Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I took the time to look out the window. Like my colleague, I see that there is nothing much left to do any overthrowing. We are here to debate the situation, and we will be debating it until early Monday evening. I wonder why we are doing this, because most of the work to dismantle the protests that have taken place across Canada was done before the act—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I am thankful to be debating this important legislation. However, many of us in this place have spoken about the fact that this is not necessarily a day of legislation that we are particularly happy about. In fact, I am disappointed that we are in a situation in this country where we are actually [Technical difficulty—Editor]

That said, it is incredibly important to be debating something we are seeing right outside the doors of our House of Commons. Previous members who raised questions and comments talked about how the trucks have cleared and that there is no need to be invoking the Emergencies Act. It is almost as if the members do not realize that it is because the Emergencies Act was invoked that those trucks have cleared.

The member said that when he looked out the window, he did not see those trucks. In fact, the police and the measures to clear those very streets came forward because of the legislation we are debating now.

Normally when we debate legislation in this place, we all make assumptions and discuss the intentions, or the opposition raises concerns of what might happen or what might come as a result of the legislation. We are in a unique situation today, because right outside the doors of the House of Commons we are seeing the implementation of this act in real time. There will be lots of dialogue and lots of looking into what happened and what went wrong to bring us to this place. However, anyone who suggests that the government and the Prime Minister woke up one day and just invoked this act that was never needed clearly has not been in Ottawa for the last three weeks. They must not have been watching the news for the last two days, seeing the impact of this act being implemented on the streets.

I am grateful to the police forces that have come and are moving these people back and out of this community, out of this city, because it has not been a safe place for many of our staff and for many of the business owners around Parliament in the downtown core and in the surrounding neighbourhoods. The people of Ottawa have been terrorized for three weeks. They have felt unsafe living in their own homes, in their own communities. I have seen reports and interviews with persons with disabilities who had food insecurity because they were unable to go to a grocery store or have food delivered because they lived in an area where the so-called protesters had occupied the streets. They could not access transit.

Somehow, the Conservatives were saying that there was nothing to see here. The Conservatives were too busy trying to court the votes of those very people in the streets who were wreaking havoc not just on Parliament but on Canadians who live in this city.

It is incredibly naive for the Conservatives to say that these people were just peaceful protesters. I have no doubt in my mind that there were some individuals who came here thinking it was really just about vaccine mandates or who were upset with what was happening with COVID. However, the organizers themselves had been stating their intentions for weeks prior to coming to Ottawa. Anyone suggesting that they did not know was simply not paying attention or trying to rewrite history.

The organizers who came to Ottawa, who wanted this convoy to take over the streets of Ottawa, made it very clear that they were coming to Ottawa to overthrow the democratically elected government and instead put in its place a committee of their choosing. I did not know in what world I would ever see the Conservative Party sit around and defend a group of people who planned to overturn the entire Parliament. By the way, that also meant the seats of those Conservatives who now stand up and defend these individuals, and who could discount the very votes of Canadian citizens who elected all of us to this place.

Just six months ago, there was a democratically held election, one that the Conservatives said was unnecessary. They were happy to continue with the Prime Minister in place. However, our government felt that an election was needed for the very reason of talking to Canadians to put forward a platform about how to move forward next when it comes to COVID and post-COVID. The vast majority of Canadians supported political parties that put in place strong mandates around vaccination. They did so because we all knew that the only way out of this pandemic was through vaccination.

Every step of the way, the Conservatives flip-flopped on issues pertaining to COVID. I will give some examples.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the Conservatives complained and screamed and said that we would never have vaccines in this country until 2030. Obviously that was not true. Then the Conservatives screamed and demanded that we close the borders. When borders closed and there were restrictions placed on travel, the Conservatives said to open those borders.

As we loosened restrictions and the pandemic changed, Conservative premiers such as Doug Ford produced graphics. Do members remember the blood map of the pandemic and the spread of the disease? Then Conservatives at the federal level did not know what to do because a Conservative premier was saying to close the borders while they were screaming to open the borders, so they got really confused on borders at that time.

