Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I condemn it. I also condemn the member opposite's party supporting this grab at power and propping up its coalition partners in the Liberal Party. I am not sure what rationale was given behind closed doors, because we have not heard the rationale. We have laid out very clearly that the laws of local jurisdiction are effective enough. Instead, the government looks to settle scores with its political foes by using an unprecedented power grab, and it is unacceptable.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes may, in rewatching his remarks, regret any sense of equivalency between condemning people calling for the killing of our Prime Minister and the decision made by the NDP to vote in favour of the declaration.

The hon. member said that the declaration would allow the freezing of bank accounts for people the government does not agree with. I think I have this right. I am not sure how I am going to vote on this. I really want clarity around what the thresholds are for the government interfering in the bank accounts of anyone. I want to see that clarity. I do not think it is right to mislead Canadians into thinking that this law would allow the threshold that, if someone dislikes or disagrees with someone else, their bank accounts would be frozen.

Would the member like to clarify this?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, the following is a question from Evan Solomon, the host of CTV's Power Play, to the Minister of Justice:

A lot of folks said, “I just don’t like your vaccine mandates and I donated to this, now it’s illegal, should I be worried that the bank can freeze my account?”

The Minister of Justice responded:

If you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating hundreds of thousands of dollars, and millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you ought to be worried.

If someone supports Donald Trump, the government is coming after them. That is unacceptable in a Liberal democracy.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is discomforting to stand here today. It is a sad and dark time for our country. Unfortunately, this does not overstate current events.

I have watched with concern the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and key border crossings in Ontario and other provinces. Never before has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has sat on the shelf during some quite challenging moments in our country.

Viewed as a last resort, this act gives the federal government enhanced powers in times of crisis. Its justification and intricacies of procedures are being worked through the House for the first time. There is no precedent. Instead, we are making precedent. The arguments we make, the evidence we evaluate and the tone we take will be judged by future generations.

Everyone has the right to peacefully protest any government policies. This is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by everyone. While these protests are a fundamental part of democracy, so too is the rule of law. We cannot allow prolonged blockades or barriers that paralyze trade corridors, pipelines, railways, supply routes, ports or urban cores at any time. We are not at liberty to decide which laws should apply in some situations but not others.

In a rule-of-law country, consistency matters. It is the foundation upon which legal precedent is built. People who join protests to encourage violence or the overthrow of government undermine democracy, but let us be very clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is looking to overthrow the government. Many are looking just to be heard, peacefully. To them I say that we hear them. I hear them.

Somewhere along the way, we entered a state of lawlessness, but the answer to lawlessness cannot be more lawlessness. The government is asking us to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking others. We are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see democracy itself undermined.

The threshold for invoking the act is supposed to be high, and quite rightly. This is a temporary law that will give the government awesome and extraordinary powers: powers to freeze assets with no recourse, and to compel citizens to act contrary to their own interests in favour of the state's.

In the House, just days ago, the Prime Minister presented a timeline. He held a cabinet meeting on Sunday and a caucus meeting on Monday, followed by a meeting with premiers and finally a press conference on Monday afternoon. Why did it take days for the Prime Minister to address the House, and what evidence has he presented?

It is difficult to determine whether the government is justified without adequate information. There were no briefings. No secret intelligence has been shared. Whether it is incompetence or malfeasance is truly regrettable.

Why was the committee not struck immediately? Is there evidence pointing to significantly compromised public safety or impending danger? Should that not have been made immediately available to members, or at least a subset representing all parties? If we wanted to take the politics out of this, information would have been made immediately available. Otherwise, a conclusion might be that this was politics.

Why do ministers of the Crown opt first to give details to media before the House? Ministers have held press conferences and conducted interviews implying that terrorists are at the steps of Parliament, but have offered the House no evidence. Is it then surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our public institutions? Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister and the government have shown the House and institution little respect.

After all, at the beginning of the pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without the oversight of Parliament. The same government prorogued Parliament to frustrate a committee investigation. To this day, we still have not seen the Winnipeg lab documents that members of the House have asked the government to provide. Forgive me for being skeptical that this move is justified without seeing the evidence.

We must not understate the impact of the ability for individuals to have their bank accounts frozen. This will not just be a 30-day impact. It could affect their ability to receive financial services for 30 years or more. Individuals whose relationship with the state has already been strained, if not completely severed, will be further ostracized from broader society.

This power must be used sparingly, if at all, and the government has provided very little detail on how it intends to use this power. For example, what is the process through which individuals will be identified? Will these powers be confined to protest organizers, or will they apply to anyone who has shown up to Parliament Hill or donated to the cause, no matter how large or small the amount? What recourse, if any, do individuals have against financial institutions if these powers have been mistakenly or unevenly applied?

