SoVote

Feb/21/22 7:18:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if anything, I think that is where my colleague and l clearly share the importance of taking action to ensure that trade can resume and can move unabated. He would know better than many how vital that connection is. Just as important as that connection is to our strongest and largest trading partner, so too is our reputation and the stain that this protest has had on it. It is so vital for foreign investment and jobs that we move forward. That is why the targeted use of a certain portion of the Emergencies Act is something I support.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/21/22 7:19:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the state of the current emergency, the member talked about the temporary nature of it and that it is going to last for 30 days. If all of the circumstances surrounding this seem to have levelled off and we are in a state where we can get back to some normalcy, would he support the revocation of the act?

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Feb/21/22 7:20:21 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I emphasized during my comments, it was very vital that action was taken so that not just our neighbours and communities here in Ottawa, but our country could move forward, with certainty and confidence in communities that have already been impacted, like Windsor, as my colleague was referring to, and others, because people's livelihoods and businesses are at stake. As a former entrepreneur and business owner, I cannot imagine what that experience has been like for those whose livelihoods and dreams have been impacted. Again, that is why I support the targeted, measured, time-limited use of the Emergencies Act.

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/21/22 7:21:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to think that the Emergencies Act was essential. I would like him to explain how the police were able to clear the Ambassador Bridge without this legislation.

32 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Feb/21/22 7:21:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what is essential is people's livelihoods. What is essential is people's ability to afford rent, put food on the table and take care of their families. For three weeks, there were people who did not feel safe going home. For three weeks businesses were closed and disrupted. People's livelihoods are essential. That is why it is essential for the Emergencies Act to be implemented in a measured, limited, targeted way.

75 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC)

Feb/21/22 7:22:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, right off the hop, I want to acknowledge that it is Family Day here in Saskatchewan, and I hope the residents of Battlefords—Lloydminster, despite the cold weather, are able to go out and enjoy some activities, since Saskatchewan has lifted almost all of its restrictions. We know that the invocation of the Emergencies Act is not only unprecedented but also extreme. While the Prime Minister has declared a public order emergency throughout Canada to justify this, there is no evidence that there is a public emergency to necessitate these broad, sweeping powers. I have listened closely to the comments from the Prime Minister and his government in the House and what they have told Canadians. I have yet to hear a legitimate justification for the implementation of this act. The reality is that our country is hurting right now, and it is disheartening. The current state of affairs is a direct consequence of the Prime Minister's failed leadership. At a time when we need leadership to bring Canadians together, the Prime Minister is acting like the Liberal Party leader, not the Prime Minister of Canada. At the very onset, before the “freedom convoy” even rolled into Ottawa, the Prime Minister publicly insulted Canadians and dismissed the genuine concerns being raised, doubling down on the division that his government's rhetoric and policies have sown into this country throughout the pandemic. Whether it be hubris or stubbornness, the Prime Minister has refused to make even the smallest of efforts to demonstrate to Canadians that he has listened to, heard and understood their concerns. As we know, this past week, the Conservatives presented the Liberal government with an extremely reasonable opportunity to do just that. The House voted on a Conservative motion that would have compelled the government to table in Parliament, by the end of the month, a plan, just a plan, to bring an end to the federal mandates and restrictions. This was a very reasonable motion and, at the very least, would have helped to bring some resolution to the growing frustration. It would have also given all Canadians some clarity, which, quite frankly, they are owed. Shamefully, we know the Liberals rejected the motion. What has been even more troubling is that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have refused to tell Canadians what metrics are being used to justify the continued enforcement of federal mandates and restrictions. Is it vaccination rates? Is it case counts? Is it hospital capacity? Is it simply Liberal ideology? Canadians do not know. Provinces across the country have presented plans to lift restrictions under their jurisdictions. Countries around the world with lower vaccination rates than those of Canada have lifted their restrictions. Canadians cannot be expected to live with federal mandates and restrictions indefinitely. We know this because I have heard from my constituents and I know every single member of the House has heard from constituents. Canadians have sacrificed so much over the past two years and they deserve answers from the Liberal government. However, instead of answers or plans, the Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. What is it for? Is it to crack down on protesters and those who have supported protests? To be clear, the rule of law is a fundamental principle in our Canadian democracy. Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to enforce the law and we expect them to do so, but we know that they do not need the Emergencies Act to enforce the law. This extreme suspension of civil liberties is not about public safety or restoring order or upholding the rule of law. The Emergencies Act is clear in its definition of a national emergency that would give grounds for its implementation. The act defines a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation” that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. There is no such situation. Even in his own words, the Prime Minister has said that the Emergencies Act should not be the first or the second resort. The start of the clearing of illegal blockades at our borders, whether it be the Ambassador Bridge or the Coutts, Alberta, crossing, perfectly demonstrates that law enforcement agencies already have the necessary tools at their disposal to enforce the law. That said, this really becomes about the Prime Minister granting law enforcement and financial institutions extraordinary powers to punish Canadians who support a cause that does not have his approval. Through this proclamation of a national emergency, the government has given itself the right to freeze the personal and business back accounts and assets of Canadians. There are so many unanswered questions about this draconian measure and how the government intends to apply it. This is a very dangerous precedent. At every turn, the Prime Minister and his ministers have failed to give any straight answers. I have not seen justification for this overreach. This is not how the government should operate in a free and democratic society. It is also evident that there is no consensus among the premiers to support the Liberal government's extreme response. We know there is a duty to consult built into this act, and we know that with the Liberal government, there is rarely, if ever, a collaborative process, let alone a transparent process. The Prime Minister certainly does not have the support of Saskatchewan's premier. Premier Scott Moe has clearly stated that Saskatchewan does not support the Liberal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. He has gone on to say that the Prime Minister has gone too far with the use of this act and has called on all parliamentarians to stop this abuse of power. Premier Scott Moe has been very vocal in his opposition to the use of this act, but he is not alone. The Premiers of Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have all expressed their opposition to the Prime Minister's actions. Therefore, in addition to encroaching on civil liberties without clear justification, the implementation of the Emergencies Act is also encroaching on provincial jurisdiction without their expressed consensus, which seems to be a trend for the government. It does not seem to care about what jurisdiction it is encroaching on. Again, this debate is not to be taken lightly. This is a matter of principle with the very high stakes of safeguarding our fundamental freedoms. It is also worth noting that it is clear the world is watching Canada at this moment. In considering the validity of the government's action, members of the House must decide whether the high threshold set out in the Emergencies Act to justify its use has been met. If the House gives the Prime Minister these unprecedented and extreme powers without the legal and moral justification to do so, Canada loses credibility on the world stage to criticize abuses of power. I want each and every member of the House to think which side of history they want to be on. The actions of this place have long-lasting consequences. Either the threshold needed to implement the Emergencies Act has been met or it has not. Any doubt in that threshold should be enough to warrant opposition to it, because the personal cost to Canadians and to our fundamental freedoms is too high to get it wrong. I will not be supporting this motion. I do not believe that the necessary threshold has been met to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. The government has not provided sufficient evidence that we are in a national emergency. There is no proof that law enforcement agencies need additional and far-reaching powers to enforce the law. Canadians should not face harmful financial penalties for opposing government policy. We cannot sidestep the simple fact that this really is a crisis of failed leadership. There has been no effort made by the Prime Minister to bring a peaceful resolution to this impasse. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Prime Minister has been purposeful in his words to divide, to stigmatize and to insult Canadians with whom he does not agree. It is time to reject the Prime Minister's divisive politics and abuse of power. The Emergencies Act must be revoked and we need to—

