SoVote

Feb/21/22 8:47:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her questions. Yes, the measures were necessary. We heard from Ottawa's interim chief of police, the Premier of Ontario and many stakeholders. All have told us that those exceptional measures were needed to compel the people and trucks occupying downtown Ottawa to leave. Clearly, these measures were necessary. These past few days, we saw the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police and police forces from across the country come here. The Emergencies Act clearly restored peace in Ottawa's streets.

88 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/21/22 8:48:10 a.m.
Watch

We have time for a brief question. The hon. member for Windsor West.

13 words

Windsor
West

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/21/22 8:48:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the situation at the Ambassador Bridge continues to be misrepresented here. The Ambassador Bridge is owned by a private American billionaire, one of the richest in the United States. Ironically, the barricades have now been moved off the Huron Church Road to there and are along the corridor. The Bloc misrepresenting this is puzzling because there is over 300 years of francophonie culture in that area settled by Jesuit over 320 years ago. The Conservatives are now supporting a private American billionaire who now has concrete barriers blocking off the businesses, employees and public along this corridor. It is literally a runway to the 401 right now. Will the member support compensation for border communities, similar to what Ottawa has received, for all the businesses and the activity that continues to exist to this day? Ottawa is cleared up but this area is not. I cannot understand why we are preoccupied with protecting a private American billionaire who has sued the government dozens and dozens of times—

170 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/21/22 8:49:25 a.m.
Watch

I did ask for a brief question and we are out of time. I will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to respond quickly.

23 words

Mr. Marc Serré

Feb/21/22 8:49:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for his hard work in the Windsor area over the past several years. He is absolutely right. Windsor area residents and businesses need support. We will follow up.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC)

