SoVote

Feb/17/22 3:13:43 p.m.
Watch

I am afraid that is all time we have for today. I know this week has been very difficult, very emotional and very heated, and I want to thank members for today because it was very nice to see everyone being respectful.

42 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/17/22 3:14:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Northwest Territories, but I have even greater respect for our employees, the interpreters. Today, the Board of Internal Economy ruled on the issue of members who speak in the House without using a microphone that is appropriate for the interpreters. We know that injuries are occurring when members, either in committee or in the House, are not equipped with a good microphone. We are prohibited from speaking when naked. Similarly, we should not ask a question without using equipment that protects our employees, the interpreters.

98 words

The Speaker

Feb/17/22 3:15:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is absolutely right. When members rise to speak in the House or from their homes, they must use the equipment approved by the House. The member for Northwest Territories worked with our technicians to get a microphone that works for him. It is important to give members who are not wearing a headset some consideration and hope that they have worked with our technicians to ensure that their microphone is working, which is what the member for Northwest Territories did. If the interpretation is not working or if there are any sound issues, that is something to be dealt with immediately. I do not know if we need to release the name of everyone who has worked with our technicians. All members who speak virtually must ensure that the equipment they use is approved by the House. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

152 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

Feb/17/22 3:16:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Whereas there is an urgent humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, that this House call on the government to proceed with due diligence for the Canadian non-governmental organizations operating in Afghanistan and assure them that they will not be prosecuted even though a terrorist organization is leading the Afghan government, and that the NGOs' operations will not jeopardize their charitable status, and to allow the humanitarian and civil society organizations to conduct their co-operative and humanitarian assistance work in the areas most at risk.

105 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Feb/17/22 3:17:05 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/17/22 3:17:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP rose on a point of order, and we are certainly sympathetic to the member for Yukon. However, the easiest way we can resolve the situation with interpreters is to get back to normal Parliament so that we are all here. The debate we are having in this place, whether we agree or not with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, is probably and arguably one of the most important debates we are going to have in a generation, or at least my generation. As the eyes of the nation are upon us, I ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be.

114 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 3:18:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that Tuesday, March 1, will be an allotted day. To what the hon. House leader for the Conservatives said, I completely agree with him. This is an exceptionally important debate, and all House leaders from all parties have had an incredibly productive discussion. I want to thank them for their collaboration and for working together to get on the same page, because while we may disagree in the final vote, it is essential that we agree on the process that we utilize and it is essential that Parliament have a fulsome debate. It is why I am pleased that we have reached an agreement for this debate to occur over the next five days, with debate continuing today until midnight. I will move a motion to put this into action in a moment with unanimous consent. It would see us going tonight until midnight, Friday from 7 a.m. to midnight, Saturday and Sunday from 7 a.m. to midnight, and Monday from 7 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., with a vote at 8 p.m. I will now seek unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) on Thursday, February 17, 2022, Orders of the Day shall be extended beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the motion for confirmation of the declaration of emergency standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Public Safety, and when no Member rises to speak or at 11:59 p.m., whichever is earlier, the House shall stand adjourned until the next day; (b) on Friday, February 18, 2022, the House shall proceed with the ordinary daily program, provided that it meet at 7 a.m. and sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the aforementioned motion, and when no Member rises to speak or at 11:59 p.m., whichever is earlier, it shall stand adjourned until the next day; (c) on Saturday, February 19, 2022, and Sunday February 20, 2022, the House shall convene at 7 a.m. for the sole purpose of considering the aforementioned motion and when no Member rises to speak or at 11:59 p.m., whichever is earlier, it shall stand adjourned until the next day; (d) on Monday, February 21, 2022, (i) the House shall proceed with the ordinary daily program, provided that it meet at 7 a.m. and that it sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the aforementioned motion, (ii) if no Member rises to speak on the motion at any time before Statements by Members, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be put and if a recorded division is requested it be deferred to 7:30 p.m. that day and the sitting then be suspended until the time provided for Statements by Members and be suspended again after routine proceedings until 7:30 p.m., (iii) if no Member rises to speak on the motion at any time after routine proceedings, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be put and if a recorded division is requested it be deferred to 7:30 p.m. that day and the sitting then be suspended until 7:30 p.m., (iv) at 7:30 p.m., if not previously disposed of, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be put and if a recorded division is requested it shall not be deferred; (e) if, during the sittings of February 18, 19 and 20, the Speaker receives notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties that they are satisfied no further member wishes to speak on the motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be put and if a recorded division is requested it be deferred to Monday, February 21, 2022, at 7:30 p.m., and that the House stand adjourned until this time; (f) during the sittings of February 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, (i) the Speaker shall not receive any dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request, (ii) the House may be adjourned before the aforementioned times pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown, (iii) the application of Standing Orders 26, 38 and 52 be suspended, the sittings of February 19, 20 and 21 not be counted for the purposes of Standing Orders 34(1), 36(8)(b), 39(5)(b), 51(1), 81(10)(c), 92 and 91.1, Private Members' Business shall not be taken up, and provided that any response to petitions and questions on Order Paper otherwise due on those days shall be tabled at the sitting of the house on February 28, 2022. (iv) no motion be allowed to be moved during routine proceedings, except by unanimous consent; (g) notices laid on the table, or filed with the clerk for publication between the hours of 6 p.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2022, and 6 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, 2022, only be printed for the Notice Paper of Monday, February 28, 2022; (h) when proceedings are completed on the motion for confirmation of the declaration of emergency, the House stand adjourned until Monday, February 28, 2022, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

