SoVote

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:09:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when historians write this chapter of the Canadian story, what will they say about the protest? I do not question that for some it was about vaccine requirements for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border, nor do I question that others came here earnestly to protest pandemic restrictions and the disruption these public health measures brought on all of us. Although I do not share their views, vigorous debate and peaceful protest make Canada's democracy stronger. However, for more than a few and for many of those making up the core of organizers themselves, who sat atop a chain of command throughout this three-week occupation, the purpose was something far more sinister and one that betrayed the earnest initial intent of the others. These individuals came to upend the democracy upon which our country is found. They had their demands and soon resorted to intimidation, lawlessness, force and even sedition to see them met, regardless of whether those demands were wise or even fell within the jurisdiction of the federal government at all. Thwarted by the incoherence of their own demands and frustrated by our resolve, they laid siege to our capital with the stated intent to overthrow the democratically elected government and install themselves in our place. Today, it is evident that they have failed. With the powers of the Emergencies Act, law and order have returned to the streets of Ottawa. Our democratic system, as well as the rights and freedoms that it provides, carries on. Members of Parliament, duly elected, continue debate on the Emergencies Act, invoked in the spirit of peace, order and good government. Today, it is evident that this measure was necessary, so let me speak to why I will be voting in support of invoking the Emergencies Act. I have the benefit of addressing the chamber following this week's police operation that finally brought the occupation to an end. What we saw was a methodical, orderly and restrained operation by professional police from across the country working as one. We know now just how integral the powers of the Emergencies Act were to the success of that operation. When asked if the Emergencies Act was necessary, the interim chief of the Ottawa police, Steve Bell, could not have been more clear: Police could not have done the job they did the way they did it without the powers provided by the act. That comes from the senior commanding officer for the operation. He is not alone. Many more academic, legal and security professionals have come to the same conclusion, including a Harper-appointed senator, Vernon White, a former Ottawa police chief himself, and security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, whom I know to be a respected voice by many in the chamber, including my Conservative colleagues. It is, of course, worth noting that a recent poll indicated that two-thirds of Canadians support this measure as well. Specifically, the Emergencies Act provided these key powers that were absolutely critical. One, it allowed police to establish a secure perimeter around the downtown core, preventing additional trucks or groups from joining the occupations. Two, it allowed Canadian financial service providers to immediately freeze or suspend accounts of an individual or a business affiliated with these illegal blockades until such time as that illegal activity was ceased. Three, it compelled private companies to provide towing services, fully compensated, to remove trucks and other vehicles from the occupation zone. It also allowed for the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, among other important measures. Some have asked, which is responsible, whether the Emergencies Act is an overreach. In fact, that is the essential question before Parliament today. It is a minority Parliament that will make a determination on the matter and revoke the measure if it not agreed to by the House. It is an excellent example of the oversight built into the legislation written by the Mulroney government. With due credit to the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, other accountability measures include a special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate to review the government's actions under the act on an ongoing basis, a 30-day sunset clause to make sure that these powers do not extend longer than necessary and an inquiry after one year. Importantly, the Emergencies Act does not limit charter rights; rather, it is subordinate to those rights. Still, a common refrain from the occupiers is that the Emergencies Act and the police operation to end the lawlessness in our capital trampled on their charter rights to peaceful assembly. That is simply false. The charter protections extend only to assembly that is peaceful. The charter does not protect one's right to seriously disturb the peace, as the occupation of Ottawa has done over the past three weeks. It also does not provide cover for illegal activities carried out during a protest, like the flagrant disregard for the law that has been well documented in the streets of our capital throughout the occupation, with hate crimes, misogyny, arson, vandalism and intimidation. The list is long. Importantly, the Emergencies Act is democratic. It is an act of Parliament already debated and passed by both Houses, given royal assent, proclaimed and gazetted some 30 years ago. Its application is now being democratically debated in the House of Commons. Did the time-limited, targeted and proportionate powers of the act work? For the first time in 23 days, quiet has descended upon Ottawa. The streets of the city have finally been returned to its residents, law and order have been restored and the Emergencies Act has performed its function as intended by the Progressive Conservative government that enacted it in 1988. Three decades later, we find ourselves in the unexpected situation in which the party of Mulroney opposed invoking the measure, while the Liberals and the NDP support it. Our parliamentary system requires Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is an essential part of the checks and balances that keep our country on a stable footing and ensures that the diverse voices of Canadians are heard in this place. However, when crisis strikes, as leaders we are called to rise above our political divides, for we all take an oath as members of Parliament to act in the best interests of our country. Sadly, that is not what we have seen from the Conservatives throughout this occupation. Through their actions in the last three weeks, it is all too clear that the Conservative Party has strayed from its origins as a party of principle and accountability. Its proud tradition as the party of law and order lies shattered in the dirty snow on Wellington Street. The Conservatives have put their own political gain ahead of the country's security, prosperity and democracy. As their party clamours for an ever-smaller and more extreme faction of the far right, they abandon the hard-working conservatives who look to them for a credible potential government. Instead, the Canadians they have left behind watch in horror as our police and media are spat on and assaulted in the throes of a lawless occupation that today's Conservative Party has chosen to defend. With the help of the powers of the Emergencies Act, the occupation has come to an end. The trucks and the protesters have gone home, the people of Ottawa are breathing a sigh of relief and Parliament has resumed its important democratic function. However, something has changed in Canada or has perhaps been uncovered these past three weeks. Some will say the divide has grown wider. As political columnist John Ivison wrote yesterday, “It feels like Canada is splintering into two tribes—the intolerant, authoritarian woke lunatics on the left and the spittle-flecked, hateful lunatics on the far-right.” The optimist in me wants to deny it, but I cannot. At times, that is how it feels. Perhaps that is how it feels to a growing number of Canadians as well after these last two years or after these last 23 days. We need to log out of social media, put down our phones, stop doom-scrolling and ask why it is that, despite a pretty strong consensus on the effectiveness of the broad pandemic response from all parties and all orders of government, it still feels at times like we are more divided than ever. The answer may lie in the palm of our hands in the devices we carry with us day and night. Our political beliefs and grievances are being fed to us by opaque algorithms that serve a singular function: profit for the massive tech giants that dominate our online realm. These platforms prey on our psyche, weaponizing our emotions to keep us all online all the time and garnering untold fortunes in ad revenue. Disinformation, a tool of foreign influence in the cyber-era, goes unchecked. Division, it turns out, is a money-maker. The scene was set as the pandemic locked us inside, and the very same screens they told us would keep us together served instead to push us further apart. It is my hope that the joint committee and inquiry required in the Emergencies Act will take a hard look at the fundamental role that online platforms played in stoking the flames of division, anger and disinformation, making it harder for any of us to see the other side, as though we live in two entirely different and separate universes, unrecognizable to one another, with incompatible ideas of truth, media and science. Until we address this, I fear we risk repeating the crisis, and who knows in what terrifying form next time. We must act before a generation of children, our children, online as they are, grow up never knowing that there was a better way to be.

