44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 1:08:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could feel the passion of my hon. colleague in her speech. It is a lot of stress for those who are watching from home and it is the same inside this chamber.
This morning I walked to the House of Commons at 6:45 a.m. Wellington Street was completely cleared. I am just wondering if the member opposite would be interested in revoking the Emergencies Act if the protesters are still not there.
Specifically, in a press conference today, at 11 a.m., the CBC asked the Prime Minister if he would hold onto power for two to three months in case the truckers came back, and the Prime Minister said that indeed, that is what they are thinking about. Does the member agree with this abuse of power?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:10:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a few interesting points in her speech earlier. I do not have time to comment on her whole speech, but I would like to ask her a quick question.
One point she raised really struck me. She made a number of arguments in favour of using the Emergencies Act.
Here is the question I would like to ask her. Why did the government decide to invoke the Emergencies Act here and now in 2022?
How many times has it been used over the past 30 years? How many crises have been resolved without this act? What makes this crisis so much more significant than all the others? Why is the act necessary in this case? Why could the situation not have been resolved without it?
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:21:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is very simple. He talked about the still ongoing illegal blockades. Could he just provide one instance in Canada, ongoing right now, of a current illegal blockade and why the Emergencies Act is still required going forward?
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:23:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during the debates of the past few days, which I diligently attended, Liberal MPs have mentioned that the application of the Emergencies Act was necessary for the police force of Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec, to be present in Ottawa.
I looked into this over the past two days, and this appears to be false. It is enough to swear them in, which has been done in the past.
If the Emergencies Act was so necessary, and if democratic safeguards are so important, then why did members of the minister's own caucus feel the need to mislead the House?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:25:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said it well. Thirty per cent of all trade between Canada and the United States is using the crossing at the Ambassador Bridge. As the member said, it is one thing to have the bridge open, but, as I have reassured colleagues on both sides of the border, we need to make sure that we keep the crossing open. It is one thing for it to be blocked once, but it would be devastating for the Canadian economy if there were new blockades on that very critical infrastructure. The Emergencies Act will not only give power, as the member said, to local enforcement authorities, but they could rely on other forces around the country to make sure order is restored.
We should all be concerned with keeping our critical trade corridors open in order to preserve jobs, to make sure our economy functions and to be seen as and remain a very reliable trading partner.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:26:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question before us is whether we ought to confirm the government's declaration of an emergency pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act. I have really struggled with the answer to that question, and I will get to that.
The first question we should all reflect on is a more basic one: How did it even come to this? Some Conservative colleagues have made the case that we could have ended the illegal blockades if only we had ended federal vaccine mandates, a Neville Chamberlain approach to pandemic management. Appeasing illegality is an affront to the rule of law, and we should put public health before politics.
Mandates will not be with us forever, and yes, we need to re-evaluate their use. However, it is also true that NACI has yet to confirm whether a third dose is properly a booster dose or should be considered part of the primary series. We should proceed cautiously as we lift measures that helped save lives.
Of course people are tired of pandemic rules. I was furious when Ontario's schools closed yet again to in-person learning in January. Protest is to be expected, and everyone has the right to peaceful protest, but that right does not extend to blocking highways and bridges. It does not extend to the intimidation, harassment, threats and the endless and deafening noise we have seen in our national capital. These are crimes, and they are quite obviously crimes.
We cannot paint every protester with the same brush, but we can judge people by the company they keep and we should never platform the language of treason, medical experiments, the Nuremberg Code or support for white supremacy, all of which we saw on our democracy's doorstep.
My genuine plea for those listening, for those who dislike the Prime Minister, for those who dislike public health measures and especially for those who sit in the Conservative caucus is to just remember that democracies are fragile. Encouraging lawlessness and emboldening anti-government, anti-democratic voices is a disservice to our country, no matter how much hatred they have for their opponents. If they do not stop fanning the flames, I am not certain we will be able to put out the fire.
Reflecting on my own side of the House, if we are so fearful of polarization, then we ought to be especially careful not to contribute to it ourselves. We are each sent here to represent our constituents, of course, but our obligations extend beyond any parochial interest. We are the trustees of our democracy; the rule of law; civil liberties; and peace, order and good government.
The illegal blockades represented an attack on these core ideas. The greatest criticism of how the blockades were removed is that they were not removed more quickly. The failure to enforce the law in Ottawa and the acquiescence to occupation emboldened similar blockades across the country at Emerson, Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Against a failed municipal and provincial response, a strong federal response was warranted. Therefore, I suffer no sympathy for those who shut down our border crossings and inflicted harm on the residents of Ottawa.
