SoVote

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/19/22 8:08:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked whether anybody had realized that the trucks had been cleared since the emergency measures were invoked. Did she realize that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared without the emergency measures? Did she not notice that the border in Alberta was cleared without the emergency measures and that weapons were actually seized there? Did she not realize that this means that the emergency measures are not needed to clear this up? Finally, as the parliamentary secretary for intergovernmental affairs, did she realize that Quebec and seven out of ten provinces did not want this legislation?

99 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Feb/19/22 8:09:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Emergencies Act was not needed in other jurisdictions in this country, but it is very clear that it is needed here in Ottawa. The chief of police and the mayor of Ottawa have both said that the actions that have been taken in the past few days are as a direct result of the powers given by the Emergencies Act. It will not be used in jurisdictions that do not need it, and I hope no other community, no other province or anywhere across this country has to be in a situation in which, for three weeks, its citizens feel unsafe to go to a grocery store, or that any other member of Parliament should be bullied and harassed, or that any citizen should be assaulted and have a mask ripped off their face. I hope that this measure does not need to be used elsewhere, but it is needed here, and I hope that member will reconsider his vote.

168 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 8:10:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for speaking the truth to her experience as an MP, as a woman among the 30% of women elected here, and also for sharing the experiences of constituents in her riding and the harassment that people have experienced here in Ottawa. I am frustrated, as are many others, with being here today. However, I can tell the member that I am not frustrated that we are here debating the Emergencies Act. I am frustrated that occupiers have taken over the downtown core, which has resulted in us having to be here this evening to decide how best to move forward in response to these behaviours and this harassment in the downtown core. Many in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are struggling to get by, and I can tell members that I would much prefer to be doing the work of supporting those constituents right now. Can the member please share if she would agree that now is the time for action and to move forward to truly help those who have been left behind in this pandemic?

184 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Feb/19/22 8:11:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am known to fight and to fiercely debate the issues. I would much rather be debating measures to get through COVID. I would much rather talk about the economy, and talk about our communities and what they need. We might not always agree, but the job of all of us is to be in this place and to push forward those issues. I, too, am disappointed that this is what we are discussing here tonight, but at the same time, as my hon. colleague has pointed out, it actually shows the strength of our democracy. This has not been lost on me since I have been in Ottawa, and in the constituency as well. While those outside say they want to violently remove every single one of us and put us in jail for doing our jobs as elected representatives, the debate continues. We are not afraid. We have voted on important legislation, and our democracy is stronger than these threats.

166 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 8:12:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I liked almost all of the member's speech. She sits on the defence committee with me, and I want her to comment on the violence of language. She and I have heard testimony recently about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation perpetrated by state actors and non-state actors. In my judgment, there is a direct correlation between the violence of language and that element of intimidation. I would be interested in her thoughts connecting those two ideas.

80 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Feb/19/22 8:13:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about this as a member of the defence committee, where we have heard about authoritarian governments around the world and the tactics being used by them. In the last session, I sat on the human rights subcommittee, and I heard from parliamentarians from truly authoritarian governments where there was exactly that. Language, intimidation and threats of personal harm and of being thrown in jail were used very specifically to create fear and to get rid of democratic institutions. This is something we should be very mindful of. Foreign investment and funds to promote this should be something that all Canadians take very seriously—

111 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 8:14:43 p.m.
Watch

There is time for a few more questions and comments. The hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.

20 words

Mr. Larry Brock (Brantford—Brant, CPC)

Feb/19/22 8:14:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to offer any free legal advice to anyone in the House, particularly a colleague. However, given what she has experienced by way of the message of vitriol on her answering machine, I want to remind my colleague that this is what the Criminal Code of Canada is for. What she describes is intimidation. What she describes is uttering threats. There is no limitation period for those matters. She is free to contact the police and have an investigation commence. However, the primary focus of my question is about what she and the Liberal government, particularly the Prime Minister, have indicated. Since it was common knowledge that the manifesto called for an overthrow of the Canadian government, why did the Prime Minister wait three weeks to act, instead of consulting with the RCMP and having the organizers charged with treason?

146 words

All Topics

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell

Feb/19/22 8:16:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the confused messaging coming from the member is unbelievable. He sits here to deny support for the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act to enforce the law and to have broader powers to ensure those who commit a criminal offence are held accountable. He somehow wants to rewrite the history of what has happened. The government is acting with restraint within the charter, and the member should stand up for law and order. People in this country who disagree with the government do not get to then violently attempt to harass and intimidate to get change in that government. If they want a change in the government, they can vote. That is how we make change in democracies, not through harassment and violence.

127 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 8:17:13 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind folks to keep their questions and answers shorter so that more people can get in. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade wanted to ask a question, but we ran out of time. I also want to make a quick comment about unparliamentary language. We need to try our best to not bring it forward. There is a point of order from the parliamentary secretary.