1653 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 9:18:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I find it rather disheartening that we have an ode to hope here, but partisan rhetoric really couches it. One thing the hon. member said in his speech is that public opinion is on his side. I would like to ask him when the rule of law became subordinate to public opinion. He cited those two principles and sometimes they are incompatible, but if the rule of law is superlative, why is he not abiding by the rule of law?

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore

Feb/20/22 9:19:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot discern a sensible question, but the member did mention political rhetoric. I note that the interim leader of the member's party stated recently, “It’s time for MPs to return to the House and restore unity, wholeness and hope back to our nation.” I would suggest that perhaps the member and his interim leader should focus on restoring unity, wholeness and hope back to their party as we watch it self-immolate in real time day by day.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Feb/20/22 9:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for operations that call for multiple police forces to intervene, emergency measures are not needed. Why were such operations not carried out sooner?

25 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore

Feb/20/22 9:20:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the interim chief of police in Ottawa was very clear in stating that he was unable to do his job without the act. We have seen the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police underscore that same truth: that this act was a required action to have been taken by the government to help police forces across the country deal with the blockades. I would further say that there are checks built into this act. The special committee that will be set up to review the actions under the act will shed more light on the question the member asked, but for now I am very satisfied that we are well within the confines of the law.

124 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/20/22 9:21:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with the urgency I am hearing today, why did it take the Prime Minister so long to take this seriously?

22 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore

Feb/20/22 9:21:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that multiple premiers across the country reached out and asked for help. When that happened, the government got busy invoking the act. It was very important to give the provincial governments the required time and space to act under their own laws and rules, but when it became clear to some of the premiers, and to the federal government, that the additional powers of the act were required, the Prime Minister and the cabinet acted very swiftly. The results, as we saw, were delivered very swiftly as well.

95 words

All Topics

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think of the impact this has had on people, communities and jobs, whether in Alberta, Manitoba or Ontario. Blockades prevented half a billion dollars in trade between two countries. It had a horrendous impact. Ottawa was shut down by illegal blockades. There were written requests from the Province of Alberta and the Province of Manitoba to the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada asking for support. This is one of the tools that we provided, and it has been effective. Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the tool?

96 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore

Feb/20/22 9:23:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we all have stories about how the lockdown here and the blockades elsewhere have had a personal impact, but I want to address the part of the question about the interruption of trade, the job losses, the shuttering of automobile factories in Canada and the loss of wages that resulted from these blockades. I was privileged to be part of a call two days ago with the Canadian American Business Council. I found it necessary to reassure our American trade partners that the government had acted at a national level to ensure that such disruptions would not happen again. It was important for them to hear that, and they were edified by it. We must never let it happen again.

