SoVote

Feb/21/22 5:57:54 p.m.
Watch

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The blockades had been cleared. The Liberals did not need the emergency powers for that. When it comes to Ottawa, the police have also cleared that out. However, we consistently hear ministers and members from the other side say that they need these emergency powers to end the unlawful blockades in Ottawa. That is what we keep hearing and yet, when we look at the RCMP list that was published on its website, which was retweeted by the Minister of Public Safety just a few days ago, with respect to the laws of the Emergencies Act that the police used, none of them were to clear the unlawful protest. It was the banking power that the RCMP claimed it needed. That is the only power the RCMP has cited. That makes sense because we know police do not need the emergency powers to clear an unlawful protest. They do not need them to suppress a riot. They do not need them to clear a bridge or a piece of critical infrastructure. All of those powers were readily available to the RCMP and other police forces and to governments, yet they were not used. We are not sure why that is. We have yet to receive a clear answer on that. All we have heard is they needed these emergency powers, these unprecedented powers. As I said, the RCMP only quoted the financial measures. I want to talk quite a bit about the financial measures because to me this is the most critical piece of the Emergencies Act. We are talking about providing the federal government the power to freeze people's bank accounts if the government does not agree with their political opinion. We heard that first-hand from the Minister of Justice on national television last week. He said that if someone supports a political position he does not like, they should be very concerned. He said that. People can look it up. Is that really what we are going to do in this country? If there is a protest or some sort of demonstration that the government does not agree with, it can freeze their bank account, or, sorry, it can order the RCMP, who orders the bank who orders them. That is what the Liberals have been saying. It is not them; it is the hands-off. We are voting on the power to freeze bank accounts of political dissidents today. This is why it is so shocking to me that the NDP, the party of protests, is looking to support the Emergencies Act today. It shocks me. In any social media feed of NDP members of Parliament, we see they have gone to countless protests, yet we see that the New Democrats are supporting the government's ability to freeze bank accounts. I want to talk about the human impact of freezing someone's bank account. What does that really mean? It means that when they go to the grocery store to buy food, their debit card does not work. When they go to the gas station to fill up their car to get to work, their credit card does not work. When they go to an ATM to pull out some cash to take their spouse out for dinner, no money comes out. When their mortgage payment comes out, when their gas payment comes out, when their MTS bill, if they are in Manitoba, comes out, there is no money in the account. It is frozen. The government can freeze all of someone's assets. That is how significant this authority is, which may be given to the Liberal government today. It is very unclear. I have received so many emails about this. We know this began as a peaceful protest, one of the largest, if not the largest, pan-Canadian demonstrations we have ever seen as it rolled across the country. Thousands of people turned out to show their support. Estimates say there were 15,000 people on Parliament Hill that first Saturday. Thousands of Canadian families donated small sums of money to voice their support for a political movement that was fighting for their right to bodily autonomy, to make their own medical choices and to hold a job regardless of their health choices. There were thousands of people. When this was announced one week ago today, the finance minister explained how the government can freeze bank accounts. Do members want to know the terror and the anxiety felt by those thousands of people who participated in a lawful protest that very first day and people who gave $50 three weeks ago to a convoy? Do members want to know what kind of terror that brings to someone? I have constituents saying they are pulling out tens of thousands of dollars from their bank accounts. I have a veteran, a very dear friend of mine, possibly the sweetest older man people will ever meet, who served our country valiantly for 28 years. Although he is very pro-vaccine, he supports the right for others to choose, so he gave the convoy $50 two weeks ago. He cancelled his credit cards because he is so terrified the government is coming for his money. I have constituents who are hiding cash under their beds. That is how terrifying this power is. The lack of clarity has been astounding. It was just today, seven days after that initial announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister about freezing bank accounts, that she finally clarified that if it was before Tuesday, February 15, there was nothing to worry about, as it was not retroactive. It was just from that Tuesday. Why did it take her seven days to make that public declaration? What kind of sadistic pain were the Liberals looking to inflict on people who innocently supported something that they believed in and has given them more hope than anything else in the past two years? It is shameful. What is really shocking is that there is no due process in this. There is no court order. It is only if someone has been suspected. The CBC reported that today. If someone is suspected of supporting the convoy, they can come for that person's bank account. This is unbelievable. It is interesting, because the Liberal government is in power now, but there are going to be other parties in power. Do we really want the federal government to have the power to say, “We don't agree with your protest. You can't go buy groceries. We're going to freeze your bank account.” How many demonstrations are from environmental groups or social justice groups? Let us really think about this. Peaceful protest is one of our rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I stand by every peaceful protest. I stand against illegal blockades, and we have been very clear about that all along. Those have to end, but people have every right to peacefully protest, and thousands of Canadians supported this protest across the country when it was perfectly legal, lawful and peaceful. The Liberals are asking us just to trust them. “Just trust us, there's parliamentary oversight”, as if that means anything. This Parliament asked four times for those lab documents from the Winnipeg lab with all those shenanigans going on with the Chinese Communist Party. We never got them. He prorogued Parliament. He called a snap election both times to get out of scandals of his own making and he thinks that we are going to trust that parliamentary oversight is going to be enough to keep his government in check? I do not think so. I will end with this. Our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, will be voting with the fullest power of our ability against giving this Liberal government the power to freeze political dissidents' bank accounts. Absolutely, without question, we will be voting against that. Absolutely.

