SoVote

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

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Feb/21/22 7:52:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as you know it is a common practice here in Parliament to thank one's constituents when one rises to speak for the first time after an election. There is obviously a good reason for doing that, beyond one having good manners. It acknowledges the most important truth about this place, which is that the people who live in our ridings are the reason why we are here, whether they voted for us or for someone else, and even if they did not vote at all. This is the House of Commons, and it belongs to the people. I would like to once again thank the constituents of Cypress Hills—Grasslands for sending me here as their representative. It is a great privilege to stand here today on their behalf. I must speak for them and for their families. I will always try my best to do so. It always takes time and effort to hear from different people, to reach out to them and figure out what they are thinking, feeling and experiencing. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree and that is okay, but this task is absolutely worth it no matter what. If I disagree with constituents, that should not prevent me from honouring them with courtesy, dignity and respect as people and as fellow Canadians. In fact, it is when we are challenged with competing thoughts and ideologies that we often make the best decisions for our constituents and our country. As a song from my youth says, “not a diamond without the pressure”. That is what it means to be a member of Parliament. Everyone has a role in the democratic process, but elected representatives have a duty to make an extra effort. A beautiful part of our parliamentary system is that the same people who serve as the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers are also just members of Parliament. For example, the current Prime Minister was elected as a member for Papineau and the leader of the official opposition was elected as the member for Portage—Lisgar. On either side of the House they have to work in both roles at the same time. It remains true that, before assuming public office in government, someone was first elected by the people of their riding to be their voice in Ottawa. That is their primary role. As ministers, they have simply added another responsibility to serve the entire nation regardless of representation, but it should never change the fact that they are working here to represent the people of Canada to the government and not the other way around. If they ever forget it and become disconnected, they have completely lost their way, and I do believe that recent events so far show that we are losing our way as a nation. This point should be front of mind, as we debate and vote on the government's emergency order. We have a perfect opportunity to remind the minority government that it should not be playing around with power. It should not be using the Emergencies Act to forsake their public responsibility. The Liberals need to come back down to earth. On Friday, with police action expected to begin here in Ottawa, the scheduled debate of the House of Commons was cancelled with short notice. I decided to go for a walk and look around the scene outside of Parliament for myself to get a sense of the situation at hand. As I did, I met a man who was proudly wearing military medals on his coat, a veteran who had served our country overseas in Afghanistan. He told me that he made the long journey across Canada to be here because he is worried about the country that he loves, the country that he served, and he wants to stand for freedom. I thanked him for his service. I also talked to a school teacher who lives downtown, and she did not feel threatened at all as she walked near the front of the protests. She talked about how she used to be a big supporter of the Prime Minister, but can no longer support him because of his arrogance and lack of respect for other Canadians. What I saw and heard from these individuals was far from what the Prime Minister infamously called a “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”. The disconnect is more obvious than ever, and it brought out some of the disturbing scenes in our nation's capital over the weekend after the Liberals invoked the Emergencies Act. The government's show of force has wounded our society and this is likely to be the longest lasting result of it. It is an outrage to see our Prime Minister invoke hateful rhetoric against those concerned for their freedoms, calling them a “fringe minority” and choosing to label them as “racist” and “misogynistic”. Especially in difficult times, we need a Prime Minister who will put partisan politics aside for the common good. After all, the Prime Minister represents every Canadian. Every Canadian is one of his constituents. For name-calling to be the first and only action taken by the government before using the Emergency Measures Act further shows the lack of respect he has for people who do not agree with him. There are many Canadians, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, who recognize that Canadians should have the right to make medical decisions for themselves. After all, it is a change in the government's position on the vaccine exemption for truckers that has triggered all of this. Canadians should not have to face the question of taking a vaccine or losing their job. They should not be sent home from stores because they have not been vaccinated. They should not have to face a financial penalty simply because they are not vaccinated. Children should not be banned from playing sports because they are not vaccinated. No Canadian should have to face such dehumanizing treatment for simply choosing not to get vaccinated. That is not the Canada I grew up in, and that is not the Canada our children should grow up in either. This past December, I rose in the House on behalf of all those who have lost their jobs and their livelihoods as a result of vaccine mandates. Following that statement, I received hundreds of emails from Canadians all across the country sharing their personal stories, many of them devastating. I heard from those who have lost their home because they no longer have a job or an income to pay the mortgage. I heard from others who have had to explain to their children that they could no longer join their friends at the hockey tournament. I heard from students who were kicked out of their university programs. More devastatingly, I have heard from parents who have lost a child to suicide and attribute the cause to lockdowns, mandates and bullying. These people live in Liberal ridings as much as they live in mine, but does the government bother listening to them? It is not enough for the Prime Minister to simply say he heard them in an empty statement while clearing the streets. Vaccine mandates are wrong. They are morally wrong, and it is increasingly clear that they are a public policy failure. They are ruining livelihoods, clogging supply chains, stifling our economy, eroding medical privacy and dividing society, all the while not living up to the earlier promises of defeating COVID. Why continue to act like they are a magic bullet out of the pandemic? Why continue to trample on protesters and Canadians' rights with little to show for it? When will the government finally take responsibility for their divisive policies, walk back their vaccine mandates and actually consider a comprehensive plan to combat COVID-19, including access to therapeutics and increasing funding to provinces so they can ramp up ICU capacity. I will also add that I believe an apology is needed, an apology for treating those who are unwilling to get vaccinated or peaceful protesters as second-class citizens. They are not second-class citizens. They are as Canadian as we are, and they are worthy of respect, dignity and a listening ear. I also want to encourage NDP members to vote against the motion. Each time the War Measures Act was used, the previous version of the legislation, it left behind wounds in our society after enabling real or perceived abuses of power. This is already turning out the same way. I do not expect to quote Tommy Douglas all the time, but I believe his precedent is worth considering. He described former prime minister Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act in Quebec as “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. He stood on principle by voting against the grain at the time. There have been some misgivings in the NDP caucus about opening Pandora's box, but they say they want to fix it somehow with an inquiry after the fact. One of their former caucus colleagues, who served as the former member for Regina—Lewvan, even used the same quote from Tommy Douglas to challenge the current NDP's stated intention to support Liberal overreach. I hope they will listen to their own people, even if they are from my province. Over the many hours of debate that I have sat in on, I have only heard a handful of Liberals even try to outline a reason for invoking the act, and it is a stretch at best. Some have tried to use the blockades around the country as the reason. Unfortunately for the Liberals, they were all mostly cleared prior to invoking the act. Another tried to say they needed to compel tow truck companies to move some of the semis and vehicles. Once again, they were found to be wrong, as my colleagues from Haldimand—Norfolk and from Perth—Wellington have already pointed to existing laws that provide that ability. The last reason they gave was to stop the foreign funding of the “freedom convoy”. This does not constitute a national emergency. Unfortunately for the Liberals, yet again, a couple million dollars donated to a crowdfunding campaign were halted without the use of the Emergencies Act. We have witnessed over a billion dollars in foreign funding come into Canada over the last number of years to intimidate workers in the energy sector, lead misinformation campaigns and stop pipeline projects and resource developments, and there was not a word of concern from the federal government or the NDP for that matter. The effects of this reached new levels this past week when axe-wielding protesters injured an officer and destroyed heavy machinery and buildings on-site in B.C. and still, not a word of concern. Is it because they support that protest, or is it because they know that, if all this foreign money were to be investigated, their friends and supporters might be implicated? If they are going to use this flimsy narrative of foreign funding, then they better be consistent in their approach to it. If nothing else, after all that has been happening in Ottawa, I hope that we can learn the correct lessons. Let us listen better to Canadians, and let us keep the Liberal government in check.

