SoVote

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

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

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

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/2/22 7:06:14 p.m.
Watch

The member cannot use names.

5 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

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

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

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

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

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

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

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

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

Mar/2/22 7:12:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a question that has plagued me for the last couple of days as well, and I am led to wonder the very same things. Could it be that there is something that the Conservative Party does not wish to have revealed during the course of the review? Could it be that there are deep concerns about it possibly alienating the potential voters they seek to curry favour with? Could it be something else? I do not know the answer to the question, but it is my hope that this process and the committee itself will unearth the very answers that we seek. Therefore, like the hon. member, I too am perplexed as to why a party that is so keen for accountability is so desperate to delay the very thing that will give us the accountability that this House deserves.

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/2/22 7:13:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier I was sure I was lost. I walked into the House and then turned around and left because I was sure I had walked into a day care centre. I did come back eventually, though. We in the Bloc Québécois do not care who the chair is. The important thing is that the work begins, but especially that there is a consensus on the formation of the committee. That is the most important thing. Getting the committee off the ground may be the only part of the Emergencies Act that will be used properly. In terms of inspiring confidence in Quebeckers and Canadians, we are off to a very poor start. We need to have the least partisan committee possible. Nothing I am hearing from either the Conservative side or the Liberal side is inspiring confidence at this point.

146 words

All Topics

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

Mar/2/22 7:14:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. The reality is that the Conservative Party has decided to politicize the situation that we went through here in Ottawa. The way we can act now is to have a committee that will look at the situation with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP co-chairing the committee. We can work together to find the answers. The member is right: The people of Canada are looking for answers to important questions, like what happened here in Ottawa, but also across the country where the convoys had repercussions. We have to get going and find answers as soon as possible for Canadians.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/2/22 7:15:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, over the last couple of years, the issue that I think would have been a wonderful thing to talk about is the heroes of the pandemic and how Canadians stepped up to the plate when we really needed to take on the coronavirus. We are not necessarily focusing on that issue, but rather on a short period of time when people, due to the illegal blockades, caused far too many discussions and debates taking place here in Ottawa. I heard previously of the real heroes and issues of the pandemic. It has been a long, hard two-plus years, and there are so many wonderful things we could be saying about those Canadians and residents who really stepped up to get us through to this point. Getting back on topic, a couple of days before the government instituted the Emergencies Act there was a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister. I caught wind of it not through the PMO or anything of that nature, but through a Winnipeg Free Press article. I would like to quote the article. It states: Premier Heather Stefanson pleaded in a private letter to [the Prime Minister] to intervene at the Emerson border blockade just days before she publicly opposed his decision.... In a Feb. 11 letter obtained by the Free Press, Stefanson asked [the Prime Minister] to take “immediate and effective” action as she pleaded for “national leadership that only you and the federal government can provide.” It goes on: [The premier's] letter said the situation was urgent and blockades that disrupt “this critical corridor—even temporarily—create potential dangers, impose severe hardships on all Manitobans and cause severe economic loss and damage to Manitoba and Canadian businesses.” That was just a couple of days before the Emergencies Act. On the Sunday, the fact that the federal government was looking at enacting the legislation was already being talked about through some media outlets, and on Monday it was enacted. I do not think it was of any great surprise. We saw the City of Ottawa declare an emergency. The Province of Ontario declared an emergency. We had letters such as I just cited from Manitoba. We had a letter a week or so prior to that from the Province of Alberta asking the federal government to get engaged. The need to engage the Emergencies Act was very real, tangible and the right thing to do. I will go to what we heard from some of the law enforcement agencies. Steve Bell, the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, stated: “All of those pieces of legislation and supports we've got from different levels of government have directly and actively contributed to our ability to ultimately say we are in a position to move forward and look to end the demonstration,” meaning the lockdown here in Ottawa. In another news article, the commissioner of the RCMP stated that the powers given to her officers through the Emergencies Act served as a big deterrent in policing the anti-vaccine mandate protests that occupied the streets of downtown Ottawa for nearly a month. She stated: We don't have anything in laws that prevent people from coming to protests and we can't turn them away. So for us, operationally, it was all about reducing that footprint in Ottawa and the only way to do that was to stop people from coming in or incentivizing them to leave. There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and in fact not just Liberal members of Parliament but New Democrats, one Green member of the House, which was the former leader of the Green Party, and even the Bloc supported the Emergencies Act. We recognized there was a need for it. At the end of the day, if we take a look at the Conservatives, it is very difficult to see where they actually were. Many members talked about Conservatives walking out and getting those snapshots onto social media. In fact, I saw one picture of the interim leader at a dinner table with some of the protesters. It was quite amazing to see that. Some say maybe we should have gone out there and talked to them. I want to give a quote. This is the Conservative guru from the Prairies. The Conservative Party members know him as Jason Kenney, the premier. This is what the premier had to say about negotiating with protesters. The premier was asked specifically about one of the leadership candidates, and I cannot say his name, and whether his comments compromised conduct. The premier stated, “I will never praise people who are out there breaking the law, creating public safety hazards, and I don't think anybody in elected office should do that.” The articles says, “He also said he does not believe anyone from the federal or provincial governments should be meeting with the participants.” Stick with the facts. That is what I want the committee to be able to do, and hopefully it will be able to do it as quickly as possible.

