SoVote

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

Feb/20/22 11:09:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. To sum up the situation, the crowdfunding platforms that are the main reason for the use of the Emergencies Act are already governed by the provinces. There are already laws in place that make it possible to arrest people for a crime or an offence. Thank goodness. Everyone is saying that the siege is illegal. The law already provides for sanctions in that regard, as well as for uttering threats, possession of unauthorized weapons and calls for insurrection. I have a question for my colleague. What is the point of invoking the Emergencies Act if there are already conventional legal tools and institutions that could have been used over the past two weeks but were not?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Chad Collins

Feb/20/22 11:10:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what the member has ignored in his question is that provinces are asking for additional tools to deal with the occupation and the blockades. We know very well that the act has allowed provinces, specifically Ontario, to bring in law enforcement from other provinces without swearing the members in. The act has allowed us to crack down on investments and donations that have been made from outside the country. The act has helped us over the past seven days. There has been a lot of praise over the last couple of days for what the City of Ottawa and its police force have done to clear the parliamentary precinct in downtown Ottawa. That has been done with the help of the act.

124 words

All Topics

Mr. Serge Cormier (Acadie—Bathurst, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:11:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my newly elected colleague, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, for sharing his time with me this evening. I am pleased to rise in the House this evening. My riding of Acadie—Bathurst is one of the most beautiful places in our country. The people there are extremely welcoming and generous. My riding is home to many generations of families from different cultures who stuck together in good times and bad. My community would simply not exist were it not for a long history of families helping each other. I am very sad to see what has been happening in our country over the past few weeks where people are turning their backs on each other. That is not the Canada I know and love. I understand that many Canadians are frustrated and angry. I, too, am tired of this pandemic. I also understand that, as an MP, it is my responsibility to listen to people and find ways to help them. Unfortunately, some people who want to make their voices heard also chose to draw the country's attention by behaving in an extremely worrisome way. I have some personal experience with protests because the people in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst have always made themselves heard loud and clear, and they are not afraid to protest. In particular, they protested in support of civil rights and language rights. In 2013, they protested reforms the Conservatives made to employment insurance. Protests are a fundamental and important part of a democratic country. I always supported the right of people to protest peacefully, even in front of my office, and I have participated in several protests before and since I was elected. That said, I will never support bullying, threats, physical altercations, damage to private property, theft, hate symbols or desecration of our cherished monuments. There also seems to be a misunderstanding going around that citizens have the right to bring semi trucks to a protest and to block streets for three weeks. Nowhere in the Charter does it say that is a right. When the goal of a group is no longer to make its voice heard but rather to intentionally hurt people or damage infrastructure, it is no longer a protest: it is an occupation and an attack on our democracy. I makes me so sad to see these blockades happening in front of children, and even more so when I see children being used strategically to advance causes they cannot understand at their age. I sincerely hope that people taking part in these blockades will reconsider their behaviour and strive to set better and more positive examples for our younger generation, for the sake of our democracy. Being a law-abiding citizen is the most fundamental responsibility of Canadians. We know that many of the people who are protesting have legitimate concerns, that they are worried about their future and their livelihoods. However, what is frustrating is that their concerns would be alleviated if they could simply trust the science. In Canada we have been lucky to have world-class doctors and scientists guiding us through this pandemic. Thousands of scientists all around the world have devoted their lives to protecting and saving the lives of others. Never before have human beings been so scientifically advanced. Let me say clearly, slowly and surely for all Canadians to hear that vaccines work. It has been nearly two years since we were plunged into this COVID‑19 pandemic and I will be eternally grateful to those who developed these miraculous and effective vaccines. Thanks to them, countless lives have been saved, as will countless more in the future. I will get back to the subject at hand. Some of the protesters are indeed worried about the vaccine mandates, masks and lockdowns. However, other elements of these protests are deeply rooted in far-right ideologies and have dangerous ties