SoVote

Feb/17/22 10:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this act is necessary. It is proportionate. As we have made very clear, this act does not affect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not bringing in the military. This act, as my hon. colleague knows, is not the War Measures Act. This is a new act, which is quite mellow, I can say, compared with the previous act.

64 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:56:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I speak to people here in my riding of Victoria, they want action to be taken. The use of the Emergencies Act, while some have concerns about it, makes it clear we are at an emergency state. It is an acknowledgement of the failure of leadership at all levels of government, but really of the federal government, which allowed things to escalate unchecked. One thing I have heard asked time and again is why it took weeks to deal with this issue, when there are clear links to white supremacy. There were clear concerns from the beginning. When it comes to how the RCMP and the government deal with land defenders, indigenous rights activists and environmental activists, there is a very different approach. I am curious whether the member is committed to changing this in the future. What is his government going to do to address these inequities?

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/17/22 10:57:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is right for people to have some concerns. This act is being applied for the first time, so there are some legitimate concerns. The issue of whether we should have brought this act in five days ago or two days later can be debated, but the time came when it was critical to our economic infrastructure to end this occupation by mostly foreign-funded groups. I think the government took these steps at the right time and in coordination with all other levels of government.

88 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:59:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Tonight, a lot of references have been made that we need to listen to Canadians and to our constituents, so I would like to ask the member for Nepean this. What do his constituents think of this occupation in Ottawa?

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/17/22 10:59:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the people of Nepean are so concerned. For them, it is unbelievable that a few groups of people can so blatantly flout the rule of law and misuse their freedom to the right to protest. They occupy parts of Ottawa and bring misery to families and business owners.

50 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Feb/17/22 10:59:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to stand in this chamber and address the issues that are impacting Canadians. However, I stand in this chamber tonight to speak to an issue that should make every one of the 338 members of the House take a moment to pause: the invocation of the Emergencies Act, an act passed in 1988, which was the successor to the War Measures Act. If I could, I want to talk a bit about the history and why it is so important to understand that, in the context of where we are this evening. The War Measures Act was invoked three times in the history of this country: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis, under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I find it incredibly troubling that this is the context in which we find ourselves today. Wars and murdered politicians is the context for the debate that we find ourselves in here today. The invocation of the War Measures Act was an extreme measure to deal with significant issues. I do not think there would be a member of this House who would not agree with the need for a mechanism like this to exist, because the reality is that there are instances where significant action needs to be taken. We see this Liberal Prime Minister invoking this Emergencies Act, taking and granting himself and his government unprecedented authority that includes significant things that suspend, for example, due process. The members opposite do not necessarily like to consider the precedent of the decisions that they make. The precedent is being set by the invocation of this act that it is okay to suspend due process, a fundamental aspect of a modern democracy to ensure there are not things like unreasonable search and seizure. Although the members of the government talk about the Emergencies Act being subject to the charter, there are aspects of it that are allowed to be overridden because of what the Emergencies Act allows. It is important to acknowledge those things as we enter into this debate. We see there is this seemingly flippant approach to such a serious issue, which is setting a precedent, that I would simply ask this question of the members opposite and members of the NDP who have indicated that they are going to support this: If this were former prime minister Stephen Harper who had invoked this act, would they be celebrating it? Would they be laughing in their seats? Would they be poking fun and seemingly enjoying the fact that they are taking away the right to due process and that they are suspending certain aspects of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is an important question that I hope every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the NDP considers carefully. An unprecedented step was taken three weeks after the Prime Minister did nothing but inflame tensions in what is a time that Canada, I would submit, has never been more divided. The context for this is the fact that there are and continue to be protests taking place in the streets of Ottawa. The members opposite do not like to listen to this because it is inconvenient to their narrative, but I, along with my Conservative colleagues, have condemned the blockades, illegal activities and hateful imagery associated with it. The members opposite do not like that because it disrupts the divisive narrative that their leader continues to forward. We have done that while also being the only party in this country that has been willing to actually acknowledge the fact that over the course of the last number of months there has been an unprecedented level of division that has alienated Canadians. Now that is funny. The member opposite just said that we have somehow stoked these tensions. That member, I expect, when he goes to a Liberal caucus meeting next time around, would be quick to accuse— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

670 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/17/22 11:05:29 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would like order in the House so we can listen to each other.

