SoVote

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

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/19/22 8:33:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is very passionate when we talk about fairness in politics. This is what we ought to do right now. When there is a crisis, I know it is not very easy, especially for me, to put aside any partisanship. However, folks, what we have to address today right now is a health crisis. If we want to work together, we need to put aside our partisanship and especially not make any amalgames, as we say in French. Please work all together for all Canadians.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 8:33:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when indigenous people blocked the railways in 2020, my colleagues opposite demanded strong action from the government to put an end to the blockades, which they were quick to call illegal. However, now they think it is a good idea to take selfies with the protesters who are occupying Parliament Hill and who have been paralyzing the nation's capital for three weeks. The member has one position when the protesters are indigenous and another when they are supported by white supremacist groups. Can he explain that discrepancy?

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell

Feb/19/22 8:34:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal government, we never considered invoking the extreme measures act. The thought never even crossed our minds. I would like to once again remind the member that this kind of dubious association is inappropriate, especially in such a delicate situation with security implications. Let us do our best to set partisanship aside, even though we may sometimes be tempted to go there. I would remind the House that, during the crisis the member referred to, nobody on this side of the House suggested using the extreme measures act as the government is doing now.

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Feb/19/22 8:35:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be a member of Parliament here in Canada. It is an honour to represent the people of the riding of Prince Albert. I am going to do the best I can to do that here tonight as I talk about this emergency debate and the emergency measures that the government is calling for. One thing that has been missing from this Parliament and from this debate is respect, respect all the way around for people, whether they are vaccinated or not. I think if we go back through time and look chronologically at what has happened and ask ourselves how we got to this point, lack of respect is the true factor. I have talked to constituents, some vaccinated, some unvaccinated. The unvaccinated would come to me and tell me they were doctors who had been working 80 or 90 hours a week all through COVID, doing whatever they could, and then one day all of a sudden the government comes in and tells them they are no longer safe enough to be doctors. Not only that, the Minister of Employment comes in and tells them that they will not get employment insurance unless they get vaccinated. That is a problem. It could be a nurse and it is the same scenario. It could be someone working with elderly people and it is the same scenario. It could be a police officer and it is the same scenario. These people feel they have been forced or pushed into a corner where nobody would listen and nobody would show them respect. They were there for us in times of need, but now we as politicians need to listen to them and see how we can help them in their time of need. We actually approached the Liberal Party, the Minister of Transport, before the vaccine mandate for border crossing came into effect. We told them not to do it. The science does not prove it is a problem. We know it is not an issue. These guys are sitting in their trucks. They have been running across the border for the last two years and they are not bringing the virus in and out of Canada. It actually could create problems for supply chains, so why do it? The science does not say we need to do it, unless we want to force our will on somebody, which is what the current government was doing when it said we had to do it. There is no respect. When people are pushed into a corner, when the lives of their families are at stake and they do not know what to do, what do members think will happen? How did we get to the stage we are at today? Do members think these people wanted to drive across this country to come to Ottawa? Did they want to spend thousands of dollars on diesel? Did they want to sit there and stare face to face with police officers, whom they showed the utmost respect for? Did they want to risk their reputation, knowing there would be undesirables who may join the group and they would have to self-regulate it and kick them out? Did they want to be here? They did not. There were so many examples down the trail of this where, if the Prime Minister had shown some leadership and respect, this could have been stopped and prevented. It is really frustrating and maddening to see these protesters come here to Ottawa, a lot of whom we might see at a Riders' game, at a baseball game, at a hockey game. They are average Canadians who are at their wit's end, asking and screaming and crying for help. They do not know where to turn. That is 90% of the people who were in that crowd. They were sitting there waiting to speak with the Prime Minister, but he would not speak to them, because he saw a swastika on the stage, which did not belong to them and they had asked that person to leave. However, he still refused to speak with them, calling them chauvinistic white supremacists, which inflamed the situation. Instead of sitting down with them to talk about their concerns and acknowledge that they are a good chunk of the population, he dug in his heels and showed more disrespect. That is what created the problem. That is why they stayed for three weeks. That is why they did not leave a week later. If he had shown some respect and goodwill, taken the olive branch we gave him and put out a plan that would show that the mandates would end, a plan that would show that their families would have a future, based on science, we would not have what is going on today. There would be no need for the Emergencies Act. There would be absolutely no reason to use it. Even now there is not. This morning, when I flew back home, I was at the Toronto airport and everybody is fleeing Canada. They are not fleeing because they are scared; they are