So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 36 - Feb/21/22

Feb/28/22 2:50:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Coutts, Emerson and Windsor borders were cleared before the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act. It was not required for demonstrators to leave Ottawa either. Security and financial experts say there were no real threats to Canada and no suspicious financial activity. A lawyer who actually helped draft the act said it was unnecessary, that the burden of proof was not convincingly met and that there was “no evidence” of a threat to the security of Canada. What changed between the Prime Minister supporting it on Monday night and revoking it on Wednesday?

98 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 2:42:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a financial crime expert says the Emergencies Act is a “serious [deviation] from the normal democratic processes”. A U of T finance professor says, “Banks may be inclined to overreact...to avoid running afoul of the government”. Security and finance experts say there are no suspicious activities or credible threats with protest-related donations. There is no evidence, court order or due process and no limits on what direct or indirect participation means. It is already happening to my constituents, so when will frozen bank accounts be up and running again?

97 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:09:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am here on behalf of the people of Lakeland whose bank accounts have already been frozen, who are worried about the impacts on their ability to attend public events with their children, who are not sure if they are going to be targeted, shut down and pursued by a government with which they simply ideologically and politically disagree. What I am opposed to in the House of Commons is the Prime Minister's unprecedented, unnecessary and draconian invocation of the Emergencies Act, and that is what I will vote against.

93 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:07:41 p.m.
Watch

No, Madam Speaker. This is about a fundamental principle of the ability of citizens to express themselves and not have the government take extreme and unprecedented action, which is invasive in all parts of their lives, for which tools already exist. That is what we are debating here today with the Emergencies Act. When it comes to threatening people's lives, assaulting or criminal activities, of course, I am sure that colleagues, if they are dealing with me in good faith in this House, know that I would be among the first to say we should throw the book at them, charge them, take them to jail and increase penalties. What we are debating is a government doing something that has never been done before, where the consequences are wide-ranging and severe on issues that provinces and law enforcement have shown repeatedly they can take care of and manage themselves.

151 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:06:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is precisely an example of the name-calling, of the extremist and inflammatory frothing at the mouth, of words being put into a person's mouth, of painting with one big broad brush and twisting the points a person has made, that has driven hundreds of thousands of Canadians to feel ignored, abandoned, insulted and attacked by elected representatives, by the Prime Minister and by the government. Frankly, the member should be ashamed of himself.

78 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 4:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians came through each of these tests, all of them emergencies, many involving deaths, injuries, significant and expensive property damage and major economic impacts, without the legislation that is designed only for crises where there are no other options, which we debate with heavy hearts today. Canadians always unite to defend our safety and security without violating the rights and civil liberties so many of our relatives fought and died for, which define us as a country and are the bedrock of our peaceful, free democracy. Canada has been a beacon to the rest of the world for our respect of enshrined rights, like free expression and peaceful assembly, and for a commitment to protect and defend them in the face of threats and emergencies. We look back on times when that balance was tipped with shame and apologies. That beacon's light has dimmed during the last six years. Today, it is nearly extinguished by the actions of the Prime Minister. He is setting a dangerous and unwarranted precedent, evocative of the response of authoritarian regimes to dissent, protest and opposition. The Prime Minister created this crisis from beginning to end. He called the marginalized 10% of Canadians who have chosen, for various and private reasons, to not be vaccinated “misogynist”, “racist”, “science deniers”. He said Canadians who travelled to Ottawa to demonstrate and ask for an end to government mandates and lockdowns are conspiracy theorists who hold unacceptable views. His actions imply that they are terrorists. Terrorism, by the way, must involved bombings, shootings and kidnappings, as legally defined, none of which have happened in Ottawa in the past three weeks. Of all these fellow Canadians, he actually bemoaned that they take up space and asked, “Do we tolerate these people?” Let me say that I hope there is room for every Canadian to exist, to take up space, no matter their views on vaccines or any government policy, whether I agree with them or not. Whatever happened to respect, tolerance and diversity to resisting the tyranny of the majority? It is chilling to think a prime minister would wedge, divide and stigmatize his fellow Canadians for his personal partisan purposes, but so he has done. More than a few people from Lakeland have pointed out that it sure went from a fringe minority to an emergency in a hurry. It would almost be amusing if it weren't so grave. Let us remember what is going on here. Three years in, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and untold government-caused harm to families, businesses, mental health, kids' learning progress, jobs, relationships, travel. After so much isolation, fear, stress, confusion and restrictions, for which there was inconsistent or no evidence of efficacy, the Liberal government refused to do what many developed countries and most provinces are doing already, which is to end the increasingly pointless mandates. Conservatives simply asked for a plan to do so two weeks ago, and the Liberals said no. The Prime Minister attacked and then refused to meet or hear from Canadians with whom he disagrees, and he has imposed his heavy-handed will despite the strong opposition of seven provinces. The Emergencies Act was never designed nor intended to be used to limit the rights of Canadians who express opposition to government measures. I confess that I do have trouble seeing how parked trucks, bouncy castles, a big daily barbeque, ball hockey, Canadian flags, singing and donations for the homeless in front of Parliament meet these criteria. The Emergencies Act requires threats to the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada, including serious violence against persons or property and impediments to democracy are a “urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces or territories”. Does this all add up? Well, the short answer is no. First, provincial governments and law enforcement has already used and can continue to use existing measures and tools to disperse protests and clear borders in B.C., Manitoba, Quebec, the Windsor-Detroit bridge in Ontario, and in Alberta, where a group with firearms were disavowed by demonstrators and the mayor confirm was not connected with them. This was all done through negotiation with law enforcement and, frankly, with common Canadian decency, all before the Emergencies Act was invoked. Second, we MPs have been coming right here to do our jobs in the literal seats of Canadian democracy every day for the last three weeks, except for the Friday after the Emergencies Act was imposed. Third, the recent clearing of protesters from Ottawa on charges such as mischief used existing laws, while even the lawyer who secured the injunction against honking, with which truckers complied, is against the Emergencies Act. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association puts a fine point on it. It said: This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: [It] allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes.... Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties. The CCLA has taken the government to court over it. The impacts of the Emergencies Act are wide-ranging and severe, and violate fundamental Canadian values. Regulations stipulate that kids who have been hanging out happily, as if they were at a carnival, will not be allowed within 500 metres of their parents or guardians if they are involved in protests. The Liberals evidently believe separating children from families or guardians is legitimate. Anyone who does not agree can get a $5,000 fine or five years in prison while Canada is under the Emergencies Act. The same penalties will apply to anyone who participates directly or who brings aid, such as food or fuel. As someone of Ojibway descent, I thought by now we had agreed in Canada that it is morally repugnant and wrong for the government to separate children from their parents or guardians unless the adults are harming them. How callous of the Liberals to be prepared to ensure those Canadians are deprived of food and fuel. Apparently, pets are targeted as well. The Emergencies Act enables the freezing of the personal and business bank accounts of anyone directly or indirectly linked to the protests without a court order or due process. The rules will cover cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms also. It is already happening to my constituents. One guy who never came to Ottawa or donated 25 bucks. Another woman's business account was shut down. She said that it is “devastating” and describes, “We can't pay our employees or our bills. How will people live? We had no part...sent no money.... Our bank does not know when it will be up and running again”. So much for localized, targeted action. Meanwhile, security and military experts actually say that there are no suspicious activities or credible threats identified with any of the protest-related financial transactions, and the only rationale the government has shown are assertions from the CBC. That is truly shocking. The Emergencies Act is already violating rights to mobility, association and assembly. Big fences are already keeping Canadians away from here, a building that is theirs, grounds that are theirs. It is the people's place, the very place of all where they ought to be able to express their views on government policies and law. Gatherings around legislative buildings and national monuments, public assembly near critical infrastructure, official residences, government buildings and war monuments, other than lawful advocacy protests or dissent, much of which has now been criminalized retroactively, are banned. Canadians cheering all of this on must really consider how they would view these measures if the cause was one they liked and if the government was one they did not. If their perspective changes, the unjust moral implications are blindingly clear. Much has been said of the Conservatives and law and order. Let me explain my view. I believe in the rule of law and in freedom, so I am for individual rights, limited government, personal responsibility and social co-operation. I am against squashing dissent; authoritarian policies; tyranny, even if it is popular; and using police to achieve these ends. The CCLA stated, “Protest is how people in a democracy express and share their political messages.... Many protests are disruptive. It is possible for a gathering to be both disruptive and also peaceful and nonviolent. Disruptive protest while often unlawful...can be the most effective way of raising awareness.” Through history, countless wrongs have been lawful and justified by governments and citizens. Basic rights and freedoms have been illegal. The side in favour of the invasive, unforgiving, unyielding power of the state and against the sovereignty and freedom of individuals over themselves and their lives that is never right. One day we will be judged for this and the Conservatives will be on the right side. I hope every MP will be as well.

