Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to a poll.

Does he not get the impression that 72% of people were actually simply in favour of ending the protests because they have been going on for too long? Perhaps people got that impression because the government failed to take action for three weeks. I think that is what is happening.

I would like to hear what he has to say about that.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I understand Quebeckers' hesitation given what they experienced in 1970. However, there is no doubt in my mind. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the people living in Gatineau and the Outaouais were also victims of this situation, just like the people of Ottawa. There is no doubt that this law is there for the governments that want to use it and that need it for a limited amount of time. If Quebec does not see it that way right now, that is fine.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank anyone who is watching this now, at 11:15 p.m. We have been on this debate since 7 a.m., and I can say that, from participating in the debate and listening in since seven o'clock, I have heard a whole bunch of stories. Some were facts. Some were not facts. We have heard a lot of things.

The fact today is that it is my mother's birthday. To my mom, I would like to say “happy 81st birthday”. I am sure that she loves that I have shared her age with everybody, but this is why I am here. I am here because of my family. I am here because of the families and the people across Canada. I will speak about the reasonable people I also represent.

I looked earlier at Twitter. My husband told me weeks ago to get off Twitter, because it never lets me sleep. To any of the members, to anybody out there, get off Twitter. If they want nightmares, just read Twitter.

I found one tweet today. It is from Aaron Wudrick. If anyone has been watching the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, he is a person I follow when we are talking about what is happening in the economy. Today, he talked about what is happening in the House of Commons. He said:

When I say I'm sympathetic to the goal of ending mandates, I get called an apologist for Nazis and insurrectionists. When I say that in spite of that sympathy I support the rule of law, I get called a globalist totalitarian libtard.

I apologize for any inappropriate language, but the fact is that no one is finding a side on this debate to land where they cannot look at the other person and say that they have a good point. Many of my colleagues today have made good points. Some of them I absolutely disagree with, but I believe that they have the right to their opinions, whether it is right or wrong. That is the fact.

I have been down here throughout this period of time and the biggest thing that I have found, even in trying to prepare my speech today, is that we cannot say anything right and we cannot say anything wrong without someone jumping on us. Every single parliamentarian here, every single politician or any leaders, every time we say something there is going to be somebody who will smack us down.

It was interesting, because prior to the protesters coming here on January 31, five days before, I did an interview with our local radio station. This would probably have been January 23. It was a month ago when we started talking about what this might look like. I said that I supported the trucker convoy and I supported the right to protest. However, we cannot question the fact that there are characters and actors out there who are not going to behave. We all know that. I do not think that anyone has seen a protest that has a large group of people where there has not been one small infraction.

We have talked about what these infractions look like. Being from Elgin—Middlesex—London, I can tell you that the last two years have been very difficult. It has been difficult for everybody, regardless of where they are living. We have seen this type of stuff happening in my riding since 2020. I think about things that happened in 2021, when the Prime Minister had gravel thrown at him by one of the protesters. We all agreed that it was wrong. That individual was apprehended and taken in.

This same protester was on our streets just a few days ago. I know him personally. What do I say about this protester? If he was listening today, which I do not think he is because I think he is in holdup, I would say to him that he has to step back and he has to listen. He has to be part of the conversation.

That is what I would like to say to the protesters who are going past that next step. If they want change, they will have to be part of the change. It is not always about getting exactly what they want.

That is the exact same thing that I have to say to the government. This is about finding a place of balance. We have listened to people. I have been called a racist, a misogynist and all of these wonderful names. When I called one of the members of the NDP out for that, she doubled down. That is not democracy. That is not the way we should be talking to other people. We are sitting here talking about what these “vile people” are saying outside, yet the same members of Parliament who are complaining about them are saying the exact same things inside this chamber today. They are calling us racists. They are calling us Nazis.

We will not get anywhere until we stop bullying one another and calling each other names. That is the bottom line to this.

No one planned to find a plan. I heard one of the guys, one of the members for whom I have great respect, and watched him open his arms and say that we thought the motion to say that they had a plan was going to fix everything.

