SoVote

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

Feb/19/22 3:18:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My hon. colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, spoke about many lawyers in this House who have scrutinized this bill and have felt that the threshold is met. Well, I can tell him that after scrutinizing the bill, this lawyer does not feel that the threshold has been met. The member spoke about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was interesting, because part of the rule of law is that the law must be predictable and it must be transparent. In this case, when it comes to freezing assets, we do not have any predictability or any transparency about how that is going on, especially if it is delegated to a third party, such as banks. How can this hon. member say that the charter is being respected when the rule of law cannot be upheld through a third party?

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:18:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the member from the opposition party for doing everything in his power to take care of the people in his constituency. I know that we are all in this for the right reasons, even though, most often, we disagree in basic ideologies in this House. I want to thank him for that work. This act protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I said in my comments, there is no peaceful protest that can get in the way of the rights and freedoms of other Canadians. This was an occupation and an illegal protest.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:19:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree, for the most part, with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. People have the right to protest, but not to occupy. Harassment, economic loss and tragedy are unacceptable. As we agree on the end goal, I have a question for him. Is this the best way we could find—

57 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 3:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Order. There was a problem with the interpretation, but it is now resolved. I would ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivières to repeat his question.

28 words

Mr. René Villemure

Feb/19/22 3:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. The end goal is to restore order. We share that goal and agree entirely. We fully agree that the harassment, the tragedies, the disruption of people's lives and the economic losses are unacceptable. Now, if we want to restore order, is this the best way, or is it the only avenue left after so much inaction?

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member agrees with this side of the House that this is an unacceptable situation. I heard the interim police chief in Ottawa almost breath a sigh of relief that finally the resources the police felt they needed for stepping in to solve this issue have been provided to them. It was wonderful to hear the interim chief speak to how the resources that come from the Emergencies Act have allowed them to move forward.

82 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/19/22 3:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. As an Inuk and indigenous person, I have inherent mistrust in law enforcement. I have seen all too often how law enforcement treats my community, indigenous people and people of colour. All too often we have been at the wrong end of the law. Law enforcement arbitrarily targets my communities. My NDP colleagues and I have weighed very heavily the measures allowed in the Emergencies Act. We are deeply aware of the risk to Canada's democracy, and without the drastic measures, we are aware of the security threats to our national security posed by foreign extremists. I have received threats from as far as New Brunswick because of the debate on the Emergencies Act. Could the member explain to Canadians why this is a national issue requiring urgent action?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:22:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have spent the day listening to this debate, and I want to thank the member for her very wise interventions all day. She has been on the mike several times and I want to thank her for that. Our national security and the threat to our economy have made this act, unfortunately, necessary.

56 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 3:23:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour about the interventions from the member for Nunavut. I am still deciding how I am going to vote, but I want to ask the hon. member how much, in addition to the economic threats, using the Emergencies Act is motivated by recognizing that this is not a single threat but a vast network that seeks to undermine democracies. The member's last word in his speech was “democracy”, and as informed by Vladimir Putin and forces of the right in the U.S., we are suffering from a foreign-influenced effort to undermine our democracy.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:24:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I sat on the national defence committee and the public security committee, and we heard from experts all over the world that there is a planned misinformation campaign aimed directly at countries by our adversaries and enemies. The member is absolutely right that this is affecting and impacting democracy in Canada.

