SoVote

Feb/19/22 10:07:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick. There was a lot in there. I have been involved in nation protection for the Métis people for a long time. Never in my life have I, in that role, protected through that nationalism defence the right to overthrow a democratically elected government. That is first and foremost. The second part of the member's question related to what members should be doing right now. We have to take this issue very seriously, and we should be thinking of the state of our country as a whole.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Feb/19/22 10:08:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin, my thoughts are with the people of Bulkley Valley, who have been shocked by the recent violence and vandalism at a work site on the Marten Forest Service Road. My thoughts go out specifically to the workers of that site who have been traumatized and the officer who was injured. I denounce these acts, and I join my constituents in demanding a full and thorough investigation to hold those responsible accountable. I rise this evening, at this troubling and historic time in our country, to address the motion before us to confirm the use of the Emergencies Act to restore social order. I have been here in Ottawa for last three weeks. I arrived the day after the convoy did. For most of the past 22 days, I have walked through downtown Ottawa twice a day, and I have paid close attention to the convoy, the messages on the signs, the people, and the people of this city, those who live and work downtown and who have been so profoundly affected by this illegal occupation. I believe protest is an important part of our democracy. It can give the voiceless a voice and ensure that citizens have a way to communicate the strength of their feelings, views and beliefs to their government. I have attended dozens of protests in my life, and I have a particular respect for peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience, which has played an important in our history role in so much of our social progress, but this is not that. What we have witnessed for the past three weeks is nothing short of the occupation of the capital city of a G7 country. It is an event that I find deeply troubling for a number of reasons. The first lies in the stated goal of the leaders of this occupation, which, as my friend from Edmonton Griesbach articulated, is to subvert our democracy and overthrow a democratically elected government. The second reason I find this troubling is the effect the occupation has had on the people of Ottawa. Thousands of innocent people, who were already struggling in the midst of the pandemic, are unable to go to work or go about their daily lives with the peace and security they so deserve. I also think of the thousands of people across Canada who have been affected similarly by blockades at bridges and along trade corridors. The third reason I am troubled lies in the stream of funding coming from south of the border from individuals who see fit to destabilize our country in the same vein as the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Finally, the fourth reason is the presence of extremism, evidenced by the occupation's leaders, their history, their rhetoric and their associations. I know there are many people in northwest B.C. for whom the occupation and convoy have provided an outlet for their frustrations and anger. I ask them simply to look into who is behind this event. I considered naming the occupation leaders and some of their more troubling views here this evening, as my colleague and others have done previously in this debate, but I am not going to do that because I refuse to give them the notoriety they seem to crave. At the centre of this crisis lies the failure of the police. If they had done their job properly from the outset and taken the threats seriously, we would not be finding ourselves where we are this evening. As the occupation dug in, I heard from many indigenous and non-indigenous constituents who were stunned by the contrast between the kid-glove approach of the Ottawa Police Service here and the way in which indigenous protesters in northwest B.C. and across Canada are policed. Many members in this place have noted that contrast, and it is something that must be addressed. It is because of the failure of local and provincial law enforcement to protect social order that we must consider this extraordinary measure before us. I would simply ask those who are opposing this motion what the alternative is. They suggest that the Prime Minister should negotiate with those who have occupied the city, but negotiate with whom? Surely not the leaders of this occupation. Others have suggested that the police forces have existing powers and legislation at their disposal, but what use are provisions in the Criminal Code if police are either unwilling or unable to apply them? In fact, the police have been calling out for help. They have said clearly that they are not able to deal with this situation with the powers, tools and resources at their disposal. This occupation has gone on now for three weeks. Does such a situation not call for the government to consider providing additional powers? To be honest, I find the objections of some in this House to be somewhat naive, especially from those parties that traditionally espouse law and order. We are called on now to protect the people of our country, and we must step up. This is not to say that I am comfortable with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I hear the voices of those who caution us that this is a dangerous precedent and that it could lead to future uses that are less appropriate, including its use against lawful demonstration. It falls to all of us in this place to ensure that this does not happen. New Democrats have been clear that we will not tolerate the inappropriate use of these additional powers by the government, and we are prepared to initiate their revocation at a moment's notice. Turning to the larger context of this global pandemic in which we find ourselves, I want to acknowledge that, two years in, a lot of people are fed up. Some are angry and some are desperate. How could they possibly be otherwise? We must not allow ourselves to fall into thinking that these circumstances are any kind of normal. A situation that requires such broad and sweeping restrictions as have been necessary is not normal. Over the past three weeks, I have heard from many constituents with strong feelings about the government's management of the pandemic and about the matter before us today. I want to speak directly to them now. I hear them. I hear their frustration and anger with a government and a prime minister that they feel are out of touch with the challenges they are facing. I hear their concern that the federal government has not always been transparent or explained the evidence upon which pandemic measures are based. I hear their concern that certain measures have affected small businesses, especially small tourism businesses, in ways that go beyond what the pandemic relief programs have compensated for. I hear their concern about the mental health impacts of the pandemic. For the small number of constituents who have chosen not to get vaccinated and who stand to lose their livelihoods in a few short months, I say this: I disagree with their choice, but I empathize with their predicament. One's livelihood is a sacred thing and governments should only interfere with it in the direst of circumstances. I continue to push for the government to provide greater clarity as to whether such measures remain necessary at this juncture of the pandemic. I hear them. I will end with an expression of gratitude. It is gratitude for the thousands of people in northwest B.C. who have sacrificed in small and large ways out of concern for the health and well-being of their neighbours, their loved ones, the elders in our community and our seniors. It is gratitude for the health care workers who, for two years, have gone to work every day in the face of a struggling health care system and who have shown themselves to be nothing short of heroes. It is gratitude to live in a country where this debate is possible, where checks and balances exist and where democracy is strong enough to stand up against threats to the fabric of our nation. I reject the notion that we are more divided than ever. It is the social solidarity of Canadians and our care for each other that has allowed us to reach this point with so many fewer deaths per capita than many other countries. It is this care and concern for each other that I believe lies as the basis of our freedom as a people. When I search for strength in the face of a difficult decision in this place, my mind turns to home. It turns to Skeena and the places that inspire, ground and motivate so many. I think of the Skeena River, flowing free to the Pacific Ocean. I think of the people. They are strong, caring and good people. I am so deeply honoured to speak on their behalf.

