SoVote

Feb/19/22 7:26:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let us talk about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Prime Minister's statements in 2020 compared with his statements now. They are very similar types of situations. Blockades were happening that were going on for weeks. They were across the country and were blocking critical infrastructure. These are all the arguments we are hearing today for why this act is required. The Prime Minister, at that time, said that we should “resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes”. We offered an opportunity to the government. We could have had a constructive outcome by ending the federal mandates and restrictions in order to make sure that the many other Canadians who feel the same concerns but are not part of any kind of illegal protest could see the end of them as well. That would have been the opportunity to have a constructive outcome. This is hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is full of it.

156 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/19/22 7:27:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the idea of doing some collective soul-searching. Far be it from me to be preachy here, given that I too can be something of a character at times. Knowing that certain protesters said dangerous things that were downplayed by some people and blown out of proportion by others, I would urge everyone to beware of extremes and find a way to avoid going there as we do that soul-searching.

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Richards

Feb/19/22 7:27:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a very fair statement. We all want to see extremes avoided. Certainly, I want to make it very clear that nobody condones illegal activity when it is taking place. With regard to the folks who are engaged in it, action needs to be taken to ensure that it is not being allowed to happen. At the same time, the invocation of the Emergencies Act does not have a justification. Talk about an extreme. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a very extreme measure to take, and I have not seen a shred of anything that would show me a justification for invoking it. For the government to give itself the ability to seize bank accounts—

119 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 7:28:31 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

6 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/19/22 7:28:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague says he has difficulty seeing what basis there might be for the Emergencies Act, so I want to put some of the facts to him: a serious border closure at the Ambassador Bridge, jeopardizing $330 million in trade a day and a threat to Canada-U.S. trade; interruptions to Canada's auto industry and our manufacturing sector in the Golden Horseshoe; a cache of weapons and murder conspiracy charges in Coutts, Alberta; a blockade of streets in Ottawa for three weeks, shutting down many businesses in our nation's capital; harassed and threatened citizens; undercover intelligence revealing plans to expand the blockade to ports and airports; an openly published manifesto calling for government change; foreign interference and funding in our domestic affairs; far-right involvement; threats to towing companies and drivers; and the use of trucks and tractors as blockade weapons. Does my hon. colleague really think none of those facts are relevant to an honest assessment of whether the Emergencies Act is triggered? Does he think there are no facts present in Canada that might warrant such an examination?

186 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Richards

Feb/19/22 7:29:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of things the hon. member listed are of concern. They are of great concern and they need to be dealt with. However, there is a very high bar for using the Emergencies Act and it certainly has not been met. We are not talking about threats to the sovereignty of the country and we are not talking about foreign invasions, things that would ordinarily be requirements for this. The hon. member mentioned one thing that I want to touch on briefly: foreign funding. There has been a lot of talk about foreign funding, and I have raised this many times in Parliament and in committees. The fact is that many times it is used to try to block critical infrastructure in this country, like pipelines. Where was—

132 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 7:30:26 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauce.

7 words

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC)