going on a holiday, getting on with their lives, doing things, being active and out and about. There were families with children at the airport waiting to fly to their vacation destinations or across Canada to visit more family and friends, something they have not been able to do for two years. I came back to Saskatoon. There must be a serious crisis because these are emergency measures that have to apply right across Canada, yet there are kids snowmobiling in the ditch. Life is going on. Home Depot is busier than ever. We look at that and ask ourselves where this crisis is. I turned on CBC News to see what happened today in Ottawa, and I saw law enforcement removing the protesters. Yes, they are pushing them back and everything, but everything they are doing is done using existing legislation. They did not need anything new to do what they are doing today. One thing that is interesting, and something we need to draw attention to, is the finance minister and Deputy Prime Minister and her comments about how we are going to go after the money. I think a lot of people were really amazed that this group could raise so much money so quickly. One could say there was U.S. influence on it. There is no question about it. We could say that about any environmental protest, too. The reality is they raised a whole pile of money in a short period of time. We all know money talks, and when we see that kind of money being raised, we know there are a lot of people supporting them in the background. We could say half of it came from the U.S., but still, if it is $10 million raised in Canada in two weeks, which political party could ever do that? They would all dream about it. How did a group of truckers, nurses, doctors and farmers all of a sudden put together a fundraising mechanism to raise that kind of money? If this is not grassroots, I do not know what is. Are there bad influences among that money? There probably are, no question about it. Are there people we should be worried about? Yes, there is no question about that. We should basically call these people out and make sure they are held accountable for their actions, no question about that, too. However, does it require the Emergencies Act to do what we need to do? The answer is no, not unless we really want to scare people from donating money to any type of cause, not unless we want to make sure that we have shown the country that we have been gone for three weeks, but now we are actually here and we are going to do something: talk about overcompensation for lack of results and lack of effort. This is another example of the Liberal government not reacting until something becomes a crisis. We have seen it in other situations. On the Canada-U.S. trade deal, the Liberals would not react until it became a crisis, and also on the U.K. trade deal. I know trade because that is the committee I sit on. The deal is expiring, and the Liberals are just saying maybe we should bring it in to be looked at. The government is not proactive. If we did something beforehand, it could prevent a lot of problems, but no, they wait until it is a crisis and then they want to jump in and be the hero. It is dangerous. As we see right now, it is very dangerous. It produces zero results and there are no winners at the end of the day. How do we get out of this? The police are doing their job, and I commend them for doing it. They would be doing it whether or not they had the Emergencies Act. If we had told the police to clear them out two weeks ago, they would have done it two weeks ago without the Emergencies Act. Case in evidence is at the border crossings in Coutts and Windsor. They did not need the Emergencies Act to move those people out. They just sat down and talked to them, and negotiated a way to get them out and get them to move on. There are ways to move forward on this that would actually present the results we want to see. I also want to highlight the fact that the government does not have the support of the provinces; seven out of 10 provinces do not agree with the government. The Liberals could say they consulted with the provinces and that is good enough. No, it is not good enough. When we hear Quebec saying not to implement it in that province, or in Saskatchewan or Alberta, why would we not listen to them? If they are saying to the Prime Minister that he has not met the threshold for that, why not take that advice? These are smart people who are elected by their populations also. They have a stronger mandate, I would say, because they have majority governments in their provinces, not a minority government. When we look at that scenario, why would the Prime Minister not take a step back and say maybe we should not do this? It is because of his ego. He has been caught not doing anything and now he feels he has to do something. He is now overreaching and overcompensating, and Canadians are going to pay for it. What he is doing is setting a very dangerous precedent. He is making it so that with any type of protest or action, any government today or in the future can look at Ottawa and say there were 170 people arrested there, so we can bring in the Emergencies Act and clamp down on everybody because of one protest. It does not meet the threshold. Looking at my NDP colleagues, Tommy Douglas would never stand for this. Members can go back and read some of his comments when the War Measures Act was implemented in Quebec. If they are truly New Democrats, Tommy Douglas New Democrats, they would not be standing with their leader right now and voting in favour of this. They would actually say they cannot do this because it is not right. If we are looking down the road at different union protests or strikes going on, what is going to prevent them from doing this at those protests or strikes? What are they really fighting for?

1960 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 8:45:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member finds this question entertaining. There are places in Canada that did not need the Emergencies Act. Coutts, Alberta, was one, because after the police found some pretty awful elements with huge stashes of weapons, charging some of them with conspiracy to commit murder, what did the blockade do? Those good people in the blockade said, “This does not represent us. Let us go home,” and they did. Would the hon. member put the same advice to the people who overstayed their welcome by at least two weeks on Wellington Street in downtown Ottawa?

102 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34