SoVote

Feb/20/22 8:58:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this was a failure of the government because it starts at the top. We have heard the government members on the other side blame every single party for this, but it starts with the tone and escalation of not treating Canadians as Canadians and pitting them against each other. We talked about the failure of the police here in Ottawa to take care of the situation. I said that throughout my whole speech. However, it was also the government's tone in not recognizing what was happening, not listening to Canadians and not ensuring that we start healing this nation instead of dividing it.

106 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Feb/20/22 8:59:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my Conservative colleague whether he agrees with me on two things—not that he has to. Especially since yesterday, I have noticed that the government has been constantly giving us the same two arguments. First, that a poll of 300 people shows that Quebeckers approve, and second, that the City of Ottawa has said that the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary. In the member’s opinion, why is the scope of the Emergencies Act being downplayed? What reason will we hear tomorrow in the House for why we should support invoking the Emergencies Act?

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Williams

Feb/20/22 9:00:29 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Quebec and I agree. She talked about two points. We have talked about two points this week too: We are looking for point one and two of what the government did before invoking the Emergencies Act. We cannot seem to get that answer. There is no justification for it since we did not have step one, two or three introduced before this motion. At the end of the day, we agree that this is a step too far, especially, as I mentioned, given the financial ramifications to Canadians and especially when the government wants some of these changes to be permanent, which we certainly do not agree with. As I have stated, it is definitely overreach by the government.

125 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Feb/20/22 9:01:17 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke a lot about healing and the mending of fences. My concern through a lot of this is that alternative, right wing, white supremacist organizations are central to a lot of what we have seen over the last three weeks here in Ottawa and across the country. We should not associate, as some members across have, with people like Pat King, who talked about the depopulation of the Caucasian race and suggested that the only way the convoy in Ottawa would be solved is with bullets. Could the member comment on the dangers of that and the fact that the government has to respond to it in an extremely serious and decisive manner?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Ryan Williams

Feb/20/22 9:02:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to address this. We have condemned it from the onset. We have condemned it every single day as MPs and as Canadians. At the end of the day, this is not what the protest movement was about. These are Canadians, and we are listening to them in our constituency offices. I get calls and emails as a member of Parliament, and the majority of Canadians wanted hope and wanted to end division and end mandates. As to this element that exists in Canadian society, all of us as MPs strongly condemn it. I want to make that very clear. We have zero association to it, and all members of the House, who represent Canadians all across this country, condemn hate, condemn violence and condemn intolerance. Let us make sure that is the way we go forward from here on out.