1498 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 10:18:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which clearly explained the balance between freedoms and social order. However, he criticizes the government for not having acted quickly enough. Could my colleague tell me what he would say to those who believe that the actions of the last few days constitute a crackdown and a denial of the right to protest?

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/19/22 10:19:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was referring to the police not acting quickly enough in the face of the occupation, not the government. I believe that other cities' police forces learned from the failures of the police here in Ottawa and that acting more swiftly, taking the security intelligence more seriously, could have avoided much of the disruption and unrest that has occurred over the past three weeks.

66 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Feb/19/22 10:19:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could share his thoughts on why the government delayed and took so long to act. They knew this risk was in Ottawa. They were staying in a hotel here. Why did they not go out, question them, bring them in and have a chat with them? Why does he think they stopped at that point and just ignored it for three weeks?

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/19/22 10:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is clear that when it comes to illegal protests, protests that disrupt the flow of traffic and major roadways, and those sorts of matters, enforcing the statutes and laws in the city and in the province falls to the local police authorities. While I believe it is incumbent on the Prime Minister and, in fact, all of us in this House to listen to people with a wide range of views and to consider what they have to say, I believe that very early on it was up to the police to intervene and to uphold social order in this city and across the country.

108 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 10:20:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech. I understand that there is some ambiguity and that this situation is not easy. We have a choice to make right now. This is emergency legislation that has been applied three times in the country's entire history. We are not voting on just any bill. The motion we are debating is important. We have to weigh the pros and the cons. However, since the act was invoked a week ago, the situation on the ground has changed a lot. I heard one of his colleagues, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie say on Thursday on television in Quebec that if the situation changed in such a way that there would no longer be any protesters in Ottawa, the NDP might reconsider its decision to support the government on this legislation. Does my colleague think that the situation has changed enough for the NDP to change its position?

