives, belittle them and dehumanize them in order to galvanize the majority against the minority.
This must be the political opportunity his Deputy Prime Minister spoke about when she described what COVID represented to the government. The Liberals have attempted to amplify and take advantage of every pain, every fear and every tragedy that has struck throughout this pandemic in order to divide one person against another and replace the people's freedom with the government's power.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it started immediately. The government attempted to ram through a law that would have given it the power to raise any tax to any level for any reason without a vote in Parliament. It tried to pass Bill C-10 to strip away free speech online. Thankfully, Conservatives blocked it from doing so. The Prime Minister's authorities have said they want to track Canadian cell phones for the next five years. Now this, the Emergencies Act, is the latest and greatest example of attacks on our freedom.
Ostensibly, it was meant to stop blockades, which had already ended before he even brought forward this legislation. In Alberta, in Manitoba and at the Ambassador Bridge, those blockades were ended peacefully, in some cases with protesters hugging the police officers and bringing the matters to a successful close, so that goods and services could resume.
Instead, in that context, the Prime Minister brought in a law that not even Jean Chrétien brought in after 9/11 killed dozens of Canadians in a terrorist attack, that not even former prime minister Harper brought in when a terrorist murdered a Canadian soldier at the war monument and came running into Centre Block spraying bullets in all directions, and that not even the current Prime Minister brought in when blockades by first nations were standing in the way of those who were attempting to build the Coastal GasLink pipeline. For the first time in this law's three-decade history, the Prime Minister brings it in to address what he says was a protest in front of Parliament Hill.
Ironically, this power goes beyond any of the protests and/or blockades the Prime Minister claims to want to address. For example, it would allow governments and banks to seize people's bank accounts and money for donating to the wrong political cause. One journalist asked the justice minister if small sums donated, for example, to support an end to vaccine mandates could get someone's bank account frozen. The minister did not deny it. Instead, he said that people who make donations of that kind should be very worried.
To freeze people's bank accounts is not just an attack on their finances but on their personal security. If their bank accounts are frozen, they cannot buy food, they cannot buy fuel, they cannot pay their children's day care fees and, under this law, they can face this personal attack without being charged with a single, solitary crime.
The Prime Minister says that this is time-limited, yet his own finance minister said she wants some of the tools to be permanent. He said it will be geographically targeted, yet his own parliamentary secretary for justice said that “the act technically applies to all of Canada”. The rules apply everywhere and indefinitely.
Finally, there is nothing in the act that limits the kinds of financial actions that could lead to people's accounts being frozen, and if they are frozen unjustifiably, the act specifically bans people from suing either the bank or the government for that unjustifiable treatment, opening the door for people who have nothing whatsoever to do with either the blockades or the protest having their bank accounts frozen without cause.
The Prime Minister says he wants to do this to remove the blockades, blockades that have already been removed. He says he needs these unprecedented powers in order to bring our country's order back to the pre-protest period, although across this country that has already occurred.
I say to the House that I oppose this unjustifiable power grab and, as prime minister of Canada, I will ensure that no such abuse of power ever happens again.
However, I say that we should end some of these blockades. Let us—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:41:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy for Canadians and particularly for people in her community.
There is no question that we need to listen to the science and respect health authorities and their advice to us. If we all do that, we can all get out of this and, yes, by then we should be able to end the mandate. I would ask people to please get vaccinated so we can see an end to the mandates.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite, and I have worked with him at the indigenous affairs committee.
At the outset, I want to say that I believe Canadians are united. Over 90% of Canadians have been vaccinated, and many more are continuing to be vaccinated as we speak, with the second and booster doses. We have seen a lot of hate outside over the last several weeks. I personally have found it very difficult to go and engage, and it is pretty obvious why. It is because I am a racialized individual. I have seen symbols of hate that profoundly affect me.
