SoVote

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/19/22 11:26:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech because he was calm and he distinguished between people who commit reprehensible acts and those who do not. We have known about these reprehensible and the identities of the perpetrators for some time. Instead of invoking the Emergencies Act, what measures does he believe should be applied to those who were involved?

61 words

All Topics

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Feb/19/22 11:27:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is exactly what she has asked. One of the biggest questions I had today was about how I was going to write my speech without just pointing my finger in blame. It is really easy to blame people in this situation. We know things should have been done 23 days ago. We know that the intel was there over 30 days ago. I spoke to a person that I have great respect for today. The police are doing a job, not because it is violent out there and there is criminal activity. They are doing a job because we are in a political crisis right now. That is the job they are doing. We have angry Canadians out there, and we are in a political crisis because of the leadership. What would I do? I would start being a leader. That is what I expect from the government.

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/19/22 11:28:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing my hon. colleague's mother a very happy birthday. I want to thank her for what I consider a measured speech. I must say I have always respected the tone that she brings to the House and the reasonableness and decorum that she shows. I want to thank her for that. I want to shift gears a bit. About a week before the opposition day motion calling for a plan to end mandates, I gave a speech in the House that talked about the unfortunate polarity in our country between pro-vax and anti-vax, and how I really thought that two years into this pandemic that really does not work anymore. There are a lot of Canadians who have legitimate questions about this. Rather than end mandates, we should question every single public policy that we have right now, based on the data and science, and determine whether or not it is valid, and make changes if possible. Would the member agree with me on that? Does she think that is something we should be looking at as a country going forward?

192 words

All Topics

Mrs. Karen Vecchio

Feb/19/22 11:29:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is easy to say I absolutely agree with him. This is what we should be doing. We should be working together and looking at solutions. I would sit down with that member any day, as part of representing our caucus, and everybody else, to move forward. I know there are members on all sides who want to just see peace in this country again. It should not be about beliefs. It should not be about being vaccinated or unvaccinated. That is not what we should be doing. We should be worrying about the safety of all Canadians and the security of this country, not what the Liberal government has created.

113 words

All Topics

Mr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC)

