44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 8:43:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have heard many things from Liberal members throughout this debate that I disagree with. However, I want to start with one thing that I agree with, which the member said. He said that he supported the right to peaceful protest prior to blockades and he did not agree with blockading critical infrastructure. These are sentiments that I fundamentally agree with.
The provisions of the Emergencies Act that I am most concerned about are the powers given to arbitrarily freeze individual's bank accounts without a court order. We are hearing reports of individuals who have had their bank accounts frozen. These individuals donated to the convoy movement prior to any blockading, and they wanted to see peaceful protests and wanted to see the convoy movement bring its message about the need to end mandates. Now those individuals are seeing their bank accounts frozen.
I would contend that this is in violation of the charter. I would contend that giving banks the sweeping power to freeze the accounts of individual who made small donations in good faith, potentially without being in support of blockading, is totally unreasonable. I wonder if the member would agree with me that this is not an appropriate way to be proceeding.
208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:43:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about the phenomenon of discrimination on the basis of political views that we increasingly hear from the government. The justice minister is talking about people's bank accounts being frozen on the basis of being part of an allegedly pro-Trump movement.
In this country, as long as one is not involved in violence, one is able to hold whatever views one wants, and that should not be a factor when deciding whether individuals' bank accounts should be frozen. Many individuals donated to the convoy movement prior to the start of any blockading.
Could the member share her thoughts on this phenomenon of discrimination on the basis of political views, on how people and protests are treated differently depending on the cause they are advocating, and what we as parliamentarians can do to address this problem?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:58:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it should be underlined that, while the Government of Alberta clearly had been engaged with the federal government, at no point did it asked for the imposition of the Emergencies Act. As my colleague pointed out, a majority of premiers, including the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Quebec, opposed the use of the Emergencies Act.
We have a situation where a bare majority of parliamentarians, as far as we know, support the use of the Emergencies Act, and a majority of premiers and many members of Parliament are very concerned about it. This sets a very dangerous precedent.
Is the member aware if the Quebec government is contemplating participating in legal action, along with Alberta, against the use of the Emergencies Act in this case?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:27:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last week in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister made deplorable comments, accusing the member for Thornhill of standing with those with swastikas. Those comments were rightfully called out by the member's predecessor, Michael Levitt, a well respected member of the House of Commons who never resorted to the kind of partisan approach that we have seen from the Prime Minister or even, at times, from this member. Michael Levitt said on Twitter that it is disappointing to see the swastika politicized in the House of Commons or anywhere else.
Is the member willing to stand with Michael Levitt and recognize that the Prime Minister's comments last week to the member for Thornhill were inappropriate?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:52:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing aspects of her own experience and the experience of her communities. I think it is a powerful reminder of the injustices that have been committed by federal governments toward indigenous peoples and also about, really, the abuses we have seen from overreaching federal governments.
I think it underlines the importance of freedom, the freedom of peoples to be authors of their own story, to work and to live where they wish. I think is it important to underline the fact, and I think there has been some misstatement around this, that there are people who have been involved in these protests from all different backgrounds. Being on Wellington Street, I have seen members of visible minority communities, indigenous people and people who are concerned about mandates from all walks of life, who do feel that this is an overreach.
The member seems, in the principles she articulates, to be very aligned with where I am and where we are in terms of not wanting the federal government to be able to interfere too much in people's lives. I do not understand why she is supporting this motion.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
