44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 8:29:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member opposite was speaking about dialogue, compassion and respect being part of the process here.
Could he outline three things the current Prime Minister did that would encompass those ideas of dialogue, compassion and respect? Realistically, I think the Canadians who were out there protesting did not see any of that. All we ended up with was the ham-fisted approach of the Emergencies Act.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:46:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, violence was their mode of operation; hate is what drove them; human life was called into question or altogether threatened; millions of dollars of damage was done to property, yet there was silence from the Prime Minister, and the media only spoke whispers several days later.
Meanwhile, 4,500 kilometres away on the other side of the country, a diverse group of Canadians gathered from all across. Some wore turbans and some wore toques. Some were in their seventies and some were not even able to walk yet. They gathered for one reason: to advocate for freedom. They gathered to advocate for what it is to be Canadian: true north, strong and free. These individuals were truckers, farmers, doctors, nurses, stay-at-home moms, students, teachers or social workers. I talked with them. I heard their story. I listened, because that is what a politician does who deeply cares about this country.
The Prime Minister took a bit of a different approach. He stigmatized. He antagonized. He turned a deaf ear. Some of these individuals drove big rigs; some of them drove Civics and some of them drove F-150s. Some of them were vaccinated three times and some of them were not vaccinated at all. However, they all were Canadians fighting for an ideal. Were they disruptive at times? Yes, indeed. That is the point of a peaceful assembly protesting something that people disagree with. It is allowed in this country, a democratic country. Were there a few bad actors? Sure there were, but they were quickly condemned and removed.
When we juxtapose this with the attack on the Coastal GasLink site at Houston, B.C., with damage to property and threat to human life, it becomes very clear that the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in response to Ottawa is a massive overreach and purely punitive in nature. We know this, especially given the fact that we watched the border crossings at Windsor, Coutts, Surrey and Emerson be cleared without the Emergencies Act needing to be invoked. We know it even more today, when we see that the downtown core of Ottawa has been cleared out.
However, the Prime Minister insists that he will still move forward with invoking the Emergencies Act. Why? Is it necessary? I argue it is not. Again, if the Windsor border, the Surrey border, the Coutts border and the Emerson border were able to be cleared up without this over-exaggeration of power, then Ottawa could have been too.
There is something more that needs to be discussed here and that is what that threshold is for invoking the act. The Emergencies Act has never been used since it was first created in 1988. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used three times: once in World War I, once in World War II and once for the FLQ crisis, where again, human life was taken and the country was really thrown into chaos. The bar is high, so for the Prime Minister to invoke the Emergencies Act when an assembly of people comes to protest with views that are different from his, one has to wonder why; why the overreach?
The one power the Prime Minister gets from this is the ability to freeze bank accounts. He has the opportunity to seize control of the monetary flow for those individuals who hold views different from his own. This is an abuse of power. We are talking about individuals who may have donated $10 or maybe a few hundred dollars to this cause. Simply because they had views that were different from the Prime Minister's, their bank accounts are frozen and they are unable to make their car payments, their house payments or put food on the table. Some of them are unable to take care of their children. Others are unable just to meet the basic needs of life.
It is a massive breach on these individuals, and it is simply for no other reason than the fact that these folks failed to fall in line. They questioned the government and they hold views that are different from the Prime Minister's. Using the tactic of a schoolyard bully, he has decided to implement the Emergencies Act so that he can control, manipulate, dictate, be punitive and punish.
It should be highlighted that the federal government is utilizing national security tools that were designed to combat terrorism against Canadians who support protests. We must let that sink in for just a moment. The Prime Minister of our country is using laws that are normally used against terrorists, and he is using them against citizens of his own country who hold views that happen to be different from his own. That is extremely alarming. It is vindictive. One commentator said, “It's almost as if the cruelty is the point.”
It did not need to come to this. The reason we are here is that the Prime Minister decided to put a punitive measure in place. On January 15, he required that all truck drivers going across the U.S. border and wanting to return to Canada needed to be double-vaccinated. We are talking about individuals who were earlier declared as heroes, individuals who stayed in the cabs of their truck, aside from maybe refuelling or grabbing a quick snack at a gas station. These individuals have served our country in an incredibly heroic way, and then the Prime Minister made a decision to go after them and put restrictions in place. It was nonsense.
This started a movement of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who started to question the government, question the Prime Minister, question his motives, and fair enough, as they did not add up. Dr. Tam herself was saying that we needed to reassess the mandates that were put in place at that time. She herself was saying that we needed to learn to live with COVID, that we needed to return to normal.
The Prime Minister has turned a deaf ear, a blind eye and has refused to listen. I am not sure what his agenda is, but it certainly is not to serve this country well. It certainly is not in the best interests of Canadians at heart.
Before even knowing who was coming to Ottawa, he refused to listen. His tactics were mean-spirited and divisive in nature. He stigmatized. He antagonized. He traumatized. He went after these individuals telling them they were a fringe minority with unacceptable views. He damaged the unity of this country, pitting one region or one people against another. He crushed the human spirit.
One of my constituents wrote to me. She is an immigrant who moved to Canada about a decade ago. She now has three children and is married. She runs a small business and is a beautiful community participant.