867 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Mar/2/22 7:22:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not often that I agree with the member for Winnipeg North almost entirely. I would like him to spend a minute or two expanding on why we need to move forward quickly with this. All of us here have been swamped with phone calls and emails from people concerned about the use of the Emergencies Act. One of the good things about the Emergencies Act is that it has this committee embedded in it. We need to move forward quickly with this, and we need to move forward fairly. This proposal we have before us has a chair from the NDP and a chair from the Bloc, two parties on opposite sides of the debate, plus a member from the Independent Senators Group. Can the member comment on the need to move forward quickly and fairly so Canadians can have these answers?

146 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/2/22 7:23:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have activated that committee back on Monday. We recognize and appreciate that with the Bloc and the New Democrats, one party did oppose it and the NDP supported it. We have both sides co-chairing and then there will be a chair from the Senate. Given the biases from the Conservatives and how they were tainted, I believe it was the responsible thing to do. It is in the legislation. We know a committee had to be struck. There no doubt could be things that have taken place that we can learn from and improve the legislation going forward. We know the Conservative Party. It does not matter what happens, but I can almost guarantee there will be a minority report coming from the Conservative Party condemning the government. That is an absolute almost given. The Conservatives are the party that has turned this thing into a circus at times because they are flip-flopping all over the place on the issue. They say one thing in here, and then they go and say something else outside the chamber. To see that we can follow the social media comments coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is why it is unfortunate. The committee could be dealing with this. Hopefully, eventually, we will see the Conservatives come onside and look at ways in which we might be able to improve the legislation and the use of it in the future.

252 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/2/22 7:25:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North knows how much I appreciate him, and I know he feels the same way. I can understand why he was confused about the Bloc Québécois's support for the emergency measures. We supported the idea of taking the appropriate measures at the right time and in accordance with provincial and federal jurisdictions. For more than three weeks, we were suggesting solutions and asking questions in the House. The members on the other side of the House did not seem to hear us, however. That explains why my colleague is confused. As I was listening to his speech, I was trying to think of a suggestion, a step forward, some small way to get this committee off on a less partisan foot. I struggled to think of anything, though, so I figured that I would give my colleague an opportunity to tell us what the government could do to get this committee off on the right foot.

167 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/2/22 7:25:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it will, in fact, be the membership of the committee that will ultimately determine how effective the committee wants to be. If there is a highly politically charged agenda going into the committee, there is very little that the committee can do outside of trying to steer it. I served on legislative committees in the past at the provincial level. They operated on a consensus basis. To see a consensus report come out of this committee, I would give full marks and credit to every single member. It would be a challenge to do that, but it would be a wonderful thing to see: an actual report based on consensus where there are no minority reports. This would not be a consensus and then a minority report, but an absolute, true consensus report on ways in which we could improve the legislation. I do not believe that the legislation is totally perfect. Let us see if there are ways in which we can improve it.

167 words

All Topics

Ms. Ya'ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Mar/2/22 7:27:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the observations that have been made on the hate symbols and extremist, ideologically motivated displays of racism and intimidation, in person and online, that were part of this illegal occupation. There have also been comments about the wilful blindness of the Conservatives to these displays of hate, in spite of them being reported by journalists and organizations that monitor hate speech in this country. Does the member think that it should be an important aspect of the review to understand how dangerous online spaces influenced those who participated in the clear hate messaging by the organizers? Does it not require a balanced and careful review by the committee?

116 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 39