SoVote

Feb/19/22 4:55:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the interesting question. I answered that question directly in my speech. I said that I am very worried that a request from a province or city that had failed to respond to a national crisis could become a justification to use the act. Failure is not one of the criteria set out in the act. All available resources must have been exhausted first. Unfortunately, there were some problems and complacency on the part of police. A police chief resigned. However, that should not be a reason to justify such a strong legislative measure that has such potential to arbitrarily violate fundamental rights.

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/19/22 4:56:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has never sanctioned what has been happening in the streets of Ottawa. These are reprehensible acts. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to commend the law enforcement officers who have done excellent work and who finally got the resources they needed today to respond adequately. The problem is that this should have been done a long time ago. The problem is that the government and the Prime Minister were insouciant. This government cannot make decisions. Chantal Hébert, who has covered many governments over many years, said on the radio yesterday that each successive government in Canada has become increasingly centralist and that the current government has reached the height of centralism. This government is incapable of acting or making a decision. We understand that the Prime Minister was required to isolate, but based on his lack of decision-making, you would think he has long COVID. What happened with the Emergencies Act is a publicity stunt, as only this Prime Minister knows how to do. The problem is that we are setting a dangerous precedent. The seal has been broken. I fear and we fear that in future another government will be able to justify their decision based on what is happening in the streets of Ottawa to invoke the Emergencies Act when the issue is local and partisan and when it suits the government. By using it under the current circumstances, we are tarnishing Canada's reputation even more. The precedents speak for themselves, but the Bloc Québécois is lending them its voice. I would like to give an example and talk about the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April 2001, where three‑metre-high security fencing was erected for four kilometres in a densely populated residential sector, where security forces were provided by the Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec City police, the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian Armed Forces, where protesters were organized, financed, motivated and questioned the authority of the state. They derailed a proposed free trade agreement. No state of emergency was declared at the time because the governments, including the federal government, were prepared. That is what happens. Here we have a government that does not govern, that is unable to make decisions, unable to appoint an ambassador to Paris, unable to issue calls for tenders on time for the rail transportation projects that Quebeckers are waiting for. It is a government that has not issued a decision on Huawei when all of its trading partners have already done so. One sometimes wonders whether this is a government that is capable of doing anything at all. What happened in the streets shows us that our assumptions may have been right. Yes, the Bloc Québécois has asked questions. The Bloc Québécois asked for a crisis task force. The Bloc Québécois took action. We have been accused of asking politicians to control the police. On February 7, the Ottawa police chief requested an additional 1,800 officers. The government’s response was to send 275 officers, and only 20 of them were assigned to the protests. As a percentage, this means that 1% of the Ottawa Police’s request for more officers was met. That is a 99% failure. That is measurable relative to what the Ottawa police themselves asked for while there was still time to act. Yes, we can collaborate. Yes, we can use existing laws. Yes, we can punish these reprehensible acts. That is why the motion adopted by Quebec's National Assembly, which asked the government not to apply the Emergencies Act to Quebec, also insisted on the need for the federal government to collaborate with the provinces. If one thing proves a lack of collaboration, it is this: the CAQ, the Liberal Party of Quebec, Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois and even the Conservative Party of Quebec MNA unanimously supported the motion. The “new liberal democratic party of Canada” coalition, however, will take no notice. They say we need this law. We need it to freeze bank accounts and apply economic pressure. I hope it is understandable that I am worried about a government feeling obliged to invoke emergency measures so it can block truckers' funding. Much worse things can happen; I hope they will not, but I am extremely worried. The Basel Institute on Governance has already indicated that FINTRAC, Canada's financial crime intelligence and monitoring system, does not have enough people, enough money or enough resources and that it cannot do enough to prevent financial crimes. Moreover, Canada is known internationally to lack the ability, or perhaps the will, to crack down on the people who commit these crimes. This is the 21st century, yet the government says it does not have 21st-century tools to deal with 21st-century threats, so when it comes to truckers, bring on the emergency measures. What else is there? The government needed the Emergencies Act to requisition tow trucks. What kind of leadership is it when even tow truck operators do not want to fall in line? That is really bad. Obviously, the legislation exists for a number of reasons. There are circumstances in which it must be used. The crisis must be national in scope. It has to be a last resort, and right now this is not a last resort situation. There were other remedies that should have been used, but they were not. I am convinced that more could have been done. The facts speak for themselves. Some will argue that the Ottawa police chief, who yes, of course, has a tough job to do, said that the extraordinary measures brought in by the legislation have been useful. What the Ottawa police chief said was that the municipal, provincial and federal states of emergency were useful. Other levels of government started doing their job before the federal government did its job. I look forward to questions from the government side, which will argue that this was useful and that the police were given additional tools. First of all, the operations that are taking place could have been carried out with more personnel as reinforcements. Second, Parliament exists, we as legislators are here, and legislation that covers emergency measures is already in place precisely because police should not always be given all the tools they want. That is what democracy is all about: the exercise of legislative power over the executive and the police. I could name a whole range of powers that the police once had, but no longer have, that might have been useful for them today, powers that they no longer have precisely because, in a democracy, these powers are not given unless the situation is desperate. Throughout this crisis, I have been waiting for this government to show some leadership. I have been trying to understand how the decisions were made. I been trying to understand where the government's head was at. After quite a bit of searching, I just gave up.

