SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 111 - Oct/17/22

Oct/17/22 6:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that very informative answer. There were a number of pieces of information that I was unfamiliar with. One thing I picked up was her reference to what she calls contract partners, which really means the provincial and territorial governments. I am going to ask her if she is saying the following, that if the initiative were taken, say, by the government of Alberta or Saskatchewan, that would be sufficient to start the ball rolling in that province. She also indicated a willingness to work with private sector partners who provide the necessary funds to purchase these things. May I assume that if that were to happen in some part of the country, and if the RCMP hierarchy were to resist, and it does appear that there has been resistance, institutionally, in the RCMP, that the government would override it and say, “Look, these things have been given for free. Please install them where they are being offered”? Could she respond to those two questions?

174 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Oct/17/22 6:01:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to answer a question on RCMP operational details, but I think, as the hon. member knows, right now, the Alberta government is talking about getting out of contract policing and instituting its own police service. I think, certainly, the hon. member has heard what I am saying, in that it requires consultation with the provincial or municipal partners before we can move forward. As he knows, the cost of this policing is split between the federal and provincial governments. If the hon. member had a private company that wanted to donate AEDs to all RCMP vehicles, I would be happy to work with him on that.

113 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Oct/17/22 6:01:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for their care and encouragement. I could not do my job without their support. On February 14, 2022, the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition issued a proclamation declaring a public order emergency. The anti-democratic, bouncy castle emergency order has been recognized around the world as a despicable, egregious violation of human rights. Canada's image has been tarnished internationally. Canadians have been encouraging me to follow up on my request of the Prime Minister to stop his unacceptable campaign of hate and divisiveness against ordinary Canadians. Now that the Emergencies Act inquiry is under way, it is time to start focusing on the deep wounds in Canadian society created by the Prime Minister and his profane coalition. Liberals need to accept that many Canadians believe those who disagree with them on policy matters are not wrong. Canadians struggle to understand how those on the big government, radical left side of the political fence could possibly hold so many wrong-sided views. The trucker strike was brought about by widespread resentment of hysterical reporting throughout the pandemic by the Liberal bought-off media. The attempted cancellation of anyone who dissented over lockdowns, whether on scientific grounds or civil liberty grounds, further exacerbated the problem. How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister or the Liberal Party when he and his caucus are on public record as misleading Canadians nine times on the need to invoke the Emergencies Act? For example, the NDP-Liberal coalition representative stated that “the invocation of the Emergencies Act...was only put forward after police officials told us they needed this special power”. That is false. No police service asked for the Emergencies Act. Next, the NDP-Liberal coalition Minister of Finance got in on the act by grossly inflating estimates of the freedom convoy's impact on the economy. While Canadians are struggling to buy groceries and heat their homes, this same minister directed public servants to run around and waste taxpayer dollars by begging local Ottawa businesses to accept money for non-existent losses. In fact, after the severity of the Liberal pandemic lockdown, many businesses enjoyed a boom in business. The Prime Minister and his coalition's false accusations are interpreted by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as accusation in a mirror. This is the rhetorical practice of falsely accusing others of conducting, plotting or committing precisely the same transgressions one plans to commit against them. The claim by the Prime Minister and senior members in the Liberal Party that members of the freedom convoy were racists, misogynists and undesirables is a textbook example of the demonizing and dehumanizing that comes by labelling certain groups in society as undesirable. An appalling example of this divisiveness is when the Prime Minister accused a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, my Conservative colleague, the member for Thornhill, who is Jewish, of standing with racists. Canadians see the hypocrisy in the Prime Minister accusing others of being racist when the Prime Minister enjoys dressing up in costumes and in blackface to make fun of other people's cultures and skin colour. The accusation is a propaganda technique that has been used in non-genocidal and other forms of persecution committed against Jews, Blacks and first nations, among others. It is time to face some inconvenient truths about the Prime Minister. His behaviour is dividing our country. Being angry all the time is not demonstrating leadership. To this day, members of the Liberal Party refuse to condemn the Prime Minister's racist act of wearing blackface.