Feb/21/22 8:50:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac. Canadians across the country are gravely concerned. The Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act for a crisis that he created. He is attempting to use a tool at the government's disposal that was created with the intention of rarely if ever being used. The Prime Minister is using this last resort tool to clean up a crisis of his own creation. The Emergency Measures Act gives extraordinary powers to government, powers that should only be used when every other effort has been exhausted. Enacting these measures should not be the first or the second thing the Liberal government does to resolve a crisis. We have not seen any action by the Prime Minister to avoid jumping to this extreme measure. As a former police chief, I have had enough thorough experience in dealing with crisis situations and the de-escalation of such crises. The first step in de-escalation is not to bring in a sledgehammer. The Prime Minister could not even take the first step everyone should use in de-escalation. That step would be listening. The Prime Minister refused to meet with the protesters to listen to their concerns. These are his fellow Canadian citizens, whether he agrees with their opinions or not. He is the Prime Minister of Canada and a good leader listens to his fellow countrymen. The Emergencies Act specifically states part of the criteria for enactment is that all other measures have been exhausted in attempting to resolve the crisis. How can we possibly vote in favour of this act when the Prime Minister has not even attempted to use the most basic measure of resolving any crisis. Instead, the Prime Minister has inflamed the situation, almost as if he wanted to get to this point. It is quite evident the Prime Minister is not capable of first steps in any crisis he faces. It is in his ideological identity to squash anyone who does not agree with him and unfortunately Canadians from all walks of life know this all too well. Earlier this week my Conservative colleagues proposed a possible step to end the crisis. We proposed the government provide Canadians with its plan for ending the various federal COVID-19-related mandates and restrictions. This is an example of one of the many actions that was available to the government before deciding on this drastic measure. Providing Canadians with an end plan is not a controversial decision. Many of the provincial governments have already done the same. Many Canadians including many participating in the various protests would have welcomed this action as a sign the government is hearing the wishes of Canadians or some direction or evidence of an end plan. Instead, the government jumped to ignore this measured action and is all too eager to get to this extreme point that we see ourselves in today. While the Prime Minister has failed to present enough evidence to support the use of the act, I can think of numerous examples when this country has faced a crisis and managed to come out of it without implementing the act. Just last week we saw these protests at several Canadian-U.S. border crossings. These protests created grave economic consequences for the country, including my riding of Oxford. As Oxford has strong ties to the automotive manufacturing section, I had a first-hand account of the consequences of the protest in Windsor. Many automotive manufacturing plants had to slow down or completely shut off production. My office received numerous messages from constituents who were being laid off due to these shutdowns. The Windsor border blockade was a crisis for many of my constituents. What did not cross my mind or theirs was that the Emergencies Act would need to be invoked to solve the crisis, and in fact it was not. We saw officers peacefully remove the blockades to allow the border to reopen. They did this without the use of the Emergencies Act. A similar situation occurred in Coutts, Alberta. Again, RCMP officers were able to clear the blockade without any tools from the Emergencies Act. There have been numerous examples throughout Canadian history when a crisis such as this one, or I may say worse than this one, have arose, many of them being of a much more dangerous nature than the current situation. Another that comes to mind is the crisis we all saw with 2010 G20 riots in Toronto. Some members of the government would be very familiar with this crisis, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness especially as he was the Toronto police chief at the time. Maybe some forget what we saw during that crisis. We saw a bank just down the street from parliament being firebombed. We saw police cars in flames in downtown Toronto. We saw hundreds of businesses damaged by protesters. The Emergencies Act was available to our government at the time. It was not used in that crisis. Why? It did not meet the criteria outlined in the Emergencies Act. Flaming vehicles and destroyed businesses are what the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the acting Toronto police chief, was facing at the time. If flaming banks and police cars do not constitute a reason for using the Emergencies Act, I find it very hard to see how road hockey games and bouncy castles do. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness knows very well that the police officers we have here have all the tools necessary to defuse this situation if needed. The Emergencies Act was not needed in Windsor and Coutts, Alberta. Instead, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said he was proud to invoke this act. I find it extremely disappointing to hear this coming from a fellow former police chief. No one in this House should be proud to use this act. However, it seems the Prime Minister is all too eager to use it. Another similar crisis, again during the Minister of Emergency Preparedness’s time as police chief, occurred a year before the G20 summit. In 2009, we saw many Tamil Canadians upset with what they were seeing happening in the Sri Lankan civil war. Canadians shut down northbound and southbound lanes of University Avenue in Toronto for four days. They blocked the U.S. consulate in Toronto and illegally blocked traffic on the Gardiner Expressway. Again, it was not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. In fact, use of force by police officers was not necessary. The Toronto police chief, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, used his training in community policing to help facilitate a peaceful end to the crisis. The police chief even received an award from the Tamil Canadian community for his leadership during the protests. Again, I fail to see why the government sees it necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act now when it was not necessary in 2010 or even last week. Why were we able to see those crises resolved without such extreme measures? We have several precedents for why this Emergencies Act should not be invoked and we have no reasons for why it should be, yet here we are in this debate. Let us talk about a time when the government had to react to a similar crisis. It was during the October crisis in 1970. While the War Measures Act was a different act, it did possess many similarities to the one being used today. It is important to compare the crisis of that time to what we are seeing now. In the lead-up to the October crisis, we saw a terrorist organization robbing and bombing several institutions in Quebec. That crisis reached a climax with several kidnappings and the eventual horrendous murder of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte. That was the context of the last time a Canadian government used such drastic actions to restore order. It does not take much effort to realize that while we may be experiencing a crisis of our own, it pales in comparison to what the government of the day faced the last time an emergency act was implemented. Invoking the Emergencies Act now, for the purpose of trying to cover up the mismanagement and poor leadership of the Liberal government, would be creating a dangerous precedent for any future crisis the government may face. What is to stop the government from implementing this act every time it has a group of fellow Canadians who disagrees. We have heard members of the government tell us that this Emergencies Act is necessary to dismantle these illegal protests and blockades. I again ask how it was possible that the illegal protests and blockades in Windsor and Coutts were dismantled if they did not possess the required tools. Furthermore, the act states that the nature of the emergency is one that seriously endangers the lives of Canadians. If we are in such grave danger from these protesters such as those in Ottawa, why would members of the House even have been allowed to convene in the House? The threshold for this act has not been met. We have heard the Minister of Justice brag about how the mere mention of using the Emergencies Act resulted in protesters in Coutts, Alberta, dispersing from their blockade. The minister was bragging about using the most powerful tool available to the government. He should be ashamed that it has come to this point. He should be ashamed because it means the government has failed miserably. All Canadians should be ashamed that the Prime Minister has failed them.