1208 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/19/22 5:06:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would point out a logical inconsistency of the member's suggestions. He is saying that we are incapable of taking decisions on the government benches—

29 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 5:06:19 p.m.
Watch

Excuse me, but we are having the same problem we had a while ago, where there is no interpretation. What I am going to do is go to the next party and then come back to the hon. parliamentary secretary. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

52 words

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

Feb/19/22 5:07:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I would like to ask my hon. colleague something that really builds on the question that was asked of the member for Kingston and the Islands. The member for Kingston and the Islands asked this hon. colleague's colleague about the Emergencies Act. I really hope that this gets through. That is this. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that the Emergencies Act was necessary to use to bring in other police officers. If we look at the Ontario Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, which I was able to research in about 45 seconds, it says under section 21(1): In an emergency, the Minister may make an agreement with the Crown in right of Canada, or of another province, or with any of its agencies for the provision of policing. This would seem to fly directly in the face of the statement from the member for Kingston and the Islands. Could this hon. member please comment on that?

181 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/19/22 5:08:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of having the member for Kingston and the Islands as my municipal councillor and mayor when I was doing my Ph.D. at Queen's University. Every year, Kingston's Homecoming event attracts thousands of people who overturn police cars, commit crimes and turn the city upside down. Police from Toronto, Brockville, Kingston and Cornwall and mounted police are on duty. From what I can remember of my five great years in the city represented by the member for Kingston and the Islands, he never called for a state of emergency.

97 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 5:09:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will just point out the logical inconsistencies the member was attempting to make vis-à-vis the Liberals being a government incapable of taking decisions, when we have taken a decision that no government has ever taken in Canadian history. Let us find some common ground. The Bloc is against the blockades. The Bloc has said the blockades are illegal. We all agree with that. We also agree with listening to the police and cutting off the funding that is supplying those blockades. One of the tools to do so is by tracking that money to things such as credit unions, banks, cryptocurrency sites or online sites. When no sites or donations are being made from the province of Quebec that would necessitate the application of these emergency measures in the province of Quebec, does the member opposite agree with that aspect of this law applying in his province?

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/19/22 5:10:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope you will allow me to forgo my colleague's little lesson on logic. Security experts are telling us that communication is the most important tool in such operations. For two to three weeks, we asked that a crisis task force be set up and that the minister conduct briefings. The Liberals did not make a decision about that. They do not make decisions. The Ottawa police chief told us yesterday that the more officers are available early in a crisis, the less violence there is later. The Liberals made no decisions and this is the result. I see that my colleague is working at home. Perhaps he forgot his logic in the lobby.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Feb/19/22 5:11:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question to the member for Mirabel has to do with the discussion he opened his speech with, about precedent. I wonder this. Does he really believe that letting groups protest that want to use violence, intimidation and hate to try to overturn elected governments' decisions is a precedent we could have allowed to go on much longer, without that in itself becoming the dangerous precedent here?

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/19/22 5:11:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we were just talking about logic. According to the convoluted logic of the member's question, when there is a protest or when someone does not like the government, regardless of the threat level, the organization involved or the government's inaction, the solution is the worst, most radical option, the very last resort. We never supported the things that went on in the street. We never downplayed the threat or the importance of all this. That is why, for the last three weeks, we have been putting forward proposals. I am happy to see that the member has just woken up.