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

Feb/19/22 10:21:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this came through in the translation, but I think I heard him say that the Emergencies Act has only been applied a few times in our history. To be clear, this is the first time that it has been applied. The War Measures Act is a very different piece of legislation. I could be mistaken there, but that is my understanding. To his question about how these powers are applied, I want to assure him that should we support this, we will do it very reluctantly. I do not want to see these extra powers used one day longer than is necessary. We are going to be watching very carefully, holding the government accountable. We will revoke those powers at a moment's notice. I count on him to work with us in such a situation.

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/19/22 10:23:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. The situation is serious. People are concerned. They are contacting us. I have received all sorts of messages. The vast majority are from people asking us not to support this special legislation. People are saying that they do not want us to support this unacceptable law. We have also received messages from people asking how they can support the protesters. Those messages are fewer in number, but we have received some. Still other messages ask me how I can abandon people who are fighting for their freedom. These messages are coming from all over, but these people all have one thing in common. They are all worried and unhappy with the situation. Let us ask ourselves why. How did we get to the point where our society has become so divided? I am sure that all my colleagues in the House are also receiving all kinds of messages. We are doing our best to answer them. We are explaining our positions. Generally, it is fine. How did we get to this point? It is because we do not have a leader. The government is sowing division. Let me put it this way: The government had the audacity to use the collective distress of a certain group of people for political purposes, and it let those people settle in. We could have handled the situation differently. It is always easier to say that in hindsight, of course, but we know it can be done. We have seen it elsewhere. What did it take? It took a leader. What is the difference between Quebec City and Ottawa? Earlier, someone said that other cities had learned from Ottawa's experience. Beyond that, Quebec City had the benefit of a mayor and a premier who spoke to each other, created a crisis task force, coordinated police forces and recognized the demonstrators' right to protest. These things were completely missing in Ottawa. Ironically enough, the most reviled of those people were the ones who protested the longest. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. I am speaking to the heart of the issue. How can someone who is the Prime Minister, the head of state, throw fuel on the fire right from the outset and insult Canadians? Perhaps the Prime Minister did not agree with their message, but these people are Canadians. A head of state must must be able to calm things down. I am not talking about giving in either, but, first of all, he should not have insulted people. Second, why not at least meet with the the truckers' official representatives? This has been mentioned several time in the debates. Ninety per cent of them are vaccinated too. For the most part, they did not agree with the protest. The Prime Minister did not meet with anyone. Every time there is a crisis, this Prime Minister hides and waits for things to blow over. In times of crisis, the 338 elected members of the House of Commons have a collective duty to come together and work for the common good. To do that, something has to happen. Someone has to be willing to talk to us. We cannot always be dealing people who only want to score political points. That just does not work. We all saw the images from yesterday and today. I want to once again commend the police forces, because this is not an easy job. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Everyone finds this sad. How could the government allow the entire city to be occupied for 23 days? Think of Ottawa's residents and small businesses. We abandoned them. Being Prime Minister is not about recognition. It is not about having a illustrious title and another trophy on the shelf. Being prime minister is fraught with consequences. It comes with a very heavy burden. One must be worthy of the position. I am sad to say that no one saw the Prime Minister for three weeks. What happened? He went into hiding, hoping this would pass. It was not the first time this has happened. Someone else mentioned this earlier today. I remember the blockades in support of the Wet'suwet'en Nation that took place not too long ago. No one talks about it, because it happened before COVID-19. It is as though we have forgotten everything before COVID-19. Obviously, we are talking about two completely different types of protests. I am not trying to lump them together or draw a comparison. However, I remember that the blockades began in one place, but the government did absolutely nothing. Nothing happened. Our Prime Minister was in Africa, trying to win votes for Canada to get a seat at the UN. He never got it. He did not care about what was going on at home. He came back 10 days later. The crisis had grown, and it was much more difficult to manage. We proposed solutions. We proposed that law enforcement, the RCMP, be withdrawn. We also proposed negotiations. In the beginning, the government wanted nothing to do with our proposals. What did it ultimately do to resolve the crisis? The government listened to the Bloc Québécois's recommendations. I am very disappointed to say that this time no one listened to us at all. During the early days of the crisis, we called for the party leaders to meet. We also called for the creation of a crisis task force and a committee. There needs to be a discussion. Something needs to happen. We need to talk to our constituents, who are fed up and can no longer cope with the restrictions that have been in place for two years. That is the real situation. That is what happened. I have a feeling—and it is just a feeling, not something I know for sure—but when I look at this from an outside perspective, I wonder why not let a demonstration go on in my capital in front of Parliament. It would make people unhappy and perhaps cause division within some of the opposition parties where there is some tension. It worked to some extent. After that, the protesters will get tired and leave. If they do not, then the government can intervene and will come across looking strong. That was an error in judgment. What consequences did waiting have? More people ended up coming and sticking around. Everything ended up being blockaded. It was at that point that the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the borders started. Suddenly, there was a dramatic turn of events. The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. I am not sure if my colleagues know this, but almost $400 million worth of goods move across the Ambassador Bridge every day. If Ottawa residents have to put up with honking for a month, then that is no big deal. I am not saying that the bridge used for commerce should be left blocked, but I am drawing a parallel between the two. The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. Thrown into a panic, our poor Prime Minister started saying that this had to stop. That is when the police moved in, without using the Emergencies Act. That is the big difference. We did not need this law. The same thing could have been done in the City of Ottawa. After it has dragged on for more than 20 days, it is much more difficult to move. We saw it in the last few days. It was predictable. This is a sad situation. It should not have gotten to this point. People have the right to protest, but they need to follow the rules while doing it. People have the right to protest, but they cannot occupy a city for a month. People have the right to go about their lives. This is not right. Caught in a bind, the Liberals came up with a way to help the government and the Prime Minister save face by invoking this law as a publicity stunt. This is the first time that this has happened since 1988. In fact, this law has never been invoked before. Personally, I am deeply disturbed that it was invoked this time. Of course, today's law is not the same as the 1970 law. I will not conflate the two. What bothers me a lot is that this sets a precedent. Now whenever a government gets into a political tight spot, it will use this law. What will happen five or 10 years from now, when another government, regardless of its political stripe, wants to use it? That is the question, and that is why we will be voting against it.

