44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 11:42:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my speech I said very clearly that there are laws within Canada that allow for the coordination of police and for establishing order without invoking the Emergencies Act. It has never been used before. The member is just wrong. No one has said that any of the massive protests outside of this place could not have been dealt with using existing laws.
Now I will quote the Prime Minister:
...in order for you to trust your government, you need a government that will trust you. When we make a mistake—as all governments do—it is important that we acknowledge that mistake and learn from it. We know that you do not expect us to be perfect—but you expect us to work tirelessly, and to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.
What happened to that Prime Minister?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:43:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sick of hearing the Liberals tell us that this is an ordinary law that will simply provide a few extra tools if needed and that the provinces begged them to help and to show leadership. We, too, begged them to show some leadership for more than 20 days.
Showing leadership does not involve the use of an extreme piece of legislation like the Emergencies Act. It involves bringing people together, talking to them, trying to meet with them, coordinating law enforcement and taking action before 20 days have passed. What does my colleague think about that?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:43:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, leadership is everything. Stoking divisions and name-calling, as the Prime Minister has done, and I will not use his unparliamentary terms, have escalated the crisis much more. He could have chosen to work with the solicitor general of Ontario to find ways to support utilizing existing measures, not the Emergencies Act.
It is the equivalent of awakening the kraken, a legislative leviathan that should only be broken when in the most dire situations. I do not believe the government has met the test, and in fact, I believe it should rescind that invocation immediately. We are a nation of laws, but no one person should have such power. Parliamentarians need to do our part to uphold the rule of law. If the government has not met the high threshold test, we should vote against it.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:45:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, history has taught us that giving any government or politician too much power or too much money leads to a dictatorship style of governance. How much does this motion and this experience remind us of history?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:45:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I understand that when people are pushed to the limit, they want to push back. We are supposed to channel the concerns of Canadians to this place, and as I said, if the government felt that the threshold was too high in the Emergencies Act, it could have moved to amend it, but it did not.
We here in this chamber now have a responsibility to look at whether the Prime Minister and his cabinet have met the threshold to utilize legislation that gives them enormous powers that have never been used. We should limit those powers and the government should revoke its use of the act. In the face of not doing that, we should vote against this motion to restore—
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:46:20 a.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lethbridge.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:46:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, violence was their mode of operation; hate is what drove them; human life was called into question or altogether threatened; millions of dollars of damage was done to property, yet there was silence from the Prime Minister, and the media only spoke whispers several days later.
Meanwhile, 4,500 kilometres away on the other side of the country, a diverse group of Canadians gathered from all across. Some wore turbans and some wore toques. Some were in their seventies and some were not even able to walk yet. They gathered for one reason: to advocate for freedom. They gathered to advocate for what it is to be Canadian: true north, strong and free. These individuals were truckers, farmers, doctors, nurses, stay-at-home moms, students, teachers or social workers. I talked with them. I heard their story. I listened, because that is what a politician does who deeply cares about this country.
The Prime Minister took a bit of a different approach. He stigmatized. He antagonized. He turned a deaf ear. Some of these individuals drove big rigs; some of them drove Civics and some of them drove F-150s. Some of them were vaccinated three times and some of them were not vaccinated at all. However, they all were Canadians fighting for an ideal. Were they disruptive at times? Yes, indeed. That is the point of a peaceful assembly protesting something that people disagree with. It is allowed in this country, a democratic country. Were there a few bad actors? Sure there were, but they were quickly condemned and removed.
When we juxtapose this with the attack on the Coastal GasLink site at Houston, B.C., with damage to property and threat to human life, it becomes very clear that the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to Ottawa is a massive overreach and purely punitive in nature. We know this, especially given the fact that we watched the border crossings at Windsor, Coutts, Surrey and Emerson be cleared without the Emergencies Act needing to be invoked. We know it even more today, when we see that the downtown core of Ottawa has been cleared out.
However, the Prime Minister insists that he will still move forward with invoking the Emergencies Act. Why? Is it necessary? I argue it is not. Again, if the Windsor border, the Surrey border, the Coutts border and the Emerson border were able to be cleared up without this over-exaggeration of power, then Ottawa could have been too.
There is something more that needs to be discussed here and that is what that threshold is for invoking the act. The Emergencies Act has never been used since it was first created in 1988. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used three times: once in World War I, once in World War II and once for the FLQ crisis, where again, human life was taken and the country was really thrown into chaos. The bar is high, so for the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act when an assembly of people comes to protest with views that are different from his, one has to wonder why; why the overreach?