15 words

Mr. Larry Brock

Feb/17/22 11:05:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate that you are in the Chair, but your predecessor ruled on four occasions, on points of order, that the Liberal members of Parliament, including ministers, who continually talked over my colleagues who were speaking on this very—

47 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/17/22 11:05:59 p.m.
Watch

I have asked the hon. members to preserve order in the House. I would ask the hon. member to respect the fact that I have asked for order, and we will let the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot proceed. I will ask again if necessary.

47 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/17/22 11:07:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to the subject at hand, we have a Prime Minister that has torqued issues, dating back prior to the last election that he called, misleading Canadians time and time again. We have the fact that the Liberals have put policies forward in this country that have alienated a group of Canadians who albeit are in stark disagreement with many of the members opposite and quite frankly the vast majority, if not all members, of the House. They have torqued those tensions to segment 10% or 15% of this country and called them names that, if those labels were applied to any other subsection of society, there would have been outrage. That is the legacy of the Liberal government members. Time and time again, and we have seen it throughout the debate, they will accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing. That is what we are seeing across the aisle, time and time again. I would submit that after three weeks of doing nothing except inflaming the tensions that exist across this country, including with the protests outside and including with some of the blockades that happened across this country, the Prime Minister did nothing for three weeks. He did absolutely nothing, yet when a poll came out that said only 16% of Canadians would vote for the Prime Minister, all of a sudden he went nuclear. He took out the sledgehammer. Now he is somehow trying to justify it, when the reality is that any reasonable interpretation of the act, which has very clear guidelines for the conditions that need to be met for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, shows clearly they have not been met. We have heard a lot of that over the course of this evening. In the last couple of minutes, there are a few things I would like to touch on. We have a Canada that is divided. That is the Liberal government's Canada. It is tragic, but it is true. I hear it every day. We have a Canada that has state-sanctioned discrimination. That is the Canada under the Liberal government. We have a Canada in which I hear members opposite continually joke about the fact that there are blue-collar workers that drive trucks that are somehow the scourge of society. That is Canada under the Liberal government. It is unbelievable that we have come to this point. We need to take pause and think very carefully about the path forward. My challenge to all of those who would consider supporting the invocation or the continuation of the Emergencies Act would be this: Think about the precedent that has been set. Think about, if it was their political foe who was using similar logic under similar circumstances, would they be so quick to engage in this as their option as a path forward? Think about the labels that have been applied by their leader, and if that would be an acceptable way to lead this country. Members of the NDP, members of the Liberals, they have a choice. The highest elected office in this land is that of the member of Parliament. Many Canadians do not actually realize that. Every member of this House has the opportunity to make their voice heard. When members, on what will be a vote likely Monday evening, have their chance to cast their vote, to stand in their place, let them think long and hard about the precedent they are setting with the invocation of this act, because we can stand up for democracy in the midst of what is an incredibly challenging time for our country.

607 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/17/22 11:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot summed up the number of parties in this place, he forgot the Green Party, which he would probably like to forget, but the reality is that we are the caucus that has not yet declared how we plan to vote. I would encourage him to give me some reasons to decide to ignore the horrific language and heckling that has taken place all day from those benches and encourage me to vote with them. What specific arguments does he think he could muster that would say that this was a time for the Greens to vote with Conservatives?

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/17/22 11:11:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although the Green Party does not have official party status, it is a party that is represented in this place. My answer to my colleague would be this. Does this crisis meet the precedent that she would wish to be set, not just for the current government to invoke the Emergencies Act but for any future government to do the same? Does the context in which we are having this debate meet that criteria? This is not about voting with or against Conservatives. This is about whether or not—

92 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/17/22 11:11:52 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

8 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/17/22 11:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize to my colleague for the fact that I am going to ask him a rather easy question. It is late and we are running out of ideas. If I understand politics, it is a question of leadership, especially in times of crisis like these. During a crisis, governments need to make major decisions that affect all citizens, and they have to convince people that these decisions are the right ones. At this time, seven out of 10 provinces do not agree with the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. I will throw my colleague a softball. Is this not about a lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister?