1330 words

All Topics

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 6:05:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed in the hon. member's comments just now, because I arranged a briefing for her Thursday night with departmental officials, including finance, the RCMP and FINTRAC. She was told quite clearly in response to her questions that these measures took effect on Tuesday of last week. I am just wondering about her constituents reaching out to her. It was not just today that she found out when it came into effect; it was actually last Thursday night. I am just wondering why she is implying that she did not know, when in fact she was well aware of it last week.

107 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Feb/21/22 6:06:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, I was briefed last week. What is interesting is that when the department officials say one thing and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada says another, I'm not quite sure whom to believe. Were the department officials mistaken or was it the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Canada who was withholding that information? I honestly was not sure. I am really glad she came out today, because I have been telling my constituents that I had been hearing that it was just from the 15th onward, yet we are also hearing across the country that other bank accounts have been frozen. We have no clarity on this. Why were they withholding this information? Why were they not being more forthcoming? The Deputy Prime Minister has the attention of the nation any time she wants. Why did she not make this publicly clear? Is she just trying to punish Canadians? Does she enjoy traumatizing them? I do not know.

164 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/21/22 6:06:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, who talked about lack of clarity. That is an understatement. With less than two hours to go until voting time, members on that side of the House are unable to tell us whether or not this is a confidence vote. One of their members, the member for Louis-Hébert, just told us he will vote differently if it is a confidence vote. We will be casting a very important vote on a very important matter less than two hours from now. Should we not know by now if it is a confidence vote? I would like my hon. colleague to share her thoughts on that.

119 words

All Topics

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Feb/21/22 6:07:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I would like to also thank the Bloc Québécois for standing strong and voting against this abuse of democracy today. This is a really good point that we need constituents at home to hear. The Prime Minister today decided that this vote is going to be a confidence vote. If members do not vote in favour of his motion, he is going to call an election. That is his respect for the democratic process today. He is strong-0arming his own backbench MPs, who have been saying, “Look, I didn't want to vote for this but I'm going to have to, because it's going to be a confidence vote.” What impact do members think that is having on the NDP as well? They have been very clear that they are not quite sure if they are going to vote in favour, but how are they going to vote against it if it plunges the country into an election? That is the dignity the Prime Minister is giving this House. That is his respect for democracy.

191 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/21/22 6:08:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the wonderful member for Kildonan—St. Paul. We share space in the same province. I want to talk a little about the finances. We know that prominent Republicans in the U.S. have voiced their support for the protest, including Donald Trump. Ottawa police are concerned with the significant amount of money supporting the convoy. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton criticized GoFundMe, which he said “failed to deliver Texans' money”, really demonstrating international interference. I know the member's colleagues have talked about supporting protests. Certainly I know about all the visceral anti-indigenous comments that I have had to hear from the Conservative Party over the past couple of days, but I do not think this is about anti-mandate versus pro-mandate—

135 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/21/22 6:09:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

8 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho

Feb/21/22 6:09:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Manitoba. I have a lot of respect for her and her advocacy. Although the member did not quite get to her question, I know that members of the House, particularly NDP members, Liberals, and the Greens for sure, have gone to protests. Actually, the leader of the Green Party was arrested for blockading a road to a pipeline construction site four years ago, so should we be freezing her bank account? No, of course we not be freezing her bank account. I am not looking at the NDP or the Liberals for supporting protests whose leaders have said extreme things on line, but if that is the standard we want to be setting today, by all means people can start digging through their social media feeds and could be finding a ton of extremist language from leaders of protests that many members of the House, including NDP members, have attended.