1602 words

All Topics

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 8:59:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member represents my son-in-law's riding and I know he works well on behalf of his community. In this case where we have invoked the Emergencies Act, it is so that police have additional tools as needed, tools such as stopping parents from using their children as human shields in the protest. By having the act in place, the Children's Aid Society could be used to protect children who are vulnerable in dangerous situations. The act is there for police forces to use as needed and police forces showed incredible restraint throughout the occupation of Ottawa. Now we see blockades at the borders in British Columbia. The act is to be used where needed and as needed for the period of time they are needed. Could the member comment on the judicious use of the act in giving tools to police forces to use as needed?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie

Feb/21/22 9:00:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member's son-in-law found a great place to live with a good member of Parliament. Having said that, I am concerned that the Liberals are using this act as a sledgehammer. I have worked with police officers across this country. I know that in Windsor, for instance, they were able to clear that blockade with the help of the RCMP and the OPP, and they existed before this act came in. In Alberta and across the country we are seeing that Canadians are thoroughly upset with the Prime Minister. He does not listen and just does not pay attention.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/21/22 9:01:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the member for Oxford on the fact that the Liberal members are suggesting that the Emergencies Act’s usefulness for coordinating police forces is enough to warrant its use. However, the test is much more important and imposing: It is the necessity and essential nature of the act. Will this legislation be used every time that it is useful for coordinating police forces?

71 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie

Feb/21/22 9:02:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would take a lot longer than the time I have to tell him what I think about it. That being said, for years and years police departments and police officers have worked in a coordinated fashion in a whole variety of things. This was all brought about through poor planning by a variety of agencies, which I am sure we will hear about as this debate goes on, but more importantly, this act did not need to be invoked. All of the things that people are taking credit for could have been done with the civil law that we already have. As for seizing bank accounts, I have already heard from people who gave minimal amounts of money to what they believed were legal entities, and they have now had their bank accounts seized. That just does not seem right in Canada.

145 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/21/22 9:03:14 a.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, uqaqtittiji. I would like to ask the member if he has reviewed the emergency measures regulations, paragraphs 1(a) to 1(f), if he has looked at the places that are to be protected and if he has not seen the dangers that have been placed in those places.

50 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave MacKenzie

Feb/21/22 9:03:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not read that part of the act or I could not repeat it back, but there are so many things in the act that are dangerous to law-abiding Canadians who have now run afoul of the law. When I heard the parliamentary secretary from Sudbury say that he supported them when they were in his community and before it became an unlawful situation, I could only hope that he did not have his bank account seized too.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

