SoVote

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

Feb/20/22 8:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois claim to be the voice of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. However, the surveys published this morning show that 67% of Quebeckers support the Emergencies Act, as do 55% of Bloc supporters. Has my colleague forgotten the voice of the people he is representing in the House?

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Feb/20/22 8:34:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a poll of about 300 people. In any case, what does my colleague think about the fact that the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously against the use of emergency measures? After seeing what has been happening in Ottawa for the past three weeks, it is only natural that people want it to stop. However, putting an end to this situation does not require emergency measures.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:34:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I liked about my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île's speech was the way he summarized the events leading up to the current situation. He talked about the Prime Minister's lack of leadership and about how the PM hid in his cottage for three or four weeks and made only one public appearance where he insulted the people who had come to Ottawa to protest. It seems as though that is what convinced them to stick around. I would like my colleague to talk about the consultations that the government says it held. The government told the provincial premiers that it was going to invoke the Emergencies Act. Usually, the purpose of a consultation is to convince people to see things our way. How is it that seven of the 10 provincial premiers have spoken out against the use of this act?

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Feb/20/22 8:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues often say in Parliament that they are in talks with the Government of Quebec, but there is a difference between talking and really listening and discussing. As my colleague said, seven out of 10 provinces are against using the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister says he consulted everyone and managed to get a consensus, but that is far from the case.

66 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 8:36:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We agree that the situation deteriorated and got way out of hand because of the Prime Minister's inaction. As for the act itself, is my colleague not reassured by the fact that its application is limited to 30 days, that fundamental freedoms are upheld and that 20 members can call for its revocation and trigger a vote in the House? The chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that these measures were necessary because they helped end the illegal occupation, including by increasing the fines, preventing people from being inside the perimeter without good reason, and forcing certain tow truck operators to remove the trucks from the streets. The chief of the Ottawa Police Service seems to think it was useful. Does my colleague not agree with him?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Feb/20/22 8:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that the Emergencies Act was useful. However, as constitutional expert Patrick Taillon said, the act must not only be useful, it must be essential. I think that everything we saw could have been done differently. For the past two weeks, we constantly asked the Prime Minister to meet with all stakeholders, to set up an all-party committee with all stakeholders in order take effective action on the ground. I think we could very well have done that without the emergency measures. The government must not make a habit of resorting to these extreme measures for situations that can be resolved by other means.

