SoVote

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab (Halifax West, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 6:26:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this evening I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South. It is an honour and a privilege to represent the residents of Halifax West in the House of Commons. I recall the day of my swearing-in ceremony 15 weeks ago, walking along Wellington Street, taking in the architectural, national and symbolic elements of the buildings and looking at the multitude of people and the joy and excitement of all people, visitors and residents alike. The events of the last three weeks are heartbreaking. The illegal blockades, sieges and occupations have disrupted the safety, security and lives of individual Canadians, harming our economy, endangering public safety and threatening our democracy. We need to make sure events like this do not happen again. I have reflected long and hard and have listened to the debates in the House. I have listened to the differing views. I recognize the seriousness of the situation and our role as parliamentarians in representing our constituents and debating and voting on national laws for the collective good of Canadians. I support wholeheartedly this motion to invoke the Emergencies Act. I listened to the comments of the interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell on Friday, who confirmed that, yes, the authorities granted by the invocation of this act and those conferred by the provincial and municipal emergency measures taken together were essential in conducting the successful operation that began on Friday. The use of this act is also supported by the former Ottawa police chief and Conservative senator Vernon White, who noted it is justified and that “it was the right time to do this”. Charles Bordeleau, another past Ottawa police chief, also confirmed the necessity of the tools this act conferred to police in clearing Ottawa. Canada has a parliamentary democracy founded on the rule of law and respect for rights and freedoms. I, like everyone here, am elected by the residents of my constituency. I am here to represent Halifax West. I care about my community and all its people. I care about everyone's freedom. We need to collectively care about each other in our country. Let us be clear. There is a national emergency. It does pose a risk to personal security, national security and our economy, and it needs to be ended quickly and decisively so Canadians can get their lives back. I am confident the threshold the act requires has been met. We have all seen the threats to property, to our economy, to our supply chains and to our most important trading relationship, which have been carried out to reach ideological ends. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all the police services who participated in ending the illegal operations, whether blockades, sieges or occupations. This includes the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, la Sûreté du Québec and police forces from across the country. This was a national effort from different jurisdictions, standing out there in the freezing cold and putting their safety and comfort on the line to ensure a resolution. My hat is off to them for their professionalism, dedication and restraint in the face of taunts, insults and abuse from occupiers. We have heard many times how the vast majority of working truckers are vaccinated. I want to thank them for their essential work ensuring Canadians have food, medicine and so much that we rely on every day on our tables. I also want to thank their association, the CTA, for confirming that vaccine mandates are not in fact interfering with the industry's operations and for applauding the government's use of the Emergencies Act to rightfully end these blockades. I want to thank the journalists on the streets, braving harassment to bring the truth of the occupation in Ottawa to Canadians. I have listened very closely to my colleagues during this debate and I appreciate the points they raised on the gravity of the situation, on the torment of the people and businesses of Ottawa and on the need for a quick and decisive path forward. What we have seen is an occupation with leaders that in their stated objectives called for the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the removal of reasonable public health measures that have kept Canadians safe. It is an occupation that has been fuelled in no small part by foreign donations and eager cheerleading from political opportunists. The residents of Ottawa, the business owners and their staff, and the hard-working public servants, they all know this surpassed the point of a protest because they have suffered through it. I think of the email I received the other day from a woman advocating on behalf of her niece, who lives in downtown Ottawa and because of an autoimmune disorder could not leave her small apartment during the current occupation. Her niece had endured constant, inescapable, deafening noise and fumes from the occupiers. What about her rights and freedoms? There are so many stories like hers. We have seen far too much intimidation, violence and hatred. I want to acknowledge the strength and resolve of the people of Ottawa over these difficult few weeks. They have been through hell and I hope they will get some rest and some relief. At this time, it is incumbent on us to act. Let us clear up both the confusion and the wilful misrepresentation about what this act is and what invoking it entails. This is not the War Measures Act. This act is not calling in the military. It is targeted, temporary, subject to checks and safeguards through Parliament and must be compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Invoking the Emergencies Act provides new authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, prohibit blockades and keep essential corridors open. It allows government to mobilize essential services, including services related to removal, towing and storage of vehicles that are being used as part of a blockade. It allows the taking of action against the largely foreign and largely anonymous funding of this occupation, including from crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers. Significantly, it allows the removal of the jurisdictional friction that we have seen impede our police forces, allowing police from different jurisdictions to work together to do their job. I want to reiterate what was confirmed by the interim Ottawa police chief. They would not be able to do the job they are doing without the authorities conferred by the Emergencies Act. I want to thank the constituents of Halifax West for writing me and calling me, expressing their concern. Like all of my colleagues, my office has received tons of emails. In my case, most of it is from outside my province, containing outrageous false claims and comparisons. This has included anti-vaccine propaganda, conspiracy theories, insistence that the pandemic is over, denial that our hospitals are being pushed past their capacities and disturbing comparisons made between the requirement to get vaccinated before boarding an airplane and the horrors inflicted by the Nazis. The contents of these emails are troubling, concerning and full of disinformation. The fact is that Canada is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. The majority of Canadians do not support these illegal protests and the occupation. The overwhelming majority of Canadians understand that facts and science still matter. That reassures me. This week, we celebrated the 57th anniversary of our Canadian flag, a symbol we all respect and appreciate. I have felt uncomfortable seeing how our flag has been used over the last few weeks. I do not want anyone to ever see our flag flying and feel a twinge of fear or anxiety. I understand the frustration and the pandemic fatigue felt by many. We are all tired and we all want the pandemic to end. In my province of Nova Scotia, we had a small taste of what it felt like to have a post-pandemic life in the fall, when cases came down and restrictions were lessened. It was a blessing and it was appreciated and deeply needed, but omicron had other plans. I want to say I understand the frustration and empathize with folks. The risks to our communities, families and hospitals do not simply end because we want the pandemic to be over. I wish they did. Recently in Nova Scotia we saw the most deadly week of the pandemic since May 2020. We are still seeing daily test positivity rates over 10% and packed hospitals staffed by overstretched health care workers. Here I want to thank all health care workers for caring for Nova Scotians and for caring for all Canadians. I have hope that a brighter spring is on its way. I want to encourage everyone to spread hope to their friends, communities and loved ones, while at the same time recommitting themselves to having each other's backs, being cautious, getting vaccinated and showing our solidarity with one another—