However, in the interest of disappointing everyone in my audience, I do have concerns with the invocation of the Emergencies Act in the circumstances. One constituent I trust a great deal wrote to me that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. She is unquestionably right, but the law also remains the law, so let us turn to it for a moment.
Section 16 of the act defines a public order emergency as “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”. The shoe arguably fits, with this general definition in mind, but the act goes on to define two terms with great specificity.
First, and again in keeping with section 16, “threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.” In turning to the CSIS Act, we see four possible meanings: espionage, foreign influenced activities, activities akin to terrorism, and the violent overthrow of the government. These are incredibly high standards.
In the order in council, the OIC, the government relies on activities akin to terrorism or, as the Minister of Justice said in the House, “We took measures that had been applied to terrorism and applied them to other illegal activity”. The specific section requires that there be activities in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective. It is obvious enough that the latter element is met, as warped as the ideological objectives may be, but have there been threats or acts of serious violence that themselves amount to a national emergency?
We know that dangerous and extremist elements are embedded within these protests and blockades. In Coutts, for example, we saw conspiracy to commit murder charges, with two of the accused connected to a far-right extremist group. We also saw the police seize a cache of guns and body armour, and in Ottawa we saw major intimidation of local residents and threats against the police if they enforced the law. As a parliamentarian, I acknowledge I am not privy to all of the information in the hands of the executive, and there may well be even more dangerous and coordinated elements at play.
It also strikes me that these serious threats are ancillary to the blockades, and it is the blockades that constituted the emergency. A national emergency, after all, is also a defined term within the act. It means:
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, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
There is an additional requirement that no other federal law be sufficient to meet the emergency as well. It is frustrating that the government has not clearly articulated which ground it relies on here, and it appears that it likes to rely on both. When we look at the illegal blockades and the negative impact they wrought on so many lives, I do think there is a fair argument that they meet the definition of a national emergency as long as we understand “capacity” to mean both whether a province could act in theory as well as the reality of their action.
Again, if the blockade is at issue, when we look at the threats of serious violence, the violence that must itself constitute the national emergency at issue, it is unclear how the definition is met. To meet the act's requirements, it seems apparent to me that we need to re-interpret “serious violence to persons or property” to mean economic harm. I am often in support of large and liberal interpretations of the law, but I am not convinced we want economic harm to trigger the act, unless we would be comfortable with the act being used in other instances of economic harm, the most recent one in memory being the railway blockades in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en.
This is all perhaps too lawyerly, too technical an objection. Other levels of government had failed to act or acted too slowly. Legal gaps certainly exist in addressing foreign funding and foreign influence operations and crowdfunding for illegal domestic activities, and the emergency measures seem to have worked.
It is also true, as I say, that I do not have all of the intelligence information that the executive has. My answer to that is a simple one, and I know many will find it inadequate, but contorting the application of the law in order to defend the rule of law is not a position I find comfort in.
Expert Wesley Wark wrote recently that the Emergencies Act was unusable because of the high threshold in section 2 of the CSIS Act. However, he subsequently came around to the idea of shoehorning the law to fit, because of his perception of the nature of the threat and the missing response from other levels of government.
Expert Leah West recently wrote:
As someone who fervently believes in the rule of law, I’m desolated by what we’ve witnessed this month: a failure to enforce the law by 2 levels of government created a crisis that the 3rd had to contort the law to end.
That is a fair summation.
Now, whatever one thinks of the legal contortion, and the ends may well justify the means and the courts will weigh in on the law, let us return to the role of Parliament.
In the coming months, we will need to address the shortcomings in the laws, perhaps to better protect critical infrastructure and most certainly to better follow the money of foreign influence operations and crowdfunding for illegal activities, but with proper due process. Assuming the threshold question is met here, it is still not at all clear to me whether the government continues to need the ability to freeze bank accounts without due process, if it ever did. Usefulness and effectiveness are very different standards as compared with necessity and proportionality.
Now, where does it leave us for tonight’s vote on the invocation of the Emergencies Act and section 58?