157 words

All Topics

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Feb/21/22 6:10:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is a good prime minister? A good prime minister cares about all of the people and all of the citizens he represents. A good prime minister takes every opportunity to bring people together and build consensus, thereby providing peace and harmony in the social fabric of the nation. A good prime minister will consider numerous factors in making decisions that are in the net best interests of everyone. A good prime minister puts the needs of the nation and its citizens ahead of the needs of his or her own political interests. This is especially true when issues of gravity and magnitude are before the nation. A good prime minister de-escalates and reduces tensions and fosters co-operation and agreement wherever possible in the governance of the nation. A good prime minister does what is right and just without demonizing or belittling those who disagree with him. A good prime minister understands the concept of majority rule with respect to minority rights. A good prime minister would admit when he is wrong and change course before it is too late. I do not believe we have a good Prime Minister. I believe we have a Prime Minister who cares more about his political fate and political future than he does about the needs of his citizens. I believe we have a Prime Minister who looks at moments of crisis as political opportunities to be used for political benefit, rather than managing the crisis and bringing peace and harmony back to the nation. I believe we have a Prime Minister who picks and chooses the facts or the science that supports his ideas and his ideology rather than looking at all sources of information and providing good governance for everyone. I believe we have a Prime Minister who does not understand the consequences of the decisions he makes. It should have been entirely predictable in mid-August of 2021 that the politicization of mandatory vaccinations would divide the nation. A good prime minister would say this is not an issue that we should be politicizing and that we should never bypass people's charter rights and freedoms and force law-abiding Canadians to do something they fundamentally disagree with, even if many other Canadians disagree with them. It should have been entirely predictable that when someone only accepts a particular source of science that confirms their beliefs and rejects and challenges all other sources, they are bound to make mistakes and fail the citizens of their country. I am referring to the science of mental health. Right now our nation is struggling. It is one thing to struggle against COVID-19, but it is quite another to struggle against the powers and forces of the people's own government working against them. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is widely accepted in the field of psychology. It is the theory of human motivation. The bottom of the pyramid of needs is represented by physiological need, such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as the need to belong and to be loved. A good prime minister would know these basic concepts and their impact on Canadians. A good prime minister would know that denying people the ability to travel and see their loved ones, their children and grandchildren, their parents and grandparents and other family members, and to participate in celebrations of life, weddings and other important milestones, would have a detrimental psychological effect on the nation. It is traumatizing. A good prime minister would also know that one cannot deprive people of their basic physiological needs: food, clothing and shelter. A good prime minister would never take away the right of his citizens to work and earn a living to be able to pay for food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their loved ones. A good prime minister would not use the powers of the state to coerce citizens to abide by his policies against their free will. A good prime minister ought to know the trauma that this would cause in the population of the nation. A good prime minister would know that this trauma, over a period of months and now approaching two years, would leave people in a position where they have nothing left to lose. A good prime minister knows that when people are traumatized and in crisis, they have two options: fight or flight. A good prime minister should know that at times like this, his words matter. I think the Prime Minister does know, and he also knows that when he name-calls and degrades Canadians who disagree with him, it hardens people's resolve and inflames tensions. The mental health and social damage done by the imposition of mandates cannot be measured the same way that COVID cases and hospital counts can be measured, but a good prime minister would know his people and their sufferings and find solutions for all his citizens. It was entirely predictable that the politicization of vaccine