As vaccines became more and more available to all Canadians, and we were encouraging everyone to get vaccinated, Conservatives realized that their base might not want to get vaccinated. All of a sudden, the party of limiting a woman's right to choose was now the party of “my body, my choice”. The irony was not lost on me, as a member who stood in the last session to defend the rights of women to those Conservatives who felt that legislators should determine the health care of women.

Then, Conservatives were no longer advocating for vaccinations, saying that we do not need vaccinations, that we just need rapid tests. Well then, last week, we all heard in the House the Conservatives say there was no point to tests, that we were good, and that COVID is over in their eyes. Therefore, they voted against rapid tests. I also want to point out that even the former leader and member for Durham put in vaccine mandates during his campaign for anyone travelling and in his vicinity, but felt that the rest of Canadians did not need that same level of protection.

When it comes to Conservatives and this pandemic, the last thing they have done is follow the evidence and the science. Every step of the way, they have followed the politics that they have felt would be most advantageous to themselves.

I am frustrated with COVID. I cannot imagine a Canadian or probably anyone around the world who is not frustrated with this pandemic. However, the answer to the pandemic is not to take the Conservative approach of flailing in the wind and doing whatever felt good in the moment. If that was the case, we would see significantly more people sick, significantly more people mourning the death of a family member and we would see our hospitals overrun with stress. Our health care workers who have been true heroes in this pandemic would have been stretched even further to the limits.

I want to get back to the Emergencies Act and why we are here. There is something I find most appalling as I have listened to this debate. There are very real debates that we should have about COVID policies, and where to move next. That is healthy in any democracy and I welcome those conversations.

However, we are seeing in the streets of Ottawa and in border communities across this country that somehow this debate about COVID policies has turned into whoever can yell the loudest, whoever can use the biggest trucks to block roads and whoever can intimidate and harass should dictate the policy of this government or any government. In what world does that represent democracy?

In a democracy, we can have a debate. In a democracy, members are duly elected and represent the government. We have votes. Throughout the course of this debate and last week as we were discussing the various things happening across this country, I heard multiple times, including this evening, the Prime Minister being referred to as a dictator. People are saying that we are living under a tyrannical government, an authoritarian government. It has sickened me to hear this type of language.

The irony has not been lost on me that while members sitting in this place have screamed out that the Prime Minister is a dictator, they do so from their seat in the House of Commons, which they were duly elected to hold. In what other dictatorship do we have democratically free elections? People are suggesting that they are not free, that they do not live in a democracy, and that there is not a variety of viewpoints and debate taking place.

It was also not lost on me that as members screamed and cried about dictatorship in this country, later in the evening we held votes on legislation. For example, we held one vote on measures for seniors, which my friend the Minister of Seniors brought forward. It passed unanimously. In what dictatorship do we hold debates and free votes?

The rhetoric coming from the Conservative Party is damaging. Frankly, I think there are some members who say it to get a rise out of the protesters and to get good clips because they think it will make for better fundraising or make their base happy. Other members, probably even on the Conservative side, are uncomfortable with that. I am sure they have seen the impacts of true dictatorships and authoritarian governments, and I am sure they are not thrilled by some of the rhetoric coming from their own members.

What I saw last week during question period was members of the Conservative Party rip off their masks in anger and scream at the Prime Minister that he was a dictator. Again, it is not lost on me, but they did so inside the House of Commons, which they were elected to in a democratic election. It really makes me wonder if they even understand the irony in the words they are using, if they truly understand their meaning or if they come from such a place of privilege that they have lost all sense of reality.

Many members, particularly on the Conservative side, have said that this is a peaceful protest, that these are just regular Canadians getting together and demonstrating because they disagree with the government. I fully support the right to protest in this country and the right for dissent in this country. They are a fundamental part of our democracy. If everyone agreed, that would not be a healthy democracy.