1532 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 32 - Feb/16/22

Feb/20/22 4:54:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. Today, I must oppose the Prime Minister's unjustified and draconian invocation of the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada. Like so many watching from home in Lakeland, I am struggling with the events of the last two days. Seared in my mind are images of fellow Canadians literally and metaphorically trampled, pushed back, struck down, driven out and away by the might, scope and scale of the unrestrained power of the state. Like many colleagues here, I have lived, worked and walked in the downtown Ottawa core for the past three weeks, and my truth is this: The most violence, obstruction and tension I have witnessed started on Friday. My constituents are asking what is going on here and how the heck did it all come to this? Canadians have faced emergencies and threats; plane bombings; lengthy armed standoffs; threats of terrorist attacks; 9/11; massive riots; critical infrastructure and mine bombings; prolonged biker gang wars; year-long housing development occupations; mass shootings; churches deliberately burned to the ground over several months; blockades on rail lines, ports, bridges and highways, some which lasted for more than a month; flooding; droughts; wildfires; and even the possibility of foreign invasion. Canadians came through each of these tests—

223 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 28 - Feb/10/22

Feb/16/22 2:57:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Canadians are united because they want an end to mandates and lockdowns, but the Prime Minister said they are “racists” and “misogynists”, a fringe who take up space, and he said they shouldn't be tolerated. Security experts say that the Emergencies Act is “absolutely unprecedented” and excessive overreach, and half the provinces oppose it. This PM's pattern is failure and top-down division. He has gone from name calling to nukes. Is this not really about the Prime Minister taking a sledgehammer to Canadians that he thinks are unacceptable?

102 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 6 - Nov/29/21

Feb/10/22 4:17:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alberta for his very typical thoughtful and comprehensive comments. Certainly, the people we represent are no strangers to being attacked and dismissed by the government, as they have been for at least the six years we have been here. After the past two years of government restrictions and rules, I think it is clear that Canadians right across the country, including small business owners, kids, families and entrepreneurs, are suffering. They are losing their livelihoods and relationships. There are increased mental health struggles and there is substance abuse. People are going to extraordinary lengths to fight for values like freedom, unity and the ability to work and make decisions about their lives, family and privacy. Of course, 90% of Canadians are vaccinated, and the provinces and other countries are showing a clear path forward. Why does the member think the government and the Prime Minister choose the path of division, insults and degradation, instead of meeting with leaders to come up with a plan forward to end restrictions, end mandates and end lockdowns, which will end the protests?

188 words