SoVote

Feb/20/22 2:41:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her advocacy for Canadians and particularly for people in her community. There is no question that we need to listen to the science and respect health authorities and their advice to us. If we all do that, we can all get out of this and, yes, by then we should be able to end the mandate. I would ask people to please get vaccinated so we can see an end to the mandates.

80 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Feb/20/22 2:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am struck today by the importance of this moment and also by the immense responsibility that we hold as members of Parliament. As people across the country deal with the impacts of the global pandemic, we are tasked with creating the laws that will best help them deal with the challenges they face, keep them safe and healthy and provide the supports they need. In this already unparalleled moment in our history, on top of everything else, we have witnessed the occupation of our nation's capital. We are now tasked in this debate with examining and deciding on the use, for the first time ever, of the Emergencies Act. This is not a moment any of us should take lightly. As someone who came to this role through community activism, attending countless protests, standing in front of trucks filled with contaminated soil, delivering food to tree sitters, protecting fragile ecosystems and organizing climate demonstrations, protest, dissent and social movements are vital elements of our democracy. We need to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience remains a protected and valued part of our society. We also need to ensure there is effective oversight of any additional powers given to government. The Emergencies Act itself has provisions that require, after the emergency is over, an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken. This should also include a public inquiry into the role of law enforcement in these occupations, the reports of officers supporting the occupiers and police refusing to enforce the law. It is clear there needs to be a sober examination of policing in Canada. The difference between how occupiers were treated by police versus how indigenous and racialized people have been treated is stark. This disparity is unjust and also undermines the trust of Canadians in law enforcement. I have been contacted by many people who are concerned about the use of the Emergencies Act. Many are concerned that we should not set a precedent of cracking down on protests. It is important to note that what we have seen over the past 24 days has not just been a protest. It has not been peaceful. The core organizers of this occupation were very clear from the outset that their goal was to overthrow a democratically elected government. I have to admit that I laughed when I first read their aim. Like most Canadians, to me it sounded preposterous. They could not seriously think the Governor General and the Senate could just remove the Prime Minister or that it would be possible in Canada to hand over power to an unelected group of occupiers, but these organizers, many of whom are well-known far-right figures, who have espoused Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-indigenous and other hateful views, published their goal to take down the government in a manifesto. To quote Maya Anjelou, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them”. This illegal occupation raised millions of dollars, had significant foreign involvement and was explicit in its goal to undermine our democracy. We have also witnessed instances of organized militia-style activity, weapons seized, body armour with white supremacist insignia and thousands of rounds of ammunition. In January, as the convoy initially rolled across the country, there were supporters who went on TV to say they had guns and would stand up and bring them out. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them. While all of this was happening, a number of Conservative MPs were welcoming the convoy to the city, handing out doughnuts, making excuses for the deplorable actions at memorials and encouraging the convoy participants to stay. The member for Carleton said that he was proud of the convoy and stands with it. Convoy participants occupied the city, making it unbearable for residents. They harassed journalists and health care workers. There were reports of attempted arson, bomb threats to hospitals and plans to block airports and railways. Our borders were shut down. Weapons were seized. There were attempted murder charges laid. The member for Carleton, who wants to be the prime minister of Canada, stands with them. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them. If the Conservative members truly stand with truckers, they should stand with the 90% of truckers who are vaccinated and the truckers who have been profoundly negatively impacted by border blockades. They should listen to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which put out a statement saying that it applauds the use of the Emergencies Act to help end the illegal blockades. In those initial weeks, while Conservative MPs encouraged the occupiers, the Liberal government stood idly by. As the convoy rolled toward Ottawa, as the far-right rhetoric rose in the truck convoy, as foreign funding poured into a movement that aimed to undermine our democracy, the government did nothing. It should have never come to this. The use of the Emergencies Act is an acknowledgement of a failure of leadership. The government has allowed things to escalate unchecked and could have addressed this crisis early on but failed to. After over two weeks of turmoil and chaos, the Ottawa Police Services Board chair stated, “Frankly, the response to this crisis so far has been ineffective.” She said that police have been “unable to adequately enforce our law and our residents continue to be terrorized.” In this debate, we are being asked whether the Emergencies Act is necessary. It has been clear that for the past three weeks the municipality and a number of provinces were not able to maintain security in our nation's capital and at our borders. This is one of the key reasons why the situation meets the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act. Once the Emergencies Act was enacted, the interim Ottawa police chief made it clear that without these additional powers, they would not have been able to make the progress that they have made. Over the past week, we finally saw police taking appropriate and measured steps to remove the occupiers. The act allowed the RCMP to direct tow truck drivers to tow vehicles. In addition, without the Emergencies Act, the RCMP and financial institutions could not quickly freeze funds that were fundraised with the explicit intent to destabilize our elected government. We know there has been significant foreign funding. When the convoy's GoFundMe site was shut down, they started using GiveSendGo, a Christian platform infamously known for being the platform used by many of the groups involved in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and also for raising millions for the Proud Boys, a listed terrorist entity in Canada. A recent data leak identifying GiveSendGo's donors to the convoy campaign showed that over half of the donors were from the U.S. and less than a third of the donors were Canadian. The Emergencies Act also gives the power to prohibit bringing children to unlawful assemblies. Many of us watched in horror as occupiers brought their children to block the border crossing. We heard reports of occupiers keeping their kids near the police line, using them as shields. As a parent, it is hard to wrap my head around the choice to bring children into such dangerous situations. The powers granted by the Emergencies Act were needed as they did help secure our national capital. Yesterday, the occupation was still happening and there were still border closures happening in Surrey because of the convoy protest. Today, things are quieter. New Democrats have been clear that we are ready to withdraw our support at any time. If the situation is actually under control, then the government has to provide a compelling reason for why it still needs these emergency powers. If there is not one, then we have said all along that we will withdraw support. We have heard again and again comparisons to the War Measures Act, but we know this is not the same law. It is not even close. Under the War Measures Act, there is no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no provincial constitutions. The government would have the power to do anything it wants to intern citizens, to deport any citizen, to arrest any person. We can all agree that is unacceptable. That is why Tommy Douglas and other New Democrats voted against it. The War Measures Act suspended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why, in 1988, the act was repealed. The Emergencies Act, the act that replaced it, is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights. There is a still a valid concern that the government could misuse the powers in the Emergencies Act. This is why New Democrats have been clear that if we vote in favour of the government's request, the government must stay within the established powers or we will withdraw support. We will protect the right to protest. We must continue to hold dissent and non-violent civil disobedience as sacred, as integral parts of our democracy. I want to close my speech by speaking to the vast majority of Canadians who have been following public health orders, who banged pots to show support for health care workers, who have been helping out their neighbours, who have made great sacrifices in order to keep their loved ones, their families and their communities safe. As mandates and restrictions begin to lift, they should know that it is because of their acts of solidarity and the fact that they got vaccinated, and the convoy participants, while they might not realize it, owe the majority of Canadians a great debt of gratitude. The vast majority of Canadians have not only saved lives, but they are also the reason we are going to get through this together.