72 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/19/22 8:17:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, there are rules about language in this chamber and those rules are appropriate when we are talking among ourselves through you. However, when we are making a citation that refers to the type of invective and vitriol being volleyed in people's direction in the context of this convoy—

56 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 8:18:09 p.m.
Watch

No, I am looking at the Table just to make sure on this one. To use that kind of vulgarity is not parliamentary in this context. I can bring it up another time and we can talk about it, but in this particular case, I think it was one step a little too far.

54 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/19/22 8:18:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order—

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 8:18:31 p.m.
Watch

We are getting into debate. If the member wants to talk to me later on, we can do that as well. Let us get back to the debate. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

35 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Feb/19/22 8:18:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canada is grappling with a major crisis that is affecting all Canadian families. This is the first time in over 30 years that inflation has hit 5.1%. This affects all Canadian families but, unfortunately, we are not here this evening to talk about something that is having a direct impact on all Canadian families. We are here to talk about an act this government wants to invoke. This act is unnecessary, the circumstances do not meet its criteria and it sets precedents that could end up hurting us in the future. Seven of the 10 provincial governments and seven of the 10 provincial premiers have rejected it. It is therefore not appropriate. The act I am talking about is the Emergencies Act. This act was made almost 35 years ago and has never been invoked. I will explain why it has never been invoked, why it should not be invoked now and why the government has chosen to invoke it anyway. I will explain why, unfortunately, it has the Prime Minister's petty partisan fingerprints all over it. Before getting to the matter at hand, I want to say two things. First, I want to thank the police forces who are keeping people safe here in Parliament, in Ottawa, and across the country with honour and dignity. I want to thank them. In the same breath, and I will immediately admit to my conflict of interest as a former journalist, I can only harshly condemn those who are attacking or intimidating journalists who are currently working in difficult circumstances. I am thinking of the miscreant who assaulted the TVA reporter last night. Like a coward he attacked her from behind. This situation is completely unacceptable and intolerable in our democratic life. Let us hope that the police forces can find this individual who acted in such an unacceptable manner. Let us now talk about the Emergencies Act. The leader of the official opposition, our Conservative leader, was very clear when she said that we are the party of law and order and that we believe that the trucks must leave. That is the position of the Conservative Party concerning what is currently going on in Ottawa. Illegal blockades are not acceptable. We have to remember that three weeks ago, when this all started, the first rally that took place was much less serious than people were saying. I am not the one saying this. I would like to quote a tweet from Radio-Canada, which is hardly a conservative organization. On January 30, the French CBC tweeted: Slogans, dancing and fireworks: far from an insurrection, the thousands of people gathered in Ottawa protested in good spirits. That is how Radio-Canada described the beginning of the protest that took place in Ottawa. Unfortunately, three weeks later, the protest has become an occupation and is no longer unacceptable. An illegal situation has no place in our system of law and order. There is no such thing as somewhat or partially illegal. Something is either legal or illegal. There are thousands of ways to express opposition to something. It is important not to deliberately choose the wrong way. The Emergencies Act has existed since 1988. It has never been invoked or implemented by any government. As the Prime Minister of Canada says, it is not a law to be taken lightly. It is not the first, second or third option, but rather something to be used when the situation is extremely serious and important. That is what the Prime Minister said. Perhaps he should have reflected on his own words before he invoked the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has been asked the following every day: What were the first, second and third things he tried before invoking the Emergencies Act? He is incapable of saying anything that even slightly resembles an answer to the question. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister. The Emergencies Act does not even meet his own criteria. This act must be invoked only when there is a serious threat that keeps the government from functioning. Apart from yesterday, the House has always been able to sit. The Prime Minister—although I am not permitted to say it—was in the House and stood on this very floor to answer questions. The government continued to function. This act must be invoked only if we feel that our territorial sovereignty and integrity have been undermined. This has not been the case. Yes, there have been some problematic situations, which I will speak about later, but they have been dealt with using the ordinary laws we already have, without having to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister told the House that he had consulted with the premiers. He did not actually consult the premiers. He informed them of his decision. That is why seven premiers, seven provincial governments, are opposed to this act. The truth is that the current situation and what has been happening across Canada over the past few weeks can be dealt with under the existing laws, without the use of the Emergencies Act. The actions that the government is proposing to take under the act include freezing accounts and assets and directly interfering in people's bank accounts, which could be used for illegal purposes. Immediate action can be taken under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. We do not need the Emergencies Act. As for threats to Canada's sovereignty, direct action can be taken under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code without any need for the Emergencies Act. Subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Code covers the much-talked-about situation with the tow trucks. It gives the police the right to ask anyone who does not have a reasonable excuse “to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”. The Emergencies Act, which includes such extreme measures, need not be invoked since subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Codes does the same thing. There is no need to used the act given that existing laws are already been applied. In fact, the situation in Ottawa is unfortunately not unlike what has happened elsewhere in the country. We saw the same problems with blockades at the border in Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. Those four crises were resolved using existing laws. How were they resolved? In those areas, we saw real leadership, police forces helping one another to act directly, and a coordinated effort supported by politicians that led to action being taken. Yes, in Coutts, weapons were discovered that that could worry everyone. When I myself saw this cache of weapons, I wondered what was going on, because it was dangerous. However, the weapons were discovered, and the people will be punished under existing laws without there being the need to resort to the Emergencies Act. We must be vigilant in that regard. Members will recall that the War Measures Act was used for the last time in 1970. The now-repealed War Measures Act looked nothing like the act we are debating today. The new Emergencies Act was drafted by the Conservative government under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and introduced by the Hon. Perrin Beatty in 1988. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked, even during major demonstrations at events like the G7; the G20; the Summit of the Americas, which I attended as a journalist; the Oka crisis; the COVID‑19 crisis; and September 11. These extraordinary events could have been used as reasons to invoke the Emergencies Act, but it was not invoked. The Liberal government, however, invoked this law over what has been happening in Ottawa. It did so because this government is unfortunately led by a Prime Minister who is, above all, guided by partisanship. This is nothing new. I remind members that during the SNC‑Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister let partisanship take over when he stuck his nose into a legal matter. That is appalling. The same thing happened with the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, when he did everything he could to prevent the truth from coming out and being available to everyone. Remember that an election was called to bring in a vaccine mandate for public servants when there was no scientific advice on such a thing. The same thing happened with the truckers. There was no public health advice or scientific analysis to justify the vaccine mandate. The government did nothing for 17 days before deciding to act. Curiously, on February 11, it said that everything was in place to act without invoking special legislation, but then on February 14, it decided to invoke the special legislation. This is a Prime Minister who stigmatizes, divides and insults Canadians. These are not my words, but those of the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert. What Canadians need is real leadership and a prime minister who brings people together and unites them, not someone who stigmatizes people who do not think like him.