1505 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 6:36:10 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up. She will be able to continue during questions and comments. The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

27 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Feb/20/22 6:36:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I liked the points in the member's speech that focused on section 58 of the Emergencies Act. However, I disagree with the member based on the fact that adequate evidence has not been provided to the chamber to determine that no other law in Canada could deal with this. I encourage the member to look at the Emergencies Act NOA submitted by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, especially paragraph 51. It outlines: ...the Government’s precipitous invocation of the Emergencies Act appears to have been motivated by its view that the provinces have not gone far enough in addressing intraprovincial protest. However, this does not mean that the provinces lack the capacity or authority to deal with the protests.... The provinces “have all the tools they need”, according to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It goes on to argue, “The Emergencies Act was not intended to provide the federal government a pathway to arrogate provincial powers to itself in circumstances where the provinces do not exercise those powers in the way the federal government would have.” Can the member provide any form of evidence to the chamber demonstrating that the federal government actually had to go as far as it did?

209 words

All Topics

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab

Feb/20/22 6:37:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my remarks, I specifically said that the Ottawa interim police chief concluded that without the act, the police would not have been able to do what they did. Again, former Ottawa police chief Charles Bordeleau said that invoking the Emergencies Act allowed them to set up a perimeter, allowed police to deny entry to those trying to join the protest, allowed for the banning of bringing children and minors into the designated zone, allowed for the quick seizure of money and assets involved with sustaining the occupation, allowed for vehicles to be towed and allowed for the immediate swearing in of officers from outside Ontario as police officers, among other things.

114 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Feb/20/22 6:38:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Of course, our opinions differ. Patrick Taillon, a respected law professor at Université Laval who is well known in Quebec, told Radio-Canada today that it is not enough to argue that a law is useful based on what the Ottawa police chief says. He pointed out that the government also has to show that the use of the act is necessary or essential, saying, “That is where the government is at a disadvantage, because it is difficult to prove that it is necessary or essential when the normal legal tools were not used during the first 14 days of the crisis.” Why go from doing nothing to the most radical solution? We are not convinced that the government tried everything before getting to this point. In short, why did the tortoise turn into a hare?

