Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important question.

Yes, there are extreme elements on all sides, and I believe Canadians want us to make sure they are dealt with appropriately, and dealt with through utilizing the existing laws already in place. We saw this happen across the country. They have been utilized, and they have been effective, without using the nuclear option of going to this extreme measure.

Now, this act is being weaponized against Canadian citizens who happen to not share the same political views as the government. That is a dangerous precedent. I think what we need is a measured, reasonable response, so the hallmark of any democracy's right to protest is protected when done lawfully and peacefully, as all Canadians desire.

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

Madam Speaker, Congress has launched an investigation into Facebook and how bot farm accounts in Romania, Vietnam and Bangladesh were tied to the “freedom convoy”. One stolen account accounted for millions of dollars raised and 340,000 members signed up in two days.

I am asking why Parliament has not agreed to look into Russian disinformation in the driving of the convoy, when Congress has stepped up with a serious investigation into how bot farms and extremist content were driven from outside of Canada against Canadians.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I think right now we obviously have the tools and mechanisms to make sure safeguards are in place for foreign donors and others who are involving themselves in Canadian affairs, such as mechanisms like FINTRAC.

Let us utilize the tools that are already in place, rather than this nuclear overreach that is taking and targeting Canadian citizens for actions that may be politically opposed to the government of the day. This is a dangerous overreach, and this measure must be revoked by Parliament.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

On this day of debate on the Emergencies Act, I would first like to offer my thanks to all the staff in the House, namely the clerks, the interpreters, the pages, the security officers and the cooks, among others. I also thank the reporters and their teams, who covered the various protests.

Of course, I am well aware that we are going through an exceptional situation right now. I hope that all parliamentarians, especially the government members, are well aware of this. The vote that will take place in a few hours might create an important precedent.

We have been incredibly busy these past few days. We have been busy debating an unnecessary law to lift the siege in Ottawa, and I have been busy talking to the people of Laurentides—Labelle about the issues related to this bill. Hundreds of people contacted me to talk about their concerns and what they wanted done about the blockade that, unfortunately, lasted 23 days.

I would like to use my time to explain the reasons why we oppose the use of the Emergencies Act, which the government invoked in haste without proving that other legislative tools at its disposal did not work.

I absolutely understand that people are sick to death of the virus and the public health measures and rules that changed our lives. The situation had a direct impact on me too, just as it impacted caregivers, business people, parents and health care workers, among many others.

It is no secret that we will vote against the use of the Emergencies Act, and there are many reasons why.

On February 15, the elected members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion stating that no emergency situation justified the use of special legislative measures in Quebec and calling on the Canadian government not to apply the Emergencies Act in Quebec. Will the government respect the will of the 125 members of the National Assembly?

Even more appalling is that seven out of 10 provinces are against using this legislation. Obviously, Ontario requested it because that is where the siege was held.

The application of such legislation should not be taken lightly. It must be measured and proportionate. The Prime Minister himself said several times that the act would not be used where it is not needed. Why, then, does it apply everywhere?

The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the mobilization facilitated by social media. This type of legislation is not to be applied “just in case”; it is to be applied to deal with a real and imminent situation. The application of the act must be essential and necessary.

Every action taken in the past few days could have been taken with the tools provided under the Criminal Code. Arrests were made in coordination with the various police forces, which, in my opinion, should have been done in the early days.

What we needed was a head of state to coordinate interventions. Sadly, since being elected, I have seen no such head of state. Instead of getting out in front of a crisis, an issue, or a pandemic, the Prime Minister racks up conflicts of interest, as I saw when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. When the City of Ottawa called for reinforcements, the federal government dawdled. Here is how I would sum up the situation. The federal government did not try anything. Then, not knowing what to do, it invoked the Emergencies Act, once all the occupations had been cleared out. The authorities will continue their work.

The government was not too worried about the Ambassador Bridge situation until it got a call from the White House. That is kind of a big deal. Then the government did nothing until it got a call from the Ottawa police, which wanted an additional 1,800 officers. The feds sent in a handful of officers, basically just enough to protect ministers and MPs. Only about 20 officers were deployed to the protest sites.