104 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Feb/19/22 5:12:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague, the MP for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. What happened in the last few days in Canada is without precedent. It was an organized attack on democracy, coming from the far right and financed from abroad. Our citizens were intimidated. Parliament was forced to cancel a sitting because its safety was at risk. This is unprecedented in Canada, but not in North America or around the world. It is why this debate is so important. The fact is that we have a choice, as a country, to avoid the path of a far right-driven agenda that uses destabilization, provocation and intimidation as its tactics, aims to roll back so much of the social and economic progress we have made in Canada and aims to undermine our very democracy itself. Let us start with what this debate is not about. It is not about truckers or the trucking industry. Yes, some truckers have been involved, but the vast majority of truckers are going about their business and doing their job, providing essential services to Canadians during the pandemic. This also goes far beyond the pandemic. There are many people across the country who have not been vaccinated, who do not agree with vaccine mandates and who do not agree with mask mandates, but they are not threatening or intimidating anyone. Not everyone who is part of what is happening is a right-wing extremist, but far too many are. Let us be clear: What is happening is being driven by the same far-right agenda that led to the attack on the Capitol building in the U.S. that was fomented by Donald Trump. The same far-right agenda has been raising its ugly head in Europe, Brazil and many other countries. It is the same agenda that we have seen here in Canada. I am a descendant of those who fought against fascism in Europe and a descendant of those who know what dictatorships are really all about and were part of the struggle to bring back democracy in their home countries. I know that we as Canadians cannot be complacent about the threat of this far-right agenda to Canada. Let us also be clear that when people ignore or even condone what we have seen, they are part of the problem. How did we get here? It starts with the fact that governments and police have, for far too long, had a view of what is legitimate protest and what is not. As someone who is influenced by Gandhian principles of non-violence, the principles practised by Martin Luther King and the spirit of reconciliation of Nelson Mandela, and as someone who has been inspired by the non-violent actions of indigenous peoples defending their rights and lands, I believe in the right of citizens to engage in non-violent protest. These actions and this occupation have been fundamentally different. They have targeted not only our institutions but our citizens with racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic abuse and abuse aimed at people following health orders for wearing masks. What was the response? Does anyone believe that we would be dealing with what we are seeing today if the protesters were indigenous, Black, racialized, climate-justice activists or students, like those at the G20 or in Quebec, or workers on strike? What we are seeing is a failure of governments and the police, driven by the view of what is a legitimate protest. This is not accidental. It is a part of the strategy. It is like Donald Trump, a billionaire, talking about being a friend of workers. How do we deal with what is happening and the bigger threat to our values and democracy? The response from the police has been deeply flawed here in Ottawa and across the country. This is an occupation led by white supremacists. We saw swastikas, Confederate flags and other symbols of hate and the far right. This occupation has had the aim of abusing and harassing citizens for days; engaging in racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic attacks on residents; making people afraid to leave their homes; shutting down businesses and workplaces; making people lose their jobs; clogging up 911 phone lines so that legitimate calls cannot get through; and endangering residents and residential neighbourhoods. This occupation has also had as its target our democracy. Occupation leaders have called for the overthrow of our democratic institutions. They have assaulted members of the press. They have threatened violence and unleashed hate against leaders and elected representatives. Yesterday, the occupiers' actions led to the shutting down of Parliament, a shocking and unprecedented move. However, governments and the police refused to take this situation seriously until the last minute. It should never have come to this point. We saw failed local leadership that refused to take action. I want to acknowledge the heroic work of Councillor Catherine McKenney and Councillor Shawn Menard, who, along with other leaders, residents and labour activists, pushed back against fascism in their community by organizing the battle of Billings Bridge. We have seen right wing provincial governments in Ontario and elsewhere legitimize these occupations and refuse to take action otherwise. We have seen a federal government lead us to a place where we should never have been. The Liberal government failed to see this occupation for what it was early on. The Prime Minister focused far more on the rhetoric than the reality. He called out the symbols of the far right, which was the right thing to do, but waited far too long to call out the reality of the agenda itself. However, what is really disturbing, as we have this debate, are the actions and incendiary rhetoric of the Conservatives. Speaker after speaker has exposed the true face of the Conservative Party. This is not the party of peace, order and good government, nor of law and order, and it is definitely not Progressive Conservative. What we have seen is Trump-style, far-right rhetoric that is condoning, even supporting, what is happening. There are disturbing references reminiscent of Trump's “good people on both sides” rhetoric, incendiary rhetoric aimed at the Liberals and the Conservatives and even some good old red-baiting rhetoric thrown in for good measure. However, what do we expect from an acting Leader of the Opposition who saw no problem with wearing a MAGA hat, something that has been seen as— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1088 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 5:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Order. Just because someone is participating virtually does not mean the mikes are not picking up what is going on here in the House. Again, I would ask members, instead of chatting back and forth or thinking aloud, to write their questions or thoughts down and deal with them during questions and comments. The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski has three minutes and 10 seconds left.