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/17/22 11:12:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague from the Bloc. I am glad to hear that Bloc members will not be supporting this draconian measure as a response to what is a Liberal failure. This is a political crisis. This is not a national crisis that justifies the invoking of the Emergencies Act. Rather, it is a political crisis that is the consequence of a Prime Minister who has failed time and time again. He has failed for six years. He has failed over the last three or four weeks. The unfortunate reality is that we have a country that is more divided than ever. This is the consequence of failure and I am appreciative that the Bloc will not be supporting these draconian measures—

129 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/17/22 11:13:38 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Brampton North.

6 words

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 11:13:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do agree with my colleague opposite on one point, and that is feeling bad for the truckers. I feel very sorry for the truckers. I happen to represent one of the largest constituencies with many truckers. Those truckers called my office and called me directly and they were upset. They were upset because they were stuck at the Ambassador Bridge and Coutts without food and water for days on end. The same thing happened in Surrey and in Emerson. I am standing up for the truckers. I am standing up for all of the hard-working truckers that, day in and day out, are bringing in our supplies. What would the member say to all those hard-working truckers?

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Feb/17/22 11:14:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member obviously did not listen to my speech. Liberals brag about 90% of truckers being vaccinated, and that is good. I support vaccination, but the fact is that 10% are forced to lose their livelihoods because of the political decisions of a leader who has refused to acknowledge that there are disagreements. I am pleased that the member is listening to her constituents, but I would be incredibly surprised if she has not heard the alternative opinion. I certainly have, and I acknowledge that fully. I speak with those people who have differing opinions from my own because that is what this place represents. It is an absolute shame that the government is more concerned about silencing those who it disagrees with than engaging in a dialogue that could unify the country. That has to stop and the Prime Minister is dividing the country for his personal political gain. My fear is, and this is a genuine fear, that if we continue down this path, our country will be torn apart. That is the consequence of failed leadership and the member, I hope, will reflect very carefully on whether she is willing to set the precedent that a prime minister of a political party—

212 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/17/22 11:15:46 p.m.
Watch

The time is up. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has the floor.