I am just wondering this. What are the member's thoughts about the calls to engage with these blockaders, and what does he think that kind of engagement would have resulted in?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:22:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was the first to condemn the vaccine mandate for truckers on December 15. I can assure the House that I have not changed my mind. As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert said earlier, the government used the election to sow division between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in Canada. It is still doing so. The Liberal Party members are doing the same thing now. It was not necessary to impose this requirement on the truckers, since the government tolerated the situation for two years. The government did not present any valid studies to show that the truckers were coming into Canada with COVID. There was absolutely no need to impose this requirement.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:53:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join the debate on the Emergencies Act. I hate to spoil the surprise for those waiting until the end of my speech to understand how I will vote, but I am going to come out early now and spoil it by saying I do not support this overreach by the government.
We have to ask how we got here today. I am sure the Liberals are saying “by Air Canada”, but I mean the crisis we are dealing with right now. Some think it was because of the trucker vaccine mandate brought in by the government about a month ago, and I have to wonder why, now, the government would bring this in.
At the very beginning of the pandemic, two years ago, before we had vaccines and before we knew much about COVID, truckers were able to come and go. They were deemed vital to the continuation of our economy, bringing food exports, so we were not putting any mandates on them then. During the delta wave, we had some vaccines, but not a huge part of the population had been vaccinated. Truckers were able to come into the country without having the mandate.
Here we are, now, where 90% of Canadians are vaxxed or partially vaxxed. We have had omicron wash through the country. Thankfully, due to the high vaccination rate and that it is milder, we have not had the problems and the issues of the first waves. Now, the Liberals decide they are going to hit the truckers with a mandate. There was no data to back it up and no reason, it seems, apart from politicking.
At the point where we are here with the crisis happening in Ottawa, some might think the tipping point was the Prime Minister in September, but it was reported in January, calling the unvaccinated racists, misogynists and extremists. The Prime Minister asked if we should “tolerate” these people, pitting Canadian against Canadian.
However, I think the roots of what is happening across Canada and outside this place, go back to the election. On July 13 the Prime Minister stated there would be no vaccine mandates. Two weeks later, when he called the unnecessary, unneeded election, he found out, though internal polling, that this was a wedge issue and he could wedge Canadian against Canadian and the electorate against Conservatives by flip-flopping and bringing in vaccine mandates and making it the prime election issue. It is quite funny, listening to the other side, especially the finance minister, calling Conservatives the party of flip-flop.
This country has had a number of distinguished finance ministers: Paul Martin, Jim Flaherty and Michael Wilson. Can members imagine any of these distinguished and fine finance ministers reducing themselves to name-calling, such as “the party of flip-flop”, like the current one? That seems to be the modus operandi of the government.
During the election, we had never seen protests like we did, caused by the current government. We had never had people out shamefully throwing rocks and pebbles at a prime minister until the government purposely wedged Canadians against Canadians.
We understand vaccines are important. We all know that, but pitting Canadians against unvaccinated Canadians for political gain is wrong, and it has led to what has happened outside. I have been doing this game for a long time. I actually started my political volunteering with a gentleman named Chuck Cook, who was the member of Parliament for North Vancouver and was the whip at one time for the Mulroney government. I helped out as a youth delegate alternate for Joe Clark, losing unfortunately. I campaigned from Victoria to Newfoundland, knocking at doors, and I have never seen such anger or so many Canadians turned against each other as I have because of the government turning one group against the other.
I once even actually door-knocked in the by-election in Davenport after Jack Layton passed away. I had never in my life seen a campaign where every single house had an orange sign throughout the entire riding. The support was amazing, but as a Conservative I was able to door-knock there with none of the vitriol we saw in the last election, again caused by the Prime Minister pitting Canadian against Canadian and wondering if we should tolerate other Canadians who have not been vaccinated.
When the truckers announced they were coming to town, the Prime Minister thought he could just demonize them like he did with other protests. If he called them names, they would simply go away, but they did not. The Prime Minister riled them up. Again, instead of discussing the issue, instead of debating it in the House, he called them names. He created the conditions and the anger and that stuck in Canada.
When we had rail protests a couple of years ago, crippling the economy, the port of Vancouver blockaded, the situation in Quebec with the lack of fuel was so bad that Alberta companies were talking about, heaven forbid, a convoy to bring propane to keep Quebeckers heated. What did the Prime Minister do? Did he call them names? These were protesters who were throwing furniture in front of moving trains, hoping to derail them. Did he call them names? Of course not. He actually hurried and sent ministers out to negotiate. This is not a national emergency as much as the other side will claim. This is a political emergency for the Prime Minister.