68 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

Feb/19/22 5:19:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what do we expect from an acting Leader of the Opposition who saw no problem wearing a MAGA hat, which has been seen as a symbol of white supremacy and Trump's far-right rhetoric, and from a party whose heir apparent to the leadership openly supports what is happening? What is really appalling is how the Conservatives are ignoring what is happening just outside Parliament: the racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynist abuse we have all heard about. When I stay in Ottawa, I am in the downtown, and many people I know have been deeply affected. Conservative MPs have gone out of their way to encourage this occupation. A Conservative MP did an interview in front of a flag with swastikas on it. They have taken pictures, shaken hands and put thumbs up, and in the House they have gaslighted the country by telling us these are peaceful gatherings. Conservative MPs who have fuelled this occupation rooted in white supremacy, which is targeting citizens and the press and is pursuing the overthrow of our institutions, must be held to account. There must be an inquiry into how we arrived at this place: how this occupation came to pass, who funded it, who fomented it, who failed to act, who passed the buck and what the role of the police was. We cannot ignore this internationally funded, politically organized, far-right attack on our democracy. We cannot allow this to happen again. It comes down to privilege. This protest is being driven by an agenda, by an ideology and by supporters who believe they are entitled to target our population and our democratic system. The abuse is no accident. The agenda is racist, homophobic and misogynist to begin with. Freedom is rooted in our democracy. It starts with respect. It is not about the freedom to be racist, homophobic and misogynist. The very idea of freedom has been hijacked and distorted. It has been used by many to support privilege, particularly white privilege. It is the privilege to endanger and harass others and the privilege to impose an alt-right, foreign-funded attack on our democracy. This cannot be a moment in time when we sit idly by as the far right becomes emboldened. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow fascism to be normalized and legitimized. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow for the police and other institutions to belatedly respond and then carry on to crack down on people peacefully defending their rights, including workers on strike, indigenous peoples defending their lands, Black and racialized communities rising up and climate activists fighting for our survival. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow for the status quo to carry on. This is not the Canada we can be. We can be and we must be a country that practices respect, denounces bigotry, strengthens our democracy and acts on the racial, social, economic and environmental justice we all deserve.

507 words

All Topics

Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 5:22:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party generally, and the interim leader of the Conservative Party very specifically, have compared the faux trucker occupation over the last three weeks with indigenous protests across Canada, particularly in Manitoba and British Columbia. I am wondering if the member could offer her comments on that analysis.

51 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

Feb/19/22 5:23:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. Those of us from Manitoba know well the kinds of politics unfortunately practised by many Conservatives, including the interim leader from Manitoba, and there is no comparison to be made. Once again we are seeing Conservatives gaslight the country, saying that this foreign-funded, far-right occupation in Ottawa is the same as the kinds of non-violent demonstrations we have seen by indigenous peoples defending their rights and their land and standing up for what they believe in. It is not just deeply insulting, but downright wrong to compare these two things. We must be very clear that the interim leader has been open, both by wearing a MAGA hat and through her statements, that she and her colleagues are fine with coddling white supremacy and actions that very much support it.

137 words

All Topics

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Feb/19/22 5:24:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member and many times we may not agree. One thing she talked about is respect. I listened as she sat there and said the party I belong to is misogynist, white supremacist and all of these great names. We are in a place where we are not supposed to gaslight because we know it is happening outside. I listened to the member talk about the party I belong to and degrade each and every one of us. We have the right to a difference in thought. I do not agree with the occupation, but, like her, I do agree with the right to protest. Is the member going to hold the Prime Minister responsible, or is she going to continue blaming the Conservatives when it is the Liberals who are in government?