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Feb/20/22 9:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today. This is a solemn day that will no doubt be remembered by Canadians for decades to come. Given the gravity of today's debate, I believe it is incumbent on all members to speak candidly, earnestly and sincerely. Today we are debating the Emergencies Act, but before I outline why the invocation of this act is capricious and completely unnecessary, it is best to provide some context to how our country got to where it is right now. Unfortunately, it is truly clear that Canada is a highly fragmented country facing significant economic problems that put our entire prosperity at risk. Our economy has just experienced significant job losses. We are experiencing an inflation crisis, with inflation at a 30-year high of 5.1%. That has real consequences. There are people, many Canadians, who cannot afford the bare necessities of life. We have over $1 trillion in debt that will doubtlessly be pushed onto future generations as they pay for our expenditures. Our country is divided. It is divided between west versus east, rural versus urban, freedom versus security and vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Now our Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. It is an act that suspends the civil liberties of Canadians such as section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association, and section 8, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The police can, literally without warrant or warning, seize one's property. They can arrest Canadians for simply assembling. Never in my life or in my wildest dreams did I ever expect to have five police checks just to get to my office. Never did I expect that in Canada. The invocation of the Emergencies Act has also given the government the right to freeze bank accounts without judicial oversight. This can create financial ruin by putting an asterisk beside someone's financial credit rating for life. This might mean that a mortgage never happens, or that a son or daughter never goes to university, because of this asterisk. Why was this done? According to the Minister of Justice, when he was talking to the media, he said that the grounds could be for as little as supporting causes the government disagrees with. This is shameful. When someone's bank account is frozen, they are effectively being removed from society. They may not have money to pay for food to feed their children, for gasoline for their cars to get to work, or for electricity to heat their homes. The government may literally starve and freeze Canadians into submission. I watched this weekend as protesters were arrested at gunpoint. They were pepper sprayed. Several protesters were trampled by 2,000-pound horses. How could the Prime Minister ever let the situation get this bad? This is not our Canada. Let us go back and look at what led us to these circumstances. It makes sense to start with the change in tone from the Prime Minister heading into his unnecessary $600-million election. The Prime Minister, based no doubt on polling numbers, made a calculated effort to demonize unvaccinated Canadians and to capitalize on the growing frustration of vaccinated Canadians with the unvaccinated. The choice led the Prime Minister to demean and stigmatize, as the member for Louis-Hébert so eloquently said. The Prime Minister said they are extremists “who do not believe in science, they’re often misogynists and often racists. It is a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a decision in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?” That is repugnant. I have sat here listening to Liberal member after Liberal member saying that we needed to de-escalate and bring down the heat. They should start by talking to the Prime Minister. Also, it was no doubt a part of the Prime Minister's strategy to demonize and exploit cleavages in our society when he decided to implement a 14-day quarantine period on truckers: our heroes who, throughout COVID for two years, when there were no vaccines, went across. They braved the delta variant. They braved the omicron variant. They were our heroes, and now they are demonized. All we have asked, and all the media and the opposition members have asked, is for the government to show us its math. Instead, we get outdated, irrelevant talking points. We have cost thousands of Canadians their livelihoods for purely partisan politics. This is disgusting. We presented the most utterly reasonable motion. Our party simply asked for a plan to end the mandate. It was just a plan. The Prime Minister remained defiant, refusing to support the plan. While the rest of the world opens up borders, while the rest of the world eases restrictions, our Prime Minister will not even give Canadians, who deserve hope, a plan for that hope or a plan to return to normality. Once again, the Prime Minister has chosen politics over science and petulance over leadership. This crisis could have been avoided with strong and compassionate leadership. Instead, the Prime Minister chose partisanship over statesmanship and division over unity. This has led us to the current crisis. The Prime Minister's unnecessary mandate and divisive rhetoric have caused frustrations to boil over. Canadians from across the country began to spontaneously demonstrate and show their dissatisfaction to the Liberal government. Unfortunately, some of the movement splintered into illegal activities, including the blockades at the border crossings at Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Fortunately, the provinces were able to resolve these matters peacefully, and they ended with hugs instead of violence. Here in Ottawa, while many of the protesters were salt-of-the-earth Canadians who wanted to express their grievances, unfortunately there were some who expressed hate. They should all be individually accountable for those expressions. In addition, there were approximately 150 vehicles parked in front of Parliament for over three weeks. Those vehicles disrupted lives. They made it impossible for individuals to go to school or to go to work. They needed to be moved, and that cannot be doubted. To end this, though, the Prime Minister overreached. He invoked the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act is fairly clear and fairly prescriptive. It requires that three tests be met: first, that the public disorder created a threat to the security of Canada; second, that it was national in scope; and third, that the public disorder could not be resolved by other means. Let us review those criteria, one by one. Was there a security threat to Canada? A security threat would presumably be something extremely significant. A clear example would be the potential use of a nuclear or chemical weapon. Those are security threats to Canada. Another would be a paramilitary force threatening to overthrow the Canadian government. What we had here were 150 illegally parked vehicles and a mass of disorganized people, some of them who had repugnant views, including the overthrow of the government, but there is no actual intelligence I have seen or any evidence that there was actually the ability to threaten our government. I walked through there for three weeks, and if in fact the government allowed all MPs to walk through these protests and there was an imminent threat to our government, that is the most malfeasance and insecurity our government has ever had. Second, it is national in scope. Three weeks ago, we may have had an argument about this. When the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were happening, we might have had an argument, but they are gone. Do members know what? So is the protest in Ottawa. Why has this not been revoked by now? Where is the threat? Where is it? It is clear. It is done. Third, it cannot be resolved by other legislation. Clearly, it could be and it has been, at the Ambassador Bridge and otherwise. It is true that it would be helpful. A sledgehammer would be helpful to crack a walnut, but it would not be necessary. That is the case here. Ultimately, this is not about truckers or one's vaccination status. This is about the future of Canada. Do we want a country that is free to dissent? A government that controls the discourse, controls our lives. Do we want a country where environmentalists fear that we are not doing enough on climate change? Do we want a country where Quebeckers can share their request for greater autonomy? Do we want a government where a Conservative can share his contempt for the government? I believe all of these voices should be heard.

