- Feb/17/22 6:22:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly all members of the House denounce anti-Semitism of all kinds. The Conservatives have been saying that it is time to move on; it is time for the trucks to go. We have been saying that, but what is very clear is that the Emergencies Act is an absolutely inappropriate tool. Seizing the bank accounts of individuals who we disagree with because of their political beliefs is unprecedented and it is wrong.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:10:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in this House this evening on what is a very important matter. Today we are debating the unprecedented measures the government is taking by invoking the never-before-used Emergencies Act.
I want to be clear that I am not arguing that there is no place in law for the Emergencies Act. What I am arguing, along with many others, is that it is a completely disproportionate tool to effectively deal with these protests and that the government's rationale for using it has way too many potholes to even begin to enumerate.
The predecessor legislation to the Emergencies Act, the War Measures Act, was used only three times: once in World War I, once in World War II and then in the FLQ crisis in the seventies. In order to even think about invoking the Emergencies Act, we have to look at the context in which its predecessor legislation was used and how rarely, in fact, it was implemented.
Number one, there has to be a national emergency. When we look at how the act itself defines a national emergency, the act describes a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. Now we all know that the protests are not an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. I am sure the Prime Minister would have jumped into action 20 days ago if that was indeed the case.
Regarding the act's requirement that a national emergency be of a temporary nature, that part I can agree with, because the situation has been so temporary. In fact, all of the blockades at the international border between Canada and the U.S. had already been cleared before the Emergencies Act was ever implemented, completely without the benefit of this legislation.
The definition goes on to say that a national emergency “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”. Let us be honest: The truckers parked outside of Parliament today do not seriously endanger the lives of Canadians. Again, when it comes to international border crossings, the provinces have both the capacity and the authority to bring that to an end, and indeed they already have.
The act goes on to describe a national emergency as one that “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” If an emergency does not fit that description, then the Emergencies Act is not to be used. If a few hundred parked trucks pose a threat to the preservation of the sovereignty and security of Canada, one of the greatest countries in the world, a G7 country, that is a sobering testament of the government's dismal and failed leadership, leaving our country so vulnerable that its very existence could be called into question by a group of protesters on Wellington Street.
When we look at this situation through the vantage point that we have of being here in Ottawa, I think it is very clear to all members in this House that the threshold for a national emergency simply has not been met, but, for argument's sake, let us say that the Prime Minister and his entire Liberal caucus truly and sincerely believe that the trucks parked on the street just outside these doors are a real emergency requiring unprecedented action from the federal government. To that I would just have to say, what a sad state of affairs. If this is what an emergency looks like to the Liberal government, what incredibly privileged lives they must lead, compared to the experiences that my own constituents in Fundy Royal have had over the past two years in facing the dire ramifications and consequences of lockdowns. Back home, an emergency looks like the gym owner who has lost their business after two years of personal sacrifices in the hope of keeping their business afloat; an emergency can look like the single mom who lost her job because of the government's vaccine mandate and then had that same government tell her, cruelly, that she could not collect employment insurance.
Ultimately, Liberals are trying to use unprecedented emergency powers to respond to an event that does not even meet the threshold of a national emergency as described in the act itself. While the emergency that the Liberals say they are trying to address is not an actual emergency, the consequences and infringements on the civil liberties and rights that we so dearly hold as Canadians are very real.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated yesterday that the government “has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act”. It also warns of a threat facing our democracy and civil liberties if the Emergencies Act is inappropriately applied, as it clearly is in this case. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association just today called on Liberal members and all members of the House to vote against this and for the Prime Minister to revoke the Emergencies Act.
Crises we faced as a nation without invoking the Emergencies Act include, in 1990, the Oka crisis, a 78-day standoff between Mohawk protestors, law enforcement and the Canadian Armed Forces; in 2006, a group of extremists now known as the Toronto 18 plotting to carry out violent attacks here on Parliament Hill; and in 2010, the G20 protests, which turned to riots in Canada's largest city, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damages. Toronto's chief of police at the time was none other than the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness. It was also not invoked on October 22, 2014, when, as many members of the House will remember, there was a terrorist attack on Parliament Hill and the War Memorial, which killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo before Centre Block itself was stormed.