138 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

Feb/19/22 5:25:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in this parliamentary debate, we are talking about who is at fault. As I clearly indicated, the Liberals very much are. We should never have been in this position. However, let us be clear on who has encouraged this occupation. The Conservative interim leader, the heir apparent and numerous Conservative MPs have legitimized, encouraged and supported this occupation. It is clearly documented in social media through pictures they have shared and in coverage by the mainstream media. Canadians see through much of this. What we need is principled leadership. We do not need leaders in our Parliament supporting foreign-funded, alt-right movements that seek to overthrow our democracy and target citizens. I hope the member and all of her colleagues change course, condemn that kind of activity and take appropriate action.

134 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 5:26:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the act we are discussing cannot be invoked as a preventive measure. It is right there. We already know that. This week, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie told the media in Quebec that if protesters were to leave and the blockades were removed by Monday, the NDP might reconsider its decision to support the government. Well, it is over. The protesters have left. They are no longer in front of Parliament. Does my colleague think that the NDP might decide not to support the government on this?

93 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton

Feb/19/22 5:27:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to point out that the people who led and supported this occupation are unfortunately still active. As I clearly said in my speech, we must be serious about this operation, which was funded and organized by the far right in an attempt to attack our democracy and to intimidate and harass Canadian citizens. This is a problem we are facing and that we must now take seriously.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Feb/19/22 5:28:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am, not surprisingly, both happy and sad to have the chance to speak in the debate on the confirmation of the use of the Emergencies Act to break the border blockades and lift the siege of the capital. I am happy to speak, because I think that the situation had reached a crisis point, and the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary to counter a real threat to democracy and the rule of law in Canada. However, I am sad that it has come to this. I am sad, because the Liberals let the situation go on for so long that we reached this crisis point. It is important to consider how we got to this point. There is enough blame to go around when it comes to the widespread failure to understand that the blockades and the siege of downtown Ottawa and the parliamentary precinct are not protests or exercises in free speech. Instead, the self-described freedom fighters who organized this came prepared to use intimidation, harassment and coercion to get the policy changes that they want. That is not how democracy works; it is not how peaceful protests work, and these tactics have nothing to do with the right to free speech. We have a rich history of protest in this country, and at times, many of us have been participants in those protests. However, the goal of those protests has always been to change minds and thus bring about change in policy by political means. Their goals have always been to convince governments to change course by making it clear that the political price of failing to do so would be too high. Blockades and occupations are another thing altogether. None of what has been going on outside of Parliament for three weeks is part of any rich tradition of civil disobedience. Those engaging in civil disobedience do so with a clear understanding that they are taking on any harm to themselves. They accept that it is they themselves who will face harm from the arrests and penalties that result from their law-breaking. They accept that harm to themselves in order to make a strong, moral argument. Instead, those involved in the blockades and the siege seek to inflict harm on others until we all give in to their demands. Legitimate protests never aim to extort change by intimidation or by deliberately causing harm to others. As the judge in the case resulting in an injunction against around-the-clock sounding of high decibel air horns in Ottawa said, he was not aware that honking was an expression of any great ideas. I am critical of the Liberals for failing to recognize the nature of the threat that these blockades in Windsor and Coutts and the siege of downtown Ottawa represented. It is hard to understand how this could have been missed, when the organizers clearly stated their intention to force change and even to replace the elected government, when they set up base camps outside downtown Ottawa to ferry supplies to the occupiers downtown or when they organized an attack on 911 services in Ottawa to deny emergency services to residents. This is intimidation. This is extortion. It is hard to understand how it could go on so long when the evidence of harassment and intimidation of residents and local businesses went on right on the steps of Parliament. We ended up with a situation where, according to most reports, over 50% of businesses downtown were forced to close altogether, and more than 85% had to curtail their activities in order to keep their workers safe. It is bitterly ironic for those businesses that the result of the tactics adopted by those who were arguing that we should open up actually resulted in further closures and heavy losses for local businesses and local workers. It is hard to understand how the fact was missed that blockades at border crossings in Coutts and Windsor were designed to inflict economic damage severe enough to force change. Workers in factories, including those at GM plants, at a time when we are fighting hard to keep the auto industry alive in Canada, lost shifts as the