- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Banff—Airdrie
- Alberta
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $145,439.36
- Government Page
- Feb/19/22 7:29:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of things the hon. member listed are of concern. They are of great concern and they need to be dealt with. However, there is a very high bar for using the Emergencies Act and it certainly has not been met. We are not talking about threats to the sovereignty of the country and we are not talking about foreign invasions, things that would ordinarily be requirements for this.
The hon. member mentioned one thing that I want to touch on briefly: foreign funding. There has been a lot of talk about foreign funding, and I have raised this many times in Parliament and in committees. The fact is that many times it is used to try to block critical infrastructure in this country, like pipelines. Where was—
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:27:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very fair statement. We all want to see extremes avoided. Certainly, I want to make it very clear that nobody condones illegal activity when it is taking place. With regard to the folks who are engaged in it, action needs to be taken to ensure that it is not being allowed to happen.
At the same time, the invocation of the Emergencies Act does not have a justification. Talk about an extreme. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a very extreme measure to take, and I have not seen a shred of anything that would show me a justification for invoking it. For the government to give itself the ability to seize bank accounts—
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us talk about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Prime Minister's statements in 2020 compared with his statements now. They are very similar types of situations. Blockades were happening that were going on for weeks. They were across the country and were blocking critical infrastructure. These are all the arguments we are hearing today for why this act is required. The Prime Minister, at that time, said that we should “resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes”.
We offered an opportunity to the government. We could have had a constructive outcome by ending the federal mandates and restrictions in order to make sure that the many other Canadians who feel the same concerns but are not part of any kind of illegal protest could see the end of them as well. That would have been the opportunity to have a constructive outcome. This is hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is full of it.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:15:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thought that we lived in a democracy in Canada, but in a democracy, the government cannot suspend people's rights, freeze people's assets or seize their bank accounts just because they disagree with them. That is what we are seeing today. That is what we are seeing with the application of the Emergencies Act.
That is why, when we vote on this on Monday night, I will be opposing this completely unwarranted infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and I will do so for three reasons.
The first is the government failed to understand why this is happening. The second is the government failed to know what to do about it. The third is, most importantly, the government has absolutely failed to provide any legitimate justification for this unprecedented overreach.
I will start with the last reason, because we need to talk about what is required to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. Using the Emergencies Act demands a true threat to national security, such as the threat of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective, or the overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
We have the government arguing to invoke legislation that is designed for things like a foreign invasion, a civil war or a terrorist attack. I ask, is this a civil war? Is it a terrorist attack? Is it a foreign invasion? It would be very difficult for anyone to argue that it is any of those things.
It is also required under the act that something needs to seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. Notice the importance of the word “and”. It would require that all of those things, the sovereignty of this country, its security and its territorial integrity, to be threatened, and the Government of Canada to feel that its ability to preserve those things would be impossible without its use.
Can it really be argued that our territorial integrity and sovereignty as a country are at risk here? Again, we are not talking about a foreign invasion or a terrorist attack. We are talking about illegal acts that are happening. People are blocking streets and roadways, and that is clearly illegal. It needs to end, but it does not constitute the need for the use of the Emergencies Act.
One of the things we can do to look at the reasons why this is not justified is to look at some of the other examples of situations where this act has not been warranted and has not been applied. I have heard lots of talk about disruption of daily life in Ottawa. I have heard lots of talk about potential threats of violence. That has been littered throughout a lot of the speeches that we have from Liberal and NDP members to try to justify their voting for the use of this act.
If we use that as the barometer, think about the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto. In that instance, we had 10,000 protesters. We had police cars that were flipped over and set on fire. We had millions of dollars of damage to local businesses and we 97 police officers were injured. Despite all of that, the use of the Emergencies Act was not warranted. I am not arguing that it should have been. There are other ways to deal with situations like that. The Emergencies Act was not used in that situation, so the arguments that we are hearing about these disruptions of daily life and things like that are pretty flimsy.
Think about 9/11, in 2001. That is the very definition of terrorism. Air space was restricted. All flights in and out were cancelled. There was fear. I remember people saying things to me like, “Is this the beginning of the third world war?” and “Is this the end of the world as we know it?” Those were the kinds of feelings that people had at the time. I hear lots of people talking about being afraid of this situation, but it certainly does not compare with the fear that many felt then. I am not suggesting that the Emergencies Act was needed at that time either, but it tells us that it is probably not required in the situation that we are in today.
I have heard lots of arguments on the effects on the economy and critical infrastructure being blocked, things like rail lines, highways, border crossings and so on. I think the best comparison, looking at that kind of a situation, is when there were very similar types of blockades going on two years ago, pipelines and railway blockades that were going on across the country. Those went on for a few weeks at that time as well. All of those same arguments that are being made now, to justify the use of this act, could have been made had the decision been to use the Emergencies Act then. Again, I am not suggesting that it should have been used.
At that time, the Prime Minister said that we are a country that recognizes the right to protest, and we will ensure that everything is done to resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes. His aboriginal affairs minister at the time said we needed to ensure that we get to a peaceful solution that involved dialogue. I do not hear any discussion of trying to find a way to do that, to have a peaceful solution, to find dialogue. I actually believe that in this case, had there been some sort of dialogue with the folks who came with concerns to Ottawa, had there been some way to address those concerns, we probably would have seen this come to a very quick resolution. If I have time, I hope to speak to that in a moment or two.
I want to also raise an issue. There are many speeches I heard today and otherwise that claimed there is some threat to Parliament and, therefore, to our democracy. Yes, there is proximity to the Parliament. I have not seen anyone try to storm into the Parliament buildings. I have not seen any of those kinds of actions take place. They are here to make a point and, yes, there is an illegal nature to what has been going on. I absolutely make it very clear that I do not condone illegal acts, whatever the point that someone is trying to make.
It was in 2014 when Corporal Nathan Cirillo was killed at our National War Memorial by an armed attacker who then stormed our Parliament. Nobody suggested using the Emergencies Act at that time either. I am not suggesting that should have done at that time, but that was a far bigger threat to our Parliament and to our democracy than what we are seeing today.
We have a government that really fails to understand why this is all happening. It has its reasons as to why it is happening. Why it is happening is because people are sick and tired. They are frustrated. They do not see the justification for some of the things that the government is doing. We can debate all we want whether it is appropriate to engage in illegal acts. It clearly is not, in order to make that point.
There are many people in this country. Many people supported the convoys and the blockades, and they may have given $50. They are tired of lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. Is it really fair to argue that someone who had no idea that there would be any kind of illegal activity taking place should have their bank account seized or their assets frozen because they gave 50 bucks, mostly because they are just tired of COVID restrictions?
The government does not have a right to make decisions like this just because it disagrees with someone's point of view. The government failed to act on it when it could have. We gave it the an opportunity to end mandates or, at least, bring forward a plan to end all the federal mandates and restrictions. Had it done that, it would have been following in the footsteps of many provinces and many other countries. It would have been following the science and evidence, and what it shows.
The government chose not to do that. Instead, it has caused more fear and more division in this country. People are afraid. I have heard from many people who are scared because they gave maybe $50 or $100 to some of these efforts. The government is refusing to tell those people whether their bank accounts will be seized. That causes fear. That causes division, and that causes disunity. The government should be ashamed of itself for taking this step. I will be opposing it all the way.
1497 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