On the act itself, since 1988, we think of all the crises Canada has faced, and there have been a lot, some major, some not as much. We had Oka. I remember Oka. The army was there against people with AK47s, and it was solved without the Emergencies Act. There was Caledonia, and again the protests two years ago with the rail blockades. The G20 summit protest, where we had over 1,000 arrests, violence in the streets and storefronts destroyed, was not a national emergency.
In 1997, we remember Vancouver during APEC, when the RCMP famously pepper sprayed protesters and then prime minister Chrétien talked about pepper being something to put on his steak. People do not realize that the RCMP feared for protesters' lives, because the government for the first time had allowed eight different nations to have armed security with their leaders. I am not worried about Bush being here and the U.S. being armed, but President Suharto, a strongman and thug from Indonesia at the time had armed security with him. The RCMP stated they were afraid Suharto's thugs would fire into the crowd and kill Canadians, but that was not an emergency under the act.
At the Coastal GasLink protest, we just saw that people broke in and tried to light a car on fire that had workers inside. They broke in with axes; there were millions of dollars' worth of equipment and, when the police were attending, they ambushed the police, throwing burning items at the police cars. Apparently that was not an emergency. I wonder if the government is actually going to try to seize some of the bank accounts of those supporting such things.
Are the Liberals going to investigate that? Of course not, because certain ideological protests are apparently more fair than others. The Liberals will try their best to trot out the various reasons that this is a national emergency. They try to claim, as we heard earlier in one of my interventions, that these people were trying to overthrow the government. Seriously, as if the hot tub time machine guys out there with the ludicrous online demand to overthrow the government are to be taken seriously, or the people calling in saying, “Have the Governor General replace the Prime Minister.” That is not a serious issue.
Perhaps bringing out former prime minister Harper to be beheaded on the lawn of this place like the Toronto 18 planned to do could have been considered an emergency, but again, I do not think the bouncy castle people are anything that constitutes an emergency.
Earlier, when this first came up, I was heckled by one of the Liberals when I was asking a question about why they were able to clear Windsor, Surrey and the other border crossings without the Emergencies Act. Why do we need it? The Liberal MP yelled across that they might come back. I have to ask, when will this actually end for the Liberal government? When will the political emergency end if the government is saying secretly maybe they will come back and we will keep it going.
The Liberals have not justified in any way the use of the Emergencies Act. That is why I will not be supporting it.
1478 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in my speech, my colleague said that the government put political interests, partisanship, ahead of science.
He said that by making reference to the motion the Conservatives moved, citing Dr. Theresa Tam. Personally, I have heard many Conservative colleagues say that vaccination is annoying, but the science tells us that we have to get vaccinated.
Is my colleague in favour of vaccination? Does he agree that the best way out of this crisis is vaccination?
I would like his opinion on that.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:36:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. It must be the end of the day, because I am a little passionate. My apologies to the member if I got a little passionate.
I am definitely pro-vaccine. I am proudly vaxxed and I believe everyone should be vaccinated. However, we also need to not demonize people who think differently from us. We live in a free country, and when we demonize people, calling them misogynist and racist, that is not Canadian. That is not our Canada.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:09:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I am speaking on the traditional territories of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe peoples. I also acknowledge that my constituency is on the treaty lands of the Williams Treaties first nations and recognize the Chippewas of Georgina Island as the closest first nations community.
It is an honour and privilege for me to speak in this House to represent the constituents of Newmarket—Aurora. Is this not the fundamental value we are here to defend? That value is democracy, which so many people have died to defend. It is the reason my parents became part of an underground escape route in Holland to help escaped prisoners of war return home, and the reason that my parents came to Canada.
I acknowledge that some of the people who joined the protest did so to express their opposition to vaccine mandates and with the intent to protest peacefully, but it also needs to be explicitly stated that here in Ottawa, within our country and at our border crossings, our democracy was at risk from a dangerous extreme minority that had declared its intent to overthrow the government with its MOU. For the organizers of the blockades and the occupation of Ottawa, this was not about vaccine mandates. That was just a ruse. They intended to damage our economy, with no regard for the impact to our communities, and disrupt and shut down businesses, which only revealed their contempt for Canada and the rule of law.