1494 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 10:33:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague does not seem to understand that governments do not direct the police. Does my colleague realize that what we have seen and experienced is part of a something bigger than mandatory vaccination for truckers? We already met with the convoy organizers two years ago. They came here with their trucks to protest the carbon tax. Does my colleague also know that the Canada Unity Facebook page was created two years ago? Does he not believe that we may be facing a movement that goes beyond the very narrow main objective mentioned during the protest, which was for the government to lift vaccination requirements for truckers?

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Feb/19/22 10:34:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am well aware that the Prime Minister is not the one who manages the police. I would like to ask my colleague a question in return. Does he understand that sometimes it would be nice to have a leader who can bring people together? The person leading a country needs to talk to people. The member is saying that the government talked to the protesters two years ago, but I think it could have talked to them again this time. My colleague is asking whether I am aware of what this organization is involved in. We know all that, and I hope that the speech I gave earlier was not misinterpreted. That was not the issue. The reason this happened is that the government failed to take action for 23 days.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/19/22 10:35:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question, but I also have a comment. We often hear the Liberals say that the government does not direct the police. In reality, section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act clearly states that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under the direction of the minister, has the control and management of the force and all matters connected with the force. Those are the exact words used in the act. Therefore, the government cannot say that the police must do everything while it does nothing. Ultimately, it is up to the government to direct them and tell them what the purpose of public management of police operations is. I would like my colleague from the Bloc to explain to us why the government is trying to suggest that it will do nothing and that the law just magically gets enforced.

154 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Feb/19/22 10:36:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him. I will again draw a comparison to how things work in Quebec. The Premier of Quebec did not control the Quebec City police. He met with the mayor to talk about what they would do and how they would organize everything. It is just about getting out in front of a situation, trying to plan and, of course, getting people together. My Conservative colleague made a very good point. That impulse has to come from somewhere.

89 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 10:36:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know I have not been able to be present for 100% of the debate here, but there is something that I have never heard from the Bloc Québécois members: an expression of concern for the people of Gatineau and elsewhere in the Outaouais, many of whom work in Ottawa and have lost jobs because businesses have closed down, public transit routes have been disrupted and the bridges have been clogged. It seems to me a bit curious that the Bloc Québécois members never talk about the people of the Outaouais, and the inconveniences and struggles they have faced during the lockdown in Ottawa.