1909 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 8:01:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about freedom. I am wondering which freedoms he is trying to preserve. Is it the freedom to overthrow the government? Is it the freedom to terrorize people in Ottawa? Is it the freedom to choke off billions of dollars in trade? Is it the freedom to flout the law after everybody was very, very clear on what the people in Ottawa, at Coutts, at the Ambassador Bridge, wanted? Are those the freedoms he is trying to protect?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Feb/21/22 8:02:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. There is nobody in this House who supports the unlawful overthrow of the government. We live in a democracy, after all. At the end of the day, the issues we are hearing about have to do with people who feel like they are not being heard by the government. They feel abandoned by the government, so they came to Ottawa to protest. We have seen protests pop up across the country. Unfortunately, we have seen blockades of critical infrastructure that have led to the loss of millions of dollars to the economy. That is definitely unfortunate. Thankfully, the RCMP, without the use of the emergency measures act, was able to step in to get the job done, open the borders, open the crossings back up and restore our commerce.

135 words

All Topics

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Feb/21/22 8:03:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his speech and ask him a question. He talked about respect for his constituents. I think that is the foundation of the work that we do and I dare imagine that is also the foundation of the work the Prime Minister must accomplish. To me, a big part of this crisis in the national capital has to do with the Prime Minister's shortcomings. I would like my colleague's opinion on what could have been done in a way that respects Canadians and Quebeckers.

100 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 36