44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 8:16:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is so typical of Conservatives. I find it interesting that the member is already willing to provide the House with the outcome of a public inquiry that will happen afterward. That underscores the Conservative gaming here. The member does not care about the public inquiry that will happen. He has already determined the outcome. He just informed the House what it would be, and that is the unfortunate reality of this.
Would the member like to actually have a public inquiry that looks into the matter and comes to its own decisions, or would he rather just tell us what the outcome is going to be right now?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:29:38 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find the position of the Bloc Québécois to be quite interesting. Here is a party that I know is only voting against this because of the implications that it will have politically for its members, from the perspective of the national government coming in and superseding provincial territories. Despite the fact that the Bloc members are shaking their heads, I know they have a big problem with that.
However, the Bloc Québécois did not seem to have a problem with it when the Quebec government asked the federal military to come in and help with long-term care at the beginning of the pandemic.
Why was it okay for the federal government to be an active partner with Quebec to help secure and fix the long-term care problem, but when it comes to something like this the Bloc Québécois is totally against it?
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:02:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks, we have seen several disturbing images of members of the media facing repeated forms of abuse. They have been subjected to slanderous slogans hung from vehicles, forms of physical and verbal intimidation, and constant heckles and jeers from protesters and occupiers.
While reporting on the blockade in Surrey, B.C., at the border crossing, a camera crew was swarmed by protesters and had to be escorted out of the area by police. In Edmonton, a media outlet felt it necessary to remove the company branding from one of its vehicles out of fear for the safety of its employees. Media crews right here in Ottawa, the capital of our nation, had to hire security in order to cover events right out in front of this building.
This is unacceptable. In a democratic and free society, the role of the media, and the freedom of the press to report without intimidation, are essential. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank all journalists, camera crews and members of the media who have covered the front lines of this event for the past few days. The importance of their work can often go unrecognized, but it is essential to our society. We thank them.
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:53:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think that you are trying to disguise your intent here and the member is speaking to you in such a tone, and he probably should not do that.
In addition, it is probably not entirely appropriate for him to be suggesting that somebody else prepared someone's remarks in here, unless he knows that for a fact.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:25:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this being Family Day in Ontario, I want to start by wishing a happy Family Day in particular to my family, my wife Vanessa, my son Mason, who is probably playing video games right now and my two very young ones, Vivian and Frankie, who are probably watching this. I cannot wait until I get to leave today and come home, but they had better be asleep by the time I get there. I will see them in the morning.
I have been listening to this debate for the past four days, and I have heard a lot of different things being said in the House. I want to get into the details of those, but before I do, I want to take the opportunity to thank the men and women from police forces across the country. The manner in which this operation in Ottawa particularly was handled was nothing short of the gold standard in terms of how policing operations, such as this, need to happen. I thank them for everything that they did to make Ottawa stay safe during the removal of the occupiers.
I will start by saying I have been perplexed since the beginning of this with the position of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is the party that tells people it stands up for law and order, but the way that it has been responding to this particular issue is absolutely astounding. I am not even talking about this vote or this debate. I am talking about the way that it has responded to everything that has happened within the last three to four weeks.
Members have been encouraging occupiers not to leave, telling them to stay in Ottawa because what they are doing is working, when they know full well that they are breaking the law. That brings me to a very important point. It is this concept of the difference between an occupation and a protest. We have heard, day after day, Conservatives get up in the House and talk about this as a peaceful protest. The member who spoke shortly before me, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, said it was a lawful protest. It was not a lawful protest. This was an occupation.
I find it remarkable that they would take this position. The irony is that the longer it went on, and the more they encouraged it, the more emboldened those outside became. I have a ton of respect for the NDP member for Windsor West who got up time after time when people, in particular Conservatives and the Bloc, would say there were no problems at the Ambassador Bridge. There were no problems in Windsor. Everything there was fine. He must have corrected the record about 20 to 25 times in the past four days that it was not the case. He said it was only a two-kilometre drive from where he was sitting, but somehow they were not able to take the word from him.
I have heard a number of outrageous and false statements in the House over the last four days. I will start with the one that probably got the biggest reaction out of me. The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex referred to what was going on over the last three weeks as “Canada Day times a thousand”. She said that. She is quoted in Hansard. Members can see the video. She said that it was like Canada Day times a thousand. Can members believe that? I wonder if the residents of Ottawa feel the same way.
The member for Regina—Wascana, who replaced Ralph Goodale, said in the House, sitting right over there, that he did not see any problem. He said he walked up Metcalfe Street and did not see al Qaeda or the Taliban, as if that is the standard by which the party of law and order measures what an emergency is.
The member for Haldimand—Norfolk said that we somehow live in an authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship. This is a parliamentary democracy. She is sitting in the House.
The member for Foothills said all that the occupiers at the Coutts border crossing wanted was to be heard. Thirteen people were arrested in conjunction with the seizure of weapons and ammunition.