936 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Feb/17/22 3:25:26 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. minister's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed to. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

38 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 3:26:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre. I rise today with some humility. I rise to speak not on behalf of a political party, because I firmly belief this issue cannot be partisan today. I rise not as a representative of a particular community, because I do not think it is a regional issue that we are discussing today. I rise today, in all sincerity, as a member of Parliament, as a member of this chamber, the House of Commons, committed to serving the public, to serving all Canadians in a genuine effort to do what is best for our country. At this stage, I firmly believe that the only way to resolve the present threat that is facing this country is to declare a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. I want to start by talking about the charter. Let me state at the outset that the right to freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is entrenched in section 2(b) of the charter for a reason: because it is the hallmark of our democracy, and indeed of any democracy. It is the ability for citizens to voice their discontent, to challenge authority and to seek change. I do not deny any of this. To the contrary, I vigorously defend it. I also do not deny that the people gathered outside this very chamber right now, who have been on the streets of Ottawa for what is now 21 days, have legitimate grievances; criticisms of my government, of my party; perhaps even of me personally, which they have every right to air. However, in our democracy, freedom of expression, while sacrosanct, is not absolute. This charter protection under section 2(b) extends toward lawful, peaceful protest; the charter does not protect illegal, violent blockades. It is the latter, unfortunately, that this protest has devolved into. I want to reference Ottawa. How do I substantiate this assertion I just made? I substantiate it with the evidence I gathered with my own eyes and from the accounts of other parliamentarians that have been shared with me. Far from seeing people exercising their constitutional rights to disagree vigorously with the government, we have instead seen intimidation, threats and harassment. We have seen deliberate nuisances being created by truck horns blowing at all hours of the day and night, rendering the city effectively uninhabitable for local residents. We have seen open displays of hatred, such as swastikas and Confederate flags, and acts of direct hatred when windows are smashed on coffee shops that dare to fly the pride flag. We have seen the desecration of national monuments, including our national war memorial. We have seen deliberate efforts to block the movement of people and goods by people intentionally disabling large vehicles and trucks by activating their air brakes or actually removing the tires from their vehicles. We have seen death threats follow toward an Ottawa tow trucking company accused of being complicit with police efforts to remove such disabled vehicles. We have seen the shuttering of businesses in the entire downtown core, impeding residents' ability to work. It is puzzling, to say the least, to see protesters who claim to eschew lockdowns themselves causing Ottawa's downtown to enter into a lockdown for a period of now three weeks. We have seen intimidation and threats toward the media, again ironic for those who would be more ardent defenders of freedom of expression than even I am, in terms of what I have articulated. We have seen the active sabotage of 9-1-1 emergency call lines and even an attempted arson. The protest ostensibly began over vaccine mandates. It has morphed into what resembles an occupation of the city by people who have openly declared on the public record that they are seeking to overthrow the government. That constitutes a complete breakdown of public order in Ottawa. Despite efforts from the Ottawa Police Service, law and order in the nation's capital have been impossible to maintain. The evidence that I am outlining here extends beyond the nation's capital. Members have heard references to the borders. I want to address this now. What commenced as a protest targeting this city and this Parliament has emerged as a concerted effort to block our national border crossings and impede the flow of people and goods. In Texas and Florida and in other parts of the United States and indeed in other nations, foreign entities openly and publicly have declared their sympathy with the blockades and admitted to sending money and resources to help the blockades continue. Today the Anti-Defamation League showed a result of their analysis of the GiveSendGo website; it found 1,100 people in the United States who supported the January 6 insurrection last year actually donated money under GiveSendGo to these blockades. Just let that settle in for a moment, in terms of what the motivations are for such types of people. The blockades that have emerged around the country are deliberately targeting critical infrastructure. We know about what happened at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and Detroit. The multi-day siege on Canada's busiest border crossing alone, and I am now wearing my hat as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, resulted in the suspension of nearly $400 million in daily trade between Canada and the United States, the cancellation of shifts at multiple auto plants in southern Ontario and an intervention by President Biden and the Governor of Michigan showing that confidence in Canada as a safe place to invest, do business and trade with is starting to erode. Blockades have occurred in Surrey, Emerson and Coutts, Alberta. What should be startlingly alarming for every person in this chamber and every Canadian watching right now is that when members of the RCMP went to clear the Coutts border crossing, they made 13 arrests, including laying charges for conspiracy to commit murder. They found firearms, ammunition and body armour. That bore out certainly my worst fears, and I think all of our worst fears, that blockade protesters were armed and preparing for violent confrontation with law enforcement. The violence is continuing to ratchet up. We have had bomb threats at a Vancouver hospital as well as suspicious packages and language about hanging members of Parliament being sent to colleagues of mine from Nova Scotia. I am laying this all out in such excruciating detail because there is a legal test that must be met when we are doing something that has not ever been done under this legislation or even in this country under antecedent legislation in 52 years. The test is high, as it should be, when we are considering a statute that temporarily permits the suspension of civil liberties. What is the test? It is entrenched in section 3 of the Emergencies Act, which states: a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It is my fundamental belief that this high legal threshold has been met in this case. When we have a blockade laying siege to an entire city for 21 days and counting, intimidating, harassing and threatening locals and rendering a city uninhabitable, it is endangering the safety of Canadians. When those blockades limit the ability of medical first responders to respond quickly to emergencies, they are endangering the lives of those on the other end of those 911 calls. When factions armed with weapons and ammunition are blockading borders, they are directly endangering the lives of Canadians. When groups are deliberately blocking trade corridors with our single largest trading partner, grinding our border traffic to a halt, they are threatening the ability of the federal government to preserve our sovereignty and economic security. These are important. In the last two minutes, I want to address some of the general objections we have heard, not just today but prior to this. To those who say there is an overreach here, I say there are five checks that are important. First, everything done by a government under the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter. That is entrenched in the preamble. Second, all declarations are time-limited to 30 days and no more. In fact, it may be less, and hopefully it will be less in this context. Third, the very act of declaring an emergency under the declaration must be reviewed by a committee of all members of Parliament and senators from all parties. Fourth, the exercise of powers under the declaration must be reviewed by that committee. Fifth, following the end of an emergency, a full inquiry must be held. What we are doing is not a power grab and it is not the invocation of the War Measures Act; we are simply giving the RCMP the power to enforce local laws and work quickly with local law enforcement. We are not calling in the armed forces. We are not putting the RCMP or any other police force under the control of the government. Policing operational decisions remain independent, as they must in any democracy. I am going to end with the right to protest, because people have asked about their children's rights to protest. I take this very seriously, because I myself have taken my children to protests. This law talks about the right to lawful protest. It is in entrenched in black and white. The measures we are contemplating would address or prohibit public assembly that is a threat leading to a breach of the peace; we are specifically carving out the right of lawful advocacy, protest and dissent. I would say this to those who say the threats have been addressed: Windsor had an attempted blockade yesterday, and we know the protesters are returning to the Quebec National Assembly on February 19. I will conclude with this sincere undertaking to the members of this chamber and all Canadians: I will do everything in my power to ensure that this act lasts for only as long as is absolutely necessary; I will do everything in my power to ensure that there is no overbreadth; I will do everything in my power to ensure that charter rights are always fundamentally protected. All members of Parliament should strive for nothing less.

