44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 2, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑216 from the member for Courtenay—Alberni, whom I like very much and have known since 2015. He is a noble-hearted man. I am confident that he brings his bill to us today, at the passage-in-principle stage, because he hopes to address this acutely alarming issue.
I will read out the summary because the bill has three parts. I would have thought the government would want to put these eggs in its Bill C‑5 basket, but apparently not. I am just thinking out loud, but the fact remains that the Bloc Québécois falls somewhere in between. I will explain its position.
First, this enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to repeal a provision that makes it an offence to possess certain substances. It also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
Second, it enacts the Expungement of Certain Drug-related Convictions Act. We debated this and talked about how someone who gets stopped for simple possession is in trouble not only on human level, because they have substance abuse issues, but also because they are left with a criminal record and all the associated stigma.
The third part is important in my opinion. Substance use is a complex problem and phenomenon, and a national strategy on substance use is important, but what I find most intriguing is that the bill requires the Minister of Health to develop a national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use.
The thing is, in the bill itself, it says this whole strategy, including the decriminalization of simple possession, will be implemented the year after the act comes into force. For now, I need to think about this because it raises some issues.
I am going to do something I have never done in the House. Medical assistance in dying is another difficult issue, but I have never shared a personal experience. I want people to understand that things have evolved. There is a thing called sociology of law. We have come a long way, and it is great to hear all members of the House because nowadays, in 2022, we no longer see problems associated with drug use as a crime issue; we see them as a public health issue, a socioeconomic issue and, sometimes, a mental health issue.
I had the privilege of having an experience in my life that made me grow. It was in 1998, 24 years ago. After that, I could never again look at a homeless person with multiple addictions in the same way when I saw them on the street. Why?
I had some communications students come to me and ask me for some ethical guidance. They told me about a place called Chez ma cousine Evelyn, which served as a kind of buffer zone. Speaking of diversion, there was a pilot project at the time. In order to get a bed, a place, a room in that house—and there were not many beds—you had to be homeless, an addict, and HIV positive. You had to have all three of those problems.
We set out looking for people like that downtown, and we identified a huge number of young people under 35 who met those criteria. Unfortunately, there were no resources.
We approached these people and got them to speak with us. They could be anyone, including me or anyone here, a grandson, my daughter or a neighbour's daughter. These people had a life story that had nothing to do with their current state. Some were remarkable. I remember one person who had studied at Oxford. We would have coffee very early in the morning and she would teach me about philosophy, even though she was at the point where she did not care about anything other than her substance use.
These people were well known to the local police and therefore could go to sleep at Chez ma cousine Évelyne, consume substances there and be supervised by workers who helped manage their consumption. What is interesting, they told us, is that the first few times they injected, they would hide in the bedroom to do it, even though they were allowed do it there without any problem. If the police saw them on the street late at night, needing a ride, the police would bring them back to Chez ma cousine Évelyne.
To make a long story short, we worked with them for three months and only then, and not before, were we able to turn on the cameras. When they talked to us, it was as though the cameras were not there. We learned a lot during that time. Chez ma cousine Évelyne was able to take them in when they had hit rock bottom, felt defeated and had a millstone around their necks. Some people believe that all it takes is resolve and keeping one's head above water, but these people kept going under right away.
Seeing this reality was quite the experience for me. When these people hit bottom, there is no one there for them. They themselves acknowledge that they have alienated everyone. In some cases, we were able to ensure that the individual could die at Chez ma cousine Évelyne surrounded by family members, with whom they had managed to reconnect. Those were intensely human moments.
Because of this experience, I am saying yes to decriminalization. However, we need a way to achieve that. A very interesting report by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction points out that legislative intervention, meaning decriminalization, is ultimately only one of the pillars of a comprehensive approach, which takes time and effort to implement. Portugal, for example, scaled up prevention, treatment and harm reduction services two years prior to decriminalization.
Implementation of a pan-Canadian strategy should therefore precede decriminalization to ensure that the federal government or other levels of government do not shirk their responsibility by arguing that those people are no longer in the legal system.