1459 words

All Topics

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:33:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was an impassioned speech. I have to admit that I am struck by much of what the member said. In the spirit of thinking through some facts, he mentioned that many people were trampled. Mr. Philip Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I did not. I said two. Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed: Mr. Speaker, two people were trampled. News reports say the reporter actually admitted that there was, in fact, no trampling. I just want to make sure we clarify the facts in the House. I would ask the following question. The other side does not trust the government. Would the members trust the national security adviser to Stephen Harper, and the former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden? He said that it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it related to the federal banking measures, which were not covered under other legislation.

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/20/22 9:34:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be kind and generous and just say that the individual misheard. I clearly said two, and if you check the records you will hear that. If you want to watch the video, it is available. Just watch it, because it is on film. There are two individuals, including one lady who has a scooter or walker, who get trampled by a 2,000-pound horse. I have horses. Let me tell you, that is going to hurt a whole lot, and that happened. You can shake your head all you want, but just look at the video. I went through it blow by blow. There is not a national security threat that cannot be resolved by other legislation. It is clear. I do not know how else to say it.

134 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 9:35:28 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind the member that when we are answering questions, to put them through the Chair and make sure we are not taking this so personally. I know it is late in the day, and we all have lots to say and lots to comment on and question. The hon. member for Jonquière.

58 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 9:35:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, my colleague said that the government put political interests, partisanship, ahead of science. He said that by making reference to the motion the Conservatives moved, citing Dr. Theresa Tam. Personally, I have heard many Conservative colleagues say that vaccination is annoying, but the science tells us that we have to get vaccinated. Is my colleague in favour of vaccination? Does he agree that the best way out of this crisis is vaccination? I would like his opinion on that.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/20/22 9:36:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. It must be the end of the day, because I am a little passionate. My apologies to the member if I got a little passionate. I am definitely pro-vaccine. I am proudly vaxxed and I believe everyone should be vaccinated. However, we also need to not demonize people who think differently from us. We live in a free country, and when we demonize people, calling them misogynist and racist, that is not Canadian. That is not our Canada.

84 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 9:37:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention in the House. I have worked closely with him on the direction and control bill that he brought forward, and I am quite pleased with some of the work he has done in the House. As we look for solutions to the crisis facing Canadians, one of my questions is how we deal with foreign funding or illegal funding of domestic terrorist groups. Would he support urgent legislation being put in place to prevent domestic terrorist groups from being funded?

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/20/22 9:37:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-216

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment. I have enjoyed working with her on Bill S-216 and, if I am not being too bold, walking with her to the House earlier. I would say that this is an area of study and it is an area where we need to look at these new technologies. Unfortunately, the government has been behind on many things, including reviewing how cryptocurrency works in this context. We need to look at crowdfunding. We need to review all of these topics.

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC)