mandates would create this trauma and inevitably force Canadians to cower or to fight. A good prime minister would never put his citizens in this position. A menacing prime minister would do this on purpose for his own political gain. Here we are, with, at best, a careless and reckless Prime Minister who does not understand the consequences of his choices and actions or, at worst, a malicious Prime Minister whose only concern is winning the game of political division, and who is now invoking the most powerful law of the land: a law meant to be used for the absolute worst moments in our nation's history. It is not to be used by a Prime Minister to grab ultimate power to crush those who dissent and would dare stand and challenge him, embarrass him and humiliate him. This power is immense, but this power has to meet certain thresholds in order for it to be used, and the government has not met that threshold. There is no police action being taken right now where the powers did not already exist for the police to break up blockades and restore peace and order. Every police officer in Canada has the full authority of the Criminal Code, in every part of Canada, to address any crime in progress. The Criminal Code has numerous provisions in it to end blockades and illegal protests. The argument the government is making is that the RCMP needed the ability to write parking tickets and enforce municipal bylaws in order to break up this blockade. A good Prime Minister would know that his citizens are not so stupid as to believe this argument. However, the most fearsome power the government has claimed is that of using the banks and financial institutions of this country to deny Canadian citizens from effecting transactions from their bank accounts. Everything we do in our lives as citizens requires the ability to transact. Virtually every freedom we exercise as citizens has behind it a financial transaction. We have the right, or at least we used to have the right, to free speech and peaceful assembly, to worship as we choose and to travel without restrictions in our nation. All of that requires money. We are all, as Canadians, innocent before the law until proved guilty in a court where evidence is cross-examined before a judge, and none of us, as Canadians, could be punished without the due process of law, until now. By invoking the Emergencies Act, the government has chosen to restrict the freedom to financially transact for those Canadians whom the government disagrees with. Without the freedom to transact, Canadians lose all of their freedoms. Our freedom of speech might involve paying for an Internet service provider, so that we can post messages on social media, paying for the use of a cellphone or a landline, or paying to print signs or brochures. Our freedom to protest would likely involve paying for gas, flights, signs, placards and hotel rooms. Our freedom to worship would include being able to make donations that pay for the salaries of staff and worship leaders, and the facilities they congregate in. All of this now is subjectively enforced by financial institutions without due process according to the whims of the government of the day under this emergency order. A good Prime Minister would never do this. A good Prime Minister would use the existing laws of the land and the existing institutions of the land to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. The overreach is massive. The threat to the nation it claims to address is minimal, so much so that numerous provinces have already said they want nothing to do with this massive intrusion on the rights and freedoms of Canadians; so much so that civil liberties associations, members of the legal profession and objective media are questioning this power grab; so much so that even members of his own caucus have stated they are only supporting this measure because it is a matter of confidence before the House, not because it is premised in the letter or spirit of the law. I will be voting against giving the Prime Minister a continuation of this power. The Prime Minister has menaced the lives and livelihoods of my constituents ever since he was elected in 2015. He has hamstrung any growth, hope or optimism of the natural resource sector in Alberta. He has created tax and regulatory burdens that drive away investment, and created so much uncertainty that capital investment businesses and people have fled central Alberta to more prosperous places in the world. He is menacing our ability to afford home heating, groceries and every other required cost of living for food, clothing and shelter, vis-à-vis his carbon tax and inflation. Seniors, working-class families and those on fixed incomes are being asked to choose between food, medication and shelter. A good Prime Minister would never put his citizens in this position. Canadians know that protests, blockades and civil unrest are a symptom, not the underlying problem. The problem is that Canadians do not have a good Prime Minister.