145 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

Feb/20/22 9:03:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my heart aches to be in the House speaking on this today, and I want to echo some words from my constituents. I know many of us in this room have had thousands of emails and phone calls from constituents. Here are just a couple of quotes from some of those emails and phone calls: “Never did I think I would see this in my country” and “I do not recognize our Canada right now. Our anthem has lost all meaning this week.” Let us remember our anthem: “True patriot love in all of us command” and “The True North strong and free!” That is what our anthem stands for, and when Canadians and my constituents are telling me they think our anthem has lost all meaning because of the actions over the last several weeks, it is disheartening. They are sending these emails because there is a crisis in this country. However, the crisis is not what the Prime Minister is depicting. The crisis is a lack of trust from Canadians in the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. That is the crisis we are facing. When citizens come to Ottawa, the seat of our national government, what they expect is to be heard and respected. Instead, the Prime Minister vilified, mocked and stigmatized. Let us take a look at what the Prime Minister preaches and what he practises. He preaches that diversity is our strength, that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian and that he has their backs. However, what the Prime Minister practises is calling them racist, misogynist, the fringe and unacceptable. These are not the actions of a leader. These are the actions of a schoolyard bully, and that is exactly how the Prime Minister has acted. The Prime Minister said invoking the Emergencies Act was the last possible step he would take. It was not the first, it was not the second and it was not the third. What were steps one, two and three? None of us have seen them. It clearly states in the Emergencies Act that to invoke the legislation we must table a document that outlines who we have spoken with, such as groups, organizations and people, before we press the nuclear option. Did he speak to anyone? Did he go outside and meet with the protesters? No. Did he speak with anyone outside his bubble before he pressed this nuclear option? No. What the Prime Minister did was hide in his cottage. When Canadians wanted hope and needed leadership, he abandoned them and neglected his duty. The Prime Minister led us into this crisis. He had no intentions of ending the mandates. He wanted no path forward for a united Canada. Instead, every time, he doubled down. He threatened to increase restrictions and vilified millions of Canadians, further stoking fear and division. The Prime Minister's mission is accomplished. Here we are, as a country, divided and fallen. This was not a national emergency. This was not a security issue. This was a political emergency brought on by the Prime Minister. It was a political emergency because over the last few weeks Canadians found their voice. They found their voice to stand up for what they believe in. They found their voice to push back against a bully. The vaccinated and unvaccinated found their voice to say they want their jobs back, they want their families back and they want their lives back, and when the Prime Minister saw Canadians standing up, he pressed the panic button. That panic button was the Emergencies Act. Here, I want to be very clear. The ramifications of invoking the Emergencies Act are profound. That is because it has never been done before. During 9/11, the Oka crisis and the height of this pandemic, no government ever talked about invoking the Emergencies Act. Two years ago, when antienergy activists blocked highways, railways and ports, the government under the Prime Minister never talked about the Emergencies Act. Those protests lasted for 17 days and actually brought our entire economy to its knees, as zero trade was happening. Did they think about the Emergencies Act then? No. Meanwhile, over the last week, the blockades the Prime Minister is saying are devastating our economy in Coutts, at the Ambassador Bridge and Emerson have all been resolved and it did not take the Emergencies Act to do it. They were resolved because the police services in those areas used the tools that were available to them under the Criminal Code, existing tools. There was no need for the Emergencies Act to resolve these blockades. In many cases, people just went there and listened. Did the Prime Minister do that? He has refused to do that. Several of my colleagues and I went to Coutts and spent hours talking with the organizers. They said they just wanted to be heard. That is what they were asking for. They felt they were heard because we went there. We reached out to them and had a conversation and they made the decision to start pulling out. These are families from across Alberta, in my case from Coutts, that are frustrated and angry because no one was listening to them. What happened when they pulled out of the blockade? We can see it on video on YouTube. They stood hand in hand with police officers and sang O Canada, and in many cases hugged one another and shook hands. That is what happens when we do not use a sledgehammer. What is the threat to national security? These blockades have been removed. What is the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act? The simple answer is that there is none. A prominent lawyer in my riding sent me a note that said, “There was never a point with regard to any alleged blockade that could not have been resolved under the existing Canadian law that would justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act.” Yesterday, in a scathing editorial, The Wall Street Journal stated, “In abusing these powers for a nonemergency, [the Prime Minister] crossed a democratic line.” I would argue the Prime Minister wants to erase that line entirely. The Liberal finance minister has already said that she wants to make some of the powers that have been invoked as part of Emergencies Act permanent. Was the endgame of invoking the Emergencies Act, which we all now know was unwarranted and unjustified, to simply make portions of this power grab permanent? Was that the Liberals' goal all along? Will the Liberals ban protests that do not align with their ideology? Will they retain access over Canadians' savings accounts? They are saying these powers are geographically targeted. We know that is not true. The financial implications of freezing bank accounts impact every single Canadian. It is not geographically targeted. I have no words for this type of audacity and unfortunately this is real. This is happening in Canada, not Moscow, not North Korea and not Cuba. It is right here. I received a call at my office from a single mother in my riding. She donated $20 to the convoy because she felt it was important. She wanted an end to the mandates. She donated $20. Since the Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act, they have threatened to freeze the accounts of anybody who supported this convoy or the protests. When the Minister of Justice was asked what metrics there would be to decide whose accounts would be frozen, he could not answer or would not answer. Instead, he compared anyone who supported these protests to terrorists. Is this mom a terrorist? Is she a racist? No, this mom is terrified. She is terrified her accounts will be frozen and she will be unable to feed her kids or will maybe miss a mortgage payment and lose her home. This is who this mom is. Of course she is not a terrorist, but this is the fearmongering we see and the threats that are happening. This is a sad day in our country. It is incumbent on all of us in the House to defend civil liberties when a governing party so callously and blatantly wants to travel over them. I look at the bricks in this House that were built on a strong foundation of democracy, freedom and a strong, united country. The government is taking a sledgehammer to those foundational bricks of our democracy. We cannot and we must not let that happen.