1396 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/21/22 7:32:22 a.m.
Watch

Time is up. The hon. member will be able to continue during questions and comments. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

25 words

Lac
Louis

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 7:32:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member think that the letter the Alberta government sent to the federal government seeking assistance with the blockade in Coutts could undermine the Alberta government's upcoming challenge to the Emergencies Act in court?

39 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/21/22 7:33:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my opinion this was predictable. It is actually an example of what I said in my speech, that the Prime Minister does not listen to the premiers. If the Prime Minister had sat down, spoken to and heard what these Canadians had to say about how these restrictions are affecting their livelihoods and their opportunities to make a living, I believe we would not be in this position. The question I have for the government is, what is next? Sure, the streets around Wellington may be clear, but what is next? There have been no conversations with any of the Canadians who have concerns about these restrictions.

110 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Feb/21/22 7:33:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which are very relevant to me. Members will understand what I mean when I deliver my speech later. My question is this. Considering that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared before this order was in effect, and with what just happened in the parliamentary precinct, where authorities managed to clear out protesters with the rules in place in the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act, does my colleague believe that the government is trying to score cheap political points with this legislation, which is in force even though members have not yet officially voted on it today?

110 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/21/22 7:34:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, this comes down to failed leadership. We know that law enforcement has the ability. We have seen this. I gave the examples of the Ambassador Bridge and also Coutts. This comes down to the Prime Minister failing to acknowledge actual concerns that Canadians have and how it has affected their families and their livelihoods for the past two years. The fact that the Liberal government, along with the NDP, voted against the Conservative motion for the government to table a plan just shows arrogance and that the Prime Minister does not care about the concerns these Canadians have.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Feb/21/22 7:35:40 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada has become a very toxic petri dish of disinformation. We see online now that this is somehow some kind of a plot with the World Economic Forum. There is this crazy theory going around that the UN flew a secret plane into North Bay and they fired rubber bullets on people in Ottawa. We are hit and inundated with anti-vax disinformation, and it is also being perpetuated by Conservative MPs. In Washington, Congress is looking into whether Facebook was allowing bought accounts from foreign sources to push the convoy, particularly Russian disinformation. Is Parliament ready to step up and look at the disinformation campaign? If Congress is investigating what happened with the convoy, why is there not anything happening here in Parliament?