Feb/21/22 9:04:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this, the people's House, with both heaviness of heart and hope for the future. My heart is heavy with all that I am hearing from people from my riding and Canadians from coast to coast. I, along with so many of them, am greatly concerned with the gargantuan overreach the Prime Minister has made with the invoking of the Emergencies Act, granting him and the government unprecedented and unnecessary powers with which to deal with the challenge that is before us. Seven out of 10 provinces have expressed huge concerns regarding its implementation and the dangerous precedent it sets in the suppression of individual rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. The fact is that the blockades in Alberta, in Manitoba and here in Ontario at the Windsor bridge were all resolved peacefully by utilizing existing laws. Authorities never needed to implement or utilize the extreme measures of the Emergencies Act, which was known previously as the War Measures Act, which was only utilized on three previous occasions: World War I, World War II and the FLQ situation. The weaponization of this extreme measure against political opponents, even to the extent of freezing their assets and threatening their livelihoods, is draconian, authoritarian and deeply concerning. It is just plain wrong. I will be voting to revoke it and I encourage all my fellow parliamentarians to do the same. While reflecting in preparation for these remarks today, I was reminded of a leadership conference that I had the privilege of attending around 20 years ago, at which the keynote speaker shared a story that deeply impacted my life and influenced even my role currently as a member of Parliament. I will never forget what the keynote speaker shared with us that evening. He was sharing a story about a king and his messenger, his apprentice. The king wanted to get a very important message through to a certain community, to an area and region in his kingdom. He wanted the community to hear it clearly and he wanted them to understand it, as the message had severe ramifications. The messenger was hesitant and in fact was resistant and did not want to participate or go to share that message. However, the king said explicitly to the messenger, “I want you to go. I want you to visit that community for seven days, sit among the people, hear their stories and observe their customs. For seven days, do not open your mouth. After seven days, you can give the community the message that they need to hear." The keynote speaker applied that principle to all of us as leaders or aspiring leaders. It was that before we as leaders rush in with fast answers and quick solutions and grab the megaphone to speak, we must first take the time to listen and sit where those people that we are communicating with sit and hear their stories and hear their perspectives. Whether we agree with them or not, whether we embrace all aspects of what they may be doing or not, we need to have the courtesy and the decency to at least hear what they are saying. He said that once the messenger had done this for seven days, he communicated what he was supposed to communicate and the situation was resolved. The message was received, but the messenger did it from a place of identification. The messenger did it after having sat where they sat and hearing their stories and understanding where they were coming from, even though he did not agree with or even share many of the beliefs of those with whom he was communicating. Could it be that there is an application for all of us in this House today and for the Prime Minister himself? How different things could have been had he taken the time to elicit, engage and hear what people were saying from coast to coast to coast. Rather than engage, he chose to enrage and escalate rather than de-escalate. How much of the situation could have potentially been resolved had he taken the time to hear the concerns of Canadian citizens? The last two years of dealing with COVID have not been easy. COVID has brought many frustrations with it from coast to coast. Canadians are weary and tired. It has been exhausting. Rather than escalation, they were looking for their leaders to bring a sense of peace and calming reassurance, but now we find ourselves in a heightened state of tension. When jurisdictions around the world are de-escalating, loosening up restrictions, lifting mandates and allowing people get their lives back and move on, the Prime Minister has chosen to use accusations, hurl insults, name-call, castigate and ridicule. Would not a different approach serve all of us well? Canadians are looking to us and wondering, “Are you, as elected officials, hearing what we are saying? Are you hearing what we have been telling you?” In preparation for this role as a member of Parliament, and I know many members have done the same, I knocked on thousands of doors, sat at tables, took phone calls and responded to emails. We took the time to hear the concerns of those we desire to represent, whether it was at the kitchen table of a nurse who was exhausted from long overtime hours and time away from her family or in a farmer's field with farmers who kept doing what they knew to do even through this time of crisis. When the rest of the world shut down, they kept growing and producing. Perhaps members sat at the tables of seniors who felt lonely and isolated and had not been able to see their grandkids in a long time. Perhaps members heard the stories of people who lost their employment or whose business went under because of the prolonged restrictions and rolling lockdowns. Perhaps they heard the stories and concerns of the mill owners who were wondering if they could keep operating in these circumstances. Perhaps they heard the concerns of parents who were concerned about the increased levels of depression and anxiety their children were facing. Perhaps they heard the same concerns I have heard. Canadians want their lives back. They want their country back. They want the Canada that we all love and cherish back. They do not recognize the Canada they are seeing displayed before them on their television right now. They are not comfortable with the anger from all sides. Canadians are looking for leaders who will listen to their cries. They are tired of the extremes on all sides. They are tired of the “us versus them”. They are tired of the Facebook wars and the social media conflicts. They are tired of family member being pitted against family member and Canadian against Canadian. They are exhausted by the continual polarization. Canadians are speaking loudly and clearly. I conclude with this. I have reason for hope today, because we have heard their voices. I cling to this old promise from an ancient scripture: “Weeping may endure for a night, but joy comes in the morning.” I wish COVID‑19 had not lasted two years. I wish it had been only 12 hours, but as sure as night has come and we sense the heaviness upon all of us, morning will break in this country and people will once again be able to embrace a government that hears their concerns and responds to them and chooses not to use the nuclear option of suppressing their rights and freedoms at a time when it is not needed. They are looking for de-escalation. On this side of the House, we hear you. On this side of the House, we will bring your concerns forward.