114 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron

Feb/19/22 10:37:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand. The question was not very clear. Is he suggesting members of the Bloc Québécois never talk about the people of the Outaouais? The people of the Outaouais most certainly were inconvenienced by blocked bridges. Of course there are people with family and friends on the Ottawa side. However, it was downtown Ottawa that was occupied. The horns were blaring in downtown Ottawa. That is why we have been talking more about Ottawa. We are in Parliament, which is in Ottawa, and the trucks were here in front of Parliament. I hope the member is not suggesting that we do not care about Quebec because that would be an ill-advised suggestion.

123 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/19/22 10:38:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on Friday, I listened to my colleagues for nine hours. Today, I have been listening to them all day right from 7 a.m., even though I went to bed at 3 a.m. because I was writing this speech, and even though I will be here until midnight. I have noticed the extent to which the polarization that I see on social media has crept into the House. I had difficulty writing this speech, which says a lot, because anyone observing me even a little in the House knows that I am constantly writing. It is difficult to find the words to avoid polarization with all these emotions present. Emotions are running high, and I am hearing a lot of heated comments in the House at present. It was not easy to write this speech because the invocation of the Emergencies Act is a historic event that will set the bar for its invocation in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that its use will not be taken lightly in the future just because it has been taken lightly today. Canada has experienced some very dangerous, critical and urgent situations. Almost all of my colleagues have mentioned the Oka crisis, the rail blockades in 2020, the Caledonia crisis, September 11 and COVID‑19. I want to make one thing clear right now. I never have and never will have sympathy for extremists, on either the right or the left. I have never had sympathy for hate speech or threats. I was outraged and shocked to see Nazi and Confederate flags. I felt sick with anger. I will never minimize threats that someone may receive. I have been threatened myself after a member of Parliament spoke to the media and shared misinformation regarding a vote in committee. All day yesterday, I responded to hundreds of emails, and every single one of them was calling on us not to enforce the Emergencies Act. I was getting emails not only from my constituents, but also from people in Calgary, Vancouver, Burnaby, Prince George, Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and even Ottawa. The people of Ottawa have been most affected by this situation. All that was missing were some emails from Prince Edward Island. This legislation scares them very much, and they have the right to be listened to, to be heard and to get answers. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act states that the government must demonstrate that there is a dangerous and urgent situation that cannot be effectively dealt with ordinary laws. However, the order does not demonstrate that existing intervention powers are inadequate. In other places, law enforcement used the tools it was supposed to use, municipal bylaws, highway traffic acts and the Criminal Code. That is what should have been done here from the start. Some might say that there was no way to predict the future or know what was going to happen. Of course Ottawa served as an example to others, but Ottawa was indeed aware of the situation. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons mentioned that extremist groups have been on social media for two years. They also mentioned that on social media and in the media, there was talk of a convoy 70 kilometres long. The warning went out one week before the convoy arrived, which should have been enough time to plan and figure out how to contain the situation before it got out of hand the way it did. This type of action is possible through coordination, teamwork, the creation of an emergency response team, collaboration and visionary leadership. The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the associations and the mobilization that is possible on social media. However, the act makes it clear that it must be invoked not based on hypothetical events, but on the presence of real danger. The act is to be used when the police are unable to enforce the laws and bylaws available. Right now, I feel that the act is more of a positive move than a reasonable one. A reasonable move would have been to recognize that the problem lies primarily in Ottawa and not elsewhere in the country. Several incidents have been cited in the House to persuade us that the Emergencies Act is necessary. On February 17, the theft of a trailer full of weapons in Peterborough was mentioned. At 1:55 p.m. that day, the member for Parkdale—High Park drew a connection between that theft and the protest that was going on at the time in Quebec City. That was on February 17. However, the trailer was found on February 16. It was wrong to couple the two together. That is misinformation. This incident cannot be used to support the invocation of the act. On the same day, the crane truck that was parked in front of the Prime Minister's office was considered a threat. It is no longer there now, but if it was a threat, why was it not moved from the start? The Criminal Code is clear. Paragraphs 423(1)(a) to 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code deal with such incidents, threats and intimidation. The vehicle already would have had to be moved under the existing Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act. Members talked about the threats in the videos. I saw those videos, and I did not like what I saw. My colleague talked about this earlier. We have known about some of these Facebook groups for two years. I cannot understand why they were not shut down in accordance with the Criminal Code. I know of seven sections of the Criminal Code that could have been used to silence the people who made those videos and bring them to justice because what they were doing was illegal: paragraph 261(1)(a); subsection 423(1), which I talked about earlier; subsection 46(2); subsections 59(1) to 59(3), paragraphs 63(1)(a) and 63(1)(b); and subsection 72(1). There are plenty of them. For money coming from the United States and possibly, according to sources, from extremist supremacist groups, sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04 of the Criminal Code cover that. Section 83.11 says that banks can freeze assets. We had all the legislative tools we needed to address the crisis before it turned into a 23-day occupation. To sum up, all law enforcement needed was coordination and the ability to call in tow trucks. The Criminal Code covers that too. With a court order or an order from the Attorney General, the tow trucks would have had no choice but to act, and they would have been supported. In a crisis, we must all weigh our words and our actions carefully, whether we are MPs, the Prime Minister, law enforcement officers, mayors, municipal councillors or protesters. During a crisis, we must take the time to balance our emotional and rational selves. Too much of one or the other is not a good thing. Inaction can be just as damaging as sudden or extreme action. On both sides of this issue, consultation, collaboration and coordination between the various police forces were possible without applying the Emergencies Act. It took planning and leadership. It was possible to arrest people who threatened others without applying the Emergencies Act. It was possible to arrest the ringleaders without applying the Emergencies Act. I could go on much longer. I have another two pages of examples. The police asked for help as far back as February 7 and 11. Leadership and consultation are what this protest needed, and that is what police forces are providing right now. We do not need to create a precedent.