126 words

All Topics

Mrs. Rosemarie Falk

Feb/21/22 7:36:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do agree that there is lots of disinformation on any side of any issue, but I think this comes down to having communication. If leaders are not willing to communicate with their constituents, or in this case the Prime Minister with Canadians because they might think differently than him, that is a problem. I also want to challenge the member. Is he just going to vote along with the government, or is he going to stand up on principle in our vote today on this?

88 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Feb/21/22 7:37:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the House of Commons has been called upon many times to pronounce its judgment and to vote: to vote on legislation, to vote on amendments, to vote on estimates and to vote on motions. In the parlance of parliamentary procedure, when the House of Commons votes, it divides. When a recorded vote is requested and we are asked to stand and be counted, it is called “a recorded division”. There are times in this House when votes are decided “on division” without a roll call. At Westminster, recorded divisions are conducted through “division lobbies”. The House “dividing” is not new. The House has been dividing on subjects great and small since the first session of the first Parliament, on November 6, 1867. We have been dividing for nearly 155 years. This is what we do. This is what we are sent here to do, to serve on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the people of Canada. We make decisions on behalf of the people we serve. We vote yea or we vote nay. There is no grey zone in between. There are no asterisks appended to our votes. There are few explanations as to why or how or for what reasons we came to a decision on any particular matter. At 7:30 p.m. this evening, the division bells will ring, and the House of Commons will be called upon at 8:00 p.m. to divide on the matter of whether to confirm the government’s declaration of a public order emergency pursuant to the Emergencies Act. Forever in Hansard and in Journals, our names will be listed as having divided one way or the other on this very motion before us today. Divisions in this House are normal. Divisions in opinions, thoughts and ideas are normal. Different views represented in this place and elsewhere are normal and are signs of a healthy democracy. What is not healthy are the divisions in our country and the divisions in our communities. In recent weeks and months, I have never seen such division in our country, such anger and frustration. We are one country, but we are a country that sadly has grown more divided. Each of us can play a role in reducing this division, but it requires work. It requires us to refrain from throwing more fuel on the proverbial fire and to listen to one another rather than talking past each other. Let me be clear. I will be voting against the use of the Emergencies Act. However, my vote is far more than a simple nay. It is more than a monosyllabic answer, and it requires more than a 140-character tweet of an explanation. It is possible to add some grey to a black and white explanation. In Canada, it is possible to disagree with, to condemn and to call for the removal of illegal blockades, while also suggesting that the government use measures short of the Emergencies Act to achieve that. As Canadians, we can call for and reinforce the need to be a country of law and order, while also arguing that the tools of the Emergencies Act are an overreach. We can and we must call out and condemn those who would use anti-democratic and nonsensical MOUs that call for the overthrow of a democratic government, while at the same time listening to the concerns of individual Canadians, business owners, truck drivers and entrepreneurs who are concerned about how rules have impacted their businesses, livelihoods and families. We can and we must call for the peaceful resolution of situations, while at the same time disagreeing with efforts to debank or freeze the assets of Canadian citizens. The question that confronts us today is whether this act and the provisions included in the order in council are appropriate at this time and in these circumstances. On October 16, 1970, the House of Commons convened to debate the declaration of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Of the speeches given that day, none was as clear as the clarion call of the gentleman from Prince Albert, the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker. In this House, at that time, he said, “Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when Parliament has the opportunity of dealing with the question of freedom which, above everything else, is the mandate of Parliament and the reason that Parliament exists.” Today, 52 years later, Parliament is called upon once again to deal with the question of freedom. When the government places limits on the rights, freedoms and privileges of Canadians, it is the government, and the government alone, that must justify it. It is the government that must show to Canadians that the limitations are reasonable. Indeed, the Emergencies Act itself requires it. The Hon. Perrin Beatty served as Minister of National Defence in 1987 when he introduced Bill C-77, An Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, the short title being the Emergencies Act. Mr. Beatty, I might add, was the member of Parliament for parts of Wellington County that are now within my riding of Perth—Wellington. In an interview last week with The Wellington Advertiser, Mr. Beatty was asked whether the act was being used appropriately: Without being privy to government intelligence, he said flatly, “I don’t have enough information.” “All of us are inclined to give [the government] the benefit of the doubt,” he added, saying the onus falls on the government to prove its case. Beatty did, however, point out blockades afflicting Canada’s trade routes were resolved without reliance on the Emergencies Act, which was intended to be used “when everything else had failed.” This is a good point to emphasize. The blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the Coutts border crossing were all resolved with police enforcement rather than relying on the Emergencies Act. There have been arguments that law enforcement used different measures that were granted to it through the Emergencies Act, but that is not the question that faces us. The question that faces us is whether other measures were available short of the Emergencies Act. In an interview on Sunday with CTV's Question Period, no less an authority than the former commissioner of Ontario Provincial Police confirmed that he saw no need for the Emergencies Act to undertake the actions that were taken in downtown Ottawa. He said, “It was a lack of bodies, a lack of officers to do what we saw done yesterday. This could have happened [on] day two or three if they could have amassed the number of officers they had.” In fact, section 21 of the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act already provides for the provision of emergency police services from any province or from the federal government, so when the government says that the Emergencies Act was not the first or the second step, the question hangs in the air of why this act was not used before the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act. Others have suggested that this act was needed to compel tow trucks to assist in removing the trucks in downtown Ottawa, but again, there are other provisions that could have achieved this. Paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code gives police the option to require anyone, “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”. Frankly, it would appear that the only tools employed by the government that were not previously afforded to it were the financial powers, and these are the powers that have concerned so many people. Being debanked, even for a period of 30 days, could have serious impacts on an individual, and not just for 30 days but for 30 years to come. That the government is actually considering making some of these tools permanent is even more concerning for all Canadians. When temporary powers become permanent powers, the concern for all Canadians is great. I will conclude with the words of former prime minister John Diefenbaker: “Parliament is more than procedure; it is the custodian of the nation’s freedom.” May we all live up to that duty today.