It is important to note that the government cannot invoke the Emergencies Act unless it can demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists and cannot be handled by means of ordinary laws.

There is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation, but it is limited to Ontario. We wanted the act to apply only where the occupation was taking place, especially since invoking this act, if applied more broadly than it should be, will set a dangerous precedent. The Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, 9/11, or even the COVID-19 pandemic.

When someone is criticized for not taking action, they try to make people forget about their bungling by using a sledgehammer as a show of strength to impress people. However, politics is not a game where players come up with strategies for the simple and only reason of maintaining or regaining power.

If this makes people rather cynical, I would tell them “welcome to the club”. Applying the Emergencies Act when the situation is confined to one location, not across Canada, is overkill. What saddens me is that the voters will think that the Prime Minister saved Ottawa. I want to express my sincerest appreciation to police officers at all levels for the tremendous work they have done.

To all those who reached out to me regarding the use of the Emergencies Act, I want to say that the siege did indeed have to be stopped. Existing measures are what saved Ottawa. The Criminal Code and traffic regulations are what saved Ottawa. No, I will not vote in favour of the use of the Emergencies Act. Quebec's 125 MNAs do not want it to be used. The implications of this legislation are too great to use it as a way to take back control, just because a government failed to take action and lacks leadership.

I would like to remind members that the federal government lagged behind the provinces when it came to implementing measures to deal with the pandemic. One need only think of the management of the borders, or lack thereof, at the beginning of the pandemic. That was a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to show some leadership as a government leader, but he did not. That is unfortunate for him and for us.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will one day speak French well enough to ask the member my question in French.

I am curious if my colleague thinks the Emergencies Act should be revoked, now that Wellington Street is clear, and there is nothing further blocking the street?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to talking to my colleague in French.

To answer her question, the point has just been proven. Removing the Ambassador Bridge blockade was possible because law enforcement took the bull by the horns and agreed on a strategy that could have been used in the early days of the blockade. Law enforcement coordinated their efforts and dismantled the blockade.

Was it because the Emergencies Act was invoked? The answer is no.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to some constitutional experts, it is not enough for the Emergencies Act to be useful for the government to proclaim its application. It must be demonstrated that it is necessary and indispensable.

Would my colleague agree that this will be difficult if not impossible to demonstrate, given that the conflict has been allowed to worsen for three weeks, and that not all the legal tools available have been deployed?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his very relevant question.

Indeed, we are waiting for the government to demonstrate that.

When a motion is moved to invoke the Emergencies Act, there must be an emergency, a danger to the public or a public health problem. Canada or its public health must be facing some sort of danger.

As I demonstrated in my speech, there have been so many other events with more serious repercussions on our society. How is it that after all this time, after three weeks with very little action, we decide to get out the hammer and go all out?

No, there is no need to invoke this act.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I find the position of the Bloc Québécois to be quite interesting. Here is a party that I know is only voting against this because of the implications that it will have politically for its members, from the perspective of the national government coming in and superseding provincial territories. Despite the fact that the Bloc members are shaking their heads, I know they have a big problem with that.

However, the Bloc Québécois did not seem to have a problem with it when the Quebec government asked the federal military to come in and help with long-term care at the beginning of the pandemic.

Why was it okay for the federal government to be an active partner with Quebec to help secure and fix the long-term care problem, but when it comes to something like this the Bloc Québécois is totally against it?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

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

I think we need to put these issues into perspective. People also need to understand the role of the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc has always maintained that the interests of Quebec are what matter most to the party. We support what is good for Quebec.

Did the Quebec National Assembly vote unanimously in favour of this law? The answer is no. It did not do so because the problem is limited to what is happening in Canada's capital.

It is crucial that the federal government listen to the voices of our elected officials and those of seven other provinces. What happened in long-term care homes in Quebec is completely different. I am sick of people conflating different issues.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that if they want to have side conversations, they should please take them out in the lobby. Whether someone is physically in the House or virtually, they still deserve the respect of the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for her fine speech.

