SoVote

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

Mrs. Kelly Block

Feb/20/22 11:52:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have to say that I believe this is exactly what the Prime Minister would like parliamentarians to be doing here in the House. Instead of focusing on the overreach of invoking the Emergencies Act, he wants us to be arguing about whose fault it is that the protests lasted for as long as they did in the city of Ottawa. To be very clear, I firmly support the right to peaceful protest and the freedom of peaceful assembly, and I agree with the premier of my province, who called on the people of Saskatchewan to exercise their rights without impeding the rights of others. However, I will reiterate that I believe there is only one person who bears the responsibility—

125 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:53:08 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

8 words

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

Feb/20/22 11:53:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member was speaking about overreach and democracy, and I had a question for the member. The Conservative caucus, has twice thrown out leaders who were democratically elected by the delegates at their party conventions. I am wondering if the member agrees with that overreach.

47 words

All Topics

Mrs. Kelly Block

Feb/20/22 11:53:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that I absolutely disagree with the premise of that question. First we had a leader who resigned back in 2019, and in this most recent case we had adopted the Reform Act, which is a law of Parliament that provides members of Parliament with the tools they need to hold their leader accountable, so that is exactly what happened within the Conservative caucus. I would say that rather than discussing the overreach of the government and the current Prime Minister in invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with something that could have been dealt with using the law and authorities in the City of Ottawa and in the Province of Ontario, the member is asking me about internal caucus issues.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Feb/20/22 11:54:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to be rising in the House tonight. The reason for my disappointment is due to subject matter that I wish the House did not have to be debating. Nonetheless, tonight's debate is on a very serious subject, the implementation of the Emergencies Act. I would like to believe that all hon. members of this place, irrespective of their political party, would also wish not to be here debating this subject. Unfortunately, we are. I believe that the events that have transpired at various Canadian border crossings and in our nation's capital over the last three weeks converge to provide few alternatives. Some may not see it that way, and I encourage them to take a hard, long second look. I appreciate that emotions remain high. I would like to do an objective, factual level-set. To do that, I want to take the location out of it and take the city where the protest has occurred out of the debate. Let us put aside that the protest was in Ottawa and ask ourselves how we would feel if it was a hon. member's city and their community that had its main streets and downtown core barricaded by trucks and crowds. Imagine if it was an hon. member's constituents and their neighbourhoods effectively held hostage in their own city, their own community and their own homes. Imagine if people from their community were being harassed and intimidated, with some actually fearing for their own personal safety. What about their right to protection and their right to freedom of movement? In our community of Spadina—Fort York, we are no stranger to protests. Toronto City Hall is in our riding. The provincial legislature at Queen's Park is just outside of it. In fact, the route people take to these places to exercise their democratic rights often means they would literally be driving by my home. When they do, they would often be honking. My girlfriend and I would look out, see who they were and even look up and see what they were advocating. However, my rights to freedom of expression and assembly should not, must not, include the oppression of others. As the son of refugees, I know that my family knew terror and injustice. They endured two years in a refugee camp to find a new home that shared their values, a place that valued democracy and the rule of law. I am sad to say that I did not see those values when I looked at the streets of Ottawa or at the Ambassador Bridge. What we did see was our national monument to Canada's fallen disgraced and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier being jumped on and urinated upon. It is tragically ironic that the soldier inside the tomb was once a person who knew well what fighting for freedom was all about. The same applies to the statue of a remarkable young man. Terry Fox raised more money than anyone in this country for those fighting an insidious disease, including those who are immunocompromised. The monument and the statue are precious symbols of the best of who we are as a country. That they were defiled is a disgrace. Some of the most impactful symbols are flags. Sadly, we saw protesters walk around with the flags of evil and racism. Even in the country where Nazism started, anyone who parades around with that flag today gets arrested. Then there was the Confederate flag, which some protesters chose to fly, a flag that continues to conjure up hatred and intolerance and celebrates a time when people were placed in chains and human slavery. My colleague, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, recently eloquently reminded the House of what that flag represents. It does not mean freedom. It does not mean inclusion. It represents intolerance and human slavery. Flags matter and symbols matter. Our Canadian flag is a beacon of hope for so many people here at home and abroad. I was distraught, as a person who had also proudly worn the flag and the uniform of our country, to see people wrap themselves in our flag and use it as a shield for behaviour that was often anything but honourable. What I have commented upon thus far is described in revolting detail and I think lies at the heart, the very foundation, of those who came to Ottawa. They did not—

748 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:59:47 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member, who will be able to continue tomorrow. It being 11:59 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 17, 2022, having reached the expiry of the time provided for today's debate, the House will resume consideration of the motion for confirmation at the next sitting of the House. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 7 a.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, February 17, 2022. (The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

86 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 35