1309 words

All Topics

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

Feb/21/22 9:14:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a year ago we saw Alberta lift its restrictions for the best summer ever, and it was not. Albertans suffered. The hospitals were overrun, and Albertans died who did not need to die, but this is the same message we are hearing from the protesters, at least some of them, the ones who are not trying to overthrow the government. Does the hon. member believe that it would be best to not have only politicians making the decisions to lift mandates, but politicians backstopped with good, wise, sage public health advice?

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Feb/21/22 9:15:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the science is very clear, and the science is recommending that mandates begin to be lifted and that restrictions begin to be lifted. There was a recent study by John Hopkins University that has been peer reviewed. It said very clearly that the lockdowns have done more harm than good, especially when we compare it to the socio-economic impacts these lockdowns are having, the mental health costs, the strain, and increased rates of anxiety and depression. The science is clear. In jurisdictions such as the U.K., Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, France and Spain, as well as 39 of 50 U.S. states, they are all moving in this direction. They are all telling us it is time to learn how to live with this and move on. That is what we should be doing and what any responsible government should be doing.

146 words

All Topics

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Feb/21/22 9:16:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I understand him. We are well aware of everything that has happened over the past three weeks in Ottawa and of all of the impacts that it has had on residents and businesses, and even everywhere else in Canada and Quebec. My colleague spoke about the protests. It is true that while people do have the right to protest, there are certain limits. It must not go as far as extremism. Why does my colleague oppose the use of the Emergencies Act by the government, given its slow response and inaction over the past three weeks?

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Feb/21/22 9:16:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important question. Yes, there are extreme elements on all sides, and I believe Canadians want us to make sure they are dealt with appropriately, and dealt with through utilizing the existing laws already in place. We saw this happen across the country. They have been utilized, and they have been effective, without using the nuclear option of going to this extreme measure. Now, this act is being weaponized against Canadian citizens who happen to not share the same political views as the government. That is a dangerous precedent. I think what we need is a measured, reasonable response, so the hallmark of any democracy's right to protest is protected when done lawfully and peacefully, as all Canadians desire.

128 words

All Topics

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

Feb/21/22 9:17:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Congress has launched an investigation into Facebook and how bot farm accounts in Romania, Vietnam and Bangladesh were tied to the “freedom convoy”. One stolen account accounted for millions of dollars raised and 340,000 members signed up in two days. I am asking why Parliament has not agreed to look into Russian disinformation in the driving of the convoy, when Congress has stepped up with a serious investigation into how bot farms and extremist content were driven from outside of Canada against Canadians.

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Bragdon

Feb/21/22 9:18:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think right now we obviously have the tools and mechanisms to make sure safeguards are in place for foreign donors and others who are involving themselves in Canadian affairs, such as mechanisms like FINTRAC. Let us utilize the tools that are already in place, rather than this nuclear overreach that is taking and targeting Canadian citizens for actions that may be politically opposed to the government of the day. This is a dangerous overreach, and this measure must be revoked by Parliament.