The one power the Prime Minister gets from this is the ability to freeze bank accounts. He has the opportunity to seize control of the monetary flow for those individuals who hold views different from his own. This is an abuse of power. We are talking about individuals who may have donated $10 or maybe a few hundred dollars to this cause. Simply because they had views that were different from the Prime Minister's, their bank accounts are frozen and they are unable to make their car payments, their house payments or put food on the table. Some of them are unable to take care of their children. Others are unable just to meet the basic needs of life.
It is a massive breach on these individuals, and it is simply for no other reason than the fact that these folks failed to fall in line. They questioned the government and they hold views that are different from the Prime Minister's. Using the tactic of a schoolyard bully, he has decided to implement the Emergencies Act so that he can control, manipulate, dictate, be punitive and punish.
It should be highlighted that the federal government is utilizing national security tools that were designed to combat terrorism against Canadians who support protests. We must let that sink in for just a moment. The Prime Minister of our country is using laws that are normally used against terrorists, and he is using them against citizens of his own country who hold views that happen to be different from his own. That is extremely alarming. It is vindictive. One commentator said, “It's almost as if the cruelty is the point.”
It did not need to come to this. The reason we are here is that the Prime Minister decided to put a punitive measure in place. On January 15, he required that all truck drivers going across the U.S. border and wanting to return to Canada needed to be double-vaccinated. We are talking about individuals who were earlier declared as heroes, individuals who stayed in the cabs of their truck, aside from maybe refuelling or grabbing a quick snack at a gas station. These individuals have served our country in an incredibly heroic way, and then the Prime Minister made a decision to go after them and put restrictions in place. It was nonsense.
This started a movement of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who started to question the government, question the Prime Minister, question his motives, and fair enough, as they did not add up. Dr. Tam herself was saying that we needed to reassess the mandates that were put in place at that time. She herself was saying that we needed to learn to live with COVID, that we needed to return to normal.
The Prime Minister has turned a deaf ear, a blind eye and has refused to listen. I am not sure what his agenda is, but it certainly is not to serve this country well. It certainly is not in the best interests of Canadians at heart.
Before even knowing who was coming to Ottawa, he refused to listen. His tactics were mean-spirited and divisive in nature. He stigmatized. He antagonized. He traumatized. He went after these individuals telling them they were a fringe minority with unacceptable views. He damaged the unity of this country, pitting one region or one people against another. He crushed the human spirit.
One of my constituents wrote to me. She is an immigrant who moved to Canada about a decade ago. She now has three children and is married. She runs a small business and is a beautiful community participant.
She wrote:
It was mere months ago I filled out the paperwork to become a Canadian citizen. I desire to align myself with a nation I’ve come to love, to stand beside people who make it great, to cast a vote in the bucket of democracy. And yet, I am sickened by the increasingly pervasive narrative being spouted; one where rightness trumps charity...and good faith, and where ‘being Canadian’ is defined not by our humanity but by our political affiliations.
And here I am, awaiting news of my application status, while the Canada I thought I knew crumbles around me, not from Covid-but from the divisive and destructive language being used to define citizenship and belonging.
Further on she wrote:
But what am I saying yes to? A nation that speaks before listening, one that defines ‘being a good Canadian’ in a way that marginalizes everyone who doesn’t fit said description.
She concluded by writing:
I humbly ask that we take steps towards the Canada I first moved to-one where value isn’t gained its given-and given generously by the people who call it home. Because diversity of thought and conscience are greater markers of democracy than the alternative.
This is the deep, hard cry of so many Canadians across this country. We want a unified nation. We want a prime minister who listens to the fellow citizens of this great country. We want to move forward with strength. The Prime Minister has claimed that he wants the same, but in order to do that, it starts with him. He must trust and respect the Canadian people for the Canadian people to do the same. Unfortunately, he has chosen gamesmanship over statesmanship, and it is killing our country.
I urge this House to vote no to the punitive measures that are being discussed here today.
1468 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:56:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that many of the protesters who came to Ottawa and other parts of the country felt they were speaking out against the suffering that many Canadians have felt over the past two years and that the restrictions for them were difficult and challenging. This pandemic has been difficult and challenging for all Canadians.
I want to ask the member why colleagues across the way choose to be wilfully blind to the white supremacy sentiments that were clear and present in the leadership of this convoy, be it Pat King's vitriol, Tamara Lich's affiliation with the Maverick Party, the Diagolon badges that were found on the members who were arrested at Coutts, or the 1,100 donors discovered through GoFundMe who had also donated to the Capitol riots of January 6, 2021, in the United States. I would be happy to share the ADL report with her if she would like.