However, what I find so interesting is some of the actions by these so-called peaceful freedom fighters that the Conservatives love to defend. They have assaulted people in Ottawa for wearing masks. They have harassed employees of local businesses, so much so that businesses have had to close for three weeks. There was an attempted arson and the doors were handcuffed shut so that if a fire started, people would be burned alive inside the building. I have watched journalists being assaulted and harassed live on TV. There were 911 call centres flooded to disrupt emergency services. A bike was thrown at a police horse yesterday in an attempt to injure it. Protesters tried to take police weapons yesterday. Today protesters lit and threw gas canisters at the police. There were bomb threats at the Ottawa hospital.

I am sure I have missed some of the acts, but the federal government has to uphold law and order anywhere across this country after acts like that and after three weeks of law enforcement telling people that they have been heard, that they have made their point and to go home because what they are doing is illegal. They ignored that and continued the violence. It is unacceptable and it is time for action. I do not think the Emergencies Act should ever be used lightly. The very debate we are having today is crucial to it. The committee oversight that will come from it is also crucial. I hope we as a country are never in this position again.

However, we are here and I will go back to the point of our democracy being threatened. It has been made very clear that foreign money has been influencing the actions of this convoy.

What really stood out for me through some earlier debates is when the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that he had been among the protesters, felt perfectly safe and did not really understand what the issue was. I am the duly elected member for the people of Pickering—Uxbridge. I will read a quote from a voice mail that I received at my Hill office the other day, which is, “Listen, you fucking cunt, you fucking bitch, we're—”

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

Order. I know the hon. member is quoting, but that is unparliamentary language. I do not know how the member wants to deal with it. Maybe she could retract it and try again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that was unparliamentary language and I apologize to those who had to hear it. I thought about editing those words, but that is a message that was left on my parliamentary office phone in an attempt to intimidate me in this vote, silence my voice and harass me. As uncomfortable as it is for some members to hear that language, that is the language and intimidation that these so-called freedom protesters have been using. It is unacceptable for any member to stand in this place and suggest that I, as a duly elected member, should have to feel that intimidation just because some members feel comfortable walking through the protesters. That I, doing my job to represent the people of Pickering—Uxbridge, am harassed and intimidated as a member of Parliament is outrageous and it is time for this to end.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder. The parliamentary secretary said that these people in the streets were violent, but she has not walked through these streets herself. She quoted a very vulgar phone message using her vulgar language and said that it was one of those protesters.

If she has not walked through the crowd to see the demeanour of the people there, how does she know it was one of them who left a message on her phone?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have walked through the crowds. I have been sitting in the House for the last two weeks. I have heard the vulgar language. I have seen the behaviour.

By the way, to correct the member, it was not my vulgar language. It was the vulgar language that was being used to harass and intimidate duly elected members to try and scare us into voting for and allowing the bullying tactics of this loud group to somehow change the discourse on how policy is made. In a democracy, policy is not made through intimidation and harassment.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked whether anybody had realized that the trucks had been cleared since the emergency measures were invoked.

Did she realize that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared without the emergency measures? Did she not notice that the border in Alberta was cleared without the emergency measures and that weapons were actually seized there? Did she not realize that this means that the emergency measures are not needed to clear this up?

Finally, as the parliamentary secretary for intergovernmental affairs, did she realize that Quebec and seven out of ten provinces did not want this legislation?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Emergencies Act was not needed in other jurisdictions in this country, but it is very clear that it is needed here in Ottawa. The chief of police and the mayor of Ottawa have both said that the actions that have been taken in the past few days are as a direct result of the powers given by the Emergencies Act.

It will not be used in jurisdictions that do not need it, and I hope no other community, no other province or anywhere across this country has to be in a situation in which, for three weeks, its citizens feel unsafe to go to a grocery store, or that any other member of Parliament should be bullied and harassed, or that any citizen should be assaulted and have a mask ripped off their face. I hope that this measure does not need to be used elsewhere, but it is needed here, and I hope that member will reconsider his vote.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for speaking the truth to her experience as an MP, as a woman among the 30% of women elected here, and also for sharing the experiences of constituents in her riding and the harassment that people have experienced here in Ottawa.