1695 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 6:20:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would just politely point out some confusion. The member talks about leaders seeking political advantage, when it was the interim leader of the opposition who actually emailed her entire caucus to say that political advantage should be sought by not discouraging the blockades. That was on day four. We have heard from many Conservative members about the threat having abated, but I will ask the member, when we have illegal protesters who have been removed from outside this building, but are staging 30 kilometres away; when we have a blockade that was attempted at Windsor on February 16; when we have a blockade that was successfully reinstalled in Surrey on February 18; and when we have an investigation into a hate group that was at the Coutts border, in his very own province, and the investigation into links between that group and what is happening here is still ongoing, would he agree with me that there is still an ongoing threat to the safety and security of Canadians that needs to be addressed through this legislation?

179 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/21/22 6:21:24 p.m.
Watch

I need to remind everybody that I have a clock. This is called questions and comments. Normally, on a 10-minute or five-minute round we try to give members a minute or so to ask their question. After the minute, I will cut folks off. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe has the floor.

57 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Feb/21/22 6:21:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, how the Liberal government and Prime Minister have fallen. Twenty months ago, we went from, “wash our hands and stay home so we can flatten the curve” to vaccine procurement bungling. Then we went to, “get vaccinated or we can't travel”, to “get vaccinated and still spend two weeks in a hotel against our will when we return to our home country”, to “get vaccinated or lose our jobs”, to “get vaccinated or we don't even get employment insurance”. Now there is the imposition of this act for the government to hunt down and seize the assets of Canadians based on intelligence from illegally hacked data sources of financial transactions. This is a gross overreach of power. It is politically—

135 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/21/22 6:22:27 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

11 words

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Feb/21/22 6:22:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what his thoughts are on the government strong-arming his backbench who do not want to vote for this tonight, and perhaps strong-arming the NDP, whose members have sort of been waffling on whether they are going to vote for it or not. The Prime Minister has made this a non-confidence vote today. If it fails, there may very well be an election. I would like to hear our colleague's comments on that.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Feb/21/22 6:22:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, people who are scared do desperate things. The Prime Minister is scared of losing the vote in the House, because he is scared of his own backbenchers. He is not only quelling protests across the country, he is quelling protests within his own caucus. It is absolutely shameful that the Prime Minister grabs power wherever he can to cover up for his inability to properly govern this country and to cover up the mistakes. The fact of the matter is that he is a weak, ineffective prime minister.