114 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/20/22 8:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from La Pointe‑de‑l'Île for his excellent speech and pertinent answers. I also thank him for agreeing to share his time with me, which he did reluctantly but in a spirit of fairness. I would like to start by joining other colleagues before me in applauding the outstanding work of all the police services, which demonstrated extraordinary professionalism in this weekend's operations. I salute in particular the Parliamentary Protective Service, which we can all agree took very good care of us despite the high levels of stress right now. Like my colleague who spoke earlier, I, too, want to commend the interpreters, who have had to deal with the House's changing schedule these past few days and who are doing a terrific job. I know that we are placing a heavy burden on the interpreters who interpret from French to English. I do not know how things are going for those interpreting the other way, from English to French, but I can say that we are extremely grateful for the work they do. I think that anyone who goes into politics does so in order to effect change, whether big or small. We try to make our mark. Some will achieve this through local actions on behalf of their constituents. Others will achieve this by passing laws that will change our way of life or change the world more significantly. Consider, for example, the bill to be introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît. It will make Émilie Sansfaçon's dream come true by extending eligibility for employment insurance benefits for people with serious illnesses to 50 weeks, rather than the meagre 26 weeks the Liberals have proposed. Sometimes politicians' actions will have international significance, as is the case for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and his efforts on behalf of Raif Badawi and the Uighurs. I imagine that the desire and the need to leave one's mark are even greater when one is Prime Minister. I have to say, the current Prime Minister has his work cut out for him. What will this Prime Minister be remembered for? The question is all the more relevant now, when we are obviously at a historical crossroads. Quebec and Canada are experiencing a health crisis the likes of which has not been seen since the Spanish flu more than 100 years ago. This is the type of crisis that requires the kind of leadership we cannot find just anywhere. Has the Prime Minister shown leadership? I think this has been a recurring theme in this debate. I think the Prime Minister acted as if nothing were wrong. He buried his head in the sand, hoping in vain that the storm would pass. By refusing to support this law, the Bloc Québécois is in no way minimizing the crisis we are in. It has been ongoing for weeks. It is real and historic, although it seems to be clearing up on Parliament Hill. Could the crisis have been avoided? Yes, of course, if the government had, from the very beginning, shown the type of leadership we keep talking about and if it had assumed its responsibilities. It had and still has a range of perfectly suitable measures at its disposal. It could have applied various measures from the very beginning. It could, for example, have sent more RCMP officers, as the Ottawa police requested. We would not be here now if these measures had been taken from the very beginning. I particularly want to stress the incongruity and pointlessness of this government invoking the Emergencies Act. In the current context, the way this situation developed, the act is being used more as a distraction, so we forget the government's inaction and lack of leadership. It did nothing for weeks, but then, all of a sudden, it is an emergency and we must act immediately. Now it is telling us anything goes, do not ask questions, watch it go, it is taking care of it. With this government, every crisis is the same bad movie. The storyline is easy. First, it ignores the problem, closes its eyes and says the problem will resolve itself, as if by magic. Then it blames someone else, like the city, the province or a nation. Eventually, it takes its head out of the sand, usually too late, and improvises something, a solution that could have been implemented long before everything escalated. In my opinion, invoking the Emergencies Act today shows that the government does not have the backbone needed to manage a crisis. It does not see them coming. When they happen, it is incapable of managing them. There is proof enough of that. On another level, we can look at what is going on in several departments right now, in particular immigration and employment insurance. Fires have broken out in many places, but no one in this government seems to be able to put them out. That is rather worrisome. Instead of stepping up and showing leadership in a time of crisis, the Prime Minister opted for a disproportionate show of force with the Emergencies Act. We, as members of Parliament, cannot be complicit in this dog-and-pony show. Could the government not recognize that there is currently no real need to apply this exceptional act? This is not a preventative act. It is meant to be applied to resolve an imminent or current crisis. The situation is essentially resolved, though. The siege and the occupation have been ended. Applying the act under the current circumstances would create what I would definitely call a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, provincial governments and, in this case, the City of Ottawa, have other options to resolve the crisis. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge was removed before the order came into effect. The border at Coutts has been reopened. The siege in Ottawa is over, fortunately. Our police forces are capable and united, and all they want is to get the appropriate request, equipment and mandate. We saw what they were capable of when they joined forces to deal with a crisis. They were superbly effective this weekend. I think the government wanted to beat its chest and make an impression so people would forget how low it has sunk and how it failed to show any initiative in the past few weeks. The deed is done. The government cannot maintain such an act by citing preventative reasons. There is no “just in case” in the act. Earlier, I heard the argument that the chief of police and the mayor of Ottawa said the act had given them useful tools that they were thankful for. No doubt that is the case. I have a nine-and-a-half-year-old son. If he asks me for a calculator to do his math homework, that will help him, but I do not think that is the point. Rather than stubbornly trying to invoke an act with a disproportionate impact and scope, which creates a precedent that neither Quebec nor the majority of stakeholders would want or approve of, is there any hope that the government will finally assume its responsibilities and show some common sense by choosing the path of dialogue, at the risk of coming up against differing opinions? We can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the time is fast approaching when we must let old wounds heal. We will have to make every effort to rebuild the bridges between us. Too many friends have drifted apart. Brothers, sisters, cousins no longer speak to each other because of the divisions caused by this crisis. Fixing that will take a lot of work. I think that what we need to do now is look forward and examine the deeper root causes of the problems we have seen over the last few weeks. They need to be addressed without delay to avoid the turmoil of a possible future crisis. Earlier, I asked what kind of legacy this Prime Minister will leave to history. I only have one answer: The ball is in his court because, for now, we might remember him the same way we remember other prime ministers who have let Quebec down over the years. I will spare members from having to hear the examples because there are many that come to mind. There is still time for the Prime Minister to do something different. He could be in the same league as the great leaders who led this country through world wars and other crises we have faced in the past. He could be a great leader, a unifying force, a reassuring presence to those who agree with him as well as those who will take a little convincing that he knows what he is doing. One way for him to leave a legacy would be to increase health transfers and give the provincial and Quebec health care systems a chance to recover. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have said this ad nauseam, and the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have been unanimous in calling for it. A better-funded system will mean fewer deaths the next time there is a public health crisis. It will protect our health care systems from becoming overburdened and give us a chance to make it through crises. It might even put a little shine back on the Prime Minister's reputation and leadership.