150 words

All Topics

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab

Feb/20/22 6:39:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Unfortunately, I think it was necessary to invoke this act. The specific measures set out in the Emergencies Act are limited, subject to many checks and balances, and guaranteed by Parliament, hence this debate. The measures also have to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The police have all said that they could not have overcome these obstacles without this act.

74 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 6:40:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Liberal government has said is that it would bring forward legislation to deal with online hate. We know that many of the people who have been radicalized have been radicalized on social media, and I am just wondering if the government is planning on bringing this legislation forward. If so, when and why not yet?

62 words

All Topics

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab

Feb/20/22 6:41:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague ask questions for the last couple of days and I really appreciate her interjections. I am part of the governing party, but I am certainly not in government. I definitely value bringing that forward, and I will take it back to my colleagues.

52 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 6:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. I would first like to start by joining my colleagues in thanking the Parliamentary Protective Service for keeping members and all the staff of the House of Commons safe and secure. They have done an exemplary job working under exceptionally trying circumstances. We owe them a great deal of gratitude. I would also like to thank all members of law enforcement, who are working calmly and professionally to help restore law and order to our nation's capital, to the parliamentary precinct and in border communities across Canada. I have had the honour of serving as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg South for over six years. Serving as a member of Parliament also means that I am a resident of downtown Ottawa when the House is sitting. I have witnessed first-hand the anxiety and hardship this unlawful occupation has caused for local residents and businesses. I have been worried about frightened children unable to sleep or attend school, about people who needed an ambulance or other emergency services, about pedestrians harassed on the street for simply wearing a mask and about frontline workers who do not have a paycheque because their places of employment have been forced to close. Like so many Canadians, I was deeply disturbed to see the war memorial and the Terry Fox statue disrespected and to witness numerous symbols of hate openly displayed in our nation's capital. I want to be clear that there is a distinction between those who oppose public health measures with respect to COVID-19 and those who are responsible for the hostile occupation of our nation's capital. The vast majority of those who are opposed to public health measures enacted by the various levels of government have expressed themselves through legitimate and peaceful means, as is their right under the charter. Their points of view should not be diminished or confused with the unlawful aims of those who organized the occupation of downtown Ottawa. We cannot forget that the organizers of this so-called “freedom convoy” made it clear in their MOU that their stated goal was the removal of a federal government that was elected only five months ago. These organizers are clearly using public health measures as a rallying cry and a bid to undermine our valued democratic institutions, with no regard for the rights of their fellow citizens or stability of our economy. What I find particularly troubling is that this unlawful occupation has been actively encouraged and cheered on by the Conservatives who sit in the House: by the current interim Leader of the Opposition, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is a former Conservative leader and Speaker of the House, and by many other Conservative members, including the member for Carleton, who is a candidate for the leadership of his party. He professed loudly that he was proud to stand with the truckers occupying Wellington Street. Well, I am proud to stand with the 90% of truckers who are vaccinated, some of whom have been prevented from doing their jobs because of blockades at our borders. During the critical days in January when occupiers first arrived in Ottawa, Canadians witnessed multiple media reports of Conservative members expressing admiration for the occupiers, and sharing meals and taking selfies with them, thus emboldening and encouraging them in their unlawful activities. It is no surprise, then, that the Conservatives now oppose this declaration of an emergency when they have so actively contributed to it. It has been said many times and it deserves repeating that the declaration we are debating today is not the War Measures Act of the past. Through the modernized Emergencies Act, we are providing expanded authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, dismantle blockades and keep essential first responders and trade corridors open. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportionate. The government has invoked it only after all options had proved insufficient. This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting their jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions. It is about upholding peace, order and good government. The specific measures provided in the Emergencies Act are limited and subject to numerous checks and safeguards, such as the debate we are having right now. All measures must be compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These measures do not in any way limit Canadians' rights or freedoms of expression. For the overwhelming majority of Canadians, including my constituents, there is no impact on their daily lives or on the rights and freedoms they enjoy. It is important to note that the acting chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Steve Bell, on Friday clearly stated that law enforcement would not have been able to take the actions they did to end this occupation without the new authorities granted under the Emergencies Act. The former chief of the Ottawa Police Service and the Conservatives' own caucus colleague, Senator Vern White, agrees that invoking the Emergencies Act was the right thing to do at this juncture. The Premier of Ontario and Progressive Conservative leader, Doug Ford, said he supports the federal government's decision to “provide additional tools” to help police “resolve the situation” in the nation's capital. Amid the high-profile declarations of support from many law enforcement agencies and public officials, I have also received many messages of support for the Emergencies Act from my constituents, the people of Winnipeg South. These constituents reflect the vast majority of Canadians who believe in the rule of law and who support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Opinion survey after opinion survey confirms this. The border blockades seen across Canada, including at Emerson in my home province of Manitoba, have cost our economy billions and have strained our international reputation and good relationship with trading partner nations. Canadians are very worried about this. It appears to me that the Prime Minister's announcement that he would invoke the Emergencies Act provided an immediate boost to local law enforcement agencies across Canada, and the illegal blockades at border crossings began to be dismantled. As the member for Windsor West said this morning, the act has prevented a number of attempted blockades from taking place, as several convoys have been intercepted and turned around. The success we have seen so far by the police in restoring law and order to the streets of Ottawa proves to me that using the Emergencies Act was the right decision. Now is not the time to undercut the women and men in law enforcement, who protect us all, by withdrawing the emergency measures they are now actively using. I would like to end on a note of optimism. Canadians have just endured two years of pandemic anxiety that has been unprecedented in this century. Many have suffered economic and personal loss. Our citizens are tired. The Conservatives say that Canada has never been more divided, but I say, as our Prime Minister has said, that in many ways we have never been more united. We have worked together to fight COVID‑19 and protect our health care systems and our economy. This Liberal government has supported Canadians in doing this and Canadians have risen to the challenge. Our vaccination rates are among the highest in the world. Our economy is rebounding. Our health care workers, teachers, grocery store workers and, yes, our truckers have been there for us. Today, we as the people's House need to stand up for our fellow citizens. After two years of pandemic hardship, border communities should not now suffer illegal blockades, impacting travellers, public servants and whole sectors of our economy. The people of Ottawa should not need to endure one more day of unlawful occupation. As members of the House, let us help lift the siege for the residents, businesses, employees, seniors and students of Centretown. This House can and should fully support our frontline police officers and let them finish the job. I encourage all my colleagues to support the motion and approve the declaration of an emergency.