It was not going to fix everything, but it was going to give a plan. It was going to give hope. The fact is that I saw an entire bench of members of Parliament of the government get whipped, instead of representing their people and saying, “My neighbour Johnny called me, and Johnny is tired. His son is tired and has missed two years of school. My sister is a mother, a single parent. She teaches kindergarten and has her own children.” We are forgetting about those people when we are in these discussions. We are forgetting that people are tired and that people do want hope.

I recognize that this is a critical mass. I recognize that with health care measures, we have to make sure they are measures. I am asking the government to show us the metrics, show us the measurements and give us some idea of what the long game looks like, because everybody is tired.

Last Monday, when we asked that question and we were denied it, the fact is that people were just looking for answers and solutions. That is where I am today, and I know that half of the members of Parliament in this place today are looking for the exact same thing. Unfortunately, I am saying only half, because I have listened to some of this crap that is being said to us today. I will be honest: I am ashamed when listening to some of this rhetoric. How can we expect people to be better?

I listened to the member of Parliament for Pickering—Uxbridge wanting to read out a horrible email she got because it was so visceral. I welcome that member to politics, because we always get those. I have had people tell me to grow a thick skin. I do not believe in having to grow a thick skin when in politics. It is about being a good person, for goodness' sake. Therefore, when somebody starts reading something into the record to say how badly they were treated, they are not trying to say “look at me”. They are trying to pour on the gas and tell all the stuff they have been called.

I am concerned about where we are going. I am concerned, because I have been standing up for the rights of people. I am triple-vaccinated. I am proud of it, but I have been standing up for people in my riding, like a young woman I know who is 50 years of age. When she was young, she did have an interaction to a vaccination. She is scared of having another vaccination. I know her very well. She is scared of getting sick and missed Christmas with her family because there was somebody who was sick, and she did not want to make others sick. That is called personal responsibility, and I think that if we granted personal responsibility back to Canadians, they may just do that.

I look at my mom, who is 81 today, and I think of the fact that, when I come home from Ottawa, I have been sitting in an airport around hundreds of people and I have been on an airplane around hundreds of people. I take the first step and I choose not to go see my mom, because she is vulnerable. That is what Canadians do when they are given that sense of responsibility. We are losing that right now. We are losing this. The government has to tell us not to go see our moms. I am pretty sure this 50-year-old knows whether it is right or wrong to go see her mother, but we are being told by the government that this is the case.

I am going to end this with a simple story. I like to walk the streets of Ottawa. I do not mind walking by myself. I will not walk the streets of parts of my riding by myself, but when I am in Ottawa, I feel safe. My first week, when I was here, I dressed up every day, so I just looked like everybody else. Members would never find me all dressed up, but I wanted to look like everybody else because I was scared. I was worried about walking. Last week I started dressing normally and went back to being myself. Yesterday when I stopped and spoke to a guy who was in front of my apartment building, we talked for a few minutes. I finally asked him where he was from. He said he was from a little place outside of London. I said I was from London, and I asked him where. He said he was from Fingal. Fingal is where my brother plows the roads. Fingal is where my son has gone to see his friends.

We have to remember there is a whole bunch of regular people out there. We have to stop pushing them. We have to find solutions, and we have to do it now.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems to be the Conservative position that, because they are regular people out there, we have to stop pushing them. Her colleague from Grande Prairie—Mackenzie gave a very emotional speech about regular people and how badly they were feeling, the name-calling that has gone on and the social marginalization, etc. Indeed, some members of this House may well be responsible for that name-calling, etc. One would wish that political discourse was a little more mature than that, but it is what it is.

However, there seems to be a very strange leap in logic from calling people names to supporting sedition, blockades and all of the police activities that have been required in order to just clear our streets.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have just proven that we can actually have conversations, because I just heard a question from the member without being called any names. I thank that member.

The fact of what he is referring to, when we are looking at this, is that there is nobody here saying that we approve of the blockades. It is just being said we have. When I say there are regular people out there, I have never said that everybody is regular. I am saying the majority of people out there protesting, or that were out there protesting before these new measures came in, were just absolutely normal people.