She wrote:
It was mere months ago I filled out the paperwork to become a Canadian citizen. I desire to align myself with a nation I’ve come to love, to stand beside people who make it great, to cast a vote in the bucket of democracy. And yet, I am sickened by the increasingly pervasive narrative being spouted; one where rightness trumps charity...and good faith, and where ‘being Canadian’ is defined not by our humanity but by our political affiliations.
And here I am, awaiting news of my application status, while the Canada I thought I knew crumbles around me, not from Covid-but from the divisive and destructive language being used to define citizenship and belonging.
Further on she wrote:
But what am I saying yes to? A nation that speaks before listening, one that defines ‘being a good Canadian’ in a way that marginalizes everyone who doesn’t fit said description.
She concluded by writing:
I humbly ask that we take steps towards the Canada I first moved to-one where value isn’t gained its given-and given generously by the people who call it home. Because diversity of thought and conscience are greater markers of democracy than the alternative.
This is the deep, hard cry of so many Canadians across this country. We want a unified nation. We want a prime minister who listens to the fellow citizens of this great country. We want to move forward with strength. The Prime Minister has claimed that he wants the same, but in order to do that, it starts with him. He must trust and respect the Canadian people for the Canadian people to do the same. Unfortunately, he has chosen gamesmanship over statesmanship, and it is killing our country.
I urge this House to vote no to the punitive measures that are being discussed here today.
1468 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:59:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite would like to talk about the vast majority of protesters who held themselves in peaceful regard, such as elderly individuals and those in their twenties, the children who bounced in bouncy castles and waved Canadian flags, the people who cooked sausages and pancakes and held little rallies, and those who advocated for their freedom, which is their democratic right to do.
I wonder if that same member, after talking about all of those peaceful protesting acts that were taken here on Parliament Hill by the vast majority of participants, would then also like to talk about the fact that the Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act—
116 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 3:12:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when I left off I was talking about 2010 and the G20. No situation is the same and we all know that, but if we go back to that time, the protest lasted over a week. There were 1,100 people arrested and there was a lot of destruction. Those of us who are old enough can remember that.
In my point before, I was not knocking the former chief of police, who is now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. I was just stating the fact that he was the chief. When the member for Oxford and I were on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, he appeared there and explained all the intricacies of the operation and all the dealings they had. My point was that he does not say now that they should have used it. He never said once that in reflection he should have used it. That time, using those images and what was going on, would be a lot closer to the test than what we are dealing with here. I think that is what the member for Oxford was saying as well.
There was an issue here in Ottawa about a year and a half ago on Elgin Street right in front of the police station. Again, I am not saying every situation is the same. I am not saying that. Each one is different and has different levels of risk, but it is an example of where the lower part of Elgin Street was shut down by over 100 protesters who were very inspired by what they were protesting. It was a multi-day shutdown of Elgin. At no time did the mayor of Ottawa or the police chief go to the government and say that they needed to bring this act in to shut those people down. Whether people think it is right or wrong, they went in at three in the morning on a Saturday and dealt with the blockade.
There have been protests and blockades around this country all the time since this act was enacted in the eighties, and it has never been used. We heard all sorts of examples of this. That is why I think it is so important for the City of Ottawa to do an inquiry. It has 1,500 uniformed men and women and over 600 civilians employed within the police service. They are good people.
At the leadership level, at the city level, something went wrong. They knew for weeks the truckers were coming here. They knew for weeks that trucks were coming. I had calls from people saying there was going to be 10,000 trucks here and asking what the city was going to do. The leadership would have had way more intel than I obviously would have had.
Again, I am not criticizing the city or the mayor, I am just asking what they did. We do not know. That is why they need to have an inquiry. The committee is fine, but there also needs to be something a little more in-depth than that, and possibly an inquiry at the federal level as well to figure out why this was done and where the breakdown happened.
We heard about the Ambassador Bridge at length, and it was cleared. The Blue Water Bridge was cleared. It was a multi-jurisdictional unit that worked at it with the Windsor Police Service, the OPP and the RCMP. The OPP, the RCMP, the police services in the cities and the regional police, like Peel, Durham and York, work together all the time. It is not some bureaucratic nightmare like some of the Liberal members of Parliament talk about. They work together all the time.
The other thing I would like to talk about, and it was brought up in question period and many other times, has to do with the charter, specifically the seizure and freezing of bank accounts and whether that happened or not. We have to be honest, the Minister of Finance has been very unclear. Even in question period today, Liberals used very smart words. They say things like “the RCMP never”, but if we look at the act, the power is given to the banks.
These ministers are picking their words very carefully. That is where I think they really crossed the line with Canadians. It is scary to think someone might be getting their bank account frozen and may be targeted. This is an overreach. When it is all over and done with, there could be some lawsuits and payouts because there was an overreach. If we look at the G20, there was over $15 million paid out.
The other thing I will say is that there has been a tremendous focus on this issue. Ukraine and Russia have been a tremendous focus, but the biggest thing the Liberals do not want to focus on are the issues with the economy, the issues around people's pay cheques, the inflation around how much it costs to live. Every time we fill our cars, it is $1.55 or $1.60 a litre. These are things the Liberals are desperate not to talk about. They will talk about everything else but that.
The sooner we can, let us get beyond this, lift the mandates, unite this country and get back to being one of the best. I look forward to that and I am sure most members of Parliament look forward to that as well.
924 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