615 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Oct/17/22 6:06:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, holy smokes, the rhetoric and misinformation coming from the other side of the House is a bit hard to respond to, but I am going to do my best. Last winter, safety concerns from illegal blockades had shut down businesses, prevented citizens from moving about in several Canadian cities and cut off supply chains, hampering the ability of small business owners to contribute to the well-being of their families and communities. We had a large blockade in the city of Ottawa and other communities were also impacted. Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec and cities within these provinces all faced illegal blockades that threatened people's safety and livelihoods. The situation was so critical that the Province of Ontario, City of Windsor and City of Ottawa all declared states of emergency. The Government of Canada knew that a safe resolution to these illegal blockades would require the collaboration of all partners. That is why we engaged closely with law enforcement and provincial, territorial and municipal officials to share situational updates and intelligence and explore the ways we could support one another. These discussions were ongoing throughout the crisis. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was informed by these discussions and consultations. The ultimate goal was always to bring an end to the blockades peacefully. In full transparency, we have made public a document that provides the reasons for issuing the declaration of a public order emergency. This fulfills the requirement in subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act, and the Government of Canada is pleased to provide this public information. In addition, the Government of Canada has provided a public document describing the consultations we undertook before invoking the act. This document clearly demonstrates that we were closely engaged with all key partners in order to bring all expertise to the table to solve this public order crisis. I would encourage my colleagues to review these public documents. They would make clear that, for several weeks last winter, illegal blockades were growing, strengthening and threatening law and order in numerous communities. Provinces, territories, municipalities and law enforcement all clearly communicated their views and concerns to the Government of Canada. Crucially, these partners asked the Government of Canada to lend support to the police of jurisdiction to counter the illegal activities. We explored all other possible strategies to counter and to bring a peaceful conclusion to the many illegal blockades in Canadian communities at the time. It was at this time, and following extensive and ongoing discussions, that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was made. This was not an easy decision and we took the path with an appropriate sense of gravitas. Importantly, invoking the act provided law enforcement with additional tools that allowed them to bring an end to the blockades. I must reinforce that this peaceful resolution was achieved, in large part, because of our close and ongoing consultation with provinces, territories, municipalities and law enforcement. The Government of Canada did not keep the Emergencies Act in place any longer than necessary. We revoked it as soon as possible once it had achieved its intended purpose and law enforcement no longer needed the additional tools.

531 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Oct/17/22 6:09:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a secret memo, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, rejected the false claims by the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition that the freedom convoy was infiltrated by Nazis. According to CSIS, the freedom convoy participants considered themselves to be patriotic Canadians standing up for their democratic rights. The Canadian flag was the most prevalent flag on display in the crowd, likely reflecting participants' belief they were patriotic Canadians standing up for their democratic rights. CSIS went on to advise the government that a small number of individuals displayed handwritten statements or images on their flags in an attempt to focus their message. Specifically, several added a swastika to the flag, not necessarily to identify as Nazis, but to imply the Prime Minister and the federal government were acting like Nazis by imposing public health mandates. The memo marked “secret” was dated February 2, 2022. It concluded by reminding the NDP-Liberal far-left coalition that freedom of expression is constitutionally protected in Canada.

167 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Oct/17/22 6:10:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us take a step back and remember what it was like here in Ottawa last winter. While the hon. member and many of her colleagues were playing footsies with the illegal blockade, many Canadians were suffering. Many Canadian businesses were suffering. They were being held hostage by these illegal blockades. People did not feel safe going about their lives in their own communities. I am pleased to share with the hon. member a quote from the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, who told the following to members at the public safety committee: “I...want to thank the federal government for invoking the federal Emergencies Act.” He went on to say, “From a policing perspective, the legislation provided the OPS with the ability to prevent people from participating in this unlawful protest”. He referred to the invocation of the act as a “critical piece” of their efforts.