1368 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/20/22 6:50:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I respectfully depart from my colleague's analysis where he says that Canada has never been more united. Frankly, it has been divided, and it has been mostly divided by our Prime Minister and his rhetoric. I want to zero in on one thing the hon. member said. He mentioned two comments that were really interesting to me. One was about the rule of law and the other was the notion of opinion surveys. He said that opinion survey after opinion survey is behind the government. When did the rule of law become subordinate to opinion surveys? Something is either right or wrong, so why can he not point to the legislation and say where the threshold is met? With respect, it is not met in these circumstances.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Feb/20/22 6:51:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are political creatures and all of us watch opinion polls. They are not the final word, of course, but they certainly show me that my constituents are behind the measures we have implemented, as a majority of Canadians are. As far as the rule of law goes, we have seen law-breaking with abandon. Speaking of that, there was an abandonment of the citizens of Ottawa. As I mentioned, I am a resident of the downtown here, so I have experienced what they have experienced. The good folks of Ottawa and those dependent on our border communities deserve the rule of law to be implemented, and that is exactly what we are doing.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Feb/20/22 6:52:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member accurately described the unjustifiable and unwarranted nature of these blockades. He talked about the need to remove them. I think we can all agree on that. My question will be very simple. The first blockades, like the one at the Ambassador Bridge, occurred well before the Emergencies Act. Why was the same formula not simply reused in downtown Ottawa?