Feb/20/22 9:38:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government has cited a public order emergency throughout Canada as its justification to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is wrong. In this chamber, the Prime Minister said he invoked the Emergencies Act because the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada. That is false. The leader of the NDP talks about tools available, should the government abuse the power provided within this act. However, he has missed a critical point, which is that the abuse has already happened. Neither of them is listening to Canadians; they are instead choosing a path of divisive policies, distinctly separate from democracy and the voice of Canadians. Freedom is at the heart of democracy, and the right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Let me say that again: The right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Freedom is what so many hundreds of thousands of Canadian women and men have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend. A Métis man in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia wrote me this week to tell me a story of his father's and his family's commitment to preserving and securing democracy, and his concern about the current government actions. He told me the story of his great-grandfather, who was wounded in the First World War. He holds tightly, as a reminder of how he came to be free, the very bullet that tore through his great-grandfather's leg. He also told me that his grandfather fought in the Canadian First Infantry Division, which made its way through Ortona, Italy to stop Hitler's advances through Europe. These are but two examples of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have sacrificed for our freedoms, the very freedoms the Liberal government has restricted. Why did the Prime Minister go directly to invoking the Emergencies Act? He had numerous opportunities to address the situation peacefully over the past few weeks, yet he chose to do nothing. I can think of four reasonable actions that would have allowed us to avoid the difficulties we have faced. The Prime Minister could have sent a delegation. The Prime Minister could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. The Prime Minister could have met with opposition leaders, like the Conservative leader requested. Finally, the Prime Minister could have met and listened to these Canadians himself. Of course, the government could have removed COVID restrictions and vaccine passports at our border crossings and airports. However, listening, the one thing that would have helped de-escalate, is the very thing he did not do. Having a significant background in law enforcement, I know that the basic rule of law is to listen to concerns and work towards a peaceful resolution, not to enter into a fight first. I cannot imagine what would happen if every police officer went to a call and did not listen to the issues first. Dialogue is significantly more productive than the Emergencies Act. Instead, what the Prime Minister decided to do was further rachet up, escalate and divide Canadians with hurtful rhetoric. Canadians are not buying divisive rhetoric. The Prime Minister no longer has footing rooted in democracy, and all members of the House have a simple choice to make. Do they side with freedom and the institutions of democracy, or do they side with the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP, who want to seize the bank accounts of Canadians with whom they disagree? Apparently, accounts have already been frozen. This sets a precedent that for all illegal blockades of roads, logging sites, pipelines or railroads, the future funding is subject to this process. Going back to the Emergencies Act, I choose freedom. Let us not be so foolish as to water down the significance of this movement, our obligations to those we serve and the impacts this will have on generations that follow. The decisions we make in this chamber on this issue will reverberate through the walls of history, and we will be held to account. The choice is simple: Protect and defend democracy or tear it down. I will be voting to defend it. We must not accept a situation where it is up to a prime minister or any member of the government to decide, outside the laws created in this chamber, which protests are legal and which are not. We surely must not tolerate a scenario where families are separated because their ideas or beliefs are different from those of the prime minister or the government of the day. Kootenay—Columbians see this as being about a Prime Minister's ego, about a lack of leadership and weakening precedents. I would like to take this moment to speak to those members of the Liberal caucus who are feeling uneasy about being whipped to a vote they know to be wrong. Their country needs them to uphold the values of democracy and freedom. Our country will be strong and free long after we leave this place, and it is our responsibility to ensure it is so. The Emergencies Act was not invoked during fears and protest around the Spanish flu, which took 50 million lives around the world. It was not invoked during the Great Depression and the workers strikes in the 1930s. It was not invoked during the crises of