1771 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/17/22 3:36:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I remain unconvinced by the member's argument, and I recognize the fact that he was a lawyer by profession before he came to this place. I was not a lawyer, thankfully, in my previous life, but the member, during his speech, said that there must be a very high threshold to suspend civil liberties. I would say let us not use American language, and call them charter liberties or charter freedoms. Let us Canadianize it. He said there should be an explicitly high threshold before we suspend charter liberties, but that is the opposite of what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said that is actually not going on, and this has happened repeatedly in the last 72 hours. Cabinet ministers say one thing, and then they are contradicted by the Prime Minister. People in my riding, back in Calgary, have very little faith in the government's handling of the situation. Can the member clarify what he just said? We are not suspending charter liberties. We are not going after people without some type of recourse to the law. Is he going to ensure the Prime Minister stays on message and stops jacking up and ratcheting up the rhetoric, as people are trying to clear protesters outside this building?

214 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/17/22 3:37:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear, as the member for Calgary Shepard has read the material, as I hope everyone who is participating in this debate has read the material, that it talks about certain regulations, certain powers and certain prohibitions. One of the prohibitions is on assemblies that would lead to a breach of the peace, but what is important, and what the Prime Minister and every cabinet minister has said, is that everything that is undertaken under this emergency declaration must be done in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks about charter liberties. It also talks about limitations on such liberties that are saved under section 1. That is the important facet all Canadians must recognize, and that is the important facet under which we will operate as a government. That is what all parliamentarians must operate under, because the charter and those fundamental rights are sacrosanct in our democracy.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/17/22 3:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, the City of Ottawa asked for help. It asked for 1,800 extra police officers. The department sent 275 police officers, most of whom are deployed around Parliament, mainly around ministers and the Prime Minister. It appears that there are only 20 extra police officers on the street right now, out of the 1,800 who were requested. My question is, if the request from the Ottawa police had been met, is it possible that we would be in a different situation?

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/17/22 3:38:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into hypothetical situations or backtrack. However, what I do want to point out is that the City of Ottawa and the Government of Ontario have declared a state of emergency. Both levels of government were unable to resolve the situation here, in Windsor or anywhere else. The third and final step is to use the Emergencies Act, if it would help, to resolve the situation. This is a serious situation, and it requires serious action.

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/17/22 3:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Parkdale—High Park was effective in talking about the impacts on people's lives from what has happened over the last few weeks. Many people, thousands of Canadians, have lost their jobs, at least temporarily. We have seen businesses closed. In Ottawa, they have been going through hell. There is no other way to put it. As members know, there are impacts of the toxic fumes; the impacts of the extraordinarily loud industrial levels of noise, which have caused permanent hearing loss; and the assaults and disrespect that so many of the residents of Ottawa have experienced first-hand. There is no doubt there is a compelling reason. The reality is that we could have well avoided all of this, if the government had acted more promptly. I would like to direct the member for Parkdale—High Park specifically to the issues around the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations that were put into place with huge loopholes, which the NDP, for years, has called upon the government to fix. Canada is known as the snow-washing capital of the world, because of money laundering and all these problems. Why did the government not move years ago to fix those loopholes, so this financing of what transpires in Ottawa could not have occurred in the first place?