These powers are not merely incidental. They should not be dismissed, downplayed or underestimated. I approach every decision with an open mind, but the consequences for individuals are too great, and the precedent this sets is too monumental to waive away legitimate questions or concerns. We are setting a dangerous precedent.

We should be very careful before we use the awesome power of the state. That this moment is the seminal moment upon which we would decide to invoke a never-before-used act seems disproportional, when there are other actions that the government could have taken.

We should be very careful about normalizing the use of a blunt tool in circumstances such as these. If we must consider using the Emergencies Act every time there's a protest that lasts over a certain period of time, we have much bigger problems. In many ways, that the government has resorted to invoking this act is an indictment of its overall handling of the situation.

I am therefore left with no reason but to impress upon my colleagues that the threshold has not been met, and as a matter of law, If I am wrong, the threshold has been seen to be met by a court that the government is not justified in its use of the act.

While the Emergencies Act is the question before the House today, we should reflect on what has led us here and the lessons we may draw for the future. The hallmark of any democracy is the ability to have reasonable debates with each other about how society functions, but somewhere along the way, we have lost the ability to listen to each other or to consider the perspectives of our neighbours. We are too quick to call something black or white and too quick to demand that each other pick a side. Pro or against, right or left, we leave little room for nuance, reflection or compromise anymore. It should be okay to disagree.

I am sympathetic to those who are frustrated with the pandemic and the government's response. Many of us are frustrated. We are frustrated with overly punitive travel restrictions and redundant and confusing testing requirements, and we are worried about losing livelihoods because of making a medical decision.

We have seen rules that seem more often grounded in politics than in science. This has left deep divisions in society that will take some time to heal. It has been a long two years, and there are no clean hands in this battle of rhetoric.

It is therefore up to all of us to be part of the solution. I am left to consider whether I could have been quicker to call out abhorrent behaviour, or how I could have shown greater empathy to my neighbours. What can I do now to be a positive actor inside and outside of the House?

The tone must start from the top. The Prime Minister must be hopeful, because Canadians need to see a hopeful way ahead. Continued hyperpoliticization will only make the situation worse. It is not leadership when a prime minister discounts and dismisses the views of millions of Canadians with whom he disagrees. It stigmatizes, sows division and escalates.

We must show empathy over judgment, promote dialogue over silence and prefer persuasion over coercion. We must be looking for opportunities to de-escalate. We need to bring people closer instead of pushing them further away.

Great leaders possess the capability of self-reflection. We must acknowledge the possibility that people descended on our nation's capital, or crowded overpasses across the country, in part because of their frustration with being demeaned and marginalized for political gain. It suggests that self-reflection is required.

In 2013, the Prime Minister, as the leader of the opposition, said, “The role of the prime minister is to build a stronger country, not make it easier to break apart.” This is a time for leadership. This is the prime minister I would like to see show up for work. Canadians are depending on him.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the tone of his comments today.

It would be a much better reflection on all of us if we continued to seek out the things that we can agree on and tried to solve some of these problems at the end of the day, not make them worse. Canadians are watching this debate.

I watched events yesterday, as many of us did. With all of what I heard my colleague say, I heard interim chief Steve Bell, other former police chiefs and RCMP leaders say clearly that they could not have done what they did yesterday, which is only part of resolving this issue, without the Emergencies Act.

Did the member not hear the same things that I heard yesterday? Does he not agree that this is an important piece of legislation for all of us to support and move forward?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the same press conference yesterday, and what I heard the chief of police say was that it was helpful to have the emergency measures act.

I know we like to debate semantics a lot in this House, and I am sure we will for the rest of today and into tomorrow, but something that helps to accomplish something is different from something being absolutely necessary to use. I think that is a significant difference. We will get to the bottom of this. I am sure there will be an inquiry and lots of time to play armchair quarterback, but that is what I heard when listening to the chief of police's response yesterday.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my hon. colleague from Simcoe North for his remarks. We may have just heard the most constructive and balanced speech we will hear in this debate. I find this very comforting, and it gives me confidence for the future. I offer my sincere congratulations to my hon. colleague.

I would like to hear more from my colleague. Basically, this is about our democracy and the message we are sending to Canadians. I wonder if my colleague could talk about how we should be communicating with Canadians and what message we want to send, particularly through the media. Is the government being selective in that regard? In the current context, is the government using the media, the people and the army for political purposes?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I say thank you to the hon. member and I look forward to the day when I can stand in this House and respond in the member's first language of French. I hope to be able to do that by the time I leave this place.