These were serious and at times fatal incidents that were entirely more dangerous and destructive than the truckers parked outside. The government invoking the Emergencies Act at this time just does not add up. Invoking the Emergencies Act bypasses the democratic process. We cannot become complacent and allow these unprecedented powers to become a tool of government to shut down dissent that it does not like. Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are never guaranteed. These principles require constant vigilance to defend. Canada was built on the foundation of these principles, and we cannot allow cracks to form.
Two days ago, I met with a man who immigrated to Canada from Romania. He had tears in his eyes and said that it was a sad day for him. He lost his father to the Romanian regime under a brutal dictator and came to Canada in hopes of finding freedom. Coming from a totalitarian regime where one is persecuted for one's political beliefs, he recognizes what he sees here. It is hard to imagine what it must feel like to live in a country where a person is not allowed to think or speak freely without being under the threat of persecution, but this gentleman I spoke with knows it all too well. The division being sowed by the Prime Minister and the great lengths he is going to stomp out dissenting opinions are much too familiar.
That is what this is. The Prime Minister is trying to eradicate any opinions that do not match his. This is a political crisis for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's instinct, unfortunately, and we have all seen it in the House over and over, as recently as yesterday, is to divide. We know that not everyone who disagrees with the government is a racist, misogynist or white supremacist, but it is a lot better for him if everybody thinks that. Just yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister accused a young Jewish member of Parliament of standing with swastikas. We might be wondering what triggered him to make such a disgusting statement. The member for Thornhill dared to ask the Prime Minister when he lost his way, since he stated in 2015 that if Canadians were going to trust their government, their government needed to trust Canadians. It speaks volumes that pointing out his own hypocrisy sent the Prime Minister into this rage.
The Prime Minister has no problem joining in protests that are promoting the ideology he agrees with. We all know this in the House. When he agrees with it and it is a good look for his brand, he is there. Now that the protests do not align with his views, he is going for the nuclear option of invoking the Emergencies Act. The thing about being the leader of a free and fair democracy like Canada is that we do not get to pick and choose who gets to speak out and on what issues. The Prime Minister does not get to unilaterally suppress the civil liberties of people he does not like. That is what dictators do.
All Canadians should be concerned by the actions of the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. All Canadians should be concerned when a group is targeted by the federal government for its political beliefs. Indeed, all Canadians should be concerned by the precedent being set by the government. I will be proud to vote in opposition to this government overreach.
1602 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 3:03:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no matter who answers, the message is the same: Victims do not matter to the government. Leaving the ombudsman position empty is a deliberate decision by the government. In 2016, the Liberals immediately replaced the outgoing ombudsman for federal offenders, but they will not show the same respect for victims.
We should not be surprised that the Liberals put the rights of criminals ahead of victims yet again. The mandated review for the victims bill of rights is already a year overdue. The message the justice minister sends over and over to victims is clear: Victims do not matter.
Again, when can victims expect the ombudsman position to be filled?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/22 3:01:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for 130 days the government has refused to fill the position of the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. To be clear, the ombudsman's job is to make sure the federal government meets its responsibilities to victims. The government is still pushing ahead with legislation that would make life easier for violent criminals by eliminating mandatory jail time, all while this critical role for victims is being silenced.
Could the minister tell the House why this important position remains empty?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/22 3:04:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a study recently released out of Johns Hopkins University is ringing the alarm bells on the devastating effects of lockdowns. It concluded that lockdowns are ineffective in reducing mortality rates. The study goes as far as saying that “lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument.” However, the Liberal government continues to promote lockdowns across Canada.