1599 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:47:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get another opportunity at a future time to talk about the type of legacy that this government and the Prime Minister will be able to leave, but for now, with regard to the Emergencies Act, it is important for us to recognize that by enacting it, we have enabled people like the interim chief of police here in Ottawa and other law enforcement agencies to access laws that will assist them in dealing with things such as the illegal blockade. We know that for a fact, and there are many individuals out there who support this initiative. My question for my friend is this: Does he not see the benefit of having targeted actions taken, such as not being able to use children as a form of blockade and having additional fines in place to protect our borders for international trade and downtowns from being blockaded in the future, if in fact that were—

162 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 8:49:06 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Drummond.

5 words

Drummond

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/20/22 8:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously an excessive law will provide effective tools, but does that mean they are justified? Does it take a baseball bat to smash a mosquito, or would a fly swatter or even a hand do the trick? This calls for a measured, predictable, proactive response. It is best to let people do their jobs and give them the tools they need when they need them. We saw this crisis coming. It took weeks to plan the convoy. We knew days in advance that it was coming to Parliament Hill. It was predictable and could have been stopped. We have had protests in Quebec and Canada before. This is not the first. It could have been handled just fine without this law, which I feel is excessive.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:49:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to continue the logic of the Liberal member who just asked a question, I have to say that never in my life have I had a police force or an acting chief of police turn down more powers for their officers. I have never heard a police chief or a police force say that they would like to carry out searches without a warrant. I think that this is true for everyone. The police will never say no to more powers. I would like to hear my Bloc colleague's views on that.

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/20/22 8:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question. I must say that I completely agree. There are things that may take longer, but they lead to the same outcome. Bank accounts can also be frozen by applying for a court order if there is good reason to do so. I spoke earlier about predictability and about having a little bit of foresight on events that are going to happen. This one was very predictable, by the way. Again, I think that this law is excessive. I always find it a little odd to agree so fully with my Conservative colleagues, but it is a good thing from time to time.

114 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:51:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his speech. I consider him to be a fair and thoughtful member of the House of Commons. I would like to ask him if he believes that the government could bring in legislation to combat money laundering quickly enough to deal with the current situation.

52 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/20/22 8:51:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona and tell her that I am extremely impressed by her question in French. I congratulate her. Yes, I think that we are currently reaching what I would dare call an end to the crisis. It is not the time to turn the page and close the books. I think that tools need to be put in place in order to deal more effectively with future situations such as the one we have just gone through. I completely agree with the idea of bringing in legislation to address money laundering, particularly the financing and the sites of this type of activity. We could certainly debate it in the next few weeks.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:52:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Drummond for his speech and especially for his masterful use of the French language in this place. I would like to ask him how he can state that the city of Ottawa has been under siege and then, in the same breath, suggest that the Emergencies Act is being trivialized.

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/20/22 8:53:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do not know where he heard me say that the use of the Emergencies Act is being trivialized. That is not what I said, but I do think that it is excessive. The act is far too powerful a tool for what we needed at the time. I am not saying that the use of the Act is being trivialized, but I do condemn it for the overreach that it represents.