to organized crime. What is more, the foreign presence that is evident through donations is very worrisome. Whatever the motivations of the people participating in these protests, we cannot allow them to continue disrupting the peace and the lives of peaceful citizens. Every Canadian deserves to live in peace. For three weeks, we have seen municipal and provincial leaders raising their hands and asking for help. I am proud that our government has been working in partnership with them from the early days the protest, and I believe that we were taken up on our offer of assistance with all of these measures. One thing is clear: These blockades need to be removed. Canadians are worried and they need us to show strong leadership. Over the past few days, other Canadians and I have listened to many speeches. We have all watched the news and participated in thorough discussions about the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Many members of our party talked at length about why using the Emergencies Act is justified and presented solid arguments in support. Some opposition members and other Canadians have severely criticized that decision. They are saying that the decision to invoke the act is extremely excessive. Personally, I find it difficult to accept the argument that this is an unnecessary use or blatant misuse of government powers. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said many times, these measures will be used with great restraint and they are both time limited and geographically targeted. The fact is that we have exhausted all of the other options. I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current circumstances meet the threshold required by the act to declare a national emergency. Let us focus for a moment on what is happening in Ottawa. From the first day that the convoy arrived on Parliament Hill, the Ottawa police service was unprepared to deal with the situation. I am not levelling an accusation, and I cannot speak to the resources that the police did or did not have. I can only speak to what I saw and what everyone saw, namely, that the Ottawa police was not going to be able to resolve this situation without support. This evening, I had the opportunity to rise in the House knowing what had unfolded in recent days, while a major police operation was under way. I believe that most of my colleagues will agree with me that the police operation in downtown Ottawa on the weekend was a success. There are fewer trucks, fewer protesters, fewer blocked streets and fewer reports of intimidation and violence. We now have tangible evidence that the powers conferred by the Emergencies Act have had a considerable impact. These measures led to action that would not have been possible otherwise. The interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Mr. Bell, stated that the scale and scope of this weekend's operation would not have been possible without the declaration of emergency. In conclusion, the Emergencies Act has enabled the federal government to provide tools to the Ottawa Police Service, when and where they were needed. It has also provided the Ottawa Police Service with the necessary tools to stop the flow of money that is supporting illegal activities. It has enabled municipalities to fill gaps, such as using tow trucks to remove illegally parked vehicles. It has also helped put an end to grey areas around jurisdictions and to clarify responsibilities at complex but important sites such as border crossings. I want to be clear that while our government had to make this choice; it should not be seen as a celebration. However, I feel much more at peace knowing that many people are feeling some relief from the decision to use these measures. We saw how Canadians reacted to the police operations that took place in Ottawa over the weekend. In my opinion, Canadians very clearly support the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. I would like to address everyone who is listening to us by saying that although we may not all share the same values, we can have empathy for each other. The pandemic has taken its toll, and we are all very much looking forward to putting it behind us. Unfortunately, the events of the past few weeks were not the right way to end it. The protests have taken up valuable resources and time that were badly needed elsewhere to deal with the pandemic. I will close with this. Some joined the convoy with the goal of promoting peace and freedom. Unfortunately, the target was not the right one, and their actions had the opposite effect. The convoy was pointless and caused a disturbance in the freest of countries, our Canada.

1456 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:21:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have heard a few times this evening that the Ottawa police and the Province of Ontario were somewhat slow to respond. The member for Kingston and the Islands said it, and my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst just did as well. To me, that sounds like an attempt to conceal the Prime Minister's turpitude. I am not looking to dump on my colleague, but I do want to ask him a question. Will the government invoke the Emergencies Act every time a police force is slow to respond? That would be completely ridiculous and unimaginable. The crisis has subsided and things are starting to more or less get under control. Why does this act still need to be used? It kind of seems like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. I would also ask that he refrain from giving me the usual talking points.