1656 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 2:52:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Victoria was not wrong when she was talking about the gravity of what we are debating today. Ultimately, on future legal tests, jurists will look back to our words here on Hansard to help them understand why the precedent was set. My rationale is not unlike hers, which is the national capital being occupied and the fact that individuals had talked about overthrowing a democratically elected government. It was not everyone, but certainly some of the core group that was involved. Then there was the economic harm that was associated with it, the fact that members have talked about re-establishing blockades, and the fact that there has been this level of foreign funding and a real focus on the disruption of critical infrastructure. I support those limited enforcement tools. Of course, some Conservatives are trying to make parallels to Wet'suwet'en and some of the blockades we have seen. To me, that did not give the same level of rise, because there was not a threat to overthrow a democratic government; there was not the same level of foreign financing, and it was certainly clear that it could be addressed at the municipal and provincial levels. Could the member give those who might look back on this time a legal precedent as to whether or not she would agree with those principles of why this is being established?

235 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins

Feb/20/22 2:53:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree that in this case we are talking about people who were explicit in their intention to undermine our democracy. Over the past few weeks we have seen assaults, attempted arson, widespread harassment of homes and workplaces, promotion of hate and then also convoy members giving themselves false powers to detain people, deputizing themselves. Rather than denouncing those actions and finding ways to help Canadians who do not feel safe in their homes, Conservatives have been spending all their time defending and fuelling this. This is shameful, but it is also shameful that it took this long for the government to act.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

Feb/20/22 2:54:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member really believe that the trucker convoy is going to overthrow the federal government, and if so, how?

23 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins

Feb/20/22 2:54:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply concerning when a group of people espouse white supremacist, hateful, Islamophobic rhetoric and explicitly publish a manifesto that declares their intention to undermine our democracy. They fundraised millions of dollars, the majority of that coming from donors from outside of our country. It is deeply concerning. The fact that the member rises without that same concern is troubling.

63 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/20/22 2:55:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I was pleasantly surprised that she did not affirmatively state that she would be supporting the governing party's use of this law and that she set out conditions for supporting it. I would like to know her opinion as a member of Parliament. Police have now removed the blockades at the border crossings. As of yesterday, Ottawa is practically free of protesters. That being the case, does she still believe that the act is useful, necessary or essential today?