Feb/19/22 7:30:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I rise in the House today, I feel sad and disappointed. This week, for the first time since it was enacted, the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Prime Minister. This is a historic event. Over the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has taken no significant steps to de-escalate the protests across the country or to use every other tool available to him. Instead, he went straight to extreme measures. For more than three weeks, the government just sat there while blockades shut our borders and other important infrastructure down. The government remained silent, demonizing peaceful protesters by tarring them all with the same brush, while Canadians came out in droves just to make themselves heard. The Prime Minister lacks the compassion to even listen to people he disagrees with. Such conduct is not befitting the leader of a country. Many of these people are our neighbours, our fellow citizens, Canadians who want to be heard and be granted a modicum of respect from their Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decided that, because he did not agree with them and did not like their opinions, he would not listen to them. At every opportunity, the Prime Minister stigmatized, marginalized and divided Canadians. Why did the government jump straight to this extreme measure without first doing something to take the pressure off? No government should resort to the kinds of extreme measures set out in the Emergencies Act without exhausting all other options. We asked the government to publicly commit to a clear plan and timetable for lifting federal government mandates and restrictions. The Liberals and NDP refused to support our motion, and instead, the Prime Minister sought to gain even more power. This comes at a time when nearly all provincial governments have announced plans to lift COVID-19 restrictions. Many provinces have expressed their frustration with the Prime Minister's actions. They do not want the federal government to impose the Emergencies Act in their areas of responsibility. Just as the trucking industry made it clear that it was never consulted about the government-imposed mandates, the provinces and territories do not appear to have been consulted in this case either. Our country seems to be turning more and more into a dictatorship. Unfortunately, to no one's great surprise, the NDP is once again supporting the current government by forming a coalition that is dividing our country. My office has been inundated with messages from citizens who are very worried about the government's ongoing extreme policies. My staff is having a great deal of difficulty responding to the huge volume of calls and emails about this issue. The fact is that Canadians simply want to see a light at the end of the tunnel. We are all tired, as several colleagues mentioned earlier, yet this government and its NDP ally do not seem to want to set goals for reopening, which I think is deplorable. As we know, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. We believe that the illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. However, the Prime Minister's actions could have the opposite effect. Almost all the protesters have been dispersed, but the Prime Minister believes that this is the time to fan the flames and further divide this country. We must come together, despite our differences, for the good of our country. I would like the Prime Minister to recognize this. The measure we are debating today is an excellent example of this Prime Minister's lack of leadership. It is his way of covering up his mistakes and those of his ministers. Rest assured that Canadians and the rest of the world are watching us. I spent many years working as a representative in my community. I have served the people of Beauce for more than 20 years. The greatest skill I have learned over the years, and the most important quality for a politician, is the ability to listen. I have always taken the time to listen to people's concerns and to have meaningful debates over coffee at a restaurant or at the corner store. This Prime Minister is so out of touch with reality that he does not take the time to speak with ordinary Canadians. He is not interested if there are no cameras around. Our country must reassess its true values and question whether this Prime Minister is the right person to lead it. After calling an unnecessary election to get more power, this government formed another minority government. The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canadians made a clear choice by re-electing him. However, he seems to forget that for the second consecutive election, it was the Conservatives who won the popular vote. Of course, the Prime Minister will never acknowledge the fact that he received fewer votes than the official opposition. The reality is that the Liberals have the NDP in the palm of their hand. I think it is shameful that the NDP continues to add fuel to the fire along with the Prime Minister. As I rise to speak today, I wonder why we cannot allow the police and the powers already in place to do their job, while we do ours in the House by passing and debating bills to improve the lives of Canadians. People in my riding cannot even get adequate cellular coverage. They cannot reach Service Canada by phone when their employment insurance or guaranteed income supplement is cut, or when they are victims of fraud. They cannot bring the temporary foreign workers into Canada they so desperately need to fill important jobs and run their businesses. While we in the House debate the failures of this Prime Minister and his cabinet, my constituents continue to pay the price for this incompetence. In conclusion, I will vote against this motion, as will all of my Conservative Party colleagues, since I do not think that what our country is experiencing right now warrants the use of such powerful measures. We have been through more than two years of a global pandemic and many protests have subsided. Now is not the time to lose our country's trust by taking such drastic measures against our own people. I urge all of my colleagues here to think long and hard about how they will vote on this motion. I remind them that their constituents are watching. I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

1082 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 7:40:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that my constituents will be watching how I vote. I am quite looking forward to that. The hon. member referenced the notion that we should let the police do their job. I take note that since this legislation was tabled on Monday, the police have been enabled to do their job. When I walked here this afternoon, I needed a police escort to get across Wellington Street. Since that time, the police have cleared Wellington Street and are on the way to clearing the rest of the side streets, so the legislation has enabled the police to do their job. I would be interested in the hon. member's reasons for resistance to the legislation, which actually enables the police to do their job.