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Serge Cormier

Feb/20/22 11:22:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The Bloc Québécois is always the one talking about respecting provincial, municipal or other jurisdictions. Since this convoy began, some municipalities and even the police forces in Ottawa have unfortunately been unable to carry out certain operations and deal with the situation. That is why, as a last resort, we want to move forward with applying the Emergencies Act. We gave the Ottawa Police Service and the other police forces the resources they needed to put an end to the convoy, remove all of the trucks, restore peace in downtown Ottawa and give some relief to the residents who endured three long weeks of noise and unnecessary turbulence in downtown Ottawa.

124 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 11:23:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the Emergencies Act is reasonable and moderate. It gives parliamentarians the tools they need to do checks. The use of this act is time limited. It will be in effect for 30 days and can be revoked in three days by a vote in the House. I would like my hon. Liberal colleague to explain why it took so long for the government to act. The people of Ottawa are the ones who have paid the price. This convoy was organized by members of the far right, who were openly declaring that they wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government. This convoy is funded by Donald Trump supporters in the United States. What were the Liberals doing for three weeks?

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Serge Cormier

Feb/20/22 11:24:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we were keeping a close eye on the situation. After three weeks, during which many protests took place on Parliament Hill, it was time for the government to intervene. We gave all police forces the tools they needed to put an end to this convoy once and for all. I am pleased that my colleague is saying that the charter provisions will be respected and that the act will be used with great restraint. It will be time limited and target the geographic areas where it is needed. I think that people are tired of these protests, and we want to provide law enforcement with all of the tools and powers needed to put an end to these protests.

121 words

All Topics

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:25:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is sad to see protesters spitting on police officers and harassing journalists. I am concerned about the spread of misinformation generally around the act as well. We have heard some of the protesters, and even members of the opposition, refer to the measures we are discussing as if this is the War Measures Act, which it is not. Could my hon. colleague explain how this is not the case and assure Canadians that the Emergencies Act maintains their charter rights, as well as restore their confidence in our institutions?