90 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins

Feb/20/22 2:56:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear from the outset. New Democrats believe that this is a national emergency, that it was absolutely warranted to invoke the Emergencies Act and that at any point, when it is no longer necessary or if the government overreaches, we will withdraw our support. It is really incumbent on the Liberal government to demonstrate clearly why these powers are still necessary.

66 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 2:56:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention and share her concern about extremism and the kind of heckling we have seen today, particularly from the official opposition, which is undermining it. It is particularly concerning when 45%, according to new reports, support this extremist convoy leadership. I am wondering if my hon. colleague feels the same way I do, that it is unfortunate that we are here and the only reason we are here is the failure of all levels of government, including institutions such as the Ottawa Police Service, to actually deal with this matter.

98 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins

Feb/20/22 2:57:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I agree 100%. We have seen weapons seized: 14 firearms, sets of body armour, a machete and large quantities of ammunition, including high-capacity magazines. There are charges for conspiracy to commit murder. We are seeing white supremacy rear its ugly head. We knew it was there. The government needs to take action in the future, after this emergency is over, to address the white supremacist rhetoric and groups that so clearly exist in our country.

79 words

All Topics

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.)

Feb/20/22 2:58:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would first like to acknowledge that I am attending this sitting virtually from the traditional territory of the Kanyen'kehà:ka Mohawk people. I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North. I too would like to thank all parliamentary employees, as well as the Parliamentary Protective Service, which always keeps us safe. It is thanks to them and their hard work that we are able to do our job today. The first time I went to a protest, I sat in a carriage with my mother on the streets of Santiago. We lived in a country where peaceful protests were illegal and where the police were politically controlled by a dictatorship, which is a non-democratically elected government. My family and I came to Canada as political refugees. As Patrick Lagacé so aptly said, “Real dictatorships do not mess around.” They do not let truckers camp out in the streets of their capital city, waving banners that openly insult the government. No, real dictatorships do not have as much respect for the rule of law. They do not have a charter of rights and freedoms that guarantees protections to all. I am also hearing my colleagues talk about the tragic events of the October crisis in 1970, and I can understand that. I can understand that Quebeckers are not comfortable, given the trauma they may have experienced in the past. I understand that invoking the Emergencies Act reawakened and reinforced this sentiment. However, that context was very different from today's, and drawing parallels between the two laws is an undesirable shortcut. It politicizes a historical context that is different from the one we have today. Based on the calls I have received and the conversations I have had, especially with my constituents, people can differentiate the past from the present. Our government invoked the Emergencies Act because the current situation warrants it. We saw what happened over the weekend. For 24 days now, blockades have been illegally disrupting Canadians' lives and have impacted our economy and public safety. The trucks came to town to protest vaccine mandates, but the protest rapidly morphed into an occupation of the city by people who openly and officially stated that their goal was to overthrow the government. This protest was a total violation of the public order. As someone from a family of left-wing socialist activists, am I happy that the Emergencies Act has been invoked? Definitely not. In the current context, however, it is the responsible choice. This legislation does not seek to remove the right to protest, which is essential in a democracy. It is a right that we need in order to defend all our other rights. Historically, protests have led to significant political and social changes. Every international human rights instrument recognizes the right to peaceful protest and its importance to freedom of expression, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is no exception. We have seen it before: a peaceful protest is the historic march involving half a million people who took to the streets of Montreal to protest climate change in 2019. It is the thousands of young people who stood up for students' rights in 2012. What we are seeing in Ottawa is not a peaceful protest, but a coordinated occupation and obstruction, and acts and threats targeting the very foundation of our democracy. Tamara Lich is not a trucker. She was the secretary of the separatist Maverick Party and creator of the convoy's GoFundMe campaign. The speculation that the movement benefited from foreign funding donated with a view to destabilizing Canada has now been made public. Jessica Davis, an author and former employee of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, said, “Is it possible that some of this money is coming in from overseas? I think that this is a very important hypothesis to explore.” The right to protest cannot be used to occupy a city. The right to protest cannot be used to put a city under siege. The right to protest cannot be used to prevent people from going to work. The right to protest cannot be used to scare and harass residents and force them to remove their masks. Obviously, we must protect the right to protest peacefully. However, we know that the situation is no longer peaceful and that many laws have been and continue to be broken. In a democracy, we must take a stand against those who threaten and assault people and prevent them from living freely. At no time should the right to protest infringe on others' rights and freedoms. The freedom to protest also comes with its set of responsibilities. The purpose of the Emergencies Act is not to infringe on Canadians' rights and freedoms—quite the contrary. The Act has a specific, limited and targeted scope. It allows the government to call in essential services, like tow trucks, and enables the RCMP to take quicker action to enforce compliance with local laws. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportional. The specific measures in the Emergencies Act are subject to numerous checks and safeguards by Parliament. These measures must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are all tired of this pandemic. We all want to get back to normal and be done with the health measures. The past two years have been difficult for everyone. Everyone feels that way. Canadians stepped up and followed public health guidelines in order to keep their loved ones safe. I witnessed it in my own riding, where people were helping each other and proving how resilient they are. A crisis like the one we have been in for the past two years really highlights the solidarity between businesses and people. The presence of trucks in the city, the occupation and the blockades have direct consequences for businesses. These are real consequences that are jeopardizing businesses, both big and small, as well as Canadians' livelihoods. We have been through two years of the pandemic, and Canadians do not need another test of their resilience. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home. Now is the time for us to fight for an end to this pandemic, to think about the recovery, about our future together, as Canadians, in a country that unequivocally condemns systemic discrimination, that works to end poverty and that fights to help our communities thrive. Now is not the time to sow division. Now is the time to come together and work with one another.