I feel strongly that all of us should be standing up against white supremacists and anti-democratic sentiments, whether they are forthcoming and up front in these blockades or part of the driving forces that led people to gather together.
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:57:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, interestingly enough, the member knows very well that my party, the members on our side of the aisle, have condemned those acts of hate or the flying of swastikas, but she chooses to participate in the same tactics as the Prime Minister, which is to divide, attack and be punitive. It is absolutely disgusting.
What we are talking about right now is invoking the Emergencies Act in the country of Canada, an act the Prime Minister will use in order to go after individuals who disagree with his viewpoints.
Why does the member not ask the Prime Minister to apologize to the member on our side, who was accused of marching with a swastika, when she herself is a young Jewish woman? That is disgusting. I would urge the member to call out the Prime Minister on that bad behaviour.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:58:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the comments made by the member for Lethbridge, alongside others, I appreciated the call for unity, particularly in a discussion in this House that has been lacking that in recent days. What is important in that is also a shared understanding of facts and context.
I also note that in the member's comments there was no mention of the MOU to overthrow the government or the ties to white nationalism as part of the ideologies of the protesters who were in Ottawa. I wonder if the member would want to share more about the wider context of those who were in Ottawa over recent weeks.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:59:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite would like to talk about the vast majority of protesters who held themselves in peaceful regard, such as elderly individuals and those in their twenties, the children who bounced in bouncy castles and waved Canadian flags, the people who cooked sausages and pancakes and held little rallies, and those who advocated for their freedom, which is their democratic right to do.
I wonder if that same member, after talking about all of those peaceful protesting acts that were taken here on Parliament Hill by the vast majority of participants, would then also like to talk about the fact that the Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act—
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:00:25 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Montcalm.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:00:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, not only do the orders not meet the criteria set out in section 3 of the Emergencies Act, but, to hear the arguments from our Liberal colleagues, we really get the impression that they are turning the ultimate tool at the government's disposal into a public interest law.
Does my colleague not find that this trivializes the act?
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:01:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as discussed in my speech, I believe that the Prime Minister is overstepping and that this is a massive overreach and abuse of power. Something that should be used against terrorists he is using against the citizens who have protested him in the streets of Ottawa because they hold viewpoints that are different from his. It is absolutely—
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:01:32 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me begin by wishing all Canadians a happy family day. Today is supposed to be a day for Canadian families to celebrate and enjoy being a family, with all the peace and prosperity that they deserve. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister chooses to be the sole architect of this crisis, which we have been talking about for the last few days.
We stand at a crossroads in the House today. It is by this motion, and no other, that this Parliament, and the men and women in the House of Commons today, will be remembered. During the First World War, Canadians saw the War Measures Act imposed for the first time. Under that act, more than 8,500 men, women and children of Ukrainian background were interned in 24 camps across the country. Many of them had been born in Canada.
Their rights, including the right to vote, were ignored by the government of the day, and Parliament and the people of Canada remained silent to those injustices. It was only in 2005, with the passage of the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act, that some redress was made to the descendants of those who were abused by the government, acknowledging that what was done was wrong.
In early 1942, the government of Canada used the War Measures Act to intern more than 21,000 Japanese Canadians. They were held for the duration of the Second World War. Their homes and businesses were seized and sold to pay for the detention. Once again, Parliament and the people of Canada remained silent about the mistreatment of citizens. It was only in 1988 that the then prime minister Brian Mulroney apologized for this wrongful act by the Canadian government.
The last time the War Measures Act was used was during the October Crisis of 1970. The government of the day imposed it because of a perceived insurrection, which turned out to be much less of an insurrection than the government had imagined. Hundreds of Quebeckers were ousted from their beds in the middle of the night and held without a trial, only to eventually be released without apology. Their supposed crime had been to show support for an unpopular idea, which was Quebec's independence. The government of the day lumped them together with those who had committed the crimes, unable to separate the difference between beliefs and actions.
If that sounds much like what has happened in Canada over the past few weeks, that is because it is. The government does not seem able to grasp that it is possible to disagree with a policy and to protest against that policy without being dangerous to society, so it invoked the Emergencies Act. As former NDP leader Tommy Douglas famously remarked in 1970, it is like “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. The government has failed to prove any justification for this action. In effect, it is using the most draconian piece of legislation at its disposal to fix a parking problem in downtown Ottawa.
Members of the government ask us to trust them on this matter. They tell us that their actions will remain consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They tell us that there are no plans to call in the army.
Pardon me for looking at the government's track record and taking those statements with a huge grain of salt. I am sure government members are sincere and believe what they are saying. Unfortunately, as we have seen, their actions are frequently quite different from the high ideals of their words, and it is by their actions that they will be judged, not by their flowery language.