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Serge Cormier

Feb/20/22 11:26:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will say it again so that all Canadians can hear me. The charter provisions will be respected and the act will be used with great restraint. Its use will be time limited and will target the geographic areas— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:26:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. We are here this whole weekend debating the merits of the Liberal government motion to invoke the Emergencies Act. Before I get into that, I want to take the opportunity to thank the many people in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove who have reached out to me to encourage me and to plead with me to vote against this motion. I can assure them that I and my Conservative colleagues will definitely vote against it, and I will explain why that is. I also want to thank those people who told me they were praying for the peace, security and healing of this nation. I am praying for that as well in what hopefully soon is going to be a post-pandemic world. On February 14, the Liberal government issued a declaration invoking the Emergencies Act based on their finding that there was a public welfare emergency existing in Canada at the moment. To understand what that means, we need to take a look at the definition section of the act. It states that: For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it It concludes, “and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” It is a very high burden of proof and that is exactly what the drafters of this legislation intended back in the 1980s. It was supposed to be a tool of last resort, not a tool of first resort. What is the situation that is alarming the government to the extent that it now feels it has to invoke this very drastic step? What we have is trucks parked in Ottawa, big trucks, rigs clogging up the streets in downtown Ottawa. It is a real nuisance along Wellington Street and some of the side streets. It is a real problem for local businesses and people who live in the downtown core. I and other members of the House who come into the House every day had to negotiate our way across Wellington Street and that is the same for all the employees as well in the House and in our parliamentary offices. It is a nuisance, an inconvenience and an irritant, yes, but a national emergency, no. It fails that test. This does not attain the very high level that was set by the drafters of this emergency legislation. The order in council also makes reference to blockages at border crossings in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and in my home province of British Columbia. The Liberals have a better argument here, because that is going to be very devastating to our economy and also to our international reputation. However, here is the challenge that we have. Before this declaration was made, a week ago, all those blockages had already been cleared up. How? It was done by provincial forces, by municipal forces, by the RCMP that came under provincial jurisdiction. The police forces were doing exactly what they were supposed to do and the fact that they were successful proved that the situation did not exceed the capacity or the authority of the province to deal with it. I submit that it fails the test. We come back to what was going on in Ottawa. We have heard members on the Liberal side of the House quote the interim chief of the city of Ottawa Police Service, saying that the Emergencies Act was a very helpful tool for him, for them, to solve the problem. We do not dispute that at all. Of course the nuclear option is going to be successful. We know that and there is no argument with that, but that is not the test. The test is not whether it would be successful, but whether it was necessary. I submit that it was not necessary. The proof is that provincial police forces and municipal police forces were able to solve the problem at the borders and also control other protests that were going on in other cities across the country. It fails the threshold. I now want to turn my attention to a constitutional analysis of what is going on. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that the Emergencies Act requires that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights be honoured, respected and maintained. It is interesting that the Bill of Rights is included in that. It is an older piece of legislation and people sometimes assume that it was subsumed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that is not the case. It is still a good law in Canada today. It is very useful for our analysis today, because it talks about property rights for individuals. What property are we talking about? We are talking about bank accounts, bank accounts that have been frozen under the regulations. Shortly after the announcement was made on Monday, my office started getting phone calls. I started getting text messages. People were asking, “Is my bank account going to be frozen? I made a donation to the convoy through GoFundMe.” I assured them, “No, no, no. This is Canada in the 21st century. We are a modern, free and democratic society. There is no way that your federal government is interested in donations that you might make to a cause that is important to you.” Then I picked up the regulation and started to read it. I was wrong. I was hoping that I was misreading it, so I checked with some lawyer friends of mine who said, “No, absolutely that is exactly what it says.” Then I was hoping that maybe it was just a drafting error. All doubt was set aside the other day when our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was interviewed on national television. This is how the conversation went. The interviewer asked, “A lot of folks said, 'I just don’t like your vaccine mandates and I donated to this, now it’s illegal, should I be worried that the bank can freeze my account?'” The Minister of Justice said in reply, “If you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating hundreds of thousands of dollars, and millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you ought to be worried. There it is, straight out of the mouth of the Minister of Justice. If someone has made a donation to the freedom convoy, then the Minister of Justice thinks they are part of a Trump movement and that they ought to be worried. The Liberal Party is no longer the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has become the party of correct political thought. People now have to think like the Minister of Justice does or they ought to be worried. I plead with members of this House to vote against this motion. It is incumbent upon us to do this. This is wrong legislation. We must defend Canadian rights and civil liberties. We must vote against this. I plead with members of the NDP. They can make the difference. Members should please vote with the Conservative Party on this one.

1261 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 11:34:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to quote the Premier of Manitoba, but I kind of changed my mind based on what the member just finished saying about seniors. I wonder if colleagues have been listening to some of the speeches from the Conservatives. One said they had a call from a senior who went down and took out all of his money because they were told that the government wants to get their money. We are starting to hear Conservative right wingers with conspiracy theories through email blasts, no doubt, telling people to go and drain their bank accounts because the government is after their money. We are talking about less than 100 people who were directly affected in terms of their accounts, yet the Conservative Party is warning people, our poor seniors, to go out and be concerned, that the government wants their money I wonder if the member feels that is a responsible thing for the official opposition to do, to get seniors and others concerned that the government is after their money. The Conservatives know full well that that is not the case. I suggest that is borderline elder abuse.

192 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Feb/20/22 11:35:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is completely absurd. To quote what the Minister of Justice said, “If you're donating to the freedom convoy, to a Trump-like movement, you ought to be worried.” Those are not my words, those are his words. If he misspoke, he should correct himself. He should also take a look at the legislation and correct it if there was a drafting error. I cannot believe, like the member, that the Canadian government would take these kinds of actions, but that is what the wording of the legislation says. It needs to be corrected.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot of discussion about the Emergencies Act, which I hope will rally enough opponents to overturn its invocation by tomorrow night’s vote. There is obviously a lot of criticism, and I believe that people are divided as to what the government should have done. These differences of opinion are quite normal. What does my colleague think would have been the ideal course of action to deal with this crisis on Parliament Hill over the last three weeks? What would have been a good plan? Would the protesters still be here today, or would they have been asked to leave in some other way?