It is very important for all Canadians to recognize that we have become very polarized in the media. My hon. colleague brought up the media. We can choose which views to insulate ourselves with, but I think it is important for all of us to keep an open mind. At the end of the day, the question is whether the government is justified in using and bringing down the awesome power of the state when perhaps it was possible to use other means. We saw resolutions at other border crossings that had been blocked without the use of the Emergencies Act, and I think the question we must ask ourselves is whether this response is proportional. Is the punishment proportional?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am good friends with Bruce Stanton, as are many members of Parliament, who was the exceptional member of Parliament for Simcoe North. I would like to say, through you, to the current member for Simcoe North that his speech today displayed the same high level of parliamentarianship that we have come to expect from Simcoe North, and I am happy to say that it continues.

I think the member would acknowledge that the people of Ottawa have suffered enormously through this occupation. We have seen thousands of jobs eliminated, small businesses close and permanent injury caused to the residents of downtown Ottawa. The pollution, noise and intimidation have been unbelievable. Given that, there is an importance for parliamentarians to respond. As he said, we have to ensure that our neighbours are taken care of.

There have been a couple of proclamations under the Emergencies Act. As one of our colleagues mentioned, the police have said that the measures that were put in place through those two sets of regulations have made a real difference with respect to additional people not coming to the Hill. So far, we have escaped serious injury.

Would the member agree with me that the fact that thousands of people were unable to join the call of the convoy leaders to join them on Parliament Hill this weekend has potentially saved lives and certainly saved people from—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Simcoe North may give a short answer.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and for mentioning the great work of the former member for Simcoe North, Bruce Stanton, whom I hold in great respect.

Again I think it comes down to proportionality. We saw court injunctions used quite effectively. A young woman went to court and received an injunction to stop the trucks from honking their horns, and that day it stopped for a significant period of time, so the question should be whether the act is necessary and was absolutely the last resort for the government to use. I will wait to see the answers.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Egmont.

It is with sadness that I rise in this House this morning because of the circumstances outside of our Parliament, but with the privilege to bring the voice of our community of Orléans, a community that has sent me once again to the House of Commons in 2021 with the clear understanding of the importance of the public health measures.

We are here today to debate the motion regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act. This law, the Emergencies Act, was passed in 1988, bringing in new parliamentary oversight through a requirement for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we invoked it on February 14.

As a society, we need to put this in perspective with the values we all share, particularly democracy and the rule of law. From an Orléans perspective, many people have called in the last 22 days.

After two years of the pandemic, a general sense of fatigue had set in, but thanks to an extraordinarily high vaccination rate, the stress levels of families and business owners were beginning to come down. The hope of returning to some semblance of a normal life was on the horizon. It was palpable.

Then a convoy of trucks decided to overstay their welcome in our national capital. We are now at Saturday, day 23. People, neighbours, family members and residents, when I do my groceries at our local stores, have shared their thoughts with me. They want us to do something.

After working hard with our municipal partner and after the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency on January 6, the Province of Ontario followed in declaring a state of emergency as well on February 11. We need to understand what our downtown businesses and its residents have endured for the past 23 days.

I was a former business owner in Orléans before politics. As exciting as it was to own a business and be an entrepreneur, it is hard work. We have payments to make, payroll to look after, employees to manage and rent to pay. Business owners in Orléans and in Ottawa are our neighbours and our friends. They are people we have gotten to know, people we have developed friendships and relationships with. It has been hard for them since the beginning of the pandemic.

My heart goes out to the people who live and reside in downtown Ottawa and to the businesses that were expecting to open on January 31. They were looking ahead to happier days. They were looking to do what they love to do. They were hoping to open their businesses. They were hoping to be there for their employees, and I have to say that we were hoping to support them.

I have to say it again: Small businesses are the heart of our economy. I speak monthly with my local BIA, the Heart of Orléans BIA. We know our businesses needed our government's support since the beginning of this pandemic, and we did. We brought in several measures to support them.

I will repeat that January 31 was to be a new beginning for our businesses. It was supposed to be a good day for them, since the provincial Progressive Conservative government here in Ontario was loosening public health measures. Unfortunately, it was not for our downtown businesses.

We have worked so hard for the past two years. We have joined forces among each other for the better good of our communities, our provinces and our country. We have listened to the experts. We did what had to be done to see our loved ones and to protect our seniors.

We were hoping for a return to normalcy at last, but that did not happen for everyone. It was a very different situation for residents and merchants downtown, who were denied this opportunity.

It is because they had to suffer from this illegal blockade, and this is not acceptable.

It is hard for me to explain how I feel about this illegal blockade. For 23 days, we have been unable to enjoy the beauty of the capital, move freely in the streets, socialize with our friends or get to our place of work.