For three weeks, blockades have been illegally disrupting the lives of Canadians, harming our economy and endangering public safety. Canadians have seen their work hours reduced, or in many cases their jobs put on hold. Factories have been put on hold, and retailers and restaurants have been forced to closed. Let us be unwavering in our condemnation of those who set out to create an economic crisis by further disrupting supply chains to create a climate of fear and uncertainty. The occupation by this illegal blockade has resulted in serious harm to our economy and to Canada's international standing.
The world's confidence in Canada as a place to invest and do business was being undermined. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge has affected about $390 million in trade each day, and this bridge supports about 30% of all trade by road between Canada and the United States, which is our most important trading partner.
In Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in trade has been affected by these blockades, and in Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade has been affected. Those impacts are real. They threaten businesses, big and small, and the livelihoods of Canadian workers. Recognizing all the provisions in place to safeguard our country, I support invoking the Emergencies Act to supplement the provincial and territorial authorities to address the blockades and the occupation. This is to keep Canadians safe, protect people's jobs and ensure our economy continues on the path of recovery while restoring confidence in our institutions.
Through the Emergencies Act, we are broadening the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules so they can cover crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers, including digital assets such as cryptocurrency. This is particularly significant in an era where social media makes it possible to broadly distribute disinformation and raise funds on that basis. Over 55% of the funds raised on these platforms came from the United States.
Through the Emergencies Act, we are providing new authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, prohibit blockades and keep essential corridors open. The Emergencies Act allows the government to mobilize essential services, such as tow trucks; allows the RCMP to act more swiftly to enforce local laws; and provides enhanced powers to stop the flow of money. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportionate.
Canada is a rule of law country and, when we declared the public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law. We continue to act within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act for a public emergency order to be declared, and our government believes those conditions have been met, and that they require the Government of Canada to act.
The scope of these measures will be time limited and geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address. The Emergencies Act is intended to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country. This is about keeping Canadians safe and allowing residents to go into their communities with the security and freedom to do so, while protecting people's jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions.
The Emergencies Act also contains a number of significant limits, checks and safeguards. As required by the act, on several occasions over the past week the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet consulted with the premiers and members of their respective governments. In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be established to provide oversight while the emergency is in effect. The declaration only lasts 30 days, unless renewed. However, we can and sincerely hope to revoke the emergency much sooner.
I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands when she said that it is not helpful to trivialize the gravity of this situation with references about bouncy castles, nor is it helpful to polarize this debate with antagonistic, inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks.
These are challenging times. The pandemic has impacted all of us, and for some the impact has been one of great loss economically and personally. Over the course of this pandemic, 36,000 Canadian lives have been lost and more than 1.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with COVID. We should also remember the 2,000 Canadians who have silently lost their lives over the last three weeks because of COVID.
Pandemic restrictions, the majority of which are imposed provincially, are starting to be lifted. Our country has 30.7 million people, or about 80% of its population, vaccinated. Efforts continue to expand the number of those who have been triple vaccinated.
It is due to the efforts of so many Canadians that we stand on the threshold of a recovery, a threshold that cannot be derailed or trampled on by a minority whose intent was seditious, an economic sabotage with a disregard for the neighbours and residents whose streets they occupied.
This was a crisis in need of the Emergencies Act. In a letter addressed to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, wrote:
the national coordination of the Freedom Convoy 2022 has presented unique challenges.
The CACP supports the fundamental objectives of the invocation of the Emergencies Act that is intended to regulate and prohibit illegal public assemblies that lead to the breach of peace, and to restrict the funding of such illegal assemblies.
I also agree with the member for Edmonton Strathcona who stated that our constituents expect us to work together and find solutions to resolve this crisis.
In the weeks and months ahead, we need to restore faith in the institutions Canadians rely on. We need to come to a full understanding of how these blockades and the occupation were able to happen and what can be done to prevent them from happening in the future. In doing so, we must safeguard the right to protest peacefully, and we must remember the House we stand in belongs to all Canadians. We stand here at their will with the expectation to work in the best interests of Canadians.
1279 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