130 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Feb/19/22 7:41:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I did say that the police have done their job here and all across Canada. We have said that many times today. In Quebec, law enforcement intervened two weeks ago. They managed to take control of the situation without the Emergencies Act. Today was no different. The question we should be asking ourselves is the following. Did we use all available means, such as police forces or the powers granted to them, to do what was needed, as was done in many other provinces?

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/19/22 7:42:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech. Earlier, my Liberal colleague referenced the theatre in response to my colleague's unsuccessful attempt to find the crisis here. Personally, I think the Prime Minister is the one who is hard to find. In my opinion, the real theatre we are seeing here is the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in an attempt to hide its own incompetence. What does my colleague think about that?

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Feb/19/22 7:42:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. It certainly does feel like we are in a play, simply because the Prime Minister and the government have never made use of all the resources available to Canada's police forces. Perhaps this is a way for him to hide his incompetence. I listed many problems that Canadians would rather we dealt with, instead of debating a bill that is of no use to us at present.

78 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/19/22 7:43:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Ottawa police have expressed concerns around the significant amount of foreign funding supporting this occupation. This is foreign funding that is being funnelled into Canada, often anonymously, supporting a movement that clearly states the goal of overturning government. These funds have been used to push forward an agenda of hate disguised as a peaceful protest, with many joining this cause being unaware of or perhaps ignoring the actual intentions of the organizers. Could the member agree that the lack of government leadership has led us here and that the Emergencies Act will provide us with what is required to finally help people?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Feb/19/22 7:44:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question. In Canada, we already have rules that allow us to monitor these things. Nobody has convinced me that passing special legislation would toughen any of the existing rules.

37 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/19/22 7:44:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are told that some demonstrators were planning to overthrow the government. I just had a look around outside and was able to see the state of things. I would like the member to tell me one thing: Of the zero trucks parked outside, how many are planning to overthrow the government?

54 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Lehoux

Feb/19/22 7:45:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I took the time to look out the window. Like my colleague, I see that there is nothing much left to do any overthrowing. We are here to debate the situation, and we will be debating it until early Monday evening. I wonder why we are doing this, because most of the work to dismantle the protests that have taken place across Canada was done before the act—

79 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 7:45:27 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