What can I say about the impact of this illegal blockade on the quality of life of the residents, on the health of our students and that of people living with a disability? What can I say about the impact on our social stability, our mental health and our environment?

That is why we are here now. That is why the government invoked the Emergencies Act. We have to put an end to this nightmare.

We are now at a point where the government felt the need to invoke the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and municipal capacity to address this illegal blockade.

I want to reinforce that the emergency declaration would be for a maximum period of 30 days. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportionate. We are invoking them only after exhausting all options. They will allow the RCMP to enforce municipal, provincial and federal laws; allow the federal government to mobilize essential services, such as tow trucks; give new authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, prohibit blockades and keep essential infrastructure open; and provide enhanced power to stop the flow of money supporting the blockades. That is important for the people who are listening here in Orléans to understand.

Let me be clear with respect to what invoking these measures will not do: It will not invoke the military, it would not limit our freedom, it would not limit a peaceful assembly and it would not suspend fundamental rights.

Sometimes when we talk about Ottawa among friends and family, we make comparisons with other capitals or cities, and we sometimes describe Ottawa as a quiet, not too lively city. Well, I can absolutely assure them that today I stand in this House to say that I am looking forward to once again enjoying my quiet city, my quiet downtown, where we can walk with our family, where we can enjoy time with our children visiting a museum, for example, and where we can go to see our loved ones or just have a safe and simple walk in our neighbourhood with our favourite pets.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a constituent who wanted me to ask a question about outside interference in our democracy.

Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum, and he bragged how his subversive WEF has “infiltrated” governments around the world. He said that his organization had penetrated more than half of Canada's cabinet.

In the interests of transparency, could the member please name which cabinet ministers are on board with the WEF's agenda? My concern is the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The member was in a really good question there, but the audio and the video are really bad. I apologize. Let us try again.

The hon. member—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

That member was openly promoting disinformation. That is not debate. We have to call out disinformation—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are getting into debate again.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how this piece of legislation does not take away freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, but we have come to a point where people from all over the country felt that they did not have a voice. We are at a point where we have used the biggest thing that the government can do to silence the voices of Canadians who are here to be heard.

What are the first, second and third things that the government did to avoid getting to the place we are at now with this piece of legislation?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question because it gives me the opportunity to share what the government has done since the very beginning. We have been in touch with our municipal and provincial partners.

Since we are talking about democracy, I need to share a story with the House. Before entering federal politics, I was a provincial member of Parliament. Every single Thursday, a Canadian of Asian descent went to the grounds of Queen's Park to recite all day long, in a language that I did not understand, his thoughts about the world. As a Canadian, I was proud to listen. I know that in other countries people do not have a chance to do this, and what we have seen here is not a peaceful protest.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two elements to this order, and the main one has to do with the economy. Yesterday, it was demonstrated that the banks had frozen the accounts of some of the truckers, as well as the loans tied to their trucks. Now that that has been done and the truckers have gone home, will these restrictions be lifted, and when will it happen?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As parliamentarians and as a government, it is not for us to dictate police instructions and operations or what the justice system is currently doing. I will leave that to the people who are better qualified than I am when it comes to the legal process that has been triggered in the past few days. I would just note that the GoFundMe page has stopped supporting the participants of the illegal blockades here in Ottawa, because it became apparent that these people may not have had the best of intentions.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. The ideologies associated with these extremists and the symbols we have seen waving through the blockade are dangerous. This has been well organized by leaders of extremist groups. Arrests that started yesterday continue today. We still see the extremists rooted on Wellington Street. The leaders of the extremist groups must be held accountable for their actions with the full extent of the law.

Does the member for Orléans agree that these extremists have taken extraordinary measures to endanger our democracy and that we need to do our duty to ensure these ideologies do not spread further?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very delicate question. From the beginning, we have seen people brandishing hateful flags and encouraging conversations that go as far as to say that the Prime Minister of Canada should die, that he should be killed. I agree with her that in Canada, we must deal with issues involving extremists.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am, with mixed emotion, rising this morning to participate in the debate currently in the House. I say that because I have had many, many constituents of mine reach out to me about the troubling situation that was occurring here in their nation's capital. They were concerned about what was happening to the people living here in Ottawa, from the far distance of Prince Edward Island. However, they were also concerned about the tone of the dialogue that was occurring around the situation. Those constituents asked me why governments, in the plural, were allowing this to occur, why government could not take action.