1329 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 10:48:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. The member referenced a number of provisions of the Criminal Code, and one that has come up repeatedly in today's debate, particularly from the official opposition and supported by the Bloc, is in section 129 of the Criminal Code. I have looked at this provision and thought about it. This provision is about an omission. It is about someone failing to assist a peace officer, and it allows for that person to be charged with an offence. There is an exclusion in the provision if that person who is not co-operating with the peace officer has a reasonable excuse. To my mind, and I think to most legal analysts, when somebody receives a death threat, as has been evidenced by an Ottawa tow truck company that was accused of helping with the towing of a protester's truck, that would constitute a reasonable excuse. I put it to the member opposite that we do not compel people to co-operate with peace officers in other investigations, such as when someone witnesses a gang shooting or a mafia-related incident. We do not arrest those individuals; we come up with other means to ensure their participation. That is what—

211 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 10:49:32 p.m.
Watch

I was trying to give the member a signal. There are other people who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

25 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Feb/19/22 10:49:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is this: Did the tow truck drivers go in alone? I understand that some were afraid. I understand that, hence the importance of the words “consultation” and “collaboration” with law enforcement. They both needed to work together, as they did over the past two days, even if it meant getting help from the RCMP, from Toronto and other neighbouring cities, which is what happened in the end. By working together from the start, a lot of mistakes could have been avoided. I understand that people were afraid of getting death threats. I have been on the receiving end, and it is not pleasant.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/19/22 10:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. She made a number of very important points. The first is that there are other legal tools in place. The government does not need to bring in the Emergencies Act every time there is a need for law enforcement action. The Emergencies Act has not been used since 1988. Obviously this country has faced blockades, standoffs and occupations as well as very violent situations and terrorist attacks in the intervening years, yet this is the first time the Emergencies Act has been used. The member also correctly talked about how the Prime Minister could have sought to defuse the situation. I note the dramatic difference in the rhetoric being used today, the demonization of those with different points of view, from what the Prime Minister said two years ago about another set of blockades, when he said that it was important to talk to people, to listen and to try to come to an understanding. It looks like the Prime Minister is using a hammer on those who have a political perspective that is different from his own, a hammer that is uniquely reserved for those with those kinds of perspectives. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

209 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34