Putting aside my concerns around the threshold or due process, the effect of section 58 is that a yea vote extends emergency measures while a nay vote simply revokes the powers as of the day of the negative vote. A nay vote need not mean impugning the actions of the government over the last week. Whatever one thinks of the necessity and proportionality of the emergency powers at the time they were invoked, whatever one thinks of the threshold that triggers the act in the first place, the question before us is whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate to the circumstances today.
I appreciate the federal leadership over the last week. This is not the War Measures Act, as this particular legislation highlights the role of the charter and provides for a significant amount of independent and parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am skeptical that the strict legal test was met for the act's invocation, and I am not convinced that the emergency measures should continue to exist beyond today.
I would vote accordingly but for the fact that it is now a confidence vote. My disagreement, the disagreement I have expressed here, does not amount to non-confidence, and I have no interest in an election at this time.
1830 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:36:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the former speaker, whom I respect and esteem greatly, was mistaken in one respect: He said that he would disappoint everybody, but he has not disappointed me. I think his analysis is accurate. The actions were unlawful. It was appropriate to end the blockades.
He also correctly states that it was perhaps not necessary to use the Emergencies Act. He is entirely correct that if we vote nay tonight, this would end the Emergencies Act and the legal emergency, effectively instantly, without necessarily invalidating that which was done before.
I believe I am also right that all of the other things that take place under the act, including a review of the actions over the course of the next year, would take place if there was a nay vote tonight. As he has obviously looked into this, I am asking if that in fact is correct.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:38:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to say that I have a great deal of regard for my colleague, who did not disappoint with this speech. He is always calm and thoughtful, and he always provides an independent analysis. I admire that about him and think that it is very honourable.
He answered my question to some extent in his earlier remarks, but I would nevertheless like to make a comment and ask him my question.
First, I would like to know if the member agrees with the idea that had this crisis been better managed from the outset, by any level of government, we would not be having this discussion today.
The question I want to ask him concerns the fact that this vote on the Emergencies Act has become a confidence vote. Does he not think that proceeding in this way somewhat undermines the validity of the democratic exercise that we are called to have in this House? Is this not twisting the arms of the parties and members that may have a different opinion and do not want this to be a confidence vote?
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:41:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I feel nostalgic as I rise this afternoon to participate in the debate on the Emergencies Act.
I remember when I first arrived in Parliament in February 2006, bright-eyed and full of hope. To me, Parliament represented everything that was good: freedom, democracy and mutual respect. In the spring of 2006, on the lawn in front of the Peace Tower, there were young kids playing soccer, teens throwing frisbees, and young couples holding hands.
Canada was a peaceful country. Canadians had put their trust in a Conservative government with a strong leader, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, and a talented team determined to make this country stronger, more stable and more united.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:42:58 p.m.
- Watch
This was a government that took responsibility and worked hard, every day, on behalf of all Canadians. The country was safe, and there was a sense of confidence in the government. No dream was too big. Our country was the envy of the entire world. We were a country filled with promise, opportunity and a dream, the dream of enabling our children and grandchildren to prosper and earn a good living.
It is now 2022, and I no longer recognize my country, my Canada. Since the Liberal Party came to power, Canadians and Quebeckers have become tired, stressed and disillusioned. They have lost confidence in this clumsy, intransigent government whose respect for and defence of fundamental rights leave something to be desired. They feel a collective disappointment in what is currently going on.
The government wants to invoke the Emergencies Act just because some Canadians were simply asking to speak to the Prime Minister. These are proud, patriotic Canadians who are worried about their future. They simply would like to have a frank discussion and to see the government release a well-formulated plan to improve the situation. These people were only asking for a show of leadership. They wanted to feel that there was a captain at the helm of our country. These people travel the roads day and night, all year long, to deliver food and essential goods to contribute to our well-being. All they needed was support from government.
This government is doubling down on its incompetence. We are all living in a climate of widespread uncertainty. This winter has been very hard. The coming spring holds great uncertainty. What will the summer hold, and what awaits us in the fall, as far as the pandemic is concerned? I wish for a return of hope, the hope that the Conservative team, with its new leadership, will be ready to replace this ineffective, incompetent and worn-out government.
This weekend is a dark chapter in our history. How do we explain this to future generations? How can I explain to my five grandchildren whom I adore—my little Maéva, my little Béatrice, my little Loïc, my little Delphine and my little Arthur—that men and women who were well intentioned, but desperate and too determined, were removed using intimidation and violence, right here in our democratic and peaceful country? This is not the Canada I want to leave as a legacy. There are no winners. We are all losers today.