1108 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 3:06:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, who is a parliamentary secretary, the following question: When will the implementation of the Emergencies Act end, since the protesters in Ottawa have been dispersed and the blockades at the border were removed before the act was even invoked? When will the special powers that the government is asking for end?

60 words

All Topics

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Feb/20/22 3:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As he is well aware, the act that was invoked gives us a 30-day period during which it can be revoked. We hope to be able to revoke it as quickly as possible. That said, this act is necessary because it will enable us to grant the powers and tools needed to restore order and security for the people of Ottawa, as well as for people anywhere else in the country, should that be necessary.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 3:07:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to commend you and the other speakers for presiding over this debate with impartiality and care. I know it has not always been easy, given what is at stake. I would like to thank the member for Hochelaga for her remarks outlining the Emergencies Act and summarizing all the ways it may come into effect over these next 30 days. I want to pay particular attention to the ways FINTRAC and the tracking of dark money coming into the country could be extended beyond these Emergencies Act measures. What does the hon. member believe her government can do, beyond the Emergencies Act, to ensure that we do not fall back into the same type of event where we have foreign monies flooding over our borders to fund illegal activities?

138 words

All Topics

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Feb/20/22 3:08:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. I believe that it is important to be aware that the act is subject to a process of parliamentary transparency and oversight. In addition, we must ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Obviously, understanding where the funding for the protests in Ottawa came from is crucial. Surely, it comes from beyond our borders. All of this will be done under the watchful eye of Parliament and in a way that respects people's rights. It will be done in order to obtain the answers that I believe Canadians deserve.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 3:09:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask specifically about the safeguards available in the Emergencies Act. Could the member highlight some of the safeguards in place as we invoke the act?

30 words

All Topics

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Feb/20/22 3:09:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As he knows full well, the Emergencies Act must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must also be transparent about everything that goes on in Parliament. Lastly, we will be able to revoke the act at any time we deem it is no longer needed.