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Feb/20/22 11:37:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that's a great question. What could have been done? Let us take a look at where it was done successfully in other provinces and other cities. The problem is in Ottawa. Far be it from me to criticize the police forces of the nation's capital, but they could have subpoenaed tow trucks or asked the provincial government for more help. They could have asked for police forces from across the country to come help. All of this could have been done without the Emergencies Act and without suspending people's civil rights and liberties.

98 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 11:38:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to clarify one thing. No one’s rights and freedoms have been suspended. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply while the Emergencies Act is in force. That said, I would like to know the state of mind of the members of his political party. There is a convoy that came from far away, that announced that it wants to disturb and disrupt our democratic institutions, and that is funded by supporters of Donald Trump. At the same time, his party’s interim leader and his party’s former finance critic are openly supporting these people organized by the far right. They give these people coffee and pizza while they make life miserable for the residents of Ottawa. How can my colleague explain the actions of some of the key figures in his caucus?

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Feb/20/22 11:38:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there were two questions. The first was about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the Emergencies Act says that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights must still apply, but it is not good enough just to say that. The regulations coming out of the order in council actually have to honour that, and I am submitting that did not happen.

69 words

All Topics

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:39:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this place to the motion put forward by the government, the absolute seriousness of these days and how we chart a path forward as a nation cannot be overstated. There is so much at stake. I am grateful for the insightful interventions that have already been put forward by my caucus colleagues. From the outset, I want to assure my constituents that I have heard them and I want them to know that I will be voting against this motion. I believe this action taken by the government is unnecessary, divisive and a dramatic overreaction given the circumstances. At a time when provincial governments and other countries have ended COVID-19 restrictions or announced plans to end them, the Prime Minister is an exception to the trend and is out of step. When Conservatives brought forward a reasonable motion calling on the federal government to table a plan outlining the steps and dates as to when federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions would be rolled back, a plan that would reduce the temperature and address the concerns of Canadians across the entire country, the Prime Minister refused, and the Liberals, together with the NDP, defeated our motion. This crisis was entirely preventable and is the result of the Prime Minister's unwillingness to use common sense. Instead of taking action to help lower the temperature, he insulted and disrespected Canadians. Instead of respecting Canadians, he doubled down on his efforts to wedge, divide and stigmatize. Instead of apologizing and listening to what Canadians had to say, he jumped straight to the most extreme measures to deal with the protests and invoked the Emergencies Act. I want to thank the hundreds of constituents who emailed and called my office over the past week regarding the matter we are discussing tonight. Less than 1% support the government's actions. Almost everyone is shocked and disappointed by the Prime Minister's invocation of the Emergencies Act. They understand that imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent, especially when the Prime Minister has made no other efforts to de-escalate the situation. I would like to read an email from a constituent, which is representative of the hundreds of messages I have received. Kathy wrote the following: “I am emailing you in regard to the Prime Minister's irrational invoking of the emergency measures act. I have read that the Emergencies Act can only be invoked if the situation cannot be dealt with through any other lawful manner in Canada. Considering the fact that the Prime Minister has not even sat down with the freedom convoy organizers to discuss removing all mandates, there is no need to invoke such an act. It has become very clear that the Prime Minister does not care about Canadians or our rights and freedoms. Many other countries have removed all mandates and restrictions and have come to realize that COVID has run its course. We need to get back to our lives and begin the massive job of rebuilding not only our economy, but mending all the division that the Prime Minister has created over the past two years. It breaks my heart to see all the families and friends being driven apart by this. As your constituent, I ask that when the Prime Minister goes before Parliament to seek approval of the Emergencies Act that you do not approve this. Please help us in our fight to make Canada free again.” To be clear, while I have heard from hundreds of my constituents, there have also been messages from hundreds of Canadians from across the country. They are worried about the future for their children and their grandchildren. Ultimately, they are concerned for the future of their beloved Canada. Many legal experts also oppose this action on the grounds that the test for invoking the Emergencies Act has not been met. A Twitter thread on February 14 by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was damning of the government's decision: The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada" & when the situation "cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada." Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties. Many legal experts and organizations across Canada echo these concerns and believe that invoking this act is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent. Let us compare events in our not so distant past with the current situation. Two years ago there were a series of blockades on major rail lines and at the port of Vancouver. From January to March of 2020, protesters and their supporters across Canada who were opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline caused much economic hardship to the Canadian economy. What is strikingly different about that protest two years ago and the one we are experiencing today is not the response of law enforcement but rather the response of the government. Two years ago, ministers of the Crown met with the protesters, listened to their issues and sought a peaceful resolution through dialogue. Granted, the police eventually moved in to clear the blockades, but it was obvious that all other avenues seeking a resolution had been exhausted. Did that happen this time? Certainly not. What have these protesters received from the Liberal government? Insults, divisiveness and stigmatization. The Prime Minister's rhetoric during and since the election has poured fuel on the embers of distrust and division that were already smouldering. What we are seeing from this Prime Minister, his cabinet and his backbench is shocking. Their willingness to exploit the pandemic and divide Canadians, together with their overreach, is driving fear and concern for our future among my constituents and Canadians at large. This motion imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act will only exacerbate these feelings. Furthermore, the Government of Canada should not have the power to close the bank accounts of hard-working Canadians simply on the suspicion that they support causes of which the government does not approve. This is a slippery slope and not how the government should operate in a free and democratic society. Perhaps that is the whole point of this exercise, given the Deputy Prime Minister's comments yesterday when she stated, “For some of those tools, we will be putting forward measures to put those tools permanently in place. The authorities of FINTRAC, I believe, do need to be expanded to cover crowdsourcing platforms and payment platforms.” The minister used her inside voice and revealed the true Liberal agenda. Canada must not be defined by any one government, any one Parliament or any one person, but rather by our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values guide our institutions, through which are realized peace, order and good government. The pandemic has taken its toll on many of these institutions, largely because there was so much confusion and uncertainty in the beginning, planting the seeds of doubt and mistrust, but as we fast-forward two years, now the science and health experts are telling us that we have come through the worst of it and we need to re-evaluate and get back to normal. Sadly, the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act is another huge blow to the already crumbling trust many Canadians have in our institutions. Parliament has an opportunity to repair some of the damage and defeat this motion. I implore my colleagues to seize this opportunity and vote “nay”.