81 words

All Topics

Mr. Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:53:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by noting I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax. I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's critically important debate at a difficult time for our country. It is difficult because it pains me to see the lengths that those who descended upon Ottawa and our border crossings across the country, and those who sympathized with them, felt they needed to go just to have their voices heard. It pains me to see the response that was necessary to restore order in our country. For three weeks the occupation of Ottawa's downtown core has forced businesses to close, putting thousands out of work. It has restricted the movement of essential workers and goods and has threatened the health and safety of the city's residents. Since the blockades began at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, over $390 million in daily trade with Canada's largest and most important trading partner has been adversely affected. Border blockades have stretched as far away as the Pacific truck crossing here in B.C., causing significant damage to our supply chains and our economy, and even reconstituted yesterday. As the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, these costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers just as they are working hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID. They also threaten our reputation as a reliable trading partner. Clearly, this is unacceptable. These illegal blockades and occupations are not just a threat to our economy. The leaders of these activities are not just calling for their voices to be heard. They are calling for Canada's recently democratically elected government to be overthrown through threats of violence and coercion and by holding our cities and our supply chains hostage through illegal activities that rob fellow citizens of their rights. The leaders of these protests are supported by a vast, coordinated and well-financed international network of disinformation that is seeking to sow doubt in our country's institutions, in independent media and in science. It is a network involving the alt-right that promotes xenophobic and racist views that, despite our hopes that Canada was immune from it, presents a real and present threat to our democratic institutions. It is a coordinated effort to use mistruths and half-truths to misrepresent constantly evolving scientific evidence as a reason to attack and discredit expert opinion. It pains me to think that in Canada we are talking about fake news, yet here we are. This coordinated effort has exploited the very real frustration that we all feel having lived through this pandemic for two whole years. It has exploited people's legitimate desires to gather, let loose and enjoy the company of others by using conspiracy theories that scapegoat the Prime Minister, governments, experts, the media and shadow elites, rather than recognizing that we all face one common enemy: the virus. I do not want to paint all the people who have attended these protests or those who sympathize with them with the same brush. I have spoken to many who have legitimate concerns and see this as an opportunity to express the frustration that we all feel. Coming to Parliament to make our voices heard in peaceful protest is a sacred right that we all must protect. I want to assure the folks that have reached out to me by phone, email and social media that they have been heard. What we are debating here today is not about silencing their voices, but rather re-establishing order and restoring freedoms to those who have had them taken away. To the measure at hand, on February 14, the Government of Canada appropriately declared a public order emergency. This order is effectively and peacefully putting an end to these illegal acts. Make no mistake. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented measure that was invoked in the context of ongoing border blockades, which became necessary after weeks of impasse with the occupation in Ottawa and after all other measures had been exhausted. It comes after occupiers had been directed to leave for weeks, after additional resources were provided to the police of local jurisdiction and after coordinated efforts of law enforcement were not able to rectify a solution nor remove the illegal blockade in Ottawa. This is not the first resort and it has not been used lightly. Contrary to what many believe, it does not suspend the application of our rights and freedoms. This act is replete with checks and balances to ensure it is not abused. This is an, at most, 30-day time-limited measure overseen by a committee of parliamentarians that is proportional, targeted and will be followed by an inquiry. It can also be revoked by Parliament at any time, and it is our duty to ensure that these powers are used prudently and only so long as they are needed. The measures being implemented allow the temporary designation of secure areas to prevent blockades, allow for the freezing of accounts of those financing illegal activities and other assets used in the furtherance of these illegal activities, allow the RCMP to enforce local bylaws, bring law enforcement capabilities from across the country to bear and importantly enable the government to commandeer tow trucks to finally move the blockade. This is precisely what we have seen happen in the last week. We have heard from the opposition that these powers are not necessary, so I want to quote the interim Ottawa police chief. He said, on Friday, “Without the authorities that have been provided to us through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to be doing the work we are today.” I want to thank law enforcement for their professional work to carry out this operation, largely safely, and the vast majority of the protesters who eschewed violence and went home peacefully. I also want to thank members of the media for putting themselves in harm's way to cover the events of the past few days in the face of so much abuse. I have had constituents question whether there was, in fact, a public order emergency, as the act requires to trigger this measure, so I want to touch on that briefly. The Emergencies Act states that the threshold that must be met is a reasonable belief that a public order emergency exists. Public order emergencies are defined as serious threats to the security of Canada, and such threats are defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act as including: foreign influenced activities...that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts...to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada We know that over half the donations made in furtherance of these illegal blockades came from international sources, thousands of which funded the January 6 insurrection in Washington. Also, there have been serious threats and destructive acts to individuals and businesses in Ottawa, and the stated purpose of this enterprise was to overthrow the government. Therefore, from my reading, this threshold is clearly met. Many have raised concerns about the precedent that using this act presents, and while this act must always be used sparingly, I believe it is warranted in this situation for the reasons I mentioned before. I would also counter that we need to be similarly concerned with the precedent that would be set if we did not act. The precedent would be allowing an openly seditious movement to be legitimized, and to legitimize the methods of blockading critical infrastructure and of seeking to hold cities hostage for weeks on end with the goal of forcing a change in government policy or of the government itself. I would agree we should never have ended up at this point. We should not have had to resort to the Emergencies Act, but here we are. The last few weeks have revealed vulnerabilities in our law enforcement system, and it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to learn from these illegal blockades, and who and what was behind them, to take remedial action and to take seriously the threat that misinformation and foreign influence pose to our democracy. If we can do that, we will ensure that tools, systems and protocols are in place to prevent similar situations from occurring without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act, as we must do now. I also want to clarify a distinction and misinterpretation that sits at the heart of these illegal activities, and that is the idea of freedom. Freedom cannot be absolute in a free and democratic society. Freedom is not a form of unbridled licence to do whatever we want regardless of how it harms others. Personal freedoms must be limited when they take away the freedoms of others. The flip side of personal rights and freedoms is societal obligations and responsibilities. They must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. That is how a democratic society functions, and that is why these blockades must end. Political protest is protected by our charter right to freedom of expression, but there is no right in this country to block critical infrastructure, to harass fellow Canadians, to vandalize businesses and homes, to defecate in the streets, to saddle others with the cost of policing these actions or to saddle our country with billions of dollars in economic losses from illegal blockades. None of these aforementioned acts can ever be considered a legitimate form of expression. I have to say that I have been embarrassed by what I have seen in Canada over the last month, from the hateful symbols we have seen in public and hateful political rhetoric to the horrible messages my staff, many of my hon. colleagues and I have been receiving. We need to be civil. We need to be better. We need to be able to truly listen to the ideas that differ from our own without pointing fingers and calling each other names. As elected representatives of Canadians, that starts in this House. With that, I look forward to questions from my hon. friends.