I want to start mine by commending the excellent work done by the police forces, whose professionalism and interventions are above reproach. I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the work of the security officers on Parliament Hill, who ensured our protection during the siege in front of Parliament. Thanks to them, we can safely come here and do our work every day.

We must also acknowledge the exceptional work of all the staff on Parliament Hill and the journalists covering the day's events under difficult conditions. Honestly, I would rather rise to speak to more important and less pointless topics than the one before us today.

Need I remind the House that we are in the middle of a pandemic? Need I remind the House that many first nations communities still do not have access to drinking water, that seniors are unable to make ends meet every month and that they have to choose between buying food or paying for prescription drugs? Need I remind the House that it is imperative for the federal government to increase health transfers with no strings attached up to 35% of the cost of health care as unanimously demanded by Quebec and the provinces? I could go on. The list is long.

In order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate two things: That a dangerous and urgent situation exists, and that this situation cannot be dealt with under what we call ordinary laws.

All the blockades we saw across Canada these past few weeks have been taken down, one by one—and without using the Emergencies Act. Did we need the act to clear the blockades in Sarnia, in Emerson, Manitoba or at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor? Did we need it to end the protests at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie or in the greater Vancouver area? In each case, the answer is no. Were police forces able to end the siege here in Ottawa without the Emergencies Act? The answer is yes.

The government should never have moved this motion. It is not warranted given the current state of affairs and the good work done by police. At best, the government should have revoked it when it saw that the blockades had been dismantled without anyone using this law. This would have given us time and allowed us to debate far more serious matters such as those I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

As we know, several provinces, including Quebec, did not want this law to apply to their territory. The three opposition parties in the National Assembly stood with Premier Legault and expressed their disapproval of the application of the federal Emergencies Act to Quebec. Members of all parties in the National Assembly supported a motion to that effect.

Fifty years ago, the federal government used its extraordinary powers, and we know what happened, because it went down in history. The use of such legislation should not be taken lightly. Its application must be measured, proportional and justified. Why did the Prime Minister decide to apply it to the entire country? He has not been listening, because several provinces, including Quebec, do not want it. He showed no respect for the provinces and territories and did not make an informed and justifiable decision, as as a true leader would have.

I will now explain why we are debating this motion. We have a Prime Minister who, instead of acting as a government leader worthy of that title, was hiding who knows where, doing nothing but waiting. It was not as though we did not know this would happen. It was not a surprise. We knew that the protesters were coming to Ottawa.

Let me be clear, Madam Speaker: People have the right to protest, because that is part of democracy, but they have to do it while respecting the law. Instead of being proactive, the Prime Minister chose to sit idly by. Oh, I forgot: At one point, he had the brilliant idea of pouring more gas on the fire by insulting the protesters. That is unacceptable behaviour unworthy of a real leader. Because of his inaction, the people of Ottawa and the surrounding area went through many days of hell, fearing for their safety and putting up with the noise and the traffic. Horns were blaring day and night. I sympathize with the people who had to endure that for much too long.

As well, let us not forget about the people who could not work during the siege. Businesses had to stay closed. People stayed home out of fear. Sacrifices were made. Will the government help the workers and business owners who lost revenue through no fault of their own?

Given the enormity of the situation, and having lost control and not knowing what else to do, the Prime Minister thought it might be a good idea to use a bazooka to kill a fly by invoking the Emergencies Act. That is a dangerous move. The use of this act is not appropriate here, and it will set a precedent.

I have been watching my Liberal colleagues pussyfooting around for days. They are trying to justify the Prime Minister's decision by giving us arguments that have done absolutely nothing to convince me so far. I am still going to vote against the motion. Even the NDP said this weekend that it was no longer sure whether the Emergencies Act was required. It might change its mind and vote against the Liberals. For the past three weeks, we have experienced highs and lows and protests that should never have gone on this long.