Feb/19/22 11:30:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here we are this evening, debating the invoking of the Emergencies Act. It definitely is something I thought we would not be debating just three weeks ago. Like all Canadians, I expected that proper leadership would rise up and deal with this situation long ago, and of course that did not happen with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. Instead, we are here debating this matter because of this gross lack of leadership. Instead of leadership that would bring us closer together and closer to a solution, we have a prime minister focused on inflaming the situation with reckless name-calling, provocation, division, smearing and dismissive attitude. Before I get to my comments on the act, I want to make it clear that I strongly support the rights of all Canadians to peacefully and lawfully protest. I have never supported and will never support law-breaking in the name of protesting. Our society rests on the rule of law, and it must always be this way. There are plenty of ways to lawfully and effectively protest. I also believe protests are about having one's message heard, not destroying our economy and the lives of our fellow citizens while doing so. One only need look at the debates in this House, the media coverage, social media and the like to see that their message was heard long ago, and now it is time for the protesters to go home. It looks like they have gone. I have not looked outside recently, but I guess we will see what happens in the next few days. However, we must remember that if people feel they are not heard, they will not listen. It is as simple as that. Protests are about being heard, not necessarily getting their way. Governments have a responsibility to listen to protesters, but no obligation to concede to their demands. Like any debate, including those in this House, we have the right to be heard, but not a right to get our desired result. Canadians are justifiably concerned about the implementation of the Emergencies Act and how it will affect them. A lack of details about this legislation, its implementation and how it will be used is causing great angst for many, and understandably so. Like almost everything since the beginning of this pandemic, the lack of a coherent, long-term plan from the Liberal government has resulted in Canadians living with an unacceptable level of uncertainty. It is hurting our economy and, more importantly, it is hurting our mental health. This is not the first protest in Canada, and it will not be the last. Canadians have always cherished their right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately, not all protests start or end peacefully, and we have many laws on the books to deal with these situations. One way or another, police have found a way to end these protests with the tools already available to them. Even now, as we debate the use of the Emergencies Act, the Liberal government has still failed to explain why existing laws are not sufficient to deal with this situation. The Emergencies Act is an important and necessary legislative tool to have on the books. However, it is only meant to be used when existing legislation is insufficient to get the job done. This subject has generated significant mail to my offices, and I am sure to all of my colleagues' offices as well. I would like to share some of them, as I think it is important that my constituents are heard in their own words. Leanne said in a letter to the Prime Minister, and copied it to me, “While I can understand your frustration with some of the actions of the 'freedom convoy' protests, your actions go much too far.” Joe, in my riding, said in a letter to the Prime Minister, copied to me, “Even if you truly believe that these measures are justified now, have you considered what kind of precedent you're setting? When protestors were burning churches and committing other hate crimes last summer, would you have supported a call to freeze the bank accounts of Indigenous activists? What will you say if a future federal government bans crowdfunding by Black Lives Matter protestors? “Do you really want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who made it 'normal' for Canadian governments to take these actions against any protest movement that they disagree with? “Canada must remain a country where people of all viewpoints can protest freely, regardless of whether the people currently in power happen to agree with them. “Step back, Prime Minister. You've gone too far.” Lorne said, “I do not believe the Prime Minister when he states this will be a measured and time limited response. This is the foot in the door to allow him or any standing government to overstep their authority in order to control Canadian citizens.” Nick said, “There is no need to escalate what is currently a civil, peaceful, legal protest, albeit with vehicles illegally parked and ticketed causing disruption to traffic, daily life and commerce in a small area. There is a practical political solution. I say: Do NOT ratify the imposition of the Emergencies Act.” As Beau pointed out, “section 3 of the Emergencies Act spells out the circumstances under which it may be invoked. These are: a) a national emergency that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or b) a national emergency that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. “Neither of these conditions are met.... By invoking the federal Emergencies Act in the complete absence of any reasonable justification, [the Prime Minister] is setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the right of all Canadians to peaceful assembly and association or protest.” I could go on for hours, literally, with the hundreds of letters I have received, and I have read them all. I have had only one letter, just a single letter, that supports the Liberal government's intentions. Remarkably, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have united Canadians on this one issue: not to use the Emergencies Act like this. They should not use it now. I am deeply concerned that using this legislation will normalize its use every time we have a few hundred protesters. This poses a direct threat to all Canadians in the future, when a government uses a hammer to deal with a fly. Once we cross this line and use the Emergencies Act, it will make it politically easier for any future government to do the same. I truly expect we will see it used again by this very government. Will it be used and abused against indigenous protests in the future? Will it be used and abused against environmental protesters in the future? Will it be used and abused against those protesting religious issues, immigration issues, race issues, global issues or taxation? I bet it will. No matter where we sit on the political spectrum or where we sit on an issue, we ought to be united in our concern to protect the right to lawfully protest, the right to be heard. Canadians cannot afford to build and entrench measures that silence Canadians, when democratic governments around the world should be striving to do a better job of listening to their citizens. Governments often limit activities over time, but rarely do they go the opposite way. If we lose something to the state today, we will likely not get it back any time soon. I have listened. I have heard my constituents, and I certainly will not be voting for the use of the Emergencies Act at this time. To my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I will let them know that many NDP supporters in my riding have written to me in dismay at their party supporting this legislation. They realize the dangerous precedent this would set, and they are deeply concerned about this passing. They are concerned—

1379 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 11:39:55 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. I am sure he will be able to add more during questions and comments. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

28 words

Louis
Lac

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

Feb/19/22 11:40:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the letters the hon. member read, from one of his constituents, implied very strongly that what we saw for the last three weeks in the streets of Ottawa was a legitimate protest. The leaders of the protest have contended they were just exercising their charter rights. Does the member agree that this was an illegal protest, which was what prompted the police action? Why is the official opposition not more critical of the leadership of this illegal protest?

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Len Webber

Feb/19/22 11:40:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to continue my comments here before I quickly answer the member's question. First of all, to my NDP colleagues, my constituents are concerned that this will set a dangerous precedent, and they are really not impressed at all. While many NDP supporters in my riding have made it very clear to me in the past that they do not support the policies of my party on this matter, they are very appreciative of our responsible and principled decision. Will my NDP colleagues in the House do the same? Regarding the member's question, while I can understand your frustration with some of the actions of this “freedom convoy” protest, your actions go much too far with the Emergencies Act. Freezing the bank accounts of anyone who participates in this protest or cancelling a person's insurance, even if that person is completely non-violent, and without a court order no less, is fundamentally incompatible with the liberal democratic values that Canada is supposed to stand for.