That is the main problem we see in this bill. It is also the reason we would like to improve it. We will reflect on this.
1046 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to rise today to speak to Bill C-216, the health-based approach to the substance use act.
I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, for introducing this legislation and for his tireless efforts to advance compassionate and evidenced-based drug policy in this country.
In the shadow of COVID-19, the overdose epidemic has rapidly worsened across Canada, and it is hard to believe that could have happened. In British Columbia, 2,224 died from overdoses in 2021 alone. This represents the deadliest year on record in Canadian history, and a 26% increase from 2020. December 2021 was also the deadliest month on record in British Columbia, with 215 people losing their lives that month alone from an opioid-poisoned drug death. That is the equivalent of about seven deaths per day. Across Canada, over 25,000 Canadians have lost their lives to the overdose epidemic in the last six years alone.
Although COVID-19 has fuelled this crisis, it did not create it. Decades of criminalization; a toxic, poisoned, illicit supply; and a lack of timely access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services have caused this ongoing catastrophe.
The Liberal government claims that its response to COVID-19 has been evidenced-based and informed by science and the advice of public health experts. It is time to apply that approach to Canada's other epidemic. It is time to treat substance use addictions as the health issues they truly are. The legislation before the House today would do exactly that.
The health-based approach to the substance use act would comprehensively address Canada's overdose epidemic as follows: It would decriminalize personal drug possession; it would provide for record expungement; it would ensure a low-barrier access to a regulated, safe supply; and it would expand access to harm reduction, treatment and recovery services across Canada while also focusing on prevention and education.
Decriminalization is one of those issues on which I believe voters are far ahead of politicians. It is a policy area where public opinion more accurately reflects the empirical data than our laws do. That is because not a single community across Canada is untouched by addiction. Everyone has a mother, father, sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, grandparent, partner, friend, neighbour, coworker, child who has struggled with problematic substance use or substance use disorder, or maybe it is even they themself. Indeed, Canadians understand intuitively something that is critically important to acknowledge in the House tonight: Those who are suffering are not criminals. Rather, they are vulnerable people experiencing tremendous pain.
In his years working in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, Dr. Gabor Maté, whom I consider to be an expert of global stature and a great Canadian, has found that childhood trauma and emotional pain lie at the root of addiction. Dr. Maté said, “This is not a war on drugs. This is a war on drug addicts.”
Addiction can never be understood if looked at through the lens of moralism and judgment. It is time, as a society, that we ask not why the addiction but instead why the pain. Indeed, if we accept that pain and trauma are at the root of addiction, then criminalization can only be seen as cruel and counterproductive, because it compounds the very problem it seeks to correct. Stigma, shame and abuse are the core emotional issues for those suffering from substance disorder, and criminalizing their behaviour exacerbates and deepens that shame and stigma. This is obvious.
Criminal sanctions are society's way of imposing maximum trauma on individuals. They get harassed by the police; they go through the indignity of arrest; they go into the very serious, intimidating context of a court; they go through a trial; they go to jail. This system is designed to impose the most serious pressure society can possibly impose. In other words, when we criminalize substance use, we retraumatize people who are already struggling to cope with trauma.
Moreover, decades of evidence have demonstrated that criminalization serves to keep people who use drugs away from prevention and early treatment health services due to fear of being arrested, labelled or outed. Criminalization also pushes people who use drugs to rely on an illicit and obviously toxic drug supply.
If criminalizing drug use worked, we would have eliminated it years ago, but instead we have spent billions of dollars, harmed millions of people, torn families and communities apart, ruined individuals' lives and achieved nothing. It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. If that is the case, decades of lawmakers in the House have been and are insane.
Part 1 of this legislation would end Canada's war on drugs once and for all by striking the prohibition against personal possession from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It would end the insanity of the war on drugs.
Furthermore, criminal records amplify the harms of criminalization by exposing people who use drugs to ongoing discrimination and create barriers to housing, gainful employment, travel and community involvement. This in turn leads to further stigmatization and marginalization.