In standing here today and listening to a lot of the debate, I note the discussion has been around protests. I have been in public life a long time. I have been the focus of many protests. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you may have had a few as a provincial politician. Let us not gloss over what was happening here in the streets of Ottawa and call it a protest, which all politicians and parliamentarians have faced over the years. People have the right to protest. They have the right to peaceful protest. As I indicated, I have been the focus of a number of them. I fully respect the right of citizens to protest and express their displeasure with the actions of government at any time. However, we have to do it in a peaceful format. We have to do it with respect.

Let us be clear. What we have witnessed here in Ottawa is not a protest. Let us call it what it is: It is an unlawful occupation. It was meant to intimidate people and it was meant to intimidate parliamentarians.

Anybody who wants to take the time to educate and familiarize themselves with the objectives of the leadership of this group should take pause for concern and reflection. That is what has been so disheartening about watching this over the last three weeks. What was disguised as a trucker's protest was hijacked by individuals with ulterior motives. They are available for anybody to see. This cannot be tolerated by any government or any parliamentarian. No individual or group of individuals have the right to so blatantly trample the rights of other individuals, as we have witnessed here in Ottawa over the past several weeks.

It is fundamental that government protect the rights of all individuals, but to participate in an unlawful occupation chanting “freedom”, while at the same time having such a blatant disregard for the freedoms and the mental stability and well-being of our fellow citizens, is just wrong. We can look at the interviews with people here in Ottawa. People with disabilities have been traumatized, forced to stay in their own homes. They cannot get out as they are scared. That is not the peaceful protest that this country promotes and endorses. That is, as we have called it, an unlawful protest. We cannot diminish the significance of the difference between the protests that have occurred across this country and those that were intent on overthrowing a government. Anybody who wants to can take the time to look at the objectives of the organizers of this group, what they are doing, who was supporting them and who was funding them. All parliamentarians should be concerned.

The government took the action required to bring this unlawful occupation under control. I want to acknowledge and commend the men and women serving in uniform who are ensuring the laws of this country are being upheld. What we are witnessing is the removal of an unlawful occupation by a professional police force in a democratic country. That is what is occurring on the streets of Ottawa today: a professional police force operating under the rule of law in a democratic country. That is why we elect Parliament and that is why we elect government. It is to give the authorities and legal tools necessary to ensure no individuals' rights are trampled on by a few championing that they are there to protect their freedoms.

This debate will go on for a number of days, and it is interesting to listen to the various perspectives. I have been here for the last three weeks and I have watched it. In fact, I have witnessed some of the hate myself. When I was walking with my parliamentary assistant, he was told by a protester to go back to where he came from because he is brown. It was said in a very racist and harassing tone. My assistant has the same rights that I do because he is Canadian. We have to ensure that Parliament does not succumb to the hate that gets displayed by a few. We cannot champion it. Even by association, we cannot allow it to be legitimized as being right.

That is why I am speaking today. The people I represent in Egmont make up a community that embraces respect, and they support one another. It is a population that is proud of Canada and supports the unity of this country.

Something that has disturbed me over the last several weeks comes from watching one party. It was interesting. The combined failed leadership of the Conservative Party united with the interim leader of the Conservative Party, who united with the aspiring future leader of the Conservative Party, who by association was attempting to legitimize this unlawful protest. It was disturbing that the failed combined leadership of the Conservative Party, with the present leadership and the aspiring future leadership, by association, was attempting to legitimize this unlawful occupation.

As a parliamentarian, I will always stand for the rule of law. I will always support legislation that protects the rights of individuals and does not allow any individual to claim their right to participate in an unlawful occupation while trampling over the rights of other individuals.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to follow this debate and hear the justification Liberal members have to support this unprecedented government overreach through the Emergencies Act. What is interesting are the assumptions Liberals members, specifically, have about these protesters, and those assumptions kind of fall in line with everything the Prime Minister has accused the protestors of being, that being that they are all racist and misogynist. It is really unfortunate.

We have also heard members recognize the fact that Canadians are tired of this pandemic. They are tired, and they want to see a light at the end of the tunnel. With the recognition that Canadians are tired of the pandemic and mandates, why did the hon. member vote against our motion last week for the government to table a plan so Canadians could see an end to the mandates and have hope?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I was very specific. I referenced the leadership of this unlawful protest, not the combination of people on the street.

I voted against the motion by the Conservative Party because I will not support motions that are, and this may be unparliamentary, hypocritical. I am saying that because the majority of the mandates have been put in place by the provincial governments.

Let me clear for the record. I support the mandates and the measures taken by the Government of Prince Edward Island under the leadership of Premier King. I did not have the benefit of the medical advice that he was given, but I assume he acted on that advice in the best interest of Islanders.

That is why it will be in conjunction with provincial governments that these mandates will be eased.