58 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I usually start by saying that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak here. However, it is the first time in 24 years that I needed a police escort to enter this chamber, and it is likely that all of us will need police escorts to exit this chamber. That is the state of emergency affairs in Ottawa as we speak. Sedition, by definition, is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state”. Emergency, by definition, is “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” There is a further definition in the Emergencies Act that largely supports this notion: threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve...sovereignty [and] security Over the last three weeks, we have seen a ragtag convoy of truckers, apparently here to protest mandates, morph into an anarchistic challenge to legitimate authority, seriously impairing the life, economic well-being and safety of Canadians from coast to coast: from Ottawa to the Ambassador Bridge, to the Ambassador Bridge times two and times three, to Toronto protests, to Quebec protests, to the Blue Water Bridge, to the Emerson, Manitoba, closures, to the Coutts, Alberta, closure and to closures in British Columbia. There has been billions of dollars's worth of economic disruptions and broken supply chains. Citizens have been rendered hopeless and fearful. Citizen have been threatening each other and threatening to take the law into their own hands in the face of police impotence or their refusal to act. I do not know what else we could possibly want before declaring a state of national emergency, with the possible exception of violence in the streets. Some seem to think that should be part of the debate and is a necessary precondition. It is also equally clear some insurrectionists would be pleased if that happened, if anarchy and lawlessness prevailed and legitimate authority were undermined. All the while, these “brave anarchists” are hiding behind children in bouncy castles and waving Canadians flags, sometimes right side up and sometimes not. The protest has migrated from misguided complaints about mandates to sedition. Most of the mandates are from provincial authorities and are being cautiously lifted with the guidance of public health authorities. The blockade, if it was ever about mandates in the first place, should be in provincial capitals. The sole mandate within the federal jurisdiction is at the border and can only be lifted in conjunction with the American government. They should take their protest to Washington, assuming they can get across the border. What is this seditious blockade really about? I am sure members have heard about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation. As my hon. friend mentioned in his speech, at the public safety committee and the defence committee we heard a lot of testimony about misinformation and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors. I do not have any personal or direct evidence of the attempted destabilization of a G7 NATO country in opposition to Russia on the verge of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I have to think that works to the advantage of President Putin. Any destabilization effort that erodes national consensus works to the advantage of our two major adversaries, China and Russia. Russian TV has been promoting alternative theories of the utility of vaccines and paranoid theories about implanting chips. It also questions the effectiveness of mandates, sowing doubts in the minds of those looking to express their frustration and anger. At this point, it is directed at Parliament, the government and the Prime Minister. The evidence of non-state actors is a bit more clear. Funding from the U.S. is blatantly obvious and is from sources in the U.S. associated with the most odious elements of American society. The Conservatives have been saying for weeks that all we need to do is talk to these people, so I started returning telephone calls and responding to emails. I cannot help but observe that I have become quite popular in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. All of these non-constituents want to help me vote for my constituents. Just today, we received 1,300 emails, and we had 600 the day before. To these non-constituents, I offer an insincere apology for ignoring them. My constituents, on the other hand, I do not ignore, and have not for nine elections and 24 years. There is more of a mix among those who want me to vote against the legislation, and they are more vociferous this week. However, last week others wanted me to end it. The conversations with those who want me to vote against the bill exhibit a belligerence, coupled with a substantial amount of misinformation and disinformation, that makes one despair. When the conversation starts with, “I have never voted for you and I never will”, we know we are off to a bad start. For nine elections and 24 years, there must have been a great deal of frustration for this individual caller. When the conversation is peppered with the Prime Minister's last name in conjunction with what the Speaker would rule to be unparliamentary language, all seemingly starting with the same letter, we know the conversation is not going to go well. Also, trying to carry on a conversation with a blowing horn from an 18-wheeler in the background is indeed an impediment to civilized discourse. What is so discouraging when we get through all of this is the dissonance of fact. Minimal understanding of civics and science must be the basis for civilized discourse, but the “alternative facts” narrative, perpetrated by that notorious Trump acolyte, has taken hold here. That is ultimately what is so discouraging. By one means or another, this insurrection will end, but the damage to political discourse will linger. It is difficult to have conversations with horns blaring, engines revving, diesel fumes in the air, a commitment to alternative facts and certain politicians giving aid and comfort to sedition. I therefore support, wholeheartedly, this initiative as a measured, scaled, charter-consistent response to the blatant disregard for the rule of law. If revocation of licences, revocation of insurance and freezing of bank accounts will not do it, I support the police cordoning off areas and arresting those who refuse to leave, which they are doing as we speak. I have been very impressed by the measured and careful response of the police in the last couple of days. I condemn the lawless thugs hiding behind children. I condemn violence. This legislation should serve as a warning to lawless brigands, especially to the organizers, both foreign and domestic. We are a nation where the rule of law prevails in all matters. This misinformation and disinformation campaign, whether from foreign or domestic sources, is deeply settled in the minds of these insurrectionists, who see conspiracies everywhere and seem to be incapable of adjusting deeply held preconceptions of certain basic facts. It takes us, as a nation, into a very dark place.