173 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 11:42:08 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but we have a point of order.

10 words

Sorry
Point

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia

Feb/19/22 11:42:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has completely ignored my question and—

12 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 11:42:18 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. That would be a point of debate. I do want to remind the member for Calgary Confederation that he is to address the questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

50 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/19/22 11:42:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we often hear the Liberals say that they want to help, that they are proactive and so forth. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that, when the Ottawa Police Service requested 1,800 additional officers, the federal government sent in only 275 RCMP officers and only 20 of them were assigned to the protests. Would responding to that request not have been a much more practical way of supporting the city?

79 words

All Topics

Mr. Len Webber

Feb/19/22 11:43:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are absolutely good points to these questions, and I thank the member for these points. The bottom line is that the current thresholds of the Emergencies Act have not been met in this current situation, and I would hope the member does know that. That is the message I am leaving here to all the members in the House. I clearly object to the motion and the declaration of emergency. We must use prudence and tolerance over power and force.

83 words

All Topics

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

Feb/19/22 11:44:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the hon. member expressing clearly that he did not support illegal activities, but I wonder how he can gloss over the very frequent intimidation of businesses in Ottawa that were attempting to enforce mask mandates, or how he can endorse incidents like the one where one of my staff members was prevented from boarding the train to go home until he removed his mask. This was not, by and large, a peaceful protest in downtown Ottawa. How is the member able to ignore the intimidation that resulted in the closure of over half the businesses in downtown Ottawa?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Len Webber

Feb/19/22 11:44:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I absolutely do not endorse any of those actions, but let me summarize what a constituent has seen throughout this whole process. Her name is Kirsten, and she said, “A group of Canadian citizens has a case they want to bring up with their Prime Minister, but he won't listen to them because they disagree with him. So they decide to bring the message personally to him and they are cheered on their way by other citizens. They come to Ottawa, but he still won't hear their case. He lets them wait for a couple of weeks at which point the neighbourhood where they are waiting gets irritated and wants them out.” Perhaps because some of the experiences—

125 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 11:45:27 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry, but we have a point of order. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou on a point of order.

22 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Feb/19/22 11:45:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, someone has their microphone switched on or there is something rubbing on a microphone which is preventing the interpreters from doing their job properly. It must be really tough to be hearing that this late at night.

39 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 11:45:46 p.m.
Watch

There seem to be some people speaking right behind me. I hope they can be told to go talk somewhere else. The time is up. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