I would challenge any member from the government side to explain how freezing the bank accounts, without a warrant, of persons who have not been charged with a crime is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does the action apply only to those who have illegally parked their vehicles in downtown Ottawa? What about their families? Does it extend to those who have liked the “freedom convoy” on Facebook? How far will the Prime Minister go to silence those who disagree with his policies? We should just watch him.
We have all heard stories about the government's no-fly list, which prevents thousands of people with alleged terrorist connections from air travel. We all agree that such a list had a purpose. However, that list of names is just that. It does not include passport numbers, dates of birth or other information to better identify those who may not fly. That means we regularly hear of those who are banned from air travel because their names are on the list, but they are not the ones who are targeted. A five-year-old child with the same name as a terrorist had no redress when turned away at the airport.
Forgive me for wondering how we can trust the government to freeze the bank accounts of only those who have taken part in the Ottawa protest. It would be simple to arrest those on the scene. Instead, it is making it more complicated, and it is sure to make mistakes. Telling Canadians that the government respects the Charter of Rights will be cold comfort when it makes those mistakes and starts seizing the bank accounts of people who have no connection to the protests. Canadian citizens who have done nothing wrong will have the government seizing their assets, and they will have no redress.
Government members will tell us that this could not happen. I ask members to remember the no-fly list and ask themselves if they believe it.
Over the past week, I have received hundreds of phone calls, as I am sure is the case for every member in the House, not just from constituents, but also from other concerned Canadians. Some are angry at the state of our country. They do not understand why the federal government is not following the science in bringing an end to various mandates. They demand action.
Many more, though, are afraid. They are afraid of the direction they see Canada taking. They see division in the House of Commons and in the country. Many blame the Prime Minister for creating those divisions. Others blame politicians.
One woman I spoke with, a senior citizen, was in tears. She loves Canada. She is horrified at what we are becoming. After two years of the pandemic, she feels helpless. She is looking to Parliament to show leadership, and what she sees is a government attempting to divide Canadians instead of unifying them, a government that denies the right to peaceful protest for anyone who disagrees with its policies, a prime minister who is too afraid of others' viewpoints to even meet with them on Zoom.
I encourage all hon. members, as we cast our vote today, to consider their place in history, remember the abuses by governments past and ask ourselves if the situation at hand warrants the method being used by the government. Let us put aside our different political party identities and come together to vote as Canadians.
The nation is watching us now. Will we pretend that we are living in 1917, 1942 or 1970, or will we show that we understand that, in 2022, Canadians must not be abused on a whim of a prime minister? History will remember our actions.
1245 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:11:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to address the question the member just asked: Will we continue to pretend that we are living in the past?
It seems that the member opposite and his Conservative colleagues are, in fact, living in the past as they continually reference the War Measures Act and comments Tommy Douglas made about that act in 1970. We are here to debate a very different act, the Emergencies Act, which was introduced, in fact, to address the very concerns the member raised with the War Measures Act and, may I remind the member opposite, by a Conservative government.
Why do the member opposite and his colleagues continually reference an act that is no longer on the books in Canada? They are creating confusion, anxiety and concern among people, when we really should be focused on the act we are debating today, which is the Emergencies Act.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:12:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member can call it by whatever name, at the end of the day, the action and the effect of it is what will be remembered by Canadians for generations to come. Let us not divide on this issue of the name, as the Prime Minister, her boss, has been doing in dividing Canadians for the last years, and we have seen the outcome of that right now. That is my answer. I hope that hon. member will be able to stand on the right side of history and vote against this draconian bill.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:13:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I found to be very interesting at times. Obviously, for different reasons, the Bloc Québécois is also against the application of the Emergencies Act, which we have been debating since Thursday, but that is not exactly the issue I wanted to address with my colleague.
As my other colleague said in her question, he mentioned the War Measures Act several times. He talked about moments in history when this legislation was invoked for different reasons. Obviously, this did not fall on deaf ears. I heard his commentary on the sad events that happened in Quebec in 1970. He also noted that many Quebeckers were unjustly arrested, sometimes while in bed, in the middle of the night, for no reason, and were arbitrarily detained, often for several weeks.
If the Bloc Québécois moved another motion calling on the government to apologize to those Quebeckers who were victims of the War Measures Act in 1970, would my colleague approve our motion this time?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:14:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can see that the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers remember that dark chapter when people were arrested without any link and victims were lumped together with criminals. At that time, what was done was unnecessary and it was done on an imaginary basis. I will support an apology to Quebec and Quebeckers, because I believe that chapter of our history has to be turned forever.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