58 words

All Topics

Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Deputy House Leader of the Government, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 3:10:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I have always loved about this place, the people's House, is that it represents our great country of Canada. Each day we have the opportunity to listen to our colleagues and friends here in the House, who represent and serve their constituents from every corner of the country. This is the place where we come together to challenge and debate ideas by always putting Canadians first. Canadians are hurting. It has been a long, hard two years. Families have lost loved ones and friends. Many had to say goodbye over Zoom, never getting to see their family, hold their hand or give them comfort. They have lost businesses, and health care and emergency professionals have been tirelessly fighting COVID-19 day in and day out for two years. Families, communities and Canadians have been fighting COVID-19 in their own way. The silent majority of Canadians understand that the past two years have been about a public health crisis. When Canadians are hurting, it is our job to work even harder to come together, to lose the rhetoric, to lower the temperature, especially during volatile times, and to find a better way forward for all of us, for our children and for our most vulnerable. I think we can agree that our Constitution is founded on the values of peace, order and good government, and that people have the right to peaceful protest. I think we can also agree that the blockades have caused major damage to our economy. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge alone has affected about $390 million in trade each day. This bridge supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and the United States, our most important trading partner. In Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. In Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. These costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers, just as everyone is working hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID-19. I think we can agree that blocking trade routes, hurting the Canadian economy and preventing food and medicine from being delivered is not okay. Blocking life-saving ambulances, preventing cancer treatment appointments and the picking up of prescriptions, and forcing hospitals to take on extra security is not okay. I think we can also agree emphatically that desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is not okay, and that none of us ever wants to see a Nazi swastika flown anywhere in Canada. However, this sacred tomb has been desecrated. It is a place of national remembrance, a place that must be respected at all times. Nazi swastikas have been flown here and around Parliament Hill. This is not peaceful protest. Rather, these are heinous and incendiary acts that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The Nazi swastika symbolizes a regime that murdered six million Jews. It has an unimaginable and transgenerational impact on Holocaust survivors and on families that lost mothers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and loved ones. It is beyond disgusting and horrific that people would use symbols like the Nazi swastika, symbols that are like daggers, that are meant to hurt and meant to cause pain. In Germany, the public display of the Nazi swastika is punishable by jail time. It is our shared responsibility to remember those who suffered under the Nazi regime, to protect the truth, to confront those who seek to deny, to support research and documentation and to teach about the Holocaust so that education may prevent anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. It is also our job to protect children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. On Friday, Ottawa police reported that protesters had put children between police operations and the unlawful protest site. No child should ever be put in harm's way, let alone in the middle of a demonstration where a police operation is unfolding. Canadians do not want finger pointing. They do not want name-calling. They do not want blaming other levels of government. They want us to work together to put an end to this. Canadians understand that what was happening in Ottawa was no longer a lawful protest, but rather an illegal occupation. In fact, a national survey shows two-thirds of Canadians support the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and believe that it is time to restore order and peace in Ottawa. As elected officials, our first responsibility is to protect those we serve. How would we feel if what we have been witnessing in Ottawa were happening in other communities that we serve? How would we feel if businesses, schools and vaccine clinics were closed? How would we feel if people were driving trucks around elementary schools and neighbourhoods, and swearing at and intimidating children? How would we feel if major arteries were blocked, access roads to airports were blocked or highly flammable materials were near campfires? How would we feel if public safety were threatened through deliberate acts of discrimination, displays of hate symbols, harassment, physical assault and vandalism? On Friday, the gridlock in our capital city reached a sad climax when Ottawa police reported that protesters had assaulted officers and tried to remove their weapons. In response, city, provincial and federal law enforcement officers began an operation Friday morning to remove protesters along with their vehicles. One person was arrested after throwing a bicycle toward a police horse. By the end of yesterday, more than 170 were arrested and 53 vehicles were towed. This unprecedented situation prompted the House to be shuttered Friday out of an abundance of caution, and it was agreed to by all political parties. Let us actually break that down a bit. While people talked about freedom and the importance of protecting freedom, on Friday, the freedom to speak in the House, the seat of our democracy, had to be suspended to protect the health and safety of everyone who works in the precinct. All of us have heard from people in our communities with varying perspectives, but it is clear that the majority of Canadians want this to stop and that a majority support the Emergencies Act. The actions we have witnessed these past weeks go far beyond what we accept as free speech. The Nazi swastika and other hate symbols threaten democracy itself. Protests that embrace such symbols and that have connections outside our country threaten our democracy. How we choose to act in this chamber, what we choose to say and what we learn will really matter as we recover from COVID-19 and this illegal occupation. My hope is that we will choose to make our flag a hopeful rallying point, with more and more people feeling they belong, they matter and they are included. We must choose to make our political dialogue peaceful and respectful and choose to think about how to regulate and prevent the spread of hate speech and other forms of misinformation. Canada's silent majority must be given a greater voice. After all, the silent majority is winning the war against the pandemic. Together, we must rebuild a better, brighter future for all.

1211 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/20/22 3:20:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely 100% agree, as do all members on this side of the House, that the swastika does represent hate and is certainly a repugnant, abhorrent symbol. However, on Wednesday, we witnessed what I would say was one of the worst incidents of an attack on a member in my six years in the House. We saw the Prime Minister attack a Jewish member of the House, the member for Thornhill, who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors. He suggested she was standing with those who were displaying the swastika. It was the Prime Minister who said this. Will the member condemn the Prime Minister for that statement?

110 words

All Topics

Hon. Kirsty Duncan

Feb/20/22 3:21:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend for the question. He and I attended high school together. This is an opportunity to remember the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, along with the Roma and Sinti, and countless other victims of its unprecedented horror. We can never forget the systemic extermination and genocide during the Nazi regime. Today, we must also recognize that the world is witnessing an alarming increase in anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia and hate. We must pledge to always be vigilant, to stand against the Nazi swastika and other symbols of hate, and to uphold human rights and dignity for all. We must refute those who seek to distort facts and commit to educating new generations, upholding the truth, embracing equality and protecting the rights of the most vulnerable.

140 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35