227 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/17/22 3:40:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is address the situation that has really seized the city and seized this nation. As opposed to turning back the clock and engaging in what-ifs or hypotheticals about what could have been done previously, we are quite directly, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance addressed this in question period, addressing lacunae in financial tracking legislation right now, as that is one of the economic measures contained in this declaration. It allows us to address who is funding, including foreign sources, this particular illegal blockade and make sure it is brought to an end.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 3:41:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am disheartened to have to give these remarks today. I am saddened by the events that continue outside the doors of this building, which have continued for the last three weeks, and by the blockades that have closed borders across the country. Let us be clear. This is no longer a protest. It is an occupation that advocated to overthrow a democratically elected government. On Monday, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice, Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Minister of Public Safety announced that our government was invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision that I support. This is a situation I do not think any of us wanted to get to. However, the defiance of those who continue to occupy the streets of Ottawa and attempt to block our border crossings needs to end. These individuals need to go home. There is a shocking amount of misinformation and plain lies being spread about the occupation, public health measures and the Emergencies Act, and some have been supported and echoed by members in the chamber. To begin, I think we should start by clarifying a few important points. Let us be clear on what the Emergencies Act is, and this is for those on the other side of the aisle who are provoking fear, spreading misinformation and encouraging conspiracy theories that legitimately concern Canadians who want to understand what is going on in their country. This is dangerous and harmful. I encourage those who have been supportive of this movement to think long and hard about the long-term consequences of their actions and words in support of the occupation. These are temporary, proportionate and targeted measures. I will repeat that. These are temporary, proportionate and targeted. The act was invoked to supplement provincial and territorial authorities, address the blockades and the occupation, ensure the safety of Canadians, protect people's jobs, and restore confidence in our institutions. Our government enacted this act after local and provincial efforts were unsuccessful in resolving the situation. The Emergencies Act provides law enforcement new authorities to prohibit blockades, ensure our essential corridors remain open and regulate crowds. It allows the government to mobilize essential services such as tow trucks, and it gives the RCMP the ability to act quickly to enforce local laws. This act will also provide more power to stop the flow of money. The scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules are being broadened. They will cover crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers, as well as those using digital assets such as cryptocurrencies. In situations where there is suspicion of an account being involved to further the occupation or illegal blockades, Canadian financial institutions now have immediate authority to temporarily seize providing financial services. Corporate accounts can and will be frozen for those participating in the blockades. They are also at risk of having their vehicle insurance revoked. I have seen a significant amount of misinformation about the powers granted under the act. Let us clarify a few things that the Emergencies Act does not do. The Emergencies Act is limited in scope compared to the War Measures Act of the past. The act does not involve the military. For the military to be involved, the National Defence Act would need to be invoked. This has not happened. I think we also need to make very clear that no individual's charter rights are being violated. In fact, the Emergencies Act must be compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The specific measures provided in this act are limited. Parliament provides many checks, safeguards and transparency. This is the reason we are here today debating. We are going through this process of checks and balances. I would like to pivot now to the impact of the occupation and the blockades on the lives of everyday Canadians. For those taking part in this illegal occupation in Ottawa, many seem to be enjoying themselves. There are pancake breakfasts, hot tubs, dance parties in the street and bouncy castles. Contrary to the narrative being driven by supporters, though, this has not been a peaceful experience for residents, businesses and employees in Ottawa. Honking continued most of the day yesterday and early this morning, despite a 60-day extension of an injunction requiring by law that it stop. On top of that constant honking, there have been drums beating, loud fireworks and music at all