In closing, I would like to take the rest of my time to thank all the health care workers for their efforts, dedication and courage during this pandemic. Our hearts are with them, and we are grateful for all that they do. I also want to thank the incredible organizations in Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, which have been doing an amazing job during the pandemic, as always.

Finally, I want to thank my constituents for the sacrifices they have made, for their understanding and for following the health guidelines. It made all the difference in our riding during the pandemic. Thanks to their efforts, we were able to limit the loss of loved ones during the five waves of the pandemic.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Would my colleague like to comment on the Prime Minister's lack of leadership at this time? Does she want to end the application of the Emergencies Act?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We know everything that happened should have happened during the early days of the protests in Ottawa. We feel the government did not take action and did not work with City of Ottawa police services. We do not think the Emergencies Act was necessary because existing municipal and provincial laws could have adequately addressed the situation. As we saw in Quebec, our own legislation was plenty good enough. That is why I do not think this act was necessary.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been raising the issue of the Ambassador Bridge. The blockade there required extensive supports, and city of Windsor residents are on the hook for those right now.

Currently, the blockade has been moved to cut off city streets, including a 300-year-old Francophonie community that has been very important for this area. It is also impoverished. Lastly, the Ambassador Bridge is owned by a private American billionaire, who now gets the benefit of the barricades funnelling all the traffic to his coffers.

I would like the hon. member to understand and reflect on this. Who should be paying for this? Is it the city of Windsor's residents and the Francophonie culture here, or should it be the provincial and federal governments? Right now we are on the hook.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know the act was invoked on Monday to no effect.

In the case of the Ambassador Bridge, city police got it open again. That can be done again, so there is no need to use the act to achieve this outcome.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about the phenomenon of discrimination on the basis of political views that we increasingly hear from the government. The justice minister is talking about people's bank accounts being frozen on the basis of being part of an allegedly pro-Trump movement.

In this country, as long as one is not involved in violence, one is able to hold whatever views one wants, and that should not be a factor when deciding whether individuals' bank accounts should be frozen. Many individuals donated to the convoy movement prior to the start of any blockading.

Could the member share her thoughts on this phenomenon of discrimination on the basis of political views, on how people and protests are treated differently depending on the cause they are advocating, and what we as parliamentarians can do to address this problem?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I said earlier, the provinces and local police can handle protests that get out of hand and people who break the law.

I think it is important to note that there are already procedures in place for that. It is just a matter of following them.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, “Grant thy servant an understanding heart that I may discern between good and evil.” As I took my seat for the very first time in the House, these words of Solomon came to mind, seeking wisdom to lead. Here I was in this place, a place I had dreamt many times that maybe one day I would have opportunity to sit in and represent my fellow citizens. Especially today, as I speak in the House about the chaos, division and anger, not just in front of this place but all across Canada, I hope for wisdom for myself and all my fellow members.

Leaders lead by inspiring those around them to greatness. They inspire a hope that tomorrow will be brighter than today. They lift everyone up, not just those who agree with them. They seek to bring people together, to give the voiceless a voice and a seat at the table. Leaders stand up for every citizen: every Canadian, urban, rural, rich or poor, white collar, blue collar, right and left, regardless of their faith or creed and regardless of their place of origin. A leader gives every ounce of his being to ensure a legacy of prosperity and success for his fellow citizens. However, what we saw out front the last three weeks was a failure of leadership. It was a failure of those entrusted by Canadians with that most solemn of tasks, which is to ensure that our kids will inherit a better future than we received, to ensure that the maple leaf is an undying symbol here and around the world of freedom, pluralism, justice and democracy.

We are here today to talk about the Emergencies Act. I, like many of my colleagues in the House and millions of Canadians, believe that the use of this act at this time is a dramatic overreach. We have heard from many members here about the consequences if the bar is lowered even just a little in the future use of this act, and I echo those concerns.

The fact is, the protests had to end. Every Canadian has a right to peaceful protest, but we do not have the right to park a truck in the middle of a city street for three weeks. In the same way, we have a right to disagree with those who have chosen not to get vaccinated, but we do not have a right to call them racists or misogynists.