1751 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 9:03:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question. He said that the point of all the protesters was to overthrow the government. I have been closely following the Ottawa Police Service and they are now laying out charges against people they detained and arrested. I have noticed that nobody has been charged with treason, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious intentions or rioting. I wonder if the member can please explain to me how the government can claim something rhetorically and amp up the language in this chamber, as we talk about civil debate, when the charges being laid by police services and prosecutors do not match what the government is claiming these protests were about.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Feb/20/22 9:04:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the ongoing investigations right now, but what I will say is that the freedom convoy's stated purpose was to do just that, to overthrow the democratically elected government that we are all honoured to sit in today. Those ideas and that intent were made very clear from the beginning, but I will not comment on the ongoing investigations that may be taking place right now.

75 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Feb/20/22 9:04:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is also my neighbour, for his intervention today. When we look outside and see what has happened and talk about extremism, one thing I heard during this time from some members in the House is that there are “a few bad apples”, and this is very concerning to me. We all know that there are a few bad apples in every group, but the point is not the bad apples: It is the people who stand with the bad apples. If we look at our history on this planet, it is when people were quiet, when they minimized what was happening, that really terrible things were the outcome. I wonder if the member could speak to how important it is to stand against things that are extreme and make sure that we are not complicit in things that put us and our democracy in huge trouble.

155 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35