157 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Oct/17/22 6:11:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in May I asked the Minister of Health what scientific advice he had received in regard to travel mandates. Today I ask the same question. On September 26, the ministers of health, public safety and transport announced the lifting of the pandemic precautions effective October 1 by allowing the special orders under the Quarantine Act to expire. This effectively meant that foreign nationals no longer needed to be vaccinated to enter the country, incoming travellers would not be subject to random mandatory COVID–19 tests, unvaccinated Canadians would no longer have to isolate, travellers would no longer have to report or monitor for COVID–19 symptoms, the wearing of face masks on planes and trains was no longer mandatory as well, and submitting public health information through the ArriveCAN app would effectively become optional. While Conservatives have been appealing to the government for a long time to lift the mandates, and we are happy to see them gone, my questions remain as follows: What was scientific about October 1? What evidence was this decision based on? Why was Canada so slow to lift the mandates compared to other countries? The second issue I would like to raise tonight relates to the ArriveCAN app. Like a lot of Canadians this summer, I used the ArriveCAN app. I went to visit some family in the Netherlands. When I came back home I was on a flight through Iceland, and I had to use the ArriveCAN app. I did it properly to get on the plane, and I did it for my spouse as well. When we arrived in Toronto the app had broken down. I went to the CBSA officer, who said that was a normal thing to happen and that it had been happening quite a bit. It was not an easy process, but we went through and it all got worked out. However, that goes to say, as some other members in the House of Commons have raised today, we wonder why the ArriveCAN app was so poorly designed and why it cost so much money. Right now, Canadians are recovering from the COVID–19 pandemic and government restrictions. Community groups are starting to refocus and get membership out again. Sports groups are doing the same thing. That is all well and good, but I would be remiss if I did not mention in the chamber that right now Canada needs to look back very closely with respect to what happened during the last three years. My other question to the government today is this: Would it consider a royal commission to determine how much money was spent on COVID–19 programs, how much additional money was spent during the COVID–19 pandemic, what consequences of that spending were, and what the long-term impacts both for our society and our fiscal coffers will be? We are in a period of inflation right now, and we need to be very careful about how we spend money moving forward, but Canadians are equally concerned about how their rights are going to be protected moving forward as well. I think we have a responsibility in the House to ensure that critical work is being undertaken, so I would like to petition the government with my time today to empower every parliamentary committee, if not a royal commission, to look at program spending over the last three years and look at which programs worked, which ones did not, which ones cost the most, which ones had the most take-up and which ones did not have any take-up at all. A lot of things were spent on, and we do not know the consequences and the impacts of that spending. We need to look at how the rights of Canadians under the charter are going to be protected moving forward. There are a lot of unanswered questions. I know there are some cases before the federal courts, but I think here in Parliament we need to look very closely at things such as the ArriveCAN app. I will give one final example. Just three weeks ago, before the October 1 rescindment of the Quarantine Act, a senior citizen constituent who has never had a smart phone was told by a CBSA officer that he needed to get a letter from his MP to go into the United States for the day and come back. That is not what the charter calls for, and we need to stop those things from happening again.

757 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Oct/17/22 6:15:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of this was that hon. members would ask for information to elaborate on a question they had asked in the House. The hon. member has greatly expanded on what he had asked. I will focus on a couple of things, but in particular NEXUS, as he had asked about it. He did not mention that tonight, but I will deal with it. The ArriveCAN app is something we brought in to keep Canadians safe. We will always make the health and safety of Canadians our number one priority. I recall that at the time, hon. members from the other side of the aisle were calling for us to close the borders and stop letting people into Canada. The ArriveCAN app was a useful tool that we brought in during the pandemic, and it is no longer mandatory, as the hon. member knows. I would like to talk a bit about NEXUS, which is what the hon. member had asked in his question of the Minister of Health. We know NEXUS is extremely important for travellers. We also know that Canadians are travelling again. That is why we are working with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to restore NEXUS enrolment services in Canada. I hear from my own constituents about concerns with being able to get a NEXUS appointment. It is a joint program managed by both Canada and the United States. When our American counterparts are ready to deploy officers to Canada again, we will be ready to immediately facilitate it. Canada and the U.S. are in discussions right now about the timing of the reopening of Canadian enrolment centres. However, until that time, enrolment centres in Canada will continue to be closed. Canadians can now travel to the U.S. to complete their interviews and applications. We are also allowing existing NEXUS members who renew their memberships before the expiry date of their card to retain their membership privileges for an additional 24 months from the date of expiry. The hon. member talked at length about our Charter of Rights, and I just want to assure the hon. member, as well as all Canadians, that on this side of the House we will always stand up for Canadians' charter rights. We always have and we always will.

384 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Oct/17/22 6:18:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that all members of the House, all 338 of us, care about the Charter of Rights and its application. What I am saying here today is that we have made so many consequential decisions, even on this side of the House, and have not properly examined the impact on our rights, the societal impact and the fiscal impact they are going to have on future generations in Canada. I do not recall referencing NEXUS in my question for the minister, but I will take that in good faith from the member. I would simply ask, then, as my primary question in the minute I have left today, about the reason the American government has not decided to reconstitute offices in Canada. Is it related to the application of firearms for American officers on Canadian soil?

141 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff

Oct/17/22 6:19:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Public Safety and his U.S. counterpart have been in discussions to get NEXUS back in Canada. I will reiterate that when our American counterparts are ready to deploy their officers to Canada, we will be ready to facilitate it. Canadians want to get back to their lives and put the pandemic behind them, and I assure the hon. member that we continue to work with the United States to ensure that our American counterparts can deploy their officers in Canada again.

89 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Oct/17/22 6:19:54 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 6:20 p.m.)

30 words