I believed my doctor when he told me that vaccination is the best tool, not the only tool, but the best tool to protect my health and my neighbours' health against COVID-19. I also believed my doctor when he told me that we had reached 85% to 90% vaccination rates and should be able to start getting our lives back. We see that starting to happen now. The fact is, Canada is among the most vaccinated countries on earth, and yet some of our fellow citizens simply will not get vaccinated. We need to be okay with that.

While I understand some of the reasons I have heard for vaccine hesitancy, I do not understand all of them, and I do not need to. I do not need to understand my fellow citizens' medical choices to defend their fundamental right to make those choices. That is the beauty of this country. We get to make our own health choices. We do not impose draconian measures on the people we disagree with, and it is also why I echo the words of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he said, “For if individuals and minorities do not feel protected against the possibility of the tyranny of the majority...it is useless to ask them to open their hearts and minds to their fellow Canadians.”

This debate should never have had to happen. Truckers should never have had to park their trucks in front of Parliament. The divisive rhetoric and demonizing of a minority of Canadians by their own government, whatever the intention, was, quite simply, disgusting.

This is clearly not the first time the political class has used our differences of opinion to divide us for political gain, and it likely will not be the last. We have stopped talking to each other. We are all guilty of it. We listen to our party war rooms on how the polls show us we can slice and dice the electorate to our advantage. We say we have a desire to listen to each other, and then we go on the partisan attack. The actions we take right here in the House directly translate to how we treat each other as Canadians.

I do not know if those of us who sit in the privilege of this place in our fancy suits, surrounded by deferential security guards calling us “sir” and “ma’am”, truly understand the anger and frustrations as so many Canadians feel their hopes and dreams slipping further and further away. They yearn for politicians to simply talk about their issues, to genuinely represent them.

The contractor in Swift Current, the single dad in Delta, the fisherman in St. Margaret’s Bay, the police officer in Yellowknife and the student in Brandon do not care how good our partisan shot was in question period. They do not care how many retweets our clip got. They certainly do not care how much we have out-fundraised our opponents. They just want to know their politicians are working for them. They want to know that their leaders care about their livelihoods, that we care as much about their industry as they do. They want to know we are fighting as hard as we can for them to not have to choose between putting the kids in hockey or putting food on the table. They want to know they will be able to own a home and raise a family in a community their kids can come back to, where they can retire in dignity.

They want to know their government is well managed and ethical and delivers excellent services. It would be nice if their government were just boring. They want to celebrate our great country and the everyday heroes who make this the most magnificent nation on earth. They want us and need us to be here every day, seeking and striving to build our fellow citizens up and bring people together. We need to stop being politicians and start being leaders.

We were elected to represent our communities, tell the hard truths and work hard on behalf of our people. We were not sent here to listen to what the focus groups say or what the polls might say. We were not sent here to represent only those people who put up lawn signs. We were not sent here to appeal to the lowest common dominator; we were sent here to raise it. Canadians do not think of their community as a target seat. It is their hometown, where everyone is a neighbour, where everyone deserves strong representation in this House.

There are lots of folks in downtown Toronto and Montreal who want lower taxes, and there are a lot of people in rural Alberta who are proud of and really want a strong, publicly funded health care system. There are a lot of people in Vancouver who are fed up with vaccine mandates and a lot of people in Regina who are eager to welcome another new Canadian to their community. There are plenty of Quebeckers who want to use Canadian energy, and there are thousands of folks in Manitoba who are proud of their union membership.

Outside of this Ottawa bubble, Canadians are one people, one nation, all working to build a country we can be even more proud of tomorrow than we were yesterday. We are a nation, 38 million strong, all yearning and striving for a country where everyone has a place and everyone has a shot at success. Ours is a country where we might not always agree on every issue, but we always agree that we live in the greatest country in the world and that we deserve a government that is not all things to all people but enables us all to come together, leaving no one behind.