36 words

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

Feb/19/22 11:46:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I guess the political left does not want to defund the police anymore. This summer, I was at a friend's party and met a young couple who were in the process of making dramatic last-minute changes to their wedding plans. They had been planning to get married in the beautiful century-old Catholic church that was the heart and soul of the community of Morinville, Alberta. It was the church in which she had grown up. However, the church had been burned to the ground a few weeks before in a likely act of arson, protest and terror. Morinville is about a 45-minute drive from where I live. On the morning after that fire, I drove out to see the situation. When I got there, the fire was still burning. While I watched, local fire crews had to do the painful work of knocking down parts of the structure to preserve public safety and avoid the risk of further spread. In addition to the threat of a burning building, there was also a gas line under the church and apartments nearby. Although no one was hurt in this attack, the additional risk of an explosion and risk to human life were very significant. This violent and dangerous act in Morinville was not an isolated incident. In the summer of last year, acts of arson destroyed more than a dozen churches of various denominations, with innumerable other acts of vandalism or attempted violence happening as well. The Prime Minister answered a question from the media about what happened in Morinville, but did not proactively issue a single statement about this wild rampage of destruction in western Canada. The Prime Minister's close friend and former adviser Gerry Butts called these acts “understandable”. Two days ago, there was an extremely violent attack on a Coastal GasLink pipeline work site in B.C. The responding RCMP officers were blocked from entering the road by spiked boards, downed and tarred stumps and trees lit on fire and had smoke bombs and flaming sticks thrown at them. Meanwhile, additional violent protesters broke into the work site armed with axes and flare guns. These protesters toppled heavy machinery, cut fuel lines and smashed site vehicles and set them on fire with workers still inside. On this incident, the public safety minister said, “I’m deeply concerned to hear reports of violent confrontations at a work site”. I would say respectfully to the minister that this was not a matter of violent confrontation; it was a premeditated violent attack on working people who were just trying to do their jobs. What is the climate in which such acts of violence against places of worship and energy workers have come to take place here in Canada? The much venerated David Suzuki has said that pipelines will be “blown up”. The current sitting Minister of Environment in the Liberal government once attacked the home of Alberta's then premier Ralph Klein. He climbed on the roof of his private home as part of an activist stunt, apparently terrifying the premier's wife, who was home alone at the time. Other members of the House, including the former leader of the Green Party and the former NDP MP who is now the mayor of Vancouver, have been arrested for more benign acts of law-breaking. I believe in the rule of law. The rule of law means that everyone is equally bound and protected by law. Whether they are sitting in a protest camp on Wellington Street or sitting in the federal cabinet, whether they drive a truck to work or work in the federal public service or whether they belong to a populist pro-Trump movement or a democratic socialist climate alarmist movement, such people have an obligation to follow the law and also have a right to be protected by it. When the law is selectively applied to penalize people based on their political views, that is by definition a violation of the rule of law. While calling out illegal blockades of critical infrastructure and other forms of law-breaking by protesters, we must also acknowledge that the rule of law is being threatened by a government that is woefully inconsistent in the way it treats protesters, and that this inconsistency is based on the political preferences and biases of the people in power. This brings the law into disrepute. At the heart of the idea of the rule of law is a contract: I will follow the law and I will have the protection of the law. When people are told to follow the law but do not have the fair and equal protection of the law, then we are no longer speaking of rule of law but of rule by law. Rule of law is where the law rules. Rule by law is where laws are used by powerful people to dominate others. We need to appreciate the difference. The Oka crisis, 9/11, the violent G7 and G20 protests, the blockades from two years ago, the series of attacks on places of worship and the violence targeting energy workers were not cause for the use of emergency powers. When this hammer is being used to target working people engaged in civil disobedience in response to unjustified and unscientific vaccine mandates, we see that the contract at the heart of what it means to be a rule-of-law society seems to be fraying. If I had seen the church I was about to get married in burn to the ground, if I had lost my job or access to vital services because of vaccine mandates or if I had seen acts of lawlessness ignored, defended and even perpetrated by senior leaders in this country, then I would find it a bit rich for the government to say that the current situation constitutes a unique national emergency. The contract at the heart of a rule-of-law society is fraying, and we see a Prime Minister with an incredible personal record of corruption, the only Prime Minister in history to violate ethics law on multiple occasions. He is now claiming that other people should be subject to severe and disproportionate consequences for so much as donating to the convoy even weeks before any blockading began. It seems to me that the most important question for Canada today is not just about the particulars of this moment, but about how we got here. We got here because of the arbitrary and inconsistent application of decisions by the government, the demonization of people who disagreed and the decline of our democratic institutions, leading people to believe that their voice cannot be heard any other way. If we are going to come together as a country and address the pain and division that have been sown, then we have to ask ourselves why the voice of a mother crying because her son lost his business and died by suicide because of COVID restrictions is not heard as loudly as the sound of a horn honking on Wellington Street. Why is it that a community of refugees from Egypt who had their house of worship burned to the ground in Surrey last year could not even get a statement from the Prime Minister, but potential for violence from this convoy led to a national state of emergency? We have to address the lack of empathy that clearly permeates our halls of power and the lack of concern for working Canadians who have lost jobs and opportunity as a result of pandemic policy, as well as the broader attack on their livelihoods that we are seeing through government policy. It may be hard for some people here to fully understand what many Canadians are going through, but I ask members to spare a thought for people like the NDP leader's brother-in-law. The NDP leader may not be prepared to stand up for his brother-in-law, but I will be here to stand in the breach—

1351 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/19/22 11:53:06 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou. However, before I go to her, I would ask the hon. member to adjust his boom a bit higher because we are getting some popping, and I am not sure if that is causing the problem. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

57 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 34