The disproportionate impact of criminal records on racialized and indigenous communities has also been well documented. That is why part 2 of this legislation is so essential to a health-based approach to drug use. It would ensure that criminal records from previous offences related to personal possession would be fully expunged, so that someone does not carry stigmatization for the rest of their lives. Unlike the current Liberal government's failed policy on cannabis pardons, the process outlined in this bill would provide for an automatic, cost-free and complete deletion of records.
Finally, part 3 of this legislation would require the development and implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to address the harm caused by problematic substance use. It would get at the real cause of the deaths. This strategy would be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders, including advocacy organizations, frontline health care providers; and, importantly, individuals with lived experience. It would address the root causes of problematic substance use; ensure access to a safe, regulated supply; provide universal access to recovery, treatment and harm reduction services; and reduce the stigma associated with substance use. There is an urgent need for low-barrier access to a safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to illegal street drugs of all types for everyone now. Given that the main driver of the overdose crisis is the fact that the illicit, poisoned drug supply is toxic and unpredictable, experts have been clear that the death toll cannot be abated without this evidence-based measure.
Although limited access to safe supply has been provided in some jurisdictions, existing programs do not come anywhere even close to meeting demand across the country. To emphasize, it is the toxic, poisoned street supply of drugs run by criminalized manufacturers with no regulation that is killing Canadians by the thousands. Any law that does not address this reality is not health-based; it is contributing to fatalities.
Some in the current government say they believe in treating addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one. I have heard three consecutive Liberal health ministers and a Liberal Prime Minister say this many times, but they refuse to act on this claim. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the law that criminalizes drug use and addiction, and it is a federal law.
I am calling out every member of the House, especially Liberals, on that contradiction tonight, because this is a contradiction that kills. They cannot say they treat drug use and addiction as a health issue and leave it criminalized on the federal books to continue to kill people.
I hope all parliamentarians stop the insanity. Let us start treating drug use and addiction as the health issue that it really is.
1332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:41:52 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has four minutes.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in reflection, whether it is the Prime Minister, as the member just pointed out, or ministers of health of this government, members of the Liberal caucus, my colleague from the north, members from British Columbia or members from the province of Quebec, it is safe to say that in all regions of our country we have recognized that this is a national public health crisis that we are talking about.
At the same time, we recognize that it is a public health issue. We have consistently said that through the years. I can remember being in the opposition benches when I talked about the importance of supervised safe injection sites, citing Vancouver as an example. We saw different levels of government, first responders and many different advocates dealing with the types of issues that we are talking about coming together and ultimately setting the stage to say that it is a health issue and that we need to work collectively together in order to be able to take on that issue.
We have seen great success. It has already been referenced today that no one has actually died of an overdose at one of these supervised safe injection sites. We are talking about well over two million visits in a year.
We have to be aware that we are not talking about the odd person who has an addiction. There are people with serious addictions living in all of our communities, and that is why we talk about it being a public health crisis. It is a health issue, and—
263 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The hon. member still has seven and a half minutes to pursue his speech on the matter when the bill next comes to the House.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:45:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the third episode of this 20-minute speech.
In the first episode on Monday, I talked about the impacts of the occupation on the people of Ottawa. Other members have spoken to this as well, telling profoundly disturbing stories from the people of Ottawa as the occupation, in so many cases, wrecked their quality of life. Particularly poignant were the stories of seniors and people with disabilities who were unable to get essential services and unable to get groceries delivered, things that should not be treated lightly at all. Plus there were the thousands of jobs lost, the hundreds of businesses that had to close, the assaults and the vandalism. All of that took place in a general condition of lawlessness that many members of Parliament witnessed first hand, as I did, being in Ottawa for the entire three weeks of the occupation.
We know of course that the blockades across the country were causing similar hardships. Of course, in the case of Coutts, Alberta, that blockade has led to criminal charges, one of which is conspiracy to commit murder, one of the most serious charges that one can imagine. There were four charges laid of conspiracy to commit murder against police officers, which is so very, very serious.