The member for Abbotsford, although he is just one example, as so many of them said it, referred to what is going on right now as martial law. Martial law is when the military is literally walking on the street. Martial law means the military has taken over the civil duties of the police. That is absolutely ridiculous.
I have heard from a number of members, including the member for King—Vaughan, who talked about bank runs, suggesting that there will be bank runs out there, because people suddenly want to take all the money out of their accounts. If that happens, it would be based on the misinformation that they have been spreading.
The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie talked about suspending civil liberties. That is conflating the War Measures Act, the previous act, with what we actually have in the Emergencies Act.
I want to talk about the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act was actually brought in by a Progressive Conservative government. Do not for a second think that those who are sitting across the way are actually a part of that party. Maybe you are, Mr. Speaker, but the rest of them are not.
The bill was seconded by my predecessor, Flora MacDonald, a true Progressive Conservative. It was nothing like the War Measures Act. The only connection it had to the War Measures Act was that it was meant to remove it.
It specifically says, and this is how it differs, that it is temporary. It is for 30 days or less, and it is subject to quick Parliament review. It takes 20 members to sign and ask for another debate. It is targeted and used only where needed. The War Measures Act was not. The Emergencies Act is proportionate. The responses used by the authorities within that act need to be proportionate to what the emergency is. The War Measures Act did not have that.
Most importantly, it upholds civil liberties. It upholds the Charters of Rights, which the War Measures Act did not do.
The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie said it suspends civil liberties, but that member knows better, because that was the War Measures Act and this is not the War Measures Act, despite the fact that many Conservatives have no problem conflating the two.
What does the invocation of the act accomplish? The most important thing, to me, and I have not heard anybody else saying that any other piece of legislation could have handled this, is that it made it illegal to bring a child into what was going on out front of this place.
It made it a criminal offence to do that. Why would anybody be against that when we saw what we witnessed out there for three weeks?
It restricted entry so that it allowed police to set up checkpoints, like they did around Ottawa, so that if someone's intention, their sole intention, is to come into Ottawa to participate in this demonstration and this occupation, they would not be allowed to do so.
It allowed for the seizure of money and trucks, and I will say, when it relates to the seizure of money and particular bank accounts, it is temporary and it needs to be continually reviewed.
To get to the point of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the RCMP issued a statement today that said it has only turned over to financial institutions the names of the organizers and the names of those who had trucks or vehicles on the streets that were not removed. The member did not read the RCMP statement from today. If a member does not believe that to be true, they are blatantly saying the RCMP is lying to the public.
It also allowed for officers who were outside Ontario to be brought into Ontario, to be used in a jurisdiction outside their home province. I know Conservatives will say that all of this stuff could have been done with other laws, but guess what? Nobody else did it. The province did not want to do it.
In order to bring officers from Quebec into Ontario, there would have had to have been an agreement between the Ontario minister responsible and the Province of Quebec. They did not do that. What did Doug Ford do? He asked the federal government to please invoke the Emergencies Act so it could take care of this. That is exactly what happened.
I want to talk about some of the people who support this motion today.
The Conservative Party of Canada has a new-found admiration for Tommy Douglas. They have invoked his name more in the last four days in the House than I think they have since Tommy Douglas himself was here. By the way, Tommy Douglas's opposition was to the War Measures Act, not to the Emergencies Act.
I will read a quote from a modern-day NDP leader who is actually talking about the Emergencies Act. This is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1563 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:36:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ed Broadbent said:
...we've heard of the importance of following the money. With the use of the Act, the federal government is able to do just that. The...Emergencies Act give[s]...the means needed to stop any flow of funds that could have made the situation much worse.
This is Ed Broadbent, a modern-day NDPer, who is talking about this act, not the War Measures Act. Even if some Conservatives are not going to listen to the NDP, I will quote some comments from their own.
This is Senator Vern White and Peter Mackay. They issued a joint statement, which states:
what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. Leaving aside the stated manifesto of the organizers to overthrow the government, these protests are weakening our economy and disrupting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
Senator Vern White went on to say the he supports the use of the Emergency Measures Act. Those are Conservatives who said that.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has stated:
The [Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police] 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 [all] such illegal assemblies.
That was the association of the chiefs of police.
Therefore, forgive me, but when the Conservatives go out and dig up quotes from NDP and Conservative members, and other people from decades and generations ago, I am unwilling to accept that. I would rather listen to the people who know what is going on today.
I will say one more thing. I think it is important to reflect on the people who have actually said that we need the Emergencies Act, that it is important and that the federal government should use it. The chief of police of Ottawa has said that. The mayor of Ottawa said that, and Doug Ford said that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear heckling from across the way. Why is that so important? Those voices matter because they are the voices of the direct jurisdictions that were being affected. It was Doug Ford's province. It was Jim Watson's city, and it was the police chief's area. Those are the people who asked the government to help them.