17 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Feb/17/22 11:15:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I must admit it is hard to follow the member for Battle River—Crowfoot's passionate speech. Nonetheless, here we are tonight debating, after it was implemented without a vote in the House of Commons, the Emergencies Act. I want to take us back about two years. I remember distinctly the talk was about whether the vaccines would be mandatory. There was a study several years ago at the health committee about mandatory vaccines and it was determined at that study, which I believe was in 2011, that it was unconstitutional to make vaccines mandatory. Fast forward to 2020, we have a global pandemic and the government is saying that vaccination will be our way out of this, and 70% was the number that was floated around as an appropriate level of vaccination. The Prime Minister assured everyone that it would not be mandatory in any case. Then we came to the election, and suddenly vaccines were becoming mandatory. The government said on the eve of an election, which the Liberals called in the middle of a pandemic, that mandatory vaccines were going to be brought in. Get the jab or lose the job. I remember Conservatives ran on a mandate that said no mandatory vaccines. The Prime Minister said some of the most divisive things that we have ever heard a prime minister say. In an interview he asked if we have to tolerate these people. What kind of a question is that? Is that something a prime minister would say? Before he was Prime Minister, he said, “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”. Then, when it suited his political ends, he was suddenly asking if we have to tolerate these people. I want to talk about the use of the term “these people”. It has been pointed out to me that people have lost their jobs for using the term “these people”. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister did not lose his job over that. One of those people is a good friend of mine, an RCMP officer. He had had COVID and had an antibody test. It proved he had antibodies, yet suddenly he was being faced with a mandate to be vaccinated or lose his job. He has five kids. He dreamed his whole life of being an RCMP officer. Now his livelihood, the way he feeds his children and pays for his house, is being put on the line because he must get vaccinated with a vaccine that does exactly what his body has done already in giving him immunity to the virus. That is the crux of the issue. This mandatory vaccine that has been forced upon us. The Liberals say the country is united and 90% of the people are vaccinated, so why would I be worried about the last 10%. One of the things in democracy is that it has always been about the protection of the minority. Otherwise, we would just live in a dictatorship or tyranny of the majority. There is that reason, and the other reason is that, just because 90% of the population is vaccinated, does not mean that every one of them wanted to be vaccinated. The fact of the matter is that it was after 50% of the population was vaccinated, the Liberals came in with mandatory vaccines. They forced people to get vaccinated. They say they did not force anybody, but they did say people had to get vaccinated or lose their job. That is not selling vaccines on the merits of vaccines. That is coercion, not informed consent. It is like they are saying to Canadians, “That's a nice job you have there. It would be too bad if something were to happen to it. By the way, we have this nice vaccine over here.” This is an immense coercion taking place on behalf of the government. Then there was the demonization and terrorization, on behalf of the government, of those folks who were not vaccinated. In some provinces people were not even able to go the grocery store if they were not vaccinated. That is the backdrop for which we have these protests occurring across the country. The Prime Minister knew that. For over a week, we watched the Canadian flag being waved on overpasses and side roads. Everywhere the convoy went, people came out to greet the convoy, and those images were stunning. The Prime Minister knew the convoy was coming across the country. He had ample time to react, decide what to do, and determine if the mandates were working. We had 90% of the population vaccinated, when the goal was 70%. The number of cases were declining. The week the truckers were coming across the country he could have paused for a moment and reconsidered everything. Deena Hinshaw and Theresa Tam both said that, but for some reason, the Prime Minister could not come to the conclusion that perhaps he should look at that, so here we are. The truckers came across the country opposing the mandates. Perhaps there is a website that talks about insurrection and things like that, but the vast majority of the people who stood alongside the road waving their Canadian flags, who did not come to Ottawa but who supported it, were not thinking of an insurrection. They were supporting an end to the mandates. Here we are, entrenched, and using the largest gun in the arsenal, so to speak, the Emergencies Act. While, at the same time, the border crossings and critical infrastructure that were blocked are no longer blocked. We have seen blockades of critical infrastructure before in this country. We saw the rail blockades of early 2020, which created a significant hardship for this country. The propane that comes out of the ground in Alberta and is put onto trains and shipped to eastern Canada to heat homes was not able to make it there. However, the Emergencies Act was not invoked at that time. I would not have advised that we invoke it at that point, but there was critical infrastructure being blocked. We have seen blockades of critical infrastructure and roads with respect to projects being built in this country, yet I would not advocate for, nor did we see, the emergency measures act invoked in those cases. We have recently seen the destruction of millions of dollars of equipment in northern B.C.'s Coastal GasLink project, but the Prime Minister does not seem to acknowledge that, nor is he suggesting we use the emergency measures act with respect to that. However, here we are in Ottawa, where I have not heard of any damage occurring to property, but this has been declared a national emergency for which we must use the largest, most powerful piece of legislation we have in this country to deal with this so-called emergency. I want to talk about the foreign money pouring in across the border that the Liberals bring up time and again. I would first like to know how much foreign money we are talking about. That is an important piece. Since I was elected, I have been advocating for us to look at the foreign money that is coming across the border. We know the Tides foundation has put over $700 million into an anti-oil sands campaign in northern Alberta. It appears the Liberals agree with that, because they have turned a blind eye to foreign money influencing our politics. However, when the Prime Minister gets a black eye or his polling numbers are being affected, suddenly the Liberals are worried about foreign money influencing Canadian politics. It is about time they are worried about that, but to freeze the bank accounts of Canadians over this so-called foreign money is crazy.

1305 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33