1538 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 8:28:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite and his contributions to the chamber at all times. I politely point out to him that in terms of the crisis being ongoing, even today the blockade at the Surrey border in B.C. has been resurrected, so tools are still required by law enforcement around the country. That is the first point of clarification. I am going to put something to the hon. member that I think is very significant, because we have heard this from other Conservatives, including the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, who said that “everyone” has the right to be heard. What I would say to him is that I have a specific view that not everyone has a right to be heard in this context. People who are waving swastikas or Confederate flags, people who are leaving vitriol in the voice mail of other members of Parliament, people who are openly intimidating and threatening violence or people who are arming themselves at the border do not have a right to be heard. Would the member opposite agree that in fact there is and should be limited appetite for engaging in dialogue with individuals who are part of the blockade seizing this nation?

210 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/19/22 8:29:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that again a member from the government, from the Liberal Party, raises the famous story about the swastika. I will never accept any comment of that style from anybody in the House of Commons because everybody knows that all parliamentarians here, whatever they defend as a party, will never defend that. The problem is that the Prime Minister—my Prime Minister, our Prime Minister—decided to politicize it. Shame on him and shame on this member.

83 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/19/22 8:30:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had promised that the law would be applied in a limited way, and then he changed his mind and said that it was not possible. However, section 17(2)(c) of part II of the Emergencies Act says exactly the opposite. If the Prime Minister had kept his word and followed the act, what would my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and his party have thought about the invocation of the act?

77 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/19/22 8:31:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether my hon. colleague, my neighbour from the Quebec City area, is a lawyer. I believe that many people have read the Criminal Code, the Civil Code and all of the laws that apply in Canada so as to be able to point out the following facts and reality: There is currently no need to use this act, which was passed in 1988 and has never been used. As my Bloc Québécois colleague so eloquently put it a moment ago, the existing laws contain measures to deal with the problems that have been arising, whether it be here in Ottawa, at our borders, at the Ambassador Bridge or elsewhere. That is what they are there for. The law that the government is trying to impose on us today is not needed to deal with what is happening in Canada right now.

150 words

All Topics

Hon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Feb/19/22 8:32:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are kind members of Parliament on all sides of the House. The House is full of kind individuals, and there is none more kind than the member who has just spoken here, so I think it is absolutely regrettable that the Liberal and NDP strategy today has been to label every Conservative member of Parliament with the acts of a few individuals that we all unequivocally agree are unacceptable. I will draw a parallel. Would it be fair to tag every single Liberal or Green or NDP member who cares about the environment with the actions that happened in Houston a couple of days ago, where 20 individuals wore masks, wielded axes and burned a vehicle with people in it? Would it be fair to tag everybody who cares about the environment in the House with the actions of those 20 individuals?

145 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34