As we look at how some other provinces reacted to this, I cannot help but think of the hypocrisy of Alberta's premier Jason Kenney. This is a man who, on February 5, wrote a letter to the federal government asking for help. It was a desperate plea, a cry for help, because the province was not able to handle it on its own. This is the same man who a week and a half later, on February 18, said that he was suing the government for sending help. That is literally what happened. It is remarkable.
I want to address the issue of why we still need this. I heard that asked a number of times in question period today. The question keeps coming up. I will preempt it by answering it now so that nobody has to ask me.
Why do we still need this if the streets are clear? What an obtuse way to look at it. If members follow the Ottawa police on Twitter, they will notice that it was just announced that it has reduced the secure area. This is an ongoing operation out there, and it is not done.
Just because the protesters might not be right outside this building right now does not mean that everything has been cleared up. Many of these people are not even that far from here. We hear about how they are congregating in various areas. This is not over.
The incredible work that was done by the police and the special forces out front of this building was remarkable. However, while that work might be done and the stuff that was all over the news might be over in terms of what was sensational, it does not mean that we have completely fixed the problem yet.
In the last three minutes that I have left, I just want to say that I am very relieved that the creators of this act, my predecessor, Flora MacDonald, had the foresight to say that we need to make sure that there is proper scrutiny to look at the way the act is used, and that is where the inquiry comes in. However, what I find the most interesting part about the way it is worded is that it says specifically that, as part of the inquiry, we have to look into the circumstances that led to the declaration being made.
I am very much interested in hearing about the circumstances that led to this. I am interested in hearing and learning about how this movement began, who was funding it, where the money was coming from, how the coordination worked, who was helping the organizers, who was directing them, who was giving them tips and who was basically counselling them, because I think that this will all be eye-opening to the public. I look forward to that. I look forward to seeing that play out in public. I look forward to the public being able to learn about it and, at the end of the day, I look forward to Canadians knowing, based on that information, based on that inquiry, exactly what happened, rather than hearing these stories we have been hearing from the Conservatives and people across the way.
Before a member of the Bloc asks me a question about confidence or whatnot, I am very confident on my vote on this. I will vote in favour of this, because it is the right thing for Canada and it is the right thing to do.
1015 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:44:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it started off as a really good question, but it went off somewhere. The member is asking me to hypothetically, without knowing the arguments or how the judgment was made, answer whether or not an appeal will be made.
I encourage those who think that the charter is being infringed upon to take it to court. The courts will only harden the steel around this particular piece of legislation. That is how we can ensure that the law is being applied, and as we move forward with this legislation, it will better inform how it is done.
The Conservatives come in here and say, “So-and-so is taking this to court.” Good, I think that should happen. That is part of our democratic process here. It is part of what makes sure that we have good laws.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert is more than entitled to have his opinion. The member for Montcalm is totally entitled to have his opinion. It is not the same opinion that I share.
However, to discredit my entire speech, where I actually went back and referenced what other people were saying, based on the fact that this member does not like what I said is completely disingenuous. I spent my entire speech talking about what I heard in the House. I apologize for my opinion being different from this member's and I apologize if the member does not like what I said, but it does not mean that I did not address this particular issue head-on, because I did.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:48:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the notion that somehow there is a lack of unity in this country.
This country leads developed countries throughout the world in vaccination rates. We have higher vaccination rates than other any developed country in the world. When it comes to the member's question about how we improve the discourse, I am totally open to doing that but I feel like we need to start from a set of facts. I feel that more and more people are bringing things into this chamber that are not even facts. We are starting from a place of misinformation, quite often, and that is where I find the vast majority of my frustration as it relates to the political discourse in the House.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work.
For me, this comes down to looking at the facts. It comes down to having trust in our government, having trust in our processes, having trust in the people who are advising us and having trust in those who are telling us that, yes, they needed the act and they still need it. I do not think anybody wants this to go on any longer than it absolutely has to. The notion coming from across the way that somehow the government wants to take this and entrench these measures into law is absolutely ridiculous.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:51:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did address the issue of why this still needs to be in place. I cannot reference a member's presence in the House, but I am aware of when people come and leave the chamber, and I can tell the member that I absolutely mentioned this.
I talked about the fact that this is an ongoing operation. The operation has not been shut down yet. It is quite clear there are other problems, like out in B.C. right now, and other areas that might see flare-ups. I trust those, and I am not talking about just cabinet, who are advising and making sure that all the tools are in place in order to complete this operation.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:53:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no, it is not important to me if it is a confidence vote. I am going to vote for it. Every other member in the House could vote against it, but I am still going to vote for it.
I understand where the Conservative and Bloc members have been coming from for the last hour and a half. The coalition that exists there, I get where it is coming from, but it is irrelevant to me. It does not matter to me. I am going to vote in favour of this because I believe it is the right thing to do.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