I am frustrated, as are many others, with being here today. However, I can tell the member that I am not frustrated that we are here debating the Emergencies Act. I am frustrated that occupiers have taken over the downtown core, which has resulted in us having to be here this evening to decide how best to move forward in response to these behaviours and this harassment in the downtown core. Many in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are struggling to get by, and I can tell members that I would much prefer to be doing the work of supporting those constituents right now.

Can the member please share if she would agree that now is the time for action and to move forward to truly help those who have been left behind in this pandemic?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am known to fight and to fiercely debate the issues. I would much rather be debating measures to get through COVID. I would much rather talk about the economy, and talk about our communities and what they need. We might not always agree, but the job of all of us is to be in this place and to push forward those issues.

I, too, am disappointed that this is what we are discussing here tonight, but at the same time, as my hon. colleague has pointed out, it actually shows the strength of our democracy. This has not been lost on me since I have been in Ottawa, and in the constituency as well. While those outside say they want to violently remove every single one of us and put us in jail for doing our jobs as elected representatives, the debate continues. We are not afraid. We have voted on important legislation, and our democracy is stronger than these threats.

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

Mr. Speaker, I liked almost all of the member's speech. She sits on the defence committee with me, and I want her to comment on the violence of language. She and I have heard testimony recently about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation perpetrated by state actors and non-state actors. In my judgment, there is a direct correlation between the violence of language and that element of intimidation. I would be interested in her thoughts connecting those two ideas.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about this as a member of the defence committee, where we have heard about authoritarian governments around the world and the tactics being used by them. In the last session, I sat on the human rights subcommittee, and I heard from parliamentarians from truly authoritarian governments where there was exactly that. Language, intimidation and threats of personal harm and of being thrown in jail were used very specifically to create fear and to get rid of democratic institutions.

This is something we should be very mindful of. Foreign investment and funds to promote this should be something that all Canadians take very seriously—

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

There is time for a few more questions and comments.

The hon. member for Brantford—Brant has the floor.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to offer any free legal advice to anyone in the House, particularly a colleague. However, given what she has experienced by way of the message of vitriol on her answering machine, I want to remind my colleague that this is what the Criminal Code of Canada is for. What she describes is intimidation. What she describes is uttering threats. There is no limitation period for those matters. She is free to contact the police and have an investigation commence.

However, the primary focus of my question is about what she and the Liberal government, particularly the Prime Minister, have indicated. Since it was common knowledge that the manifesto called for an overthrow of the Canadian government, why did the Prime Minister wait three weeks to act, instead of consulting with the RCMP and having the organizers charged with treason?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the confused messaging coming from the member is unbelievable. He sits here to deny support for the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act to enforce the law and to have broader powers to ensure those who commit a criminal offence are held accountable. He somehow wants to rewrite the history of what has happened.

The government is acting with restraint within the charter, and the member should stand up for law and order. People in this country who disagree with the government do not get to then violently attempt to harass and intimidate to get change in that government. If they want a change in the government, they can vote. That is how we make change in democracies, not through harassment and violence.

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

I want to remind folks to keep their questions and answers shorter so that more people can get in. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade wanted to ask a question, but we ran out of time.

I also want to make a quick comment about unparliamentary language. We need to try our best to not bring it forward.

There is a point of order from the parliamentary secretary.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, there are rules about language in this chamber and those rules are appropriate when we are talking among ourselves through you. However, when we are making a citation that refers to the type of invective and vitriol being volleyed in people's direction in the context of this convoy—

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

No, I am looking at the Table just to make sure on this one. To use that kind of vulgarity is not parliamentary in this context. I can bring it up another time and we can talk about it, but in this particular case, I think it was one step a little too far.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order—

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

We are getting into debate. If the member wants to talk to me later on, we can do that as well.

