SoVote

Feb/20/22 11:20:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said the government has been very patient. I would say it has been incompetent. I am going to ask the member a question that might help him explain why it took so long for the government to act. Were there perhaps any political considerations behind the government's inaction?

60 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:20:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this question sums up the whole problem that we have been facing for two years. Everybody likes blaming everybody else and taking credit for things they had nothing to do with. People throughout this camp in this two-year process have been saying this person moved too quickly or this person moved too slowly, when what they should have been doing was sitting down with each other and asking how they could work together to make it right. That is the real issue. Were there political considerations? Absolutely not. The only consideration here is the safety of Canadians and what the right steps are to make sure that they are safe. Full stop.

115 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/20/22 11:21:32 a.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. Madam Speaker, change is never easy. I hear Canadians having a difficult time adjusting to a new life by taking extra care when they go shopping or eat at a restaurant, but these are measures that we need to take to protect those who cannot get vaccinated. Does this prevent everyday Canadians from living their daily lives?

59 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:22:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. The short answer is no, of course not. It does not affect the people in my community or the communities of anybody in the House today, or stop them from carrying on with their normal lives. People are free to come and go and do what they want. Freedom to protest does not mean parking at the end of my driveway, honking your horn for weeks on end so that I cannot sleep, prohibiting me from going to work and then peeing on my lawn. This allows people—

96 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:22:32 a.m.
Watch

Can I remind the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the use of language, please? That is not terribly parliamentarian. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore may continue.

32 words

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:22:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize. The answer stands for itself. I will retract the use of that word and replace it with something more appropriate.

24 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:23:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments and his approach to the situation. One of the concerns that I have had through this debate, because it is a very serious debate that we are facing, is that there seems to be a conflation sometimes between the issues raised by people who have been involved in blocking our border on bridges or involved in events here in Ottawa and the methods that they used to raise these issues. The impact on jobs, trade and people's lives has been very serious. Could the member comment on whether he feels that the issues have been conflated? What is the impact?

113 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:23:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. I alluded to this earlier in a question. There is a message out there. People have opposing views. I respect those views, but if the people with whom I stand are suddenly hijacked by people who are doing something wrong and have a message that is inappropriate, we need to walk away and separate those messages so that we can—

67 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:24:19 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

11 words

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:24:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a sad and dark time for our great country. The last two years have been difficult for everyone. Every person in this country has been affected by the pandemic. No one has been exempt. How did we get here? What brought us to this point? Standing here in this chamber today to debate the unprecedented use of Canada's Emergencies Act is upsetting, to say the least. The culmination of what has happened to our country under the Liberal government's divisive and stigmatizing leadership is tragic. We have seen peaceful law enforcement resolutions that ended multiple unlawful border blockades without the Emergencies Act. Why do we need to escalate to these drastic measures? I will always stand up for Canadians' rights to peacefully assemble and lawfully protest. Likewise, I will always condemn disrespectful, hateful and unlawful conduct. Conservatives have condemned the blocking of critical infrastructure and have called for a peaceful protest. As the events evolved, the Prime Minister made no effort to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he escalated it by continuing to divide, wedge, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians. Instead of apologizing for his mistakes, he threw fuel on the fire and opted for extreme overreach. Canadians have had enough. At the very least, they deserve a plan from the Liberal government to end the mandates. It has been said many times this week that the Emergencies Act has never been invoked and should only be used in the most dire situations. It was not invoked for the Oka crisis, not for 9/11, not for the shooting on Parliament Hill, not for the rail blockades or even for COVID-19. Where is the threat to our sovereignty and national security? What proof does the government have showing the threshold has been met to invoke its use now? Neither the Prime Minister nor any of his ministers have answered these questions. The Prime Minister has said the act should not be used as a first, second or third choice, but we on the opposition side have asked repeatedly what his first, second and third choices were. The question has still not been answered. The government, which currently has immense powers granted by the Emergencies Act, refuses to be clear or accountable to Parliament. How can the government be trusted to show responsibility in answering to Canadians? The situation has become a spectacle around the world as a result of the Prime Minister's failures. He tries to save face by using the Emergencies Act, a measure of last resort. It is like using a wrecking ball to fix a broken tractor. It makes no sense. What also does not make sense is a February 17 tweet from Foreign Policy CAN which said, “Canada condemns Cuba's harsh sentencing following the July 2021 protests. Canada strongly advocates for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly free from intimidation. We stand with the people of Cuba in their aspiration for democracy.” This is a little rich, coming from a government that will not even so much as go out and listen to its own people who have been waiting to be heard. The government claims that it will not use this piece of legislation to take away freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, but we have come to a point here where people from all over the country feel that they do not have a voice. We are at a point where the government has dropped a sledgehammer and is taking the most extreme action the government can take to silence the voices of Canadians who are simply asking to be heard. Again I must ask what the first, second and third things were that the government did to avoid getting to this place where we are now. I am not alone in wondering why the Liberal government is so hesitant to advocate the same freedoms for its own citizens that it has asked for Cubans. I know the Prime Minister has said that he admires basic dictatorships. Could it be that they find democratic rights, such as free expression and peaceful assembly, inconvenient when it does not align with their politics? Real leadership involves listening to people and considering their opinions, whether one agrees with them or not. Real leadership is about making sure people feel heard. The Prime Minister continues to malign and name-call Canadians with whom he disagrees. This is not leadership. Real leadership allows people to write to one's office and say they appreciate that regardless of one's perspective on the mandates, one is open-minded enough to talk to them. Real leadership is acknowledging and owning our mistakes. It is humility, not hubris. If our Prime Minister had at least attempted to listen to the people who came all the way to Ottawa, we would not be in this situation at all. Canadians came to Ottawa from coast to coast to coast. They spent thousands of their hard-earned dollars and days of their time to be here because they felt that their government was not listening to them. They felt the only way they could be heard was by coming to Ottawa. The Prime Minister has done nothing but divide, wedge, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians for two years. Canadians have seen that. Trust has been broken. The Conservatives warned Canadians repeatedly about the Liberals' love of power. We have stood against the unprecedented power grabs and scandals since before the pandemic. We said no when they tried to grant themselves unlimited taxing and spending powers without parliamentary oversight. That all happened on a weekend, and here we are on a weekend again, debating another piece of emergency legislation that gives the government overreaching power. The legislation grants unprecedented powers over Canadians' financial security. I have heard from thousands of residents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, most of whom have never contacted their MP's office. Simply put, they are traumatized. They are gripped with fear that donating to or purchasing from anything not approved by the government will result in their assets being frozen. They have very real concerns about how the changes brought by the act will impact their finances and their credit ratings long term. They have written me, saying, “My country is falling apart. What do I do?” They are hearing on the news that the Liberals are threatening to freeze their bank accounts if they support an organization they do not approve of. That is not an exaggeration. During an interview, the justice minister even replied in the affirmative when asked if the banks could freeze the accounts of anyone who donated for not liking the government's vaccine mandates. He said, “if you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating...to this kind of thing, then you ought to be worried”. I would say to the minister that this is not what we are seeing. It is ordinary Canadians, patriotic Canadians, who are having their accounts frozen. It is Canadians who disagreed with an unnecessary and divisive government policy. It is not people donating large sums of money. It is Canadians who donated $20 who are being locked out of their bank accounts. It is those who got a T-shirt or a toque and those who sent money to a peaceful demonstration that gave them hope. Even though the Liberal government says that the financial measures are temporary, regardless of how the vote goes, the Liberals will bring legislation forward to transition these powers into a permanent power grab. They want to permanently remove judges, who are the gatekeepers ensuring that big government overreach does not happen. The finance minister said as much during a press conference on Monday. He said the move to make crowdfunding platforms reportable to FINTRAC is going to be made permanent. She is also telling the banks to review their relationship with anyone involved in the blockades and report findings to the RCMP and CSIS. When Canadians look back on this debate in the history books, they will see which of us, and the parties we represent, stood up for their interests, for their freedoms and for ending or enabling the continued trauma brought forward by the Prime Minister's inability to show compassion and leadership and by his power-seeking political games. It is the government's responsibility to stop contributing to the problem and to significantly improve its response to address the damage that is already done. I encourage everyone to open compassionate eyes, hearts and hands to the burdens our families, neighbours and communities are bearing, and to create for each other the harbour of safety, respect and inclusion that we Canadians are known for. The Conservatives will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. We can do this without the government overreaching and using the Emergencies Act. Canadians are clear when they write our offices to say, “I am asking that you vote for ending all mandates, as well as the state of emergency immediately. It is time to follow the medical science and not political science, and do the right thing for the people.” That is why I will be voting against this motion.