85 words

All Topics

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

Feb/21/22 9:19:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. On this day of debate on the Emergencies Act, I would first like to offer my thanks to all the staff in the House, namely the clerks, the interpreters, the pages, the security officers and the cooks, among others. I also thank the reporters and their teams, who covered the various protests. Of course, I am well aware that we are going through an exceptional situation right now. I hope that all parliamentarians, especially the government members, are well aware of this. The vote that will take place in a few hours might create an important precedent. We have been incredibly busy these past few days. We have been busy debating an unnecessary law to lift the siege in Ottawa, and I have been busy talking to the people of Laurentides—Labelle about the issues related to this bill. Hundreds of people contacted me to talk about their concerns and what they wanted done about the blockade that, unfortunately, lasted 23 days. I would like to use my time to explain the reasons why we oppose the use of the Emergencies Act, which the government invoked in haste without proving that other legislative tools at its disposal did not work. I absolutely understand that people are sick to death of the virus and the public health measures and rules that changed our lives. The situation had a direct impact on me too, just as it impacted caregivers, business people, parents and health care workers, among many others. It is no secret that we will vote against the use of the Emergencies Act, and there are many reasons why. On February 15, the elected members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion stating that no emergency situation justified the use of special legislative measures in Quebec and calling on the Canadian government not to apply the Emergencies Act in Quebec. Will the government respect the will of the 125 members of the National Assembly? Even more appalling is that seven out of 10 provinces are against using this legislation. Obviously, Ontario requested it because that is where the siege was held. The application of such legislation should not be taken lightly. It must be measured and proportionate. The Prime Minister himself said several times that the act would not be used where it is not needed. Why, then, does it apply everywhere? The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the mobilization facilitated by social media. This type of legislation is not to be applied “just in case”; it is to be applied to deal with a real and imminent situation. The application of the act must be essential and necessary. Every action taken in the past few days could have been taken with the tools provided under the Criminal Code. Arrests were made in coordination with the various police forces, which, in my opinion, should have been done in the early days. What we needed was a head of state to coordinate interventions. Sadly, since being elected, I have seen no such head of state. Instead of getting out in front of a crisis, an issue, or a pandemic, the Prime Minister racks up conflicts of interest, as I saw when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. When the City of Ottawa called for reinforcements, the federal government dawdled. Here is how I would sum up the situation. The federal government did not try anything. Then, not knowing what to do, it invoked the Emergencies Act, once all the occupations had been cleared out. The authorities will continue their work. The government was not too worried about the Ambassador Bridge situation until it got a call from the White House. That is kind of a big deal. Then the government did nothing until it got a call from the Ottawa police, which wanted an additional 1,800 officers. The feds sent in a handful of officers, basically just enough to protect ministers and MPs. Only about 20 officers were deployed to the protest sites. It is important to note that the government cannot invoke the Emergencies Act unless it can demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists and cannot be handled by means of ordinary laws. There is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation, but it is limited to Ontario. We wanted the act to apply only where the occupation was taking place, especially since invoking this act, if applied more broadly than it should be, will set a dangerous precedent. The Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, 9/11, or even the COVID-19 pandemic. When someone is criticized for not taking action, they try to make people forget about their bungling by using a sledgehammer as a show of strength to impress people. However, politics is not a game where players come up with strategies for the simple and only reason of maintaining or regaining power. If this makes people rather cynical, I would tell them “welcome to the club”. Applying the Emergencies Act when the situation is confined to one location, not across Canada, is overkill. What saddens me is that the voters will think that the Prime Minister saved Ottawa. I want to express my sincerest appreciation to police officers at all levels for the tremendous work they have done. To all those who reached out to me regarding the use of the Emergencies Act, I want to say that the siege did indeed have to be stopped. Existing measures are what saved Ottawa. The Criminal Code and traffic regulations are what saved Ottawa. No, I will not vote in favour of the use of the Emergencies Act. Quebec's 125 MNAs do not want it to be used. The implications of this legislation are too great to use it as a way to take back control, just because a government failed to take action and lacks leadership. I would like to remind members that the federal government lagged behind the provinces when it came to implementing measures to deal with the pandemic. One need only think of the management of the borders, or lack thereof, at the beginning of the pandemic. That was a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to show some leadership as a government leader, but he did not. That is unfortunate for him and for us.

1120 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 36