Let us get back to the debate. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canada is grappling with a major crisis that is affecting all Canadian families.

This is the first time in over 30 years that inflation has hit 5.1%. This affects all Canadian families but, unfortunately, we are not here this evening to talk about something that is having a direct impact on all Canadian families. We are here to talk about an act this government wants to invoke. This act is unnecessary, the circumstances do not meet its criteria and it sets precedents that could end up hurting us in the future. Seven of the 10 provincial governments and seven of the 10 provincial premiers have rejected it. It is therefore not appropriate. The act I am talking about is the Emergencies Act.

This act was made almost 35 years ago and has never been invoked. I will explain why it has never been invoked, why it should not be invoked now and why the government has chosen to invoke it anyway. I will explain why, unfortunately, it has the Prime Minister's petty partisan fingerprints all over it.

Before getting to the matter at hand, I want to say two things. First, I want to thank the police forces who are keeping people safe here in Parliament, in Ottawa, and across the country with honour and dignity. I want to thank them. In the same breath, and I will immediately admit to my conflict of interest as a former journalist, I can only harshly condemn those who are attacking or intimidating journalists who are currently working in difficult circumstances. I am thinking of the miscreant who assaulted the TVA reporter last night. Like a coward he attacked her from behind. This situation is completely unacceptable and intolerable in our democratic life. Let us hope that the police forces can find this individual who acted in such an unacceptable manner.

Let us now talk about the Emergencies Act. The leader of the official opposition, our Conservative leader, was very clear when she said that we are the party of law and order and that we believe that the trucks must leave. That is the position of the Conservative Party concerning what is currently going on in Ottawa. Illegal blockades are not acceptable.

We have to remember that three weeks ago, when this all started, the first rally that took place was much less serious than people were saying. I am not the one saying this. I would like to quote a tweet from Radio-Canada, which is hardly a conservative organization. On January 30, the French CBC tweeted:

Slogans, dancing and fireworks: far from an insurrection, the thousands of people gathered in Ottawa protested in good spirits.

That is how Radio-Canada described the beginning of the protest that took place in Ottawa. Unfortunately, three weeks later, the protest has become an occupation and is no longer unacceptable. An illegal situation has no place in our system of law and order. There is no such thing as somewhat or partially illegal. Something is either legal or illegal. There are thousands of ways to express opposition to something. It is important not to deliberately choose the wrong way.

The Emergencies Act has existed since 1988. It has never been invoked or implemented by any government. As the Prime Minister of Canada says, it is not a law to be taken lightly. It is not the first, second or third option, but rather something to be used when the situation is extremely serious and important. That is what the Prime Minister said. Perhaps he should have reflected on his own words before he invoked the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has been asked the following every day: What were the first, second and third things he tried before invoking the Emergencies Act?

He is incapable of saying anything that even slightly resembles an answer to the question. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister.

The Emergencies Act does not even meet his own criteria. This act must be invoked only when there is a serious threat that keeps the government from functioning. Apart from yesterday, the House has always been able to sit. The Prime Minister—although I am not permitted to say it—was in the House and stood on this very floor to answer questions. The government continued to function. This act must be invoked only if we feel that our territorial sovereignty and integrity have been undermined. This has not been the case. Yes, there have been some problematic situations, which I will speak about later, but they have been dealt with using the ordinary laws we already have, without having to invoke the Emergencies Act.

The Prime Minister told the House that he had consulted with the premiers.

He did not actually consult the premiers. He informed them of his decision. That is why seven premiers, seven provincial governments, are opposed to this act.

The truth is that the current situation and what has been happening across Canada over the past few weeks can be dealt with under the existing laws, without the use of the Emergencies Act.

The actions that the government is proposing to take under the act include freezing accounts and assets and directly interfering in people's bank accounts, which could be used for illegal purposes.