There are always going to be those people. No matter what kind of protest, there are always going to be those individuals. That is something I am very concerned with.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech because he was calm and he distinguished between people who commit reprehensible acts and those who do not.

We have known about these reprehensible and the identities of the perpetrators for some time. Instead of invoking the Emergencies Act, what measures does he believe should be applied to those who were involved?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is exactly what she has asked. One of the biggest questions I had today was about how I was going to write my speech without just pointing my finger in blame. It is really easy to blame people in this situation.

We know things should have been done 23 days ago. We know that the intel was there over 30 days ago. I spoke to a person that I have great respect for today. The police are doing a job, not because it is violent out there and there is criminal activity. They are doing a job because we are in a political crisis right now. That is the job they are doing. We have angry Canadians out there, and we are in a political crisis because of the leadership.

What would I do? I would start being a leader. That is what I expect from the government.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by wishing my hon. colleague's mother a very happy birthday. I want to thank her for what I consider a measured speech. I must say I have always respected the tone that she brings to the House and the reasonableness and decorum that she shows. I want to thank her for that.

I want to shift gears a bit. About a week before the opposition day motion calling for a plan to end mandates, I gave a speech in the House that talked about the unfortunate polarity in our country between pro-vax and anti-vax, and how I really thought that two years into this pandemic that really does not work anymore. There are a lot of Canadians who have legitimate questions about this. Rather than end mandates, we should question every single public policy that we have right now, based on the data and science, and determine whether or not it is valid, and make changes if possible.

Would the member agree with me on that? Does she think that is something we should be looking at as a country going forward?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to say I absolutely agree with him. This is what we should be doing. We should be working together and looking at solutions. I would sit down with that member any day, as part of representing our caucus, and everybody else, to move forward.

I know there are members on all sides who want to just see peace in this country again. It should not be about beliefs. It should not be about being vaccinated or unvaccinated. That is not what we should be doing. We should be worrying about the safety of all Canadians and the security of this country, not what the Liberal government has created.

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we are this evening, debating the invoking of the Emergencies Act. It definitely is something I thought we would not be debating just three weeks ago. Like all Canadians, I expected that proper leadership would rise up and deal with this situation long ago, and of course that did not happen with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. Instead, we are here debating this matter because of this gross lack of leadership. Instead of leadership that would bring us closer together and closer to a solution, we have a prime minister focused on inflaming the situation with reckless name-calling, provocation, division, smearing and dismissive attitude.

Before I get to my comments on the act, I want to make it clear that I strongly support the rights of all Canadians to peacefully and lawfully protest. I have never supported and will never support law-breaking in the name of protesting. Our society rests on the rule of law, and it must always be this way. There are plenty of ways to lawfully and effectively protest. I also believe protests are about having one's message heard, not destroying our economy and the lives of our fellow citizens while doing so. One only need look at the debates in this House, the media coverage, social media and the like to see that their message was heard long ago, and now it is time for the protesters to go home. It looks like they have gone. I have not looked outside recently, but I guess we will see what happens in the next few days.

However, we must remember that if people feel they are not heard, they will not listen. It is as simple as that. Protests are about being heard, not necessarily getting their way. Governments have a responsibility to listen to protesters, but no obligation to concede to their demands. Like any debate, including those in this House, we have the right to be heard, but not a right to get our desired result.

Canadians are justifiably concerned about the implementation of the Emergencies Act and how it will affect them. A lack of details about this legislation, its implementation and how it will be used is causing great angst for many, and understandably so.

Like almost everything since the beginning of this pandemic, the lack of a coherent, long-term plan from the Liberal government has resulted in Canadians living with an unacceptable level of uncertainty. It is hurting our economy and, more importantly, it is hurting our mental health. This is not the first protest in Canada, and it will not be the last. Canadians have always cherished their right to protest peacefully. Unfortunately, not all protests start or end peacefully, and we have many laws on the books to deal with these situations.