63 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Feb/20/22 6:53:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we all know that invoking the Emergencies Act sent a very strong message to the occupiers who were conducting the blockade. It enabled them to be dispersed. I do not know if the hon. member heard the speech from the member for Windsor West, but subsequently, at a number of our border crossings, those measures really helped to turn away convoys and prevent subsequent blockades. The legislation is working. It will have to be ratified by the House tomorrow, and I look forward to that vote.

88 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/20/22 6:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was made clear early on during the occupation that crowdfunding and cryptocurrency were being used to fund illegal activities. This demonstrated a concerning gap in the reporting requirements. Why did the government not take immediate action to ensure that the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations were updated, so that these companies were not exempt from reporting suspicious transactions to FINTRAC?

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Terry Duguid

Feb/20/22 6:54:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for raising this point, because it is an important one. Our laws need to be updated with some of these modern realities, such as cryptocurrencies, the influence of foreign actors and the impact of social media in driving people to these funding sites. That's exactly what the finance minister has done. She has filled those gaps, and we will be better prepared for these kinds of illegal acts in the future.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Feb/20/22 6:55:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today as a matter of principle and with pride in my past. I began my career as a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces. All I wanted throughout my military career was to defend my country and its values. I can still say today that I am and will always be that soldier, the one who decided that law and order should be a priority for our country, for the safety of Canadians. I served my country at home and abroad with the Canadian flag proudly on my shoulder. I served with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, soldiers who were proud, well trained and ready to support efforts to uphold the rule of law. I have personally trained and led soldiers in crowd control operations similar to what we have experienced in Ottawa over the last few days. I have been deployed to areas of Canada where the use of force was possible, without the need for the Emergencies Act. Defending one's country and serving in the military requires unconditional dedication, but I can say that under this Prime Minister, patriotism is taking a beating. The Prime Minister's legendary irresponsibility and arrogance did nothing to improve matters. That has been our experience for the past 23 days. A situation that should have been a protest became a siege in front of our Parliament because the Prime Minister did nothing to stop things from escalating. I have also encountered some obstacles since the beginning of this siege. I come here to Ottawa every week to exercise my role as an MP, and I truly understand the people of Ottawa. That is why, on February 4, I personally posted a tweet asking the protesters to leave and clear the streets of Ottawa. They had made their point, and it was very clear to me that this needed to stop. I agreed with that. Today we are here to debate the Emergencies Act. This shows that the Prime Minister has once again failed to break this impasse. He claims that the only available option to prevent trucks from blockading the streets is to invoke this legislation. However, the measures in this legislation go too far or have simply become obsolete since the day they were invoked on February 14. I am going to dissect the order that was published on February 14 and on which members will be voting tomorrow. Many members have given speeches over the past two days, but I think we are forgetting to focus on what we will actually be voting on, which is a motion to confirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, in accordance with section 58, in connection with the order issued by the Prime Minister on February 14, 2022, one week ago tomorrow. The first part of the order states: Whereas the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency; Whereas the Governor in Council has...consulted the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province...acting with consent of their respective Executive Councils... This includes the governments in power and the premiers. There was already a problem on day one, since Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island said no. There was therefore no consent since four provinces were saying no. The order continues: Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council...directs that a proclamation be issued (a) declaring that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency; This is how the motion that we must vote on tomorrow describes the state of emergency: (a) the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various locations throughout Canada and the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property... Maybe this is referring to blockades that were set up before February 14 or that ended on the morning of February 14, because what I just read out did not happen, especially not in Ottawa. The second point reads as follows: (b) the adverse effects on the Canadian economy...and threats to its economic security resulting from the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings, All of this was over and done with before the Prime Minister even published the order on February 14. Then there are other points concerning the economic relationship with the U.S. Once again, it is the same story. The Ambassador Bridge was cleared, the supply chain disruption was resolved and so forth. Further down, there is mention of the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence. Violence is mentioned often in the declaration. Yes, it was very inconvenient for the city of Ottawa, especially when the honking did not stop, but I did not see any broken windows or acts of violence, except for what happened to journalists. If we compare this to protests that we see regularly in Montreal or elsewhere in Canada, where property is damaged and police cars are overturned, no such incidents occurred during the events we are discussing today. The declaration that we will be voting on tomorrow refers to measures to regulate or prohibit any public assembly: “Regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace other than lawful advocacy, protest or dissent”. This excludes basic things that most of the people who were there were asking for. I have a hard time understanding that point. As for the so-called specified area, it was obvious that areas needed to be specified. I was awaiting a more detailed motion, but we never got any details. In the end, all of Canada is covered by the state of emergency declaration. No specific areas where it applied were ever indicated. Everyone knows it was Ottawa, because only Ottawa was left, but from a legal standpoint, we were not informed. The next point concerns measures to authorize or direct any person to render essential services, such as removing, towing or storing vehicles. Under section 129 of the Criminal Code, the police can ask a towing company to tow a vehicle. That law already exists. This specific element was added to the emergency measures, but it already existed. It was not needed. As for the financial aspect, the way it was handled is a bit odd. The government wanted to know where the money was coming from, and it wanted to freeze the bank accounts of those who made donations to the convoy, among others. We found out that the government got its information from a CBC news story. The government decided to take action under the Emergencies Act based on that story. There was not even a report from a national security agency or from the Department of Finance. The report was from the CBC. The government cannot just go off of that. The Minister of Finance said that she has everyone's names. It is like a game where the government is trying to find out who made donations, who they made them to and where the money came from. Is it really trying to find out where that money came from in the interest of national security, or simply for partisan reasons? It is unclear. There is not much we can support in everything I just talked about, but there may be one thing. Someone said that invoking the Emergencies Act would make it possible to impose stiffer fines and prison sentences. In a really urgent case, we would agree with that, but we are not at that point. The last point says, “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.” Here we are, seven days later, and those measures are still not yet known, because nothing has been added. There is no new information. Out of these 11 paragraphs, 10 do not pass the smell test. We will vote on them tomorrow. If only one paragraph of the declaration was inadequate, we would vote against the motion, but 10 out of 11 are inadequate. How could we support this motion to activate the Emergencies Act? In closing, the popular perception will be that the Emergencies Act allowed the streets of Ottawa to be cleared. That is what the government wants Canadians to think. However, history with a capital “H” will show that it was all a bluff and that only the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois understood that.