This is a country where a person can be anything they want to be and do anything they want to do. We can give a job to those without one; we can ensure that our next generation can afford a home; we can eradicate poverty; we can come together again; we can break down the walls that divide us and help heal this broken nation, all with an understanding heart. It starts with all of us in the House. Canadians are counting on our leadership.

My message to the Prime Minister and to every one of us in the House is simple. Listen to those with whom there is disagreement and be willing to compromise. Let us work together to build on the common cause of bringing Canadians together, to celebrate all that unites us. To everyone else, let us tone down the heat. Let us be open to hearing opinions other than our own, and let us try to see ourselves on the other side. This is Canada. We can disagree without hating each other.

There is nothing wrong with Canada that cannot be fixed with everything that is right about Canada. Let us cut down the partisan personal attacks and ideological entrenchment; let us start listening to each other and to our communities rather than the political operatives who use the differences between us to stoke fear and anger in the name of winning a few more votes. Let us hold each other to the same standards that Canadians hold their neighbours to, which is to say that we should expect compassion, respect, courage and character from one other. If we can do that, then we will start to bring this country back together again, because that is what leaders do, and Canada needs leaders right now.

This is a critical time. We need only to look south of the border to see the polarizing effects of a divisive political culture and culture war. Let us demand excellence from ourselves. Let us choose what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”. Let us go forward together, building each other up and bringing Canadians from all walks of life together in our mutual cause of Canada, our beloved true north, strong and free.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just wish to say to the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka that I really liked his speech today and I liked the tone and the call for unity. To be frank, I would have expected nothing less from having, in the last few months, gotten to know this member of Parliament, who I know represented his constituents not only at the federal level and but also at the municipal level, and whom I count as a friend, both today as a parliamentarian and in the future, when I may not be in the House, hopefully about 10 or 15 years from now.

He quoted Lincoln and that gives me utmost respect for him, as it would for anybody who knows about history, but I will ask the member about the fact that we are having a debate on the Emergencies Act. It is time-limited and it is proportionate. It has gotten the job done.

I wanted to get this member's view on that.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his gracious comments and kind words. The feeling is certainly quite mutual.

I think that, very specifically in this moment, it is an overreach. However, I think the hon. member heard from me that what concerns me more than anything else are the decades of a political discourse in this country that is designed to divide us. All parties are guilty of it. I will say to anyone who served in municipal politics that if we ever behaved in municipal politics the way we behave in the House, we would not be in office very long. It is disgusting.

It is ripping this country apart and it breaks my heart. We need to do better.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, proclaiming the Emergencies Act is the executive branch's measure of last resort.

Out of respect for those of us in the legislative branch, and given the gravity of the issues, does my colleague think there should be a free vote on this question?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will admit to being surprised. I was not expecting that. I think that it absolutely should be. I think that there should be more free votes in this place, frankly. I would simply say, yes, I agree.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I truly want to thank the hon. member across for his honest and heartfelt remarks in the House. We have heard a lot of rhetoric here over the last few days and I know I have certainly been impacted by it, exhausted at the end of the day and taken down by it.

Often, the former leader of the NDP has been named in the House and used against us to create division, so I thank him for quoting Jack Layton just now, in terms of saying that Canada needs to be a place where no one is left behind. That provides me with a lot of hope.

I agree that this is beyond something that is just about vaccine mandates. This is about the economic divisions we have in our country and the fact that people are terrified that they do not know how they are going to pay for the food they need for their kids, or their mortgage. I simply want to say that I stand ready to work with him to make this a better place for Canada and I hope we can continue to work together in that fashion.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is the kind of message that Canadians need to hear more of, those of us on all sides of the House seeking to work together. I admit I had an exchange just last night in the lobbies with the member for Edmonton Strathcona and it got heated. I realized that I was guilty of arguing with her in the same way I was to speak about today. I regretted it. I exchanged an email with her this morning to apologize for that.

It is easy to get caught up in the passions of this place. We need to be constantly checking ourselves. We are not here for our passions. We are here to represent people who need us to be here for them.