One way or another, police have found a way to end these protests with the tools already available to them. Even now, as we debate the use of the Emergencies Act, the Liberal government has still failed to explain why existing laws are not sufficient to deal with this situation. The Emergencies Act is an important and necessary legislative tool to have on the books. However, it is only meant to be used when existing legislation is insufficient to get the job done.

This subject has generated significant mail to my offices, and I am sure to all of my colleagues' offices as well. I would like to share some of them, as I think it is important that my constituents are heard in their own words.

Leanne said in a letter to the Prime Minister, and copied it to me, “While I can understand your frustration with some of the actions of the 'freedom convoy' protests, your actions go much too far.”

Joe, in my riding, said in a letter to the Prime Minister, copied to me, “Even if you truly believe that these measures are justified now, have you considered what kind of precedent you're setting? When protestors were burning churches and committing other hate crimes last summer, would you have supported a call to freeze the bank accounts of Indigenous activists? What will you say if a future federal government bans crowdfunding by Black Lives Matter protestors?

“Do you really want to be remembered as the Prime Minister who made it 'normal' for Canadian governments to take these actions against any protest movement that they disagree with?

“Canada must remain a country where people of all viewpoints can protest freely, regardless of whether the people currently in power happen to agree with them.

“Step back, Prime Minister. You've gone too far.”

Lorne said, “I do not believe the Prime Minister when he states this will be a measured and time limited response. This is the foot in the door to allow him or any standing government to overstep their authority in order to control Canadian citizens.”

Nick said, “There is no need to escalate what is currently a civil, peaceful, legal protest, albeit with vehicles illegally parked and ticketed causing disruption to traffic, daily life and commerce in a small area. There is a practical political solution. I say: Do NOT ratify the imposition of the Emergencies Act.”

As Beau pointed out, “section 3 of the Emergencies Act spells out the circumstances under which it may be invoked. These are: a) a national emergency that 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, or b) a national emergency that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.

“Neither of these conditions are met.... By invoking the federal Emergencies Act in the complete absence of any reasonable justification, [the Prime Minister] is setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the right of all Canadians to peaceful assembly and association or protest.”

I could go on for hours, literally, with the hundreds of letters I have received, and I have read them all. I have had only one letter, just a single letter, that supports the Liberal government's intentions. Remarkably, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have united Canadians on this one issue: not to use the Emergencies Act like this. They should not use it now.

I am deeply concerned that using this legislation will normalize its use every time we have a few hundred protesters. This poses a direct threat to all Canadians in the future, when a government uses a hammer to deal with a fly. Once we cross this line and use the Emergencies Act, it will make it politically easier for any future government to do the same. I truly expect we will see it used again by this very government. Will it be used and abused against indigenous protests in the future? Will it be used and abused against environmental protesters in the future? Will it be used and abused against those protesting religious issues, immigration issues, race issues, global issues or taxation? I bet it will.

No matter where we sit on the political spectrum or where we sit on an issue, we ought to be united in our concern to protect the right to lawfully protest, the right to be heard.

Canadians cannot afford to build and entrench measures that silence Canadians, when democratic governments around the world should be striving to do a better job of listening to their citizens. Governments often limit activities over time, but rarely do they go the opposite way. If we lose something to the state today, we will likely not get it back any time soon.

I have listened. I have heard my constituents, and I certainly will not be voting for the use of the Emergencies Act at this time. To my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I will let them know that many NDP supporters in my riding have written to me in dismay at their party supporting this legislation. They realize the dangerous precedent this would set, and they are deeply concerned about this passing. They are concerned—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. I am sure he will be able to add more during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, one of the letters the hon. member read, from one of his constituents, implied very strongly that what we saw for the last three weeks in the streets of Ottawa was a legitimate protest. The leaders of the protest have contended they were just exercising their charter rights.

Does the member agree that this was an illegal protest, which was what prompted the police action? Why is the official opposition not more critical of the leadership of this illegal protest?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to continue my comments here before I quickly answer the member's question.

First of all, to my NDP colleagues, my constituents are concerned that this will set a dangerous precedent, and they are really not impressed at all. While many NDP supporters in my riding have made it very clear to me in the past that they do not support the policies of my party on this matter, they are very appreciative of our responsible and principled decision. Will my NDP colleagues in the House do the same?