border blockade interrupted the supply chain. The ultimate irony is that the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades cost thousands of truckers, for whom the organizers falsely claim to speak, hours and even days stuck in the resulting jams. Once removed, those organizers tried to block the bridge in Windsor once again. While I do hold the government responsible for letting the situation get out of hand, at the same time I reject the idea that somehow the government or vaccine mandates created division and that division explains the blockades and siege. Yes, there are some truckers involved in these disruptions, but never forget that over 90% of truckers are vaccinated. Never forget how they continued to work through the pandemic before vaccinations were available, at considerable risk to themselves and the health of their families, to protect the rest of us and our economy. They know, like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, that masks, vaccinations and social distancing are what have brought us as close to escaping this pandemic as we have come so far. They know that social solidarity and standing united behind our health workers saved literally thousands of lives and gave a death rate from COVID less than half that of the United States. They know that only continuing to pull together as a society will get us to the other side. Yes, people are free to reject science and the unequivocal advice of medical experts. They can choose to do so, but freedom means accepting the consequences for the choices we make. It does not mean we have the right to inflict the consequences of our choices on others. Those who reject the mandates should not be surprised to find restrictions on what they can do due to the risk they pose to others and to our ability as a nation to survive the pandemic. No doubt as the pandemic drags on we all want to see restrictions lifted, but for the vast majority of Canadians, this should happen only when it is safe to do so. Five new deaths from COVID were recorded yesterday in British Columbia, including yet another on Vancouver Island, where we are still continuing to lose an average of more than one person per day to COVID. Those are families that lose a loved one each and every day. As of yesterday, the number in critical care in B.C. dropped below 1,000, a number that is still far too high, although thankfully it is down considerably. However, even with numbers dropping, our hospitals and health care workers are near the breaking point. It is this tension resulting from the ongoing pandemic that the organizers of the blockades and siege have exploited for their own ends. Members should make no mistake that the organizers are extremists and anti-democratic in their goals. It is their clear intention to use force, intimidation and for some, as we have seen at the Coutts border crossing, violence to achieve their ends. In downtown Ottawa we have seen the open display of hate symbols, racism and homophobia. We have seen the intimidation of residents demanding they remove their masks. This happened to me personally more than once, but it has been most often directed at those the occupiers perceive to be weak and vulnerable to such pressure: women, racialized Canadians and members of the 2SLGBTQI community. Before some say that every protest has its bad apples or that it is only an extremist minority among the protesters, let me point out that the organizers never once condemned things like the display of Nazi flags, nor did they condemn intimidating local residents by demanding they remove their masks, and supporters have argued that there were only a few swastikas flying in the Ottawa occupation, although I personally counted six in three blocks in a single day. Let me repeat the obvious question: How many swastikas are okay? The obvious answer is none. People say Confederate flags are just symbols of rebellion, and those who argue that may want to stop and think for just a moment about making that argument in this current context. Confederate flags are clearly symbols of racism and the violence associated with anti-Black racism. That is why I support my colleague the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's private member's bill to ban the public display of these ugly symbols of hate, which discourage full participation in Canadian society by some of our citizens. We have seen invasions of businesses who are enforcing mandates to keep their employees and all of us safe, and now, with more than half the businesses in downtown Ottawa forced to close, there are literally thousands out of work because of those closures. More than 1,500 people who work at the Rideau Centre mall alone have been out of work for three weeks now. We have seen the physical intimidation of journalists and the use of children as shields. There have been open threats of violence against the Prime Minister, cabinet and us as members of Parliament both on the streets and online. Perhaps most relevant to our debate here about the invocation of emergency powers, we have seen repeated statements from the organizers that they would not leave until the mandates are lifted. This is why New Democrats are supporting using emergency powers to put an end to what are, in fact, organized attacks on democracy. As we have done for the past three weeks now, New Democrats continue to reject the narrative that Canadians are more divided than ever. The evidence is, frankly, just the opposite. When I stand to vote on this motion to affirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I will be standing with health care workers, with first responders, with grocery workers, all front-line workers and yes, the vast majority of truckers, but I will also be standing to pledge vigilance to ensure these necessary but extraordinary powers are used only to remove these serious threats to democracy and never to infringe on our rights to protest and dissent. Again, let me say I am sad it has come to this, but I am proud to stand firmly against the use of intimidation, hatred and violence to overturn our democracy.

1747 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34