1418 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 7:47:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank all the police forces that were involved over the weekend in executing a very diligent, professional and judicious police matter, and give special thanks to the members of the York Regional Police who came in from my area and assisted. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a very time-limited and proportionate measure, obviously done with much consideration and, in my view, justifiable, given what went on at the border crossings and the over three-week occupation of our nation's capital by the protesters. When I think of what has transpired, would the hon. member agree that, time-limited and proportionate, this is a useful measure, a tool that has been used in a limited manner and that is getting the job done and we are getting to a point where the capital is opening up?

144 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Feb/21/22 7:48:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge talks about this being a useful tool and measure, but I go back to my rural roots. As a farm kid growing up, yes, it would be nice to have that John Deere S series combine to get the job done, but we have spent a lot of years using the old John Deere 4400 combine, and it combined a lot of corn and soy beans. It got the job done. The fact is that, in this matter, there are a lot of tools available to the government that it simply did not employ. It went to the sledgehammer approach and used the Emergencies Act, when it could have used so many other acts and tools, short of the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act.

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/21/22 7:48:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Perth—Wellington for his speech. At the beginning of his speech, he mentioned the division he is seeing in society, and I am seeing the same thing. He said that this is not something that can be explained in a tweet. I imagine he has the same problem the rest of us do of trying to respond to everyone on social media and explain this in a few lines. The division that was created is very complex. That is what I would like him to speak to. Does he believe that the government's negligence, its inaction, as my colleague mentioned, before using a sledgehammer measure like the Emergencies Act has set a precedent? The government allowed people to occupy downtown for more than 20 days. This morning, we see in the headlines that the protesters plan to come back. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Feb/21/22 7:49:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. Indeed, the government could have done much more before resorting to the Emergencies Act. The government could have collaborated with the provinces and the police forces across Canada before using this legislation. It is incredible that the government allowed this occupation to go on and did not take any other measures before opting for the Emergencies Act.

67 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Feb/21/22 7:50:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my hon. colleague. It was balanced; it was calm; it was fair. That is something that has not necessarily happened all the time here in the last few days, so I appreciate that. One of the things he was talking about was the government not having to use this legislation. However, it was the Ottawa interim police chief himself who said it was not until he had the abilities from the invocation from the Emergencies Act that he could actually do the job he needed to do, and that he could use all of those pieces of legislation available to him at all the different levels of government to do what he needed to do. Could the member explain why the police chief, in that specific position, would actually say that, if it was not the case?

144 words

All Topics

Mr. John Nater

Feb/21/22 7:51:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say that, yes, different police forces have been able to use the Emergencies Act, but that does not mean that it was the only tool that was available to them. There are many measures the government and police forces could have used, short of using the Emergencies Act. I think that is the issue we are facing here today, the use of the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act, when other tools and pieces of legislation were available. They have been more cumbersome, but when we are dealing with the rights and freedoms of Canadians, sometimes that extracumbersome process is needed.

104 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 36