Regarding the member's question, while I can understand your frustration with some of the actions of this “freedom convoy” protest, your actions go much too far with the Emergencies Act. Freezing the bank accounts of anyone who participates in this protest or cancelling a person's insurance, even if that person is completely non-violent, and without a court order no less, is fundamentally incompatible with the liberal democratic values that Canada is supposed to stand for.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but we have a point of order.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has completely ignored my question and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. That would be a point of debate.

I do want to remind the member for Calgary Confederation that he is to address the questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the members.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, we often hear the Liberals say that they want to help, that they are proactive and so forth.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that, when the Ottawa Police Service requested 1,800 additional officers, the federal government sent in only 275 RCMP officers and only 20 of them were assigned to the protests.

Would responding to that request not have been a much more practical way of supporting the city?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are absolutely good points to these questions, and I thank the member for these points. The bottom line is that the current thresholds of the Emergencies Act have not been met in this current situation, and I would hope the member does know that. That is the message I am leaving here to all the members in the House. I clearly object to the motion and the declaration of emergency. We must use prudence and tolerance over power and force.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the hon. member expressing clearly that he did not support illegal activities, but I wonder how he can gloss over the very frequent intimidation of businesses in Ottawa that were attempting to enforce mask mandates, or how he can endorse incidents like the one where one of my staff members was prevented from boarding the train to go home until he removed his mask.

This was not, by and large, a peaceful protest in downtown Ottawa. How is the member able to ignore the intimidation that resulted in the closure of over half the businesses in downtown Ottawa?

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely do not endorse any of those actions, but let me summarize what a constituent has seen throughout this whole process.

Her name is Kirsten, and she said, “A group of Canadian citizens has a case they want to bring up with their Prime Minister, but he won't listen to them because they disagree with him. So they decide to bring the message personally to him and they are cheered on their way by other citizens. They come to Ottawa, but he still won't hear their case. He lets them wait for a couple of weeks at which point the neighbourhood where they are waiting gets irritated and wants them out.”

Perhaps because some of the experiences—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but we have a point of order.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou on a point of order.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, someone has their microphone switched on or there is something rubbing on a microphone which is preventing the interpreters from doing their job properly. It must be really tough to be hearing that this late at night.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be some people speaking right behind me. I hope they can be told to go talk somewhere else.

The time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess the political left does not want to defund the police anymore.

This summer, I was at a friend's party and met a young couple who were in the process of making dramatic last-minute changes to their wedding plans. They had been planning to get married in the beautiful century-old Catholic church that was the heart and soul of the community of Morinville, Alberta. It was the church in which she had grown up. However, the church had been burned to the ground a few weeks before in a likely act of arson, protest and terror.

Morinville is about a 45-minute drive from where I live. On the morning after that fire, I drove out to see the situation. When I got there, the fire was still burning. While I watched, local fire crews had to do the painful work of knocking down parts of the structure to preserve public safety and avoid the risk of further spread. In addition to the threat of a burning building, there was also a gas line under the church and apartments nearby. Although no one was hurt in this attack, the additional risk of an explosion and risk to human life were very significant.

This violent and dangerous act in Morinville was not an isolated incident. In the summer of last year, acts of arson destroyed more than a dozen churches of various denominations, with innumerable other acts of vandalism or attempted violence happening as well. The Prime Minister answered a question from the media about what happened in Morinville, but did not proactively issue a single statement about this wild rampage of destruction in western Canada. The Prime Minister's close friend and former adviser Gerry Butts called these acts “understandable”.

Two days ago, there was an extremely violent attack on a Coastal GasLink pipeline work site in B.C. The responding RCMP officers were blocked from entering the road by spiked boards, downed and tarred stumps and trees lit on fire and had smoke bombs and flaming sticks thrown at them. Meanwhile, additional violent protesters broke into the work site armed with axes and flare guns. These protesters toppled heavy machinery, cut fuel lines and smashed site vehicles and set them on fire with workers still inside.