1554 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:34:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can agree with one thing the member said: Historians will look back on this pivotal moment in time in this chamber. However, I imagine some who teach political history will reflect on the fact that by some twisted logic, the Conservative Party, which touts itself to be the party of law and order, throughout the entire siege of Ottawa and its aftermath, sided with those who broke the law. Can the member please shed some light on how the party of law and order, the party of Brian Mulroney and Flora MacDonald, who brought this legislation into the House, is somehow siding and standing shoulder to shoulder with the occupiers, just not physically in the last few days?

121 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood

Feb/20/22 11:35:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when somebody is standing up for freedom for Canadians, they will never be on the wrong side of history in the history books. I encourage the member opposite to stop the divisive rhetoric that I hear constantly day in and day out here and actually show some leadership. He should be encouraging and should try to give Canadians hope, which is what the Conservatives are doing every day in this place and will continue to do.

78 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:35:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for mentioning that we are experiencing a crisis of trust. I witnessed the WE Charity saga. The first thing I thought was, how could our government be trusted? We are seeing unreasonable and disproportionate measures right now, and it is going to dawn on people that what has happened in the last few days is not because of the order. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with that. The order could be confirmed by Parliament on Monday, but it could equally well be stopped. Given what the world thinks of us, does my colleague think that the NDP might change its mind?

116 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood

Feb/20/22 11:36:57 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me be clear that invoking this act is an attack the Prime Minister is using on his political opponents. This is not about public safety, and the Prime Minister has changed his story many times. The blockades at the borders were resolved before this act was involved, and the protest in Ottawa is now over. Why does the government need to use these unprecedented powers? Why does the NDP want to side with the Liberals and be on the wrong side of history when it comes to the vote on Monday night?

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 11:37:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not talking about all the people who have been involved, but all movements, as we know, have leaders. I heard members of the official opposition minimize what is currently going on, calling it peaceful and reflective of regular Canadians. I would ask my colleague if she thinks the beliefs coming from the leaders are peaceful and non-misogynistic and are really reflective of freedom. Here is the first one: “Canada is ill and suffering and it is suffering from the stench of cultural relativism and political Islam.” That was from B.J. Dichter. Pat King said, “Trudeau, someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna—”

125 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:38:16 a.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member not to use names, please.

11 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/20/22 11:38:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but it is in a quote. Pat King said, “Trudeau, someone's gonna—”

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:38:31 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member can replace the name with the title.

10 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Feb/20/22 11:38:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Pat King said, “[Mr. Prime Minister], someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna...do you in, you sons of bitches.”

36 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:38:47 a.m.
Watch

I know it is in a quote, but I remind the member that it is unparliamentary language.

17 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 35