hours of the night. The health consequences of this constant bombardment of noise is not exclusive to residents. Occupiers are doing considerable damage to their own health and the health of the children they have brought with them, whether it is from the loud air horns or constant cloud of diesel fuel lingering on the streets from idling trucks. It has been a very frustrating time for the residents of Ottawa, especially those who live and work in affected areas. Residents complain of being harassed for wearing a mask, and of being accosted with racial and anti-Semitic slurs. Employees and businesses do not feel it is safe to keep their businesses open. Real peoples' lives are being impacted by a loud minority in very real and significant ways. The lack of empathy toward the residents and businesses in Ottawa is shocking and unacceptable. Thousands of people have been out of work in Ottawa. The Rideau Centre alone employs 1,500 individuals, and it has been closed for weeks. A woman who lives in my building here in Ottawa has been working from home due to the pandemic. She told me that she had to leave the city to go to her parents' home in Toronto in order to work and get some rest because she does not feel safe. Not only has the constant noise disrupted her sleep, but it has also prevented her from working during the day. Vaccine clinics, libraries and other important community resources have been shut down in the downtown core for weeks due to safety concerns. These resources are relied upon by many residents and many vulnerable residents in downtown Ottawa. The people of Ottawa are not strangers to protests. However, they know the right to protest comes with limits. Those limits stop when protesters are causing harm to the people around them. I have heard from staffers and employees on the Hill that they have been taunted and yelled at for simply wearing a mask. Many of the occupiers show disregard for public measures by going into restaurants and places of business without masks, thereby putting those who work there at risk. This week at the airport on my way home to B.C., I met a woman whose husband is a truck driver. He was not able to work for days because he could not cross the border due to blockades. She urged me to get the borders open so her husband could continue to work and provide food for their family. The week before, I received dozens of calls from trucking companies and families of drivers stuck on the other side of the border in Coutts and could not get back. They are the people who are making sure that there is food on our tables and that supply chains remain open. While the borders are back open again now, the blockades have taken a serious economic toll on our communities. These individuals blocking critical infrastructure, and their supporters, claim to want to ensure that groceries shelves stay full and our trade routes keep running smoothly. However, their actions have led to serious disruptions in our supply chains, including putting people out of work in the auto industry because of plant closure. They have caused the exact thing that they claim to want to protect our country from. This blockade has damaged trade relations with our most important trading partner, the United States of America. Around 73% of our exports go to the United States and billions of dollars in imports come from our neighbours to the south annually. Truckers were stuck on the other side of the Coutts border crossing for days and were forced to drive for hours to get through a different crossing. The blockade at the Coutts border cut off a vital trade route for agriculture and other goods, and cost our economy hundreds of millions of dollars. Jobs in Manitoba were at stake, because of the Emerson, Manitoba, crossing. Here, too, traffic was forced to divert to other crossings increasing travel time, creating chaos for truckers and other travellers. Windsor also experienced days of blockades at one of Canada's most important routes over the Ambassador Bridge. This bridge alone is responsible for 30% of trade going back and forth between Canada and the U.S. That is $390 million in trade per day. Around 40,000 commuters, truckers and others cross that bridge daily. In my own community, truckers and others trying to cross the Surrey border crossing were harassed by individuals blocking the border. There were reports of demonstrators driving on the wrong side of the road, a dangerous and reckless behaviour that endangers the lives of others. The Surrey crossing is home to hundreds of millions of dollars in trade back and forth. Organizations are speaking out, like the Surrey Board of Trade. The impact of these blockades is choking us and has already impacted supply chains, businesses and jobs. This is unacceptable sabotage to the economy. To be clear, everyone has a right to peaceful protest, but these type of demonstrations are impacting businesses and livelihoods. This is not a movement for the people. These are not peaceful demonstrations. Those who remain are unlawful, destructive and are looking to defy the law and abuse their fellow citizens. It has done a great deal of harm and it must end now. The pandemic has been a challenging time for everyone, and if people are still in Ottawa, I encourage them to leave now and allow residents to get back to their lives.