Oka or Ipperwash, or in the aftermath of 9/11. During my time in law enforcement in British Columbia, the act was not invoked to solve the riots in Penticton and Kelowna, where downtown storefronts were destroyed. It was not invoked to address a month-long illegal standoff at Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest in the history of the province. There were RCMP members shot, helicopters taking rifle fire and landowners unable to go home. I was at this event and can say with certainty that it was much like a war zone, in British Columbia, Canada, and there was no Emergencies Act invoked. Currently, there is an illegal blockade and protest at the Coastal GasLink drill site on the Marten Forest Road near Houston, B.C. On February 17, there was an attack on a number of CGL employees and RCMP, and a member was physically injured in the attack. Initial damage to equipment and buildings is estimated at over $10 million. RCMP are investigating mischief, assault, criminal harassment and man traps set purposely to injure police. This appears to be a violent, illegal action that the Emergencies Act would support law enforcement in, especially given that its financial support, from GoFundMe.com, has financing from outside Canada. Where other methods and authorities exist to deal with disagreements, governments should use these methods and authorities. Governments should not subject free people to abuse of wide-ranging, freedom-altering overreach. I stand before members today on behalf of the people I represent and the thousands of phone calls and emails from individuals concerned about their charter rights and freedoms. I stand in this chamber, after a lifetime of experience within the RCMP, to explain to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this House that he is wrong in his actions. Police agencies have the tools they need, but it starts with dialogue. The government had numerous other legislative options it could have considered before going to the extreme of invoking the Emergencies Act. The act makes it clear it is only meant to address urgent and critical situations that cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law in Canada. The government wants the public to believe otherwise, but in fact it does have the power to direct the RCMP under section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The government did nothing for weeks and is now taking unprecedented steps that are not necessary. Regardless of the talking points being used by the government and what it would like Canadians to believe, the fact remains that the Prime Minister's actions represent real limits on our charter rights. Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are all principles that require constant vigilance to defend. The measures under the Emergencies Act raise serious questions with respect to the rights of Canadians. Section 2 guarantees our freedom of association and assembly. Section 7 guarantees our right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 guarantees our protection against unreasonable search and seizure. How and why can Canadians be assured the government is protecting our rights with this extraordinary and unprecedented invoking of the Emergencies Act? The following organizations have now come out publicly against the Prime Minister's overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to opposition from the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Who wholeheartedly agrees with the Prime Minister and the Liberals? The NDP, that is who. Twenty-five votes in this 338-vote House separate the will of Canadians from democracy. As Canadians learn about the Emergencies Act and the NDP support for it, they are sounding alarm bells. The silent majority is awake. Canadians are watching and will not forget the decision we make in this chamber on this issue. Freedom will prevail on Friday, or it will prevail when the government fails. Make no mistake: Freedom will prevail. However, the current leader of the NDP is supporting the Prime Minister at any cost. We arrive at this unfortunate moment as the direct result of failed leadership by the Prime Minister and his government. I implore all colleagues to take note: Future generations will read and learn about their actions and their support and abuse of power. It will be recorded in history, written in textbooks and taught in classrooms. This wayward principle has lost control long ago. Opposition to the NDP-supported Liberal overreach is growing. Invoking the Emergencies Act is clear government overreach, and the Conservatives will oppose it. I want to add that I really appreciate the thousands of individuals in Kootenay—Columbia who have reached out to me, hoping common sense prevails. It is difficult to understand the federal government when so many provinces have eliminated most COVID restrictions. For example, I was in Calgary and there was no vaccine passport. Therefore, why does the federal government continue with vaccine restrictions at federal-regulated locations, border crossings and airports? We would not be here if the government followed common sense and science as its provincial partners are doing. I hope the government starts to listen. We need Canada united and proud. It is time.