1428 words

All Topics

Hon. Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:13:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague said that all the truckers at Coutts wanted was to be heard. I would like him to comment on the fact that an arms cache was found at Coutts.

34 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Feb/20/22 9:13:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised that. I know the Liberals want to paint every single Canadian with the same brush, or every single person who was a part of that. I will tell you that I was on the phone for hours on Monday, as were many of my colleagues, with the organizers of the Coutts protest. When they found out that a different group, a militant group, had made their way into the protest, they wanted nothing to do with it and they immediately stood down and brought down the blockade. They were not associated with that group and it is shameful that the Liberals are trying to paint this group as being the same as every other protester who is out there and that this is exactly who everyone is, because they know it is not true.

143 words

All Topics

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Feb/20/22 9:14:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. Ironically, this morning I received an Instagram notification, which reminded me of what happened exactly two years ago, specifically the rail blockade of—

36 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 9:14:27 a.m.
Watch

I am going to interrupt the member because there is a second conversation going on at the same time, which is preventing me from hearing the member’s speech and question. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, on a point of order.

52 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/20/22 9:14:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton has referred to me as a despicable human being. I am pretty sure that is not parliamentary language. I would ask that you ask him to withdraw those comments, please.

39 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 9:15:03 a.m.
Watch

I did hear that as well. I did see the exchange that was happening there. I did hear the member. I wonder if the member would want to maybe retract that. I am looking at the member who did say it.

41 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Feb/20/22 9:15:29 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claimed that I was taking a photo with swastikas and that is an absolute—

20 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/20/22 9:15:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Our parliamentary rules say that we cannot call an individual names. Again, this member called me a despicable human being. He is required, under our proceedings, to apologize and withdraw that comment. I would ask you— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

51 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 9:15:58 a.m.
Watch

Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

10 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Feb/20/22 9:16:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I lament that we are here on a Sunday morning when, on a normal Sunday at 9:15 a.m., I would be at church. Right now, this is the opposite of any place that I have ever worshipped. The air is toxic. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly for you to rule, but I wanted you to know that all of us in this corner heard the member for St. Albert—Edmonton say distinctly and clearly, “You are a despicable human being.” I think he would want, reflecting on where he usually is on a Sunday morning, to decide, in his own heart, to withdraw those remarks as completely inappropriate.

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Cooper

Feb/20/22 9:16:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment.

6 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 9:16:47 a.m.
Watch

Let us all take a deep breath. I know it is early. I agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that normally we would be doing something different this morning. I know we have already been at it for three days now. We have today and tomorrow still to go to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to speak to this important motion. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia has the floor again and may start over.

88 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/20/22 9:17:09 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I see that tempers are flaring. I will change my question because I want us to get back to the debate. We are talking about the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been invoked since it was passed in 1988. There is a reason for that. I think that there are other tools that could have been used before we got to this point, which brings me back to my question. Two years ago, the Wet’suwet’en were protesting the Coastal GasLink project. It did not take long before the RCMP was sent in. There was a court injunction. Clearly, other tools could have been used. There was no need for the Emergencies Act. What does my colleague think about that?

127 words

All Topics

Mr. John Barlow

Feb/20/22 9:17:46 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is exactly right, which I think is the impetus of many of the speeches over this weekend and probably going into tomorrow. There are other tools that law enforcement has in their tool box that would have addressed all of this. It addressed the illegal blockades at the borders previous to the Emergencies Act, but certainly to that specific case two years ago. That was where protesters were blocking critical infrastructure across the country for more than 17 days and the Liberals put out every minister possible to talk to those folks. They sent out the RCMP to dismantle those blockades. Did they do any of that this time? Did a single member of the Liberal Party go out across the street and speak to a protester and hear what their concerns were? Did a single one do that? I do not think so.

149 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35