1182 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Feb/19/22 3:33:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about peaceful protests, and I want to commend the law enforcement we have had over the last number of weeks here in Ottawa. They have been keeping the peace and doing a wonderful job of ending the blockade here this week. Conservatives have been calling for an end to it for a while. Ottawa knew for days that this protest, the “freedom convoy”, was coming into Ottawa. The mayor knew, the police chief knew and security here in Ottawa knew. They knew for days before they even arrived. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people here for weeks on end without so much as a broken window. What are the first, second and third things the government could have done before dropping the sledgehammer by invoking this legislation? We are still waiting to hear the answer, so I would like to hear the member's answer on that.

156 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Feb/19/22 3:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the first thing is provision of intelligence. We had open-source intelligence that this convoy was coming and that this was their intention. The second was the application of resources. Resources were made freely available to police services in Ottawa. The third thing was the immense resources of the Government of Canada, all of which were made available to this municipality. For whatever reason, that did not seem to be sufficient to deal with this seditious enterprise by these lawless brigands.

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:34:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. I appreciate my colleague in general, because I know he is sincere, honest and passionate. However, we have different opinions on the issue at hand today. Does he believe that all the legislative tools available to the various levels of government were used before the Emergencies Act was invoked today? If so, can he tell me which ones were used?

70 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Feb/19/22 3:35:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am quite fond of my hon. friend, even when he is wrong. The Criminal Code of Canada should have been sufficient for the purpose. However, it is clear that, over the course of the two or three weeks of insurrection across the country, for whatever reason, it was not. As I said earlier, if stopping insurance, revoking licences, freezing bank accounts, cordoning off areas or requisitioning tow trucks will do it, then that is what has to happen. I also want to applaud the work of the Sûreté du Québec, which has fortunately ignored the Government of Quebec and has provided aid and assistance to the policing effort here in Ottawa.

120 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/19/22 3:36:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention today. I always find his interventions witty, as well as informative. When we think about what is happening here, and we look at what is happening on the streets of Ottawa, across the country and in Alberta, what I am thinking about is how we come out of this. How do we go forward? I have called for an independent, transparent, public investigation and inquiry. Will his government be prepared to also do a review of policing across the country, and to bring forward legislation on online hate? There is a need for increased online hate legislation. Will his government look at ways in which we can better protect our media in this country?

126 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Feb/19/22 3:37:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, usually, when my children talk about my wittiness, they put a prefix in front of that word, but we will ignore my children for the time being. The legislation, by definition, has to have an inquiry, so there will be one. As to the member's suggestion about a general inquiry into policing, the public safety committee conducted one last year. It had a narrow focus on, if you will, racism in policing. However, it is a commendable suggestion and possibly should be taken up by the public safety committee, if the government does not do it.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:37:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for not insulting any other party or any other member of the House. Today, we have been talking a lot about division in Canada, yet the people complaining about division are making speeches that are equally divisive. I have been very concerned that in Canada, we are starting to live in two different realities. I would like the member to talk, if he can, about whether he is concerned about that.

79 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay

Feb/19/22 3:38:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it must be a good day for me, because he is equally one of my favourite members in the House. You are, too, Mr. Speaker. You are all my favourites. My hon. colleague has spotted the irony of our debate, which is that those who call for calm and civilized discourse are, in many instances, the ones who are divisive and who are aiding and abetting sedition and lawlessness.

71 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 3:39:03 p.m.
Watch

I want to say that compliments will get you everywhere. Returning to debate, the hon. member for Davenport has the floor.

21 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 34