That was the first part of my speech.
The second part of my speech, which took place earlier this afternoon, was about the importance of getting the parliamentary review committee immediately in place. The balance of the committee is highly appropriate. There is the fact that there would be co-chairs, both of whom are members of Parliament. There would one who was in support of and one who was in opposition to the Emergencies Act in the vote. The balance there is highly appropriate, as is the composition of the committee itself, as it makes sure that all of the four Senate groups are represented and the House of Commons. The Conservatives, if we actually include ex-Conservatives, have higher representation than any other party. It is important to get this immediately into place so that the parliamentary review can begin.
I still wonder why we are in a situation where Conservatives are trying to hold this up and not trying to get to the point where we can have this committee in place tomorrow and starting to work tomorrow. It should have been yesterday. It should have been Monday. However, we can move now. We need to move now on this parliamentary review.
Of course within that parliamentary review the statutes are clear that we need to be looking at the Emergencies Act, how it was applied and how it may have helped. Detractors might say how it might have hindered, but we need to make sure that we are aware. That parliamentary review committee needs to be put in place immediately to take every aspect and look at the measures and their effectiveness. We also believe that this parliamentary review committee must be doing a number of other things. With the imposition of the Emergencies Act, it also needs to look at what transpired in the three weeks prior.
There are questions that Canadians want answers to, the first being how the convoy was able to establish itself and cut off downtown Ottawa, cut off thousands of residents from essential services, close businesses and throw thousands of people out of work. How was that able to happen? What were the policing measures that were not taken that allowed this occupation to occur with the incredible hardship that so many people in Ottawa lived through and the constant threat of violence. As colleagues know, there were assaults. There were a number of cases of businesses being vandalized. The threat of violence was something that was over the city for the entire period. How did policing apply in those cases?
Of course we are all thankful that the provisions of the Emergencies Act, I would submit, made sure that there was a peaceful resolution a week and a half ago. It ensured that the occupation was brought to an end. I would submit that the designated areas allowed that peaceful resolution. When the noted racist Pat King called for immediate reinforcements of thousands of people to come to Parliament Hill, the fact that the Emergencies Act provisions were in place stopped those thousands of reinforcements from actually coming to the Hill. It protected demonstrators, protesters and police, and it led to the peaceful resolution we saw.
There is the aspect of essential services. Tow truck drivers who had been intimidated and threatened were, through the provisions of the Emergencies Act, able to do their job without that threat hanging over their heads. They were allowed to tow the trucks away that had stopped activity in Ottawa for weeks.
The financial provisions were used in a few dozen cases, for 200 accounts in total, but the flow of money from foreign sources was cut off. We need to be very conscious of the foreign interference that created such appalling conditions in the city of Ottawa.
We need to ensure that policing is evaluated not only on the basis of the success, but also of comparing it to policing that does not use the same measures. We have seen in cases of indigenous and racialized peoples, there is very clearly a double standard in policing. This needs to be looked at, and we need to learn from this to ensure that the peaceful end to the occupation, which finally occurred through effective policing, also applies in other cases, particularly for indigenous peoples. There is no doubt that interactions with police officers have so often led to tragedy.
Then there is the aspect of this particular convoy and its leaders' messages. The leaders of the convoy extolled unadulterated racism with no compunction at all. They simply blurted it out. At the same time, as we are well aware, their so-called manifesto sought an end to the constitutional and democratically elected government in Canada. We cannot push that under the rug.
We cannot delay this. Some people seem to want to delay consideration of the parliamentary review. This needs to be taken absolutely seriously. For so many Canadians, this poses a clear and direct threat to our democracy, so we have to make sure that the parliamentary review also includes the clear statements of intent from the leaders of this convoy and their despicable, often racist, comments. The elements of why the federal government did not act immediately are profoundly important, as are the provisions of the Emergencies Act itself, how they were applied, what lessons we can learn and what we can bring forward in the future.