1782 words

All Topics

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 9:48:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the member yet, but I look forward to meeting him and working with him productively in the House. I thank him for his invitation to vote against the motion confirming the declaration of emergency, but I must assure him that I will be voting in favour of it. I must also remind him that, in fact, two-thirds of Canadians support it, including 75% of Canadians in his own province of British Columbia, 72% of Canadians in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, 65% in Ontario, 57% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and 51% of Canadians in Alberta. In fact, a majority of Canadians in every province support the invocation. By the way, 82% of Canadians believe that premiers who lifted restrictions lifted them too quickly. That is 82% of Canadians. The member mentioned that one of the actions he wished the Prime Minister would have taken was speaking to the protesters. I remember a press conference in the early days of the protest and it looked like it was a small, confined basement room somewhere. The Conservatives were asking the Prime Minister to speak with this group. Why would the Prime Minister of any country empower illegal occupiers with a conversation? What message would that send to future occupiers?

218 words

All Topics

Mr. Rob Morrison

Feb/20/22 9:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question really is why the Prime Minister or members of the government did not go talk to the individuals who were here and organizing those events to see what they wanted and what they were going to do, rather than sit in here and do nothing. I said that is an option the Prime Minister had. He also could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. He could have just opened the dialogue and that is what is missing here. There was no dialogue.

91 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35