90 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/21/22 6:23:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the crisis, it seemed there were political considerations underlying the government's radio silence. My colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe is a whip. Whips ensure that their party members vote according to the party's instructions. However, we do not yet know of any instructions from the party in power, nor do we know if this evening's vote will be a confidence vote or not. What does my colleague think of this radio silence now?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Feb/21/22 6:24:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today at a press conference the Prime Minister suggested, which he did not have the courtesy to do in the House but did so in front of the media, that a matter of this importance would of course be a matter of confidence before the House. This is again a threat to his own caucus to keep the members in line, and a threat to the NDP. How mightily it has fallen. It is no longer the party looking after the working class. He is strong-arming both the NDP and his own backbench MPs through fear for an election that nobody wants at this time.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/21/22 6:25:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this being Family Day in Ontario, I want to start by wishing a happy Family Day in particular to my family, my wife Vanessa, my son Mason, who is probably playing video games right now and my two very young ones, Vivian and Frankie, who are probably watching this. I cannot wait until I get to leave today and come home, but they had better be asleep by the time I get there. I will see them in the morning. I have been listening to this debate for the past four days, and I have heard a lot of different things being said in the House. I want to get into the details of those, but before I do, I want to take the opportunity to thank the men and women from police forces across the country. The manner in which this operation in Ottawa particularly was handled was nothing short of the gold standard in terms of how policing operations, such as this, need to happen. I thank them for everything that they did to make Ottawa stay safe during the removal of the occupiers. I will start by saying I have been perplexed since the beginning of this with the position of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is the party that tells people it stands up for law and order, but the way that it has been responding to this particular issue is absolutely astounding. I am not even talking about this vote or this debate. I am talking about the way that it has responded to everything that has happened within the last three to four weeks. Members have been encouraging occupiers not to leave, telling them to stay in Ottawa because what they are doing is working, when they know full well that they are breaking the law. That brings me to a very important point. It is this concept of the difference between an occupation and a protest. We have heard, day after day, Conservatives get up in the House and talk about this as a peaceful protest. The member who spoke shortly before me, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, said it was a lawful protest. It was not a lawful protest. This was an occupation. I find it remarkable that they would take this position. The irony is that the longer it went on, and the more they encouraged it, the more emboldened those outside became. I have a ton of respect for the NDP member for Windsor West who got up time after time when people, in particular Conservatives and the Bloc, would say there were no problems at the Ambassador Bridge. There were no problems in Windsor. Everything there was fine. He must have corrected the record about 20 to 25 times in the past four days that it was not the case. He said it was only a two-kilometre drive from where he was sitting, but somehow they were not able to take the word from him. I have heard a number of outrageous and false statements in the House over the last four days. I will start with the one that probably got the biggest reaction out of me. The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex referred to what was going on over the last three weeks as “Canada Day times a thousand”. She said that. She is quoted in Hansard. Members can see the video. She said that it was like Canada Day times a thousand. Can members believe that? I wonder if the residents of Ottawa feel the same way. The member for Regina—Wascana, who replaced Ralph Goodale, said in the House, sitting right over there, that he did not see any problem. He said he walked up Metcalfe Street and did not see al Qaeda or the Taliban, as if that is the standard by which the party of law and order measures what an emergency is. The member for Haldimand—Norfolk said that we somehow live in an authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship. This is a parliamentary democracy. She is sitting in the House. The member for Foothills said all that the occupiers at the Coutts border crossing wanted was to be heard. Thirteen people were arrested in conjunction with the seizure of weapons and ammunition. The member for Abbotsford, although he is just one example, as so many of them said it, referred to what is going on right now as martial law. Martial law is when the military is literally walking on the street. Martial law means the military has taken over the civil duties of the police. That is absolutely ridiculous. I have heard from a number of members, including the member for King—Vaughan, who talked about bank runs, suggesting that there will be bank runs out there, because people suddenly want to take all the money out of their accounts. If that happens, it would be based on the misinformation that they have been spreading. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie talked about suspending civil liberties. That is conflating the War Measures Act, the previous act, with what we actually have in the Emergencies Act. I want to talk about the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act was actually brought in by a Progressive Conservative government. Do not for a second think that those who are sitting across the way are actually a part of that party. Maybe you are, Mr. Speaker, but the rest of them are not. The bill was seconded by my predecessor, Flora MacDonald, a true Progressive Conservative. It was nothing like the War Measures Act. The only connection it had to the War Measures Act was that it was meant to remove it. It specifically says, and this is how it differs, that it is temporary. It is for 30 days or less, and it is subject to quick Parliament review. It takes 20 members to sign and ask for another debate. It is targeted and used only where needed. The War Measures Act was not. The Emergencies Act is proportionate. The responses used by the authorities within that act need to be proportionate to what the emergency is. The War Measures Act did not have that. Most importantly, it upholds civil liberties. It upholds the Charters of Rights, which the War Measures Act did not do. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie said it suspends civil liberties, but that member knows better, because that was the War Measures Act and this is not the War Measures Act, despite the fact that many Conservatives have no problem conflating the two. What does the invocation of the act accomplish? The most important thing, to me, and I have not heard anybody else saying that any other piece of legislation could have handled this, is that it made it illegal to bring a child into what was going on out front of this place. It made it a criminal offence to do that. Why would anybody be against that when we saw what we witnessed out there for three weeks? It restricted entry so that it allowed police to set up checkpoints, like they did around Ottawa, so that if someone's intention, their sole intention, is to come into Ottawa to participate in this demonstration and this occupation, they would not be allowed to do so. It allowed for the seizure of money and trucks, and I will say, when it relates to the seizure of money and particular bank accounts, it is temporary and it needs to be continually reviewed. To get to the point of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the RCMP issued a statement today that said it has only turned over to financial institutions the names of the organizers and the names of those who had trucks or vehicles on the streets that were not removed. The member did not read the RCMP statement from today. If a member does not believe that to be true, they are blatantly saying the RCMP is lying to the public. It also allowed for officers who were outside Ontario to be brought into Ontario, to be used in a jurisdiction outside their home province. I know Conservatives will say that all of this stuff could have been done with other laws, but guess what? Nobody else did it. The province did not want to do it. In order to bring officers from Quebec into Ontario, there would have had to have been an agreement between the Ontario minister responsible and the Province of Quebec. They did not do that. What did Doug Ford do? He asked the federal government to please invoke the Emergencies Act so it could take care of this. That is exactly what happened. I want to talk about some of the people who support this motion today. The Conservative Party of Canada has a new-found admiration for Tommy Douglas. They have invoked his name more in the last four days in the House than I think they have since Tommy Douglas himself was here. By the way, Tommy Douglas's opposition was to the War Measures Act, not to the Emergencies Act. I will read a quote from a modern-day NDP leader who is actually talking about the Emergencies Act. This is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