The NDP's position is very clear. We need to move quickly. We should have been putting this in place on Monday. It is now Wednesday night. Let us get this vote through. Let us establish the committee and let the committee start its work tomorrow, so we can get to the bottom of all of the important questions Canadians are asking from coast to coast to coast.
1187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:53:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member on how urgently we need to move on this and get this work started, so we can fully understand exactly what happened for all of the reasons he said.
One of the reasons we are having this debate today is because the Conservatives are unwilling to accept the fact that they will not have a chair position on this committee. The government took the position, or at least this side of the House took the position, that it was probably in the best interest that a member of the governing party not be chair on the committee, nor should the party that seemed to support the occupiers be chair. Instead, we would give that responsibility to the Bloc, the NDP and the Senate to make it as non-partisan as possible.
I would ask the member to reflect on whether he thinks that is a good set-up and scenario, given the circumstances of what has happened over the last number of weeks.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:54:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member. The consideration of having both sides represented as co-chairs is fundamentally important. We would not have supported having a government chair, as that is not appropriate for a parliamentary review.
I had understood the Conservative position as being similar, but the Conservatives have tragically changed their position so many times over the past few days that I am not even sure where they are at now. In each change of position, there seems to be a willingness to delay. Knowing that there are two constituency weeks, knowing that the decision had to be made this week if we were to get the committee up and running and working promptly this week, so we could start to get answers in the coming weeks, it seems strange to me that a party that said it wanted accountability would want to delay to such an unacceptable extent. It just does not make sense.
I know it would be unparliamentary for me to note that there is not a single Conservative actually debating this motion in the House tonight, so I will not mention that. Very clearly, the Conservatives have not been responsible or appropriate. The other three parties who are recognized in the House of Commons have agreement. The Senate groups have agreement. Let us get on with it, and let us get this committee started.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:56:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby and I share a border and the constituents in our ridings have a lot of similar sentiments. I know that, in the riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, many people were anxious and scared. They were feeling very uncomfortable with some of the symbols they were seeing, and they were worried about how this was going to potentially infect other communities in Canada and other trade corridors. I know that in B.C., we did experience shutdowns to our borders and trade corridors, all of it very, very difficult for folks to understand. That is why this committee is so important.
One of the things that has come up a lot in the last three weeks is the different treatment of indigenous land defenders and environmental activists who are actively trying to protect their land. There is such a difference in the treatment from law enforcement agencies. I wonder if the member could let people in my community know if they will get answers to that disparity.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:57:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam is an extraordinarily strong member of Parliament. She does a great service to the people of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Belcarra and Anmore. These are the kinds of questions she asks that are so effective in the House of Commons.
She is absolutely right. We have seen different treatment of indigenous land defenders, different treatment of environmental activists and different treatment of racialized people. We need to get to the bottom of the differing treatment and ensure that there is a similar high standard of treatment that all Canadians can expect from policing.
It is fair to say that the peaceful resolution of the occupation in many ways could be seen as a model. There were no serious injuries. There was an effective use of policing under the powers of the Emergencies Act to bring a peaceful end. Thank goodness it happened that way.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:58:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that it was some of the most amazing police work, certainly that we see in the world, when one considers how our police and the RCMP, by the time the operation went forward, removed so many people and vehicles and did so professionally and with such restraint.
How does my hon. friend from New Westminster—Burnaby think it is possible that so many citizens have completely different views of what transpired? Russia Today, for instance, reported massive police brutality. Rebel News reported police brutality, yet those of us who were present in the city and close to what happened, and from talking to RCMP and police, have a completely different understanding of what took place. I ask the hon. member if he does not think this committee can make progress in getting to what we might call an agreed set of facts.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 6:59:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are seeing the radicalization of an increasing number of Canadians, and what they are often getting through social media and through so-called news outlets like Fox News is a very distorted picture of reality. There is no doubt of that. Fox News reported that people were being killed in Ottawa. This is incredibly false information. Some of these other so-called media outlets are pushing propaganda rather than showing the tight journalistic standards that so many Canadian journalists uphold.