1483 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 7:05:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Premier of Alberta announced that he would be challenging the use of the Emergencies Act in court. However, on February 5, his own government implored the federal government to intervene and send help. Can my colleague tell me why the Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths?

54 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Feb/20/22 7:05:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am only talking out of one side of my mouth. When a province asks the federal government for help, as was the case at the Summit of the Americas in 2001, where the RCMP was deployed in large numbers in Quebec City to support the Quebec City police and the Sûreté du Québec, was the Emergencies Act invoked? No, it was not. It is possible for a province to ask the federal government for help in order to get more officers from the RCMP, for example, or from other police forces, without involving the Emergencies Act. I think that what the Premier of Alberta said was that he wanted help but did not need the Emergencies Act to be invoked.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/20/22 7:06:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am a little surprised by the position taken by the Conservative Party over the past few weeks. The Conservative Party is the party of law and order, yet several Conservative MPs supported a movement that wanted to use force to overthrow a democratically elected government. It says that right on its Facebook page. Not only is the party of law and order supporting an illegal occupation, but its members are handing out coffee and pizza to people who are here illegally and are terrorizing and harassing Ottawa residents. Does my colleague not think that his party is divided and is contradicting itself? Either they are in favour of the convoy, or they are against it.

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Feb/20/22 7:07:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from the very first day, what was the truckers' intent? It was to protest against a rule change brought in on January 15 that prevented unvaccinated truckers from travelling between the United States and Canada, even though this had been allowed for two years. Quebec has 9,000 unvaccinated nurses working in the health system. Yes, the Conservative Party did believe that it was a laudable request. It was open to discussing it, but the government and the Prime Minister wanted nothing to do with it. That was the problem. Naturally, we were prepared to welcome these people who were coming to Ottawa to say that the rule that went into effect on January 15 was a problem for them. Four or five days later, I tweeted that the protesters' message had been heard, that they could leave and that we would do something else. I did that, and so did other colleagues. Our position is very clear: We never did anything to encourage the siege of Ottawa.

171 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35