12 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 7:46:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I am thankful to be debating this important legislation. However, many of us in this place have spoken about the fact that this is not necessarily a day of legislation that we are particularly happy about. In fact, I am disappointed that we are in a situation in this country where we are actually [Technical difficulty—Editor] That said, it is incredibly important to be debating something we are seeing right outside the doors of our House of Commons. Previous members who raised questions and comments talked about how the trucks have cleared and that there is no need to be invoking the Emergencies Act. It is almost as if the members do not realize that it is because the Emergencies Act was invoked that those trucks have cleared. The member said that when he looked out the window, he did not see those trucks. In fact, the police and the measures to clear those very streets came forward because of the legislation we are debating now. Normally when we debate legislation in this place, we all make assumptions and discuss the intentions, or the opposition raises concerns of what might happen or what might come as a result of the legislation. We are in a unique situation today, because right outside the doors of the House of Commons we are seeing the implementation of this act in real time. There will be lots of dialogue and lots of looking into what happened and what went wrong to bring us to this place. However, anyone who suggests that the government and the Prime Minister woke up one day and just invoked this act that was never needed clearly has not been in Ottawa for the last three weeks. They must not have been watching the news for the last two days, seeing the impact of this act being implemented on the streets. I am grateful to the police forces that have come and are moving these people back and out of this community, out of this city, because it has not been a safe place for many of our staff and for many of the business owners around Parliament in the downtown core and in the surrounding neighbourhoods. The people of Ottawa have been terrorized for three weeks. They have felt unsafe living in their own homes, in their own communities. I have seen reports and interviews with persons with disabilities who had food insecurity because they were unable to go to a grocery store or have food delivered because they lived in an area where the so-called protesters had occupied the streets. They could not access transit. Somehow, the Conservatives were saying that there was nothing to see here. The Conservatives were too busy trying to court the votes of those very people in the streets who were wreaking havoc not just on Parliament but on Canadians who live in this city. It is incredibly naive for the Conservatives to say that these people were just peaceful protesters. I have no doubt in my mind that there were some individuals who came here thinking it was really just about vaccine mandates or who were upset with what was happening with COVID. However, the organizers themselves had been stating their intentions for weeks prior to coming to Ottawa. Anyone suggesting that they did not know was simply not paying attention or trying to rewrite history. The organizers who came to Ottawa, who wanted this convoy to take over the streets of Ottawa, made it very clear that they were coming to Ottawa to overthrow the democratically elected government and instead put in its place a committee of their choosing. I did not know in what world I would ever see the Conservative Party sit around and defend a group of people who planned to overturn the entire Parliament. By the way, that also meant the seats of those Conservatives who now stand up and defend these individuals, and who could discount the very votes of Canadian citizens who elected all of us to this place. Just six months ago, there was a democratically held election, one that the Conservatives said was unnecessary. They were happy to continue with the Prime Minister in place. However, our government felt that an election was needed for the very reason of talking to Canadians to put forward a platform about how to move forward next when it comes to COVID and post-COVID. The vast majority of Canadians supported political parties that put in place strong mandates around vaccination. They did so because we all knew that the only way out of this pandemic was through vaccination. Every step of the way, the Conservatives flip-flopped on issues pertaining to COVID. I will give some examples. At the beginning of the pandemic, the Conservatives complained and screamed and said that we would never have vaccines in this country until 2030. Obviously that was not true. Then the Conservatives screamed and demanded that we close the borders. When borders closed and there were restrictions placed on travel, the Conservatives said to open those borders. As we loosened restrictions and the pandemic changed, Conservative premiers such as Doug Ford produced graphics. Do members remember the blood map of the pandemic and the spread of the disease? Then Conservatives at the federal level did not know what to do because a Conservative premier was saying to close the borders while they were screaming to open the borders, so they got really confused on borders at that time. As vaccines became more and more available to all Canadians, and we were encouraging everyone to get vaccinated, Conservatives realized that their base might not want to get vaccinated. All of a sudden, the party of limiting a woman's right to choose was now the party of “my body, my choice”. The irony was not lost on me, as a member who stood in the last session to defend the rights of women to those Conservatives who felt that legislators should determine the health care of women. Then, Conservatives were no longer advocating for vaccinations, saying that we do not need vaccinations, that we just need rapid tests. Well then, last week, we all heard in the House the Conservatives say there was no point to tests, that we were good, and that COVID is over in their eyes. Therefore, they voted against rapid tests. I also want to point out that even the former leader and member for Durham put in vaccine mandates during his campaign for anyone travelling and in his vicinity, but felt that the rest of Canadians did not need that same level of protection. When it comes to Conservatives and this pandemic, the last thing they have done is follow the evidence and the science. Every step of the way, they have followed the politics that they have felt would be most advantageous to themselves. I am frustrated with COVID. I cannot imagine a Canadian or probably anyone around the world who is not frustrated with this pandemic. However, the answer to the pandemic is not to take the Conservative approach of flailing in the wind and doing whatever felt good in the moment. If that was the case, we would see significantly more people