Will the Prime Minister catch up to the science, apologize to Canadians, get out of the way and let people earn a paycheque again?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 3:03:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Liberals are doing just the opposite; 4,000 opioid-related deaths by June is the projection just announced yesterday by the government's own agency. That is not just a number, that is 4,000 Canadians who have families, friends and plans for the future. The opioid crisis has affected communities of every single member of this House.
Will the government finally consider the victims of this crisis over its efforts to eliminate jail time for the criminals importing, producing and trafficking these deadly drugs?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/16/21 3:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada, the supply of fentanyl is a key factor in its just-released projections of the rising number of opioid-related deaths that Canadians should expect to see over the next six months. At the very same time, the Liberal government is trying to eliminate jail time for the very people charged with producing, importing and trafficking fentanyl.
Can the Minister of Justice tell Canadians why his government is trying to make life easier for the drug producers and traffickers fuelling the opioid crisis?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/15/21 5:27:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's well-researched speech. What I find really interesting is that there is what the Liberals say this bill is about and then there is what is actually in the bill, for people like my colleague who read it.
The Liberals talk about simple possession, but the bill proposes elimination of mandatory prison time for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking, importing and exporting or possession for the purpose of exporting and production of a schedule 1 or schedule II substance, which is heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, crystal meth, etc. Is it simple possession that is being talked about in this bill?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/21 2:52:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the soft-on-crime government is completely out of touch with what Canadians are calling for. It is the job of the Parliament to pass legislation that ensures that mandatory jail time is there for an individual who commits a crime like a drive-by shooting and gets them off the streets and into jail.
Can the minister declare what crimes he does support mandatory jail time for? We know he does not support it for robbery, for weapons trafficking and for extortion with a firearm. Can the minister please tell us where he does believe a mandatory minimum sentence is appropriate?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/21 2:50:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are calling for action on serious gun crimes, yet incredibly the government just introduced a bill that for serious crimes like robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking, it would eliminate mandatory jail time and, further, bring about house arrests for crimes like kidnapping and sexual assault. That is just the opposite of what Canadians are calling for.
Will the minister not agree with most Canadians that, if a person commits a drive-by shooting or weapons trafficking, they deserve mandatory jail time?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 4:50:59 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened to all of the hon. member's remarks, and most of them were about someone who steals something from a store. They did not involve armed robbery or serious firearms offences. However, that is what this bill is about. We are seeing the Liberals trying to soft-sell what is in the actual legislation.
The penalties were put in place by previous Liberal governments for robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking. Does the member think that individuals who are doing those things in his riding should go to jail or not?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/21 3:49:17 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the minister's speech, and there are a couple of things I would like to point out that are mischaracterizations of the bill. One is that it somehow deals with minor offences, and the other is that somehow these penalties are from an era when the Conservatives were in government, the Harper era the minister referred to.
With regard to robbery with a firearm and extortion with a firearm, those mandatory minimums came in under a Liberal government. Minimums for weapons trafficking, again, came in under a Liberal government. Using a firearm in the commission of an offence came into force in 1976 under the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
What do those offences have in common? One, they were brought in under Liberal governments. Two, they are not minor offences; they are serious offences. When we talk about hurting people, I am concerned about protecting the communities that are being hit day in and day out with firearms offences. Putting people back out on the streets is not protecting those communities.
Will the minister comment on the fact that these mandatory minimums, one, deal with serious offences and, two, came in under previous Liberal governments?
202 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 5:31:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, it is a little disheartening, I am sure, for Canadians to see that the coalition is alive once again between the Liberals and the NDP.
When I see time allocation moved on an important bill, I think of the tremendous work that my colleague, the member of Parliament for Cariboo—Prince George, did on Bill C-211, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against health care professionals and first responders. There is a time for debate and discussion on these things, and the government is cutting that short. In our own platform, we spoke about critical infrastructure protection: protecting Canadians and protecting infrastructure. The minister is cutting off that type of debate.
We will take no lessons from the Liberals when I hear them say that “COVID waits for no one.” It is a government that called a COVID election.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 3:15:14 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-4
I am asking today for unanimous consent from the House to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-4, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee of the Whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