Immediate action can be taken under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. We do not need the Emergencies Act. As for threats to Canada's sovereignty, direct action can be taken under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code without any need for the Emergencies Act.

Subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Code covers the much-talked-about situation with the tow trucks. It gives the police the right to ask anyone who does not have a reasonable excuse “to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”.

The Emergencies Act, which includes such extreme measures, need not be invoked since subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Codes does the same thing. There is no need to used the act given that existing laws are already been applied.

In fact, the situation in Ottawa is unfortunately not unlike what has happened elsewhere in the country. We saw the same problems with blockades at the border in Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. Those four crises were resolved using existing laws.

How were they resolved? In those areas, we saw real leadership, police forces helping one another to act directly, and a coordinated effort supported by politicians that led to action being taken.

Yes, in Coutts, weapons were discovered that that could worry everyone. When I myself saw this cache of weapons, I wondered what was going on, because it was dangerous. However, the weapons were discovered, and the people will be punished under existing laws without there being the need to resort to the Emergencies Act. We must be vigilant in that regard.

Members will recall that the War Measures Act was used for the last time in 1970. The now-repealed War Measures Act looked nothing like the act we are debating today. The new Emergencies Act was drafted by the Conservative government under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and introduced by the Hon. Perrin Beatty in 1988.

The Emergencies Act has never been invoked, even during major demonstrations at events like the G7; the G20; the Summit of the Americas, which I attended as a journalist; the Oka crisis; the COVID‑19 crisis; and September 11. These extraordinary events could have been used as reasons to invoke the Emergencies Act, but it was not invoked.

The Liberal government, however, invoked this law over what has been happening in Ottawa. It did so because this government is unfortunately led by a Prime Minister who is, above all, guided by partisanship. This is nothing new.

I remind members that during the SNC‑Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister let partisanship take over when he stuck his nose into a legal matter. That is appalling.

The same thing happened with the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, when he did everything he could to prevent the truth from coming out and being available to everyone.

Remember that an election was called to bring in a vaccine mandate for public servants when there was no scientific advice on such a thing. The same thing happened with the truckers. There was no public health advice or scientific analysis to justify the vaccine mandate.

The government did nothing for 17 days before deciding to act. Curiously, on February 11, it said that everything was in place to act without invoking special legislation, but then on February 14, it decided to invoke the special legislation.

This is a Prime Minister who stigmatizes, divides and insults Canadians. These are not my words, but those of the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert. What Canadians need is real leadership and a prime minister who brings people together and unites them, not someone who stigmatizes people who do not think like him.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite and his contributions to the chamber at all times. I politely point out to him that in terms of the crisis being ongoing, even today the blockade at the Surrey border in B.C. has been resurrected, so tools are still required by law enforcement around the country. That is the first point of clarification.

I am going to put something to the hon. member that I think is very significant, because we have heard this from other Conservatives, including the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, who said that “everyone” has the right to be heard.

What I would say to him is that I have a specific view that not everyone has a right to be heard in this context. People who are waving swastikas or Confederate flags, people who are leaving vitriol in the voice mail of other members of Parliament, people who are openly intimidating and threatening violence or people who are arming themselves at the border do not have a right to be heard.

Would the member opposite agree that in fact there is and should be limited appetite for engaging in dialogue with individuals who are part of the blockade seizing this nation?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that again a member from the government, from the Liberal Party, raises the famous story about the swastika. I will never accept any comment of that style from anybody in the House of Commons because everybody knows that all parliamentarians here, whatever they defend as a party, will never defend that.

The problem is that the Prime Minister—my Prime Minister, our Prime Minister—decided to politicize it. Shame on him and shame on this member.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had promised that the law would be applied in a limited way, and then he changed his mind and said that it was not possible. However, section 17(2)(c) of part II of the Emergencies Act says exactly the opposite.

If the Prime Minister had kept his word and followed the act, what would my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and his party have thought about the invocation of the act?