On this incident, the public safety minister said, “I’m deeply concerned to hear reports of violent confrontations at a work site”. I would say respectfully to the minister that this was not a matter of violent confrontation; it was a premeditated violent attack on working people who were just trying to do their jobs.

What is the climate in which such acts of violence against places of worship and energy workers have come to take place here in Canada? The much venerated David Suzuki has said that pipelines will be “blown up”. The current sitting Minister of Environment in the Liberal government once attacked the home of Alberta's then premier Ralph Klein. He climbed on the roof of his private home as part of an activist stunt, apparently terrifying the premier's wife, who was home alone at the time. Other members of the House, including the former leader of the Green Party and the former NDP MP who is now the mayor of Vancouver, have been arrested for more benign acts of law-breaking.

I believe in the rule of law. The rule of law means that everyone is equally bound and protected by law. Whether they are sitting in a protest camp on Wellington Street or sitting in the federal cabinet, whether they drive a truck to work or work in the federal public service or whether they belong to a populist pro-Trump movement or a democratic socialist climate alarmist movement, such people have an obligation to follow the law and also have a right to be protected by it. When the law is selectively applied to penalize people based on their political views, that is by definition a violation of the rule of law. While calling out illegal blockades of critical infrastructure and other forms of law-breaking by protesters, we must also acknowledge that the rule of law is being threatened by a government that is woefully inconsistent in the way it treats protesters, and that this inconsistency is based on the political preferences and biases of the people in power. This brings the law into disrepute.

At the heart of the idea of the rule of law is a contract: I will follow the law and I will have the protection of the law. When people are told to follow the law but do not have the fair and equal protection of the law, then we are no longer speaking of rule of law but of rule by law. Rule of law is where the law rules. Rule by law is where laws are used by powerful people to dominate others. We need to appreciate the difference.

The Oka crisis, 9/11, the violent G7 and G20 protests, the blockades from two years ago, the series of attacks on places of worship and the violence targeting energy workers were not cause for the use of emergency powers. When this hammer is being used to target working people engaged in civil disobedience in response to unjustified and unscientific vaccine mandates, we see that the contract at the heart of what it means to be a rule-of-law society seems to be fraying. If I had seen the church I was about to get married in burn to the ground, if I had lost my job or access to vital services because of vaccine mandates or if I had seen acts of lawlessness ignored, defended and even perpetrated by senior leaders in this country, then I would find it a bit rich for the government to say that the current situation constitutes a unique national emergency.

The contract at the heart of a rule-of-law society is fraying, and we see a Prime Minister with an incredible personal record of corruption, the only Prime Minister in history to violate ethics law on multiple occasions. He is now claiming that other people should be subject to severe and disproportionate consequences for so much as donating to the convoy even weeks before any blockading began.

It seems to me that the most important question for Canada today is not just about the particulars of this moment, but about how we got here. We got here because of the arbitrary and inconsistent application of decisions by the government, the demonization of people who disagreed and the decline of our democratic institutions, leading people to believe that their voice cannot be heard any other way. If we are going to come together as a country and address the pain and division that have been sown, then we have to ask ourselves why the voice of a mother crying because her son lost his business and died by suicide because of COVID restrictions is not heard as loudly as the sound of a horn honking on Wellington Street. Why is it that a community of refugees from Egypt who had their house of worship burned to the ground in Surrey last year could not even get a statement from the Prime Minister, but potential for violence from this convoy led to a national state of emergency?

We have to address the lack of empathy that clearly permeates our halls of power and the lack of concern for working Canadians who have lost jobs and opportunity as a result of pandemic policy, as well as the broader attack on their livelihoods that we are seeing through government policy. It may be hard for some people here to fully understand what many Canadians are going through, but I ask members to spare a thought for people like the NDP leader's brother-in-law. The NDP leader may not be prepared to stand up for his brother-in-law, but I will be here to stand in the breach—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou. However, before I go to her, I would ask the hon. member to adjust his boom a bit higher because we are getting some popping, and I am not sure if that is causing the problem.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.