I have to pay tribute to what we all saw. Student journalists were often under pressure. Journalists were being attacked, sometimes physically assaulted, spat upon, heckled and harangued. However, they continued to provide the news, despite the threats of violence that so often happened online but also happened physically when they travelled through the occupation.
We need to make sure that we have strong journalistic standards, and we need to make sure that Canadians are getting facts, not propaganda. This is part of the reflection that needs to happen, not just within Parliament but right across the country. We cannot keep having people be radicalized by false information. It is destructive to our democracy and destructive to our country.
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Conservatives for not asking a question so that I could ask another one. My question has to do with the level of policing that was involved in this. I genuinely think that when we reflect back and when the committee reflects back on what we saw in terms of the work the police were doing out there, we will determine that this was nothing short of the gold standard in how these operations are supposed to be executed.
Notwithstanding the fact that we are certainly interested in hearing about a lot of the negatives, I think this committee has the opportunity to highlight the positives and what went right. In my opinion, one of those things is the incredible police work that was done. I wonder if the member can comment on that.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:02:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, that was my point. There was a methodical, careful use of policing powers over the course of the Friday and Saturday. We all saw it. We were here on the Hill. There were no serious injuries. There was a deliberate attempt to ensure that the law was upheld but in a way that did not cause, in any way, any serious injuries at all. I think we would all like to see that same treatment when it comes to indigenous land defenders, environmental activists and racialized Canadians. We would want to see that high standard become a part of Canadian policing, and hopefully we can see, through this parliamentary review, a way of achieving that.
I will note that in my area in British Columbia, as my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam mentioned, the Pacific Highway crossing was shut down, and prior to the Emergencies Act being put in place, a tank truck busted through a blockade and put RCMP officers in serious danger. The Emergencies Act helped to end that blockade, which also featured journalists being spat upon and assaulted.
This is all part of what this committee needs to start doing as soon as tomorrow, and I certainly call upon my Conservative colleagues to rally to the consensus of all the other parties, put this into place and get to work.
227 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:04:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion to create the parliamentary review committee per subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act.
For three weeks, blockades illegally disrupted our daily lives here in Ottawa and across the country. They harmed our economy and endangered our public safety. In my riding of Vancouver Granville, health care workers, moms and seniors were worried and afraid as the convoy came through and there were threats of further protests. We saw displays of anti-indigenous racism, of anti-Semitism and of misogyny. We saw vandalism, harassment and expressions of hate and violence. We saw abuse of the press. We saw the vile misuse of the Canadian flag and indeed of the word “freedom” itself.
For three weeks, we heard from residents of Ottawa who were afraid to leave their homes and were held hostage, and from businesses that had to stay closed to keep themselves and their employees safe. For three weeks, day after day we heard about and saw members of the Conservative Party meeting with the occupiers, taking them coffee, eating meals with them and celebrating what they stood for and what they were doing. They celebrated the actions of those blockaders, many of whom are now charged with crimes ranging from mischief to conspiracy to commit murder.
This is no joke. Our democracy should not be treated as an opportunity by the opposition to build mistrust or to peddle misinformation. The very same party that sought to deceive Canadians as to what was actually happening here in Ottawa and across the country now wants to control the very review of the action taken to stop the illegal occupation of Ottawa.
The Conservative Party has chosen to peddle untruths to Canadians. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said in a video, “The fact is, RCMP have an ongoing investigation into Trudeau’s obstruction of justice.”
335 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:06:14 p.m.
- Watch
The member cannot use names.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:06:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
This is simply not true. No such investigation exists. The interim Leader of the Opposition, instead of seeking a solution to the problem, said, “I don't think we should be asking them to go home...we need to turn this into the [Prime Minister's] problem.” With this type of rhetoric, a willingness to mislead Canadians and a willingness to support an ongoing occupation of our capital to serve political goals, how can they reasonably be trusted to chair a committee reviewing the very action taken?
We invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and territorial authorities to address the blockades and occupation to keep Canadians safe. We did this at the behest of the provinces and we did this to support others across the country who needed our help. It allowed our government to mobilize essential services, allowed the RCMP to swiftly enforce local laws and provided enhanced power to stop the flow of money. These measures were targeted, temporary and proportionate. We invoked them only after exhausting other measures, and they were the result of close consultation with the provinces and territories.
To be clear, the Emergencies Act is expressly governed by the rights and freedoms set out in the charter and no one should tell us otherwise. The specific measures provided by the Emergencies Act were limited and subject to numerous checks and safeguards. One such safeguard is the requirement for a parliamentary review committee to be established, which is what we are discussing today.
We have had productive discussions with other parties in the House about how to structure the membership of this joint review committee in a manner that is reasonable, fair and appropriate. Now is the time for reckoning and to review and understand the circumstances of what brought us to this point and how it was handled. We have proposed a reasonable approach to this review and to this committee's structure. Unfortunately, after supporting the illegal blockades and occupations, the Conservative Party is now refusing to do what it should, which is to support the timely creation of a fair structure for this committee to do its work. What Canadians need now from their Parliament is an honest, efficient and thoughtful review of the invocation of the act, its implementation and its outcomes.
We have seen the spread of lies and misinformation and we do not need that when it comes to something as fundamental as this. We are talking about trust in our institutions and in our democracy. We are talking about ensuring there is public trust in our processes and indeed in our Parliament. We must not trifle with this. It is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to do what is right and allow a review to look at things honestly. Surely, if everyone in the House has acted in good faith throughout this occupation and acted in the best interests of Canadians, no one should have anything to worry about in terms of what comes out of this review. It should be easy for the opposition to accept the proposal we have made.
Under this proposal, as everybody knows, the committee would have 11 members. It would mean three Liberals, two Conservatives, one Bloc, one member of the NDP and four senators representing all groups in the Senate. The committee would be chaired by three co-chairs: a Bloc MP, an NDP MP and one senator. That is pretty balanced, in my view. The chair would not be a Liberal, whose government invoked the Emergencies Act, or a Conservative, whose party, as we heard before, led the way in supporting protesters and the protests.
The Conservatives inexplicably refuse to support this balanced proposal. They have insisted from the start that they co-chair and are now demanding that both co-chairs be Conservative. Their bias in cheering on the illegal occupation cannot, should not and must not extend to chairing the committee. Canadians are going to judge us long after we are gone from this place. If the government is prepared to cede the chair of this committee to the Bloc and the NDP without fear or favour, what is stopping the Conservatives from doing exactly the same thing?
Were they here, I would appeal to my colleagues from across the floor, those who are uncomfortable with misinformation, with harmful rhetoric and with pandering to PPC voters, to vote in favour of this motion to show Canadians that the institution of Parliament and the review of the Emergencies Act and the actions taken come above petty partisanship.
765 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to comment on a quote my colleague noted and make a correction. On February 10, our leader stated that she understood and was passionate about the convoy. However, she did make a statement that the blockades had to leave and that we would continue the fight for their freedoms.
I do not know where the member was going with that statement, so I would like some clarification. We did call for the blockades to come down, we did call for the convoy to end and we said that we would take on their fight here in the House. Could he comment on that, please?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:11:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would be glad to respond.
If I understand correctly, there was an email sent by the interim Leader of the Opposition in which she said she thought this should be made the Prime Minister's problem and that they should not be encouraging these individuals to leave Ottawa. Unless the email was a fabrication, unless the email was a lie or unless she changed her mind, that is on the record as something the interim leader of the Conservative Party said.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:12:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver Granville could help me out, because I am having trouble understanding what the Conservatives are actually doing in delaying this committee. It does not make much sense to me. I am sure it is not just about being the chair and the perks that might come with that, so it must be about something else. Is it about delaying so we forget what has happened here in Ottawa and so that the role of the Conservatives in supporting the blockade becomes a distant memory, or is it about becoming chair so that they can somehow limit the inquiry so we do not look at those questions?
I am having trouble understanding, and I wonder if the member has seen any indication from the Conservatives of why they are taking this tactic in the House.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