I do know, however, that all is not lost. We still have the hope and strength to recover from these crises and the unforeseen events that are yet to come. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are going through a difficult time, but if we work together, it will make us stronger, more united and more ambitious.
I think of our Olympic athletes who made us proud over the past two weeks. I think of all the hard-working Canadians in our health care system, and those who go above and beyond for their families and for a better life. I think of all the opportunities we have here in Canada to make our mark and succeed.
We need to remain optimistic. Let us be strong. Let us all be united and stand in solidarity to build the Canada of tomorrow, despite all of the challenges and obstacles in our path and despite the inevitable consequences of having a Liberal government that made poor choices that will catch up to us sooner or later.
Together, we have everything we need to regain confidence in our abilities, to prove to ourselves that anything is possible, to heal our wounds, and to regain the strength and determination that typify all those who defend our freedoms and live in this big, beautiful country full of promise.
As of today, in the House, we all need to make a commitment so that history does not repeat itself. We need to commit to talking to our constituents, explaining to them the path that we should follow to continue with our social initiatives, working to rebuild their confidence in their elected officials, and working to give them back their faith in the future by doing something as simple as listening and showing empathy. We have a duty to talk to each other, respect each other and understand each other.
Over the past few days, I got a lot of emails and calls from people who asked me to be their voice in Parliament, to get things moving, as they said. I sensed their impatience and felt all of the responsibility that comes with the fact that they put their confidence in me to represent them. I thank them for their kind words and their wise and inspiring advice.
I will carry the torch as I humbly represent my constituents and make their lives better this year. I have shown my colleagues all the hope that I have, but I have reservations about fulfilling my hopes under the current government. I am a man of faith and conviction, but I am also a realist, as are Canadians who are no fools.
Since being elected in 2015, the Liberal government may have initially responded to a certain need for freedom, a renewed desire for feminism, a new freedom to smoke marijuana and to be whoever we want, however we want, but let us admit that we are now seeing the consequences of the Liberals' shortcomings. Experts will tell us the full implications, but for now, an entire generation has lost its footing, its roots and its social identity. Sad to say, all this harping on our differences has cost us our unity, our common sense of duty and sharing, our consideration for the needs of the most vulnerable and needy. In many respects, the pandemic has shown us that unfortunately, many have abandoned their roots and those who brought them into the world. That is so sad.
It gets worse. Some people have no idea what is going on. Some pretend they do not know. Many are afraid to contemplate a future in which the Liberal Party has legalized hard drugs and prostitution, as promised in their platform. Some tell themselves it will be okay because we will know what our children and grandchildren are consuming and girls and women will get better treatment. The reality of life on the streets has not changed on the black market. We will witness the spectacle of a society with more and more problems related to mental illness and crime, because the two go hand in hand. We should expect to see more violence. This situation is being managed by a clown, if I may say so, but the fact is, this is just a taste of what may await us.
When I am back in the country, where I was born, where life is good, I should be living my life to the fullest, but I cannot be at peace knowing that many people will suffer the consequences of this Prime Minister's disastrous choices and that all his cronies will use his immoral policies to fatten their bank accounts.
We were born free. We were living in a free and economically prosperous country—
1217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:53:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to react to my colleague's speech. I need to express my disagreement with many of the things my colleague brought up in his speech, even though we will likely vote similarly on this motion.
I would like some further explanation.
From what I understand, some of the people who were protesting on the other side of the street were there for legitimate reasons, but others were no choir boys. His speech gave me the impression that he thought they were all wonderful people. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
We are talking about the Emergencies Act, but I did not hear him talk about this act. I think this is a serious situation. I for one did not wander the streets carrying a Canadian flag.
Does he think that the protesters were all choir boys?
What does he think of the Emergencies Act?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:56:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today to talk about the Emergencies Act. I think the question a lot of Canadians are asking, and I know most of the parliamentarians here today have talked about it, is how we got here and why we are here.
It has been almost two years to the day, and we are in a time when provinces are lifting their COVID mandates, virtually across the country. In my home province of Ontario, for example, Premier Doug Ford has announced his plan to lift COVID mandates, and on March 1 a significant one will be that he is lifting the vaccine passports. That is very significant for the province, and for people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated.
About 10 days ago, the Conservative Party brought a motion to the House and asked for a plan that the Prime Minister and his team would give Parliament and Canadians on how we can move forward, how we can lift the COVID mandates federally and allow everybody to move on, and how we can unite the country and move together.