1563 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/21/22 6:36:14 p.m.
Watch

Order. I know there is an impassioned speech going on, but that is the challenge. We are getting close to the end, and I want to make sure everybody gets an opportunity to speak. This is a 20-minute period of debate. There will then be a 10-minute period for questions and comments. Let us save this until then. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

68 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/21/22 6:36:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Ed Broadbent said: ...we've heard of the importance of following the money. With the use of the Act, the federal government is able to do just that. The...Emergencies Act give[s]...the means needed to stop any flow of funds that could have made the situation much worse. This is Ed Broadbent, a modern-day NDPer, who is talking about this act, not the War Measures Act. Even if some Conservatives are not going to listen to the NDP, I will quote some comments from their own. This is Senator Vern White and Peter Mackay. They issued a joint statement, which states: what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. Leaving aside the stated manifesto of the organizers to overthrow the government, these protests are weakening our economy and disrupting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens. Senator Vern White went on to say the he supports the use of the Emergency Measures Act. Those are Conservatives who said that. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has stated: The [Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police] supports the fundamental objectives of the invocation of the Emergencies Act that is intended to regulate and prohibit illegal public assemblies that lead to the breach of peace, and to restrict the funding of [all] such illegal assemblies. That was the association of the chiefs of police. Therefore, forgive me, but when the Conservatives go out and dig up quotes from NDP and Conservative members, and other people from decades and generations ago, I am unwilling to accept that. I would rather listen to the people who know what is going on today. I will say one more thing. I think it is important to reflect on the people who have actually said that we need the Emergencies Act, that it is important and that the federal government should use it. The chief of police of Ottawa has said that. The mayor of Ottawa said that, and Doug Ford said that. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear heckling from across the way. Why is that so important? Those voices matter because they are the voices of the direct jurisdictions that were being affected. It was Doug Ford's province. It was Jim Watson's city, and it was the police chief's area. Those are the people who asked the government to help them. As we look at how some other provinces reacted to this, I cannot help but think of the hypocrisy of Alberta's premier Jason Kenney. This is a man who, on February 5, wrote a letter to the federal government asking for help. It was a desperate plea, a cry for help, because the province was not able to handle it on its own. This is the same man who a week and a half later, on February 18, said that he was suing the government for sending help. That is literally what happened. It is remarkable. I want to address the issue of why we still need this. I heard that asked a number of times in question period today. The question keeps coming up. I will preempt it by answering it now so that nobody has to ask me. Why do we still need this if the streets are clear? What an obtuse way to look at it. If members follow the Ottawa police on Twitter, they will notice that it was just announced that it has reduced the secure area. This is an ongoing operation out there, and it is not done. Just because the protesters might not be right outside this building right now does not mean that everything has been cleared up. Many of these people are not even that far from here. We hear about how they are congregating in various areas. This is not over. The incredible work that was done by the police and the special forces out front of this building was remarkable. However, while that work might be done and the stuff that was all over the news might be over in terms of what was sensational, it does not mean that we have completely fixed the problem yet. In the last three minutes that I have left, I just want to say that I am very relieved that the creators of this act, my predecessor, Flora MacDonald, had the foresight to say that we need to make sure that there is proper scrutiny to look at the way the act is used, and that is where the inquiry comes in. However, what I find the most interesting part about the way it is worded is that it says specifically that, as part of the inquiry, we have to look into the circumstances that led to the declaration being made. I am very much interested in hearing about the circumstances that led to this. I am interested in hearing and learning about how this movement began, who was funding it, where the money was coming from, how the coordination worked, who was helping the organizers, who was directing them, who was giving them tips and who was basically counselling them, because I think that this will all be eye-opening to the public. I look forward to that. I look forward to seeing that play out in public. I look forward to the public being able to learn about it and, at the end of the day, I look forward to Canadians knowing, based on that information, based on that inquiry, exactly what happened, rather than hearing these stories we have been hearing from the Conservatives and people across the way. Before a member of the Bloc asks me a question about confidence or whatnot, I am very confident on my vote on this. I will vote in favour of this, because it is the right thing for Canada and it is the right thing to do.

1015 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 36