sick, significantly more people mourning the death of a family member and we would see our hospitals overrun with stress. Our health care workers who have been true heroes in this pandemic would have been stretched even further to the limits. I want to get back to the Emergencies Act and why we are here. There is something I find most appalling as I have listened to this debate. There are very real debates that we should have about COVID policies, and where to move next. That is healthy in any democracy and I welcome those conversations. However, we are seeing in the streets of Ottawa and in border communities across this country that somehow this debate about COVID policies has turned into whoever can yell the loudest, whoever can use the biggest trucks to block roads and whoever can intimidate and harass should dictate the policy of this government or any government. In what world does that represent democracy? In a democracy, we can have a debate. In a democracy, members are duly elected and represent the government. We have votes. Throughout the course of this debate and last week as we were discussing the various things happening across this country, I heard multiple times, including this evening, the Prime Minister being referred to as a dictator. People are saying that we are living under a tyrannical government, an authoritarian government. It has sickened me to hear this type of language. The irony has not been lost on me that while members sitting in this place have screamed out that the Prime Minister is a dictator, they do so from their seat in the House of Commons, which they were duly elected to hold. In what other dictatorship do we have democratically free elections? People are suggesting that they are not free, that they do not live in a democracy, and that there is not a variety of viewpoints and debate taking place. It was also not lost on me that as members screamed and cried about dictatorship in this country, later in the evening we held votes on legislation. For example, we held one vote on measures for seniors, which my friend the Minister of Seniors brought forward. It passed unanimously. In what dictatorship do we hold debates and free votes? The rhetoric coming from the Conservative Party is damaging. Frankly, I think there are some members who say it to get a rise out of the protesters and to get good clips because they think it will make for better fundraising or make their base happy. Other members, probably even on the Conservative side, are uncomfortable with that. I am sure they have seen the impacts of true dictatorships and authoritarian governments, and I am sure they are not thrilled by some of the rhetoric coming from their own members. What I saw last week during question period was members of the Conservative Party rip off their masks in anger and scream at the Prime Minister that he was a dictator. Again, it is not lost on me, but they did so inside the House of Commons, which they were elected to in a democratic election. It really makes me wonder if they even understand the irony in the words they are using, if they truly understand their meaning or if they come from such a place of privilege that they have lost all sense of reality. Many members, particularly on the Conservative side, have said that this is a peaceful protest, that these are just regular Canadians getting together and demonstrating because they disagree with the government. I fully support the right to protest in this country and the right for dissent in this country. They are a fundamental part of our democracy. If everyone agreed, that would not be a healthy democracy. However, what I find so interesting is some of the actions by these so-called peaceful freedom fighters that the Conservatives love to defend. They have assaulted people in Ottawa for wearing masks. They have harassed employees of local businesses, so much so that businesses have had to close for three weeks. There was an attempted arson and the doors were handcuffed shut so that if a fire started, people would be burned alive inside the building. I have watched journalists being assaulted and harassed live on TV. There were 911 call centres flooded to disrupt emergency services. A bike was thrown at a police horse yesterday in an attempt to injure it. Protesters tried to take police weapons yesterday. Today protesters lit and threw gas canisters at the police. There were bomb threats at the Ottawa hospital. I am sure I have missed some of the acts, but the federal government has to uphold law and order anywhere across this country after acts like that and after three weeks of law enforcement telling people that they have been heard, that they have made their point and to go home because what they are doing is illegal. They ignored that and continued the violence. It is unacceptable and it is time for action. I do not think the Emergencies Act should ever be used lightly. The very debate we are having today is crucial to it. The committee oversight that will come from it is also crucial. I hope we as a country are never in this position again. However, we are here and I will go back to the point of our democracy being threatened. It has been made very clear that foreign money has been influencing the actions of this convoy. What really stood out for me through some earlier debates is when the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that he had been among the protesters, felt perfectly safe and did not really understand what the issue was. I am the duly elected member for the people of Pickering—Uxbridge. I will read a quote from a voice mail that I received at my Hill office the other day, which is, “Listen, you fucking cunt, you fucking bitch, we're—”

2236 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 8:05:26 p.m.
Watch

Order. I know the hon. member is quoting, but that is unparliamentary language. I do not know how the member wants to deal with it. Maybe she could retract it and try again. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

42 words

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Feb/19/22 8:05:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that was unparliamentary language and I apologize to those who had to hear it. I thought about editing those words, but that is a message that was left on my parliamentary office phone in an attempt to intimidate me in this vote, silence my voice and harass me. As uncomfortable as it is for some members to hear that language, that is the language and intimidation that these so-called freedom protesters have been using. It is unacceptable for any member to stand in this place and suggest that I, as a duly elected member, should have to feel that intimidation just because some members feel comfortable walking through the protesters. That I, doing my job to represent the people of Pickering—Uxbridge, am harassed and intimidated as a member of Parliament is outrageous and it is time for this to end.

147 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34