1677 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/17/22 3:51:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at length about the negative aspects of what is occurring in Ottawa. Unfortunately, the act we are debating today is not based only on the negative aspects. It has a critical threshold. He talked about what people and businesses have experienced. We need to put all that aside and focus on what can be done about this. People can be arrested and vehicles can be seized without a warrant or incidental to arrest. Given that those tools already exist in another act and this act says it is an act of last resort that cannot be satisfied by any other legislation, how can his party support it when we can get rid of those vehicles under existing legislation and every negative impact he said would disappear?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/17/22 3:52:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, central infrastructure and our Parliament buildings were put at risk. Ontario declared a state of emergency and, despite that, was not able to clear these occupiers from the streets of Ottawa. The city was not able to do it on its own. Tow truck companies have said they have received death threats, so they will not tow. That is why there is a time, a place and a need for such legislation.

74 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/17/22 3:53:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is happening right now is complicated and a source of anxiety for many. I am talking not only about the blockade, but also about the Emergencies Act. All the hot spots, except Ottawa, have been dismantled without implementing emergency measures. Why invoke them now? Ottawa is the only one left. If someone threatens someone else, the Criminal Code applies. If someone has an unlicensed weapon, the Criminal Code applies. The Criminal Code already covers everything the government wants to accomplish with the Emergencies Act.

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/17/22 3:54:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, without this legislation there has been chaos. In fact, the day this was invoked, just before midnight the Surrey border crossing was cleared. Fortunately, this does not take away the powers and laws already in place. This supplements them. It gives extra powers and tools on top of those we already have. This is territory-specific, so when we have an issue, we can invoke it and use it on one area. It is not universal to places that do not have the disruptions.

90 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33