1350 words

All Topics

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:49:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from the hon. member about common sense and doing what is best for Canadians, and I would love her comment on whether it was common sense for the interim leader of the Conservative Party to be photographed wearing MAGA hats, to talk about making the convoy the Prime Minister's problem and to say we should not be asking them go home. I wonder if she thinks that is common sense. Speaking of common sense, I will ask the same question I asked earlier. Given that she does not trust the government, would she trust the national security adviser to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said that it was not only appropriate but necessary for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it relates to the very concerns around financing of this convoy that she seems to want us not to consider?

152 words

All Topics

Mrs. Kelly Block

Feb/20/22 11:50:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think I made it pretty clear why I am deeply concerned about the measures that are in this act that are going to seize and freeze the bank accounts of individuals who do not agree with the government, but to be equally clear, there is only one person who I believe bears the responsibility for what is happening in Ottawa, and that is the Prime Minister. What should we expect, when he calls those who do not agree with him misogynists, racists and science deniers, and wonders if such people should even be tolerated?

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the member, who said that the Prime Minister was the sole person responsible for what happened in the streets of Ottawa. I have no particular affection for him, but I am still able to say that there are some Conservative members who made some rather concerning speeches when it came to vaccination. Some of them even enjoyed a few photo ops with the protesters, and encouraged them at the same time. Does the member not believe that some of the responsibility lies with some of her colleagues, who were complacent toward the protesters?

100 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35