We are a very divided country, despite what the Liberals may say. We are a very divided country at this time, and we need to move forward. There was a vote a week ago, and the Liberals defeated that motion, failing to give Canadians a plan to move forward. My point is that if the premiers were not doing anything and lifting mandates, it might make sense for the Prime Minister to double down and continue on with his divisive comments and everything else, but when we are looking at the facts, the facts are that mandates are being lifted not just in Canada, but around the world. Today we saw in England that Boris Johnson has virtually lifted all restrictions, and the Prime Minister is continuing to double down.
To my mind, that is how we got to where we are. If he had listed a reasonable road map, I do not believe anybody would have come here. I do not believe we would be talking about this today, and I think everybody would have a path forward. We could start to heal this country and move forward.
This morning I listened to a long-time friend of mine. He has been a colleague for many years. He is the member of Parliament for Oxford. He was the first elected police chief in Parliament, and he is a very wise individual. He and I served on the public safety committee over 10 years ago together, at a time when we were reviewing the outcomes of the G8 and G20 summits, but specifically the G20 summit. No one would believe who the police chief was at the time. I know most people in here know this, but it was actually the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. That chief was there to tell us about what he did at the G20 summit.
They had an integrated security unit at that time. I made a note of what they called it. They did not need to invoke this act.
522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:19:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, along with others, do not believe that the Emergencies Act was necessary to clear the protests and blockades. Many experts, including people like Chris Lewis, former commissioner of the OPP, are saying the government had all the tools it needed and the Emergencies Act was an overreach.
The Prime Minister reported this morning that Ottawa is clear, the trucks are gone and the borders are open, but he says that an emergency remains. Can the Prime Minister tell us: What is the criteria for this emergency to be declared over, and on what date will he end these unprecedented and invasive measures?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act is enabling critical measures to end these illegal blockades and prevent further occupations. We have heard from police chiefs, security experts and municipal and provincial leadership that it has been essential to the response. We have been very clear that these measures will apply only when and where necessary and, again, these tools are to supplement local capacity, not negate or override it. As soon as these measures are no longer required, we will gladly lift them. This is responsible leadership.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:20:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly what powers the Emergencies Act is giving him today that do not already exist? I know he said he needed the act to force tow trucks to tow trucks away, but as he has already said, the trucks are gone, and so we do not need tow trucks any longer.
What power is needed right now, today, under the Emergencies Act that does not already exist under current Canadian law?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:25:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, more than two weeks ago, the City of Ottawa requested 1,800 RCMP officers to ensure an adequate police response to the crisis. The events of last weekend proved that was indeed the solution. I would hope the Prime Minister was not even contemplating invoking the Emergencies Act two weeks ago.
He will not invoke the act every time there is a protest—I hope he will resist that temptation—so is he now prepared to revoke the Emergencies Act?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:31:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the blockades have ended. Downtown Ottawa has been cleared. If there was ever a national emergency, which remains in doubt, it is over. There is no need for the Emergencies Act vote tonight. It would seem then that this vote tonight is about far more than the blockades and the protesters in downtown Ottawa. It would seem it is only about power, about the government having the power and setting the precedent for the bank accounts of political dissidents to be frozen.
Is that not right?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to just highlight how instrumental the Emergencies Act has been in allowing us to address, very effectively but in a manner that is consistent with the charter, the illegal blockades. I too want to take a moment to express my profound gratitude. I hope all members in the chamber will give thanks to the RCMP and all members of law enforcement who, in a very professional, measured and restrained manner, have restored order to the streets of Ottawa and have ensured we made progress at our borders.
We will only use the powers of the Emergencies Act as long as necessary.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:32:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it became clear this weekend that Canada did not need emergency measures to resolve the situation in Ottawa. Thousands of police officers from across Canada joined forces to resolve a specific situation. This is not the first time that has happened.
Nevertheless, this government still wants to impose the Emergencies Act, which has no place in this context, in our view. The border crossings were cleared without this legislation. The Ambassador Bridge was cleared without this legislation.
Why does the government stubbornly insist on implementing a law that Canadians do not want?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:33:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have seen significant progress in Ottawa over the past few days. Our borders and downtown Ottawa are free of blockades, and our borders are now open.
I want to thank the RCMP and all law enforcement agencies for their professional and measured response. The Emergencies Act was instrumental in making this possible, but we want to be done with it as soon as possible.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
