Len Webber

[Emergencies Act, February 19th, 2022]

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.

[Emergencies Act, February 19th, 2022]

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.

[Emergencies Act, February 19th, 2022]

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—

[Canadian Oil and Gas Industry, February 15th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians are frustrated with the Liberal government, and rightfully so. We see full oil tankers coming in on the east coast from dictatorships, from human rights abusers and from those who have no respect for the environment. However, our ethically produced, environmentally responsible, job-creating Alberta oil is blocked from getting to a market.

Canada is blessed with the third-largest proven oil reserves on the planet. We have among the toughest environmental standards and employment standards. We have the foundation to be an energy-independent country, with enough left over to export. That is why it is so unacceptable that Canada imports energy from 114 other countries.

It is time for the Liberal government to end energy imports. It is time for the Liberal government to support Canada's energy independence. It is time for the Liberal government to support Canadians. Annabelle, loud and proud.

[Canada Revenue Agency, February 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Parliament unanimously passed my private member's bill that would help Canadians register as organ and tissue donors through their annual tax return. Support from all parties was an encouraging sign to thousands of Canadians awaiting a life-saving transplant. Sadly, nothing has happened since. The minister has not even given me the courtesy of responding to my request for an update. She owes all members in the House an update.

Will the minister tell us why we have not seen any progress from her or the Canada Revenue Agency?

[Petitions, June 18th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions I am pleased to present today from concerned Canadians from our great country.

In the first, the petitioners are deeply concerned about the devastating impact the pandemic has had on the travel industry and independent travel agents in particular.

The petitioners call on the government to ensure any financial aid afforded to the airlines is conditional on the payment of commissions to travel agents, who are being left out of any discussions. They also want to ensure any commissions clawed back by the airlines are returned in a timely fashion to the travel agents who have already performed the work.

My second petition is also from Canada's independent travel agents, specifically those from Airdrie, Innisfail and Calgary, Alberta. Like those in the last petition, they worked hard early in the pandemic, rebooking and cancelling flights, only to have their commissions clawed back. They were not paid for their work.

The petitioners ask the government to continue the Canada recovery benefit for an additional six months following the lifting of pandemic travel advisories. They also want to see the benefits maintained at $2,000 per month for the hardest-hit sectors of the economy.

Finally, I have a third petition from independent travel agents, who are also struggling with the current travel and quarantine requirements in effect.

The petitioners also call for specific sector funding for independent travel advisers. This sector was the first to see disruption and likely will be the last to return to normal. They also call on the government to extend the qualifications for the regional relief and recovery fund in urban areas to include sole proprietors.

[Residential Schools, June 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, children's shoes and toys were placed in front of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia this past week, a memorial to 215 indigenous children who died at just one residential school. It has shocked our nation.

These children were taken from their families and never came home. Each one is a tragic story, and together they are a horrifying reminder of what our nation did to those poor kids, their families and their culture. Sadly, the more we learn, the more we weep. Just when we think we have heard the worst, another chapter in the shameful history of Canada is unearthed.

We all have a duty to learn more about this tragedy and this devastating part of Canada's history so we can heal and grow together as a nation. We cannot undo the past, but we can learn from it and commit to doing our part to support the healing and reconciliation.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 31st, 2021]

With regard to expenditures on talent fees and other expenditures on models for media produced by the government since October 1, 2017, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures; and (b) what are the details of each expenditure, including the (i) vendor, (ii) project or campaign description, (iii) description of goods or services provided, (iv) date and duration of the contract, (v) file number, (vi) publication name where the related photographs are located, if applicable, (vii) relevant website, if applicable?

[Canada Revenue Agency Act, May 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, as you know very well because it was mentioned numerous times today, this bill got its second chance in this Parliament when my name was drawn first in the private member's bill lottery. It was you, Mr. Speaker, who drew my name out of a hat, so I owe you big time. I thank you sincerely.

This was first introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-316 and it passed unanimously at all stages. Unfortunately, it died in the Senate when the 2019 election was called. Here we are today with Bill C-210. It also enjoyed the same unanimous support at all stages. Hopefully an election will not be called before the Senate has the opportunity to pass this into law, assuming it passes in the House next week.

There are so many people I need to thank, I do not even know where to begin. First and foremost is my assistant, Terence Scheltema. His help throughout this whole process has been immense and I cannot thank him enough. Of course, I also thank the member for Oakville North—Burlington, the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Courtenay—Alberni, who kindly helped on my behalf to ensure unanimity and a quick passage.

I thank my colleagues on the health committee, who went above and beyond to ensure that the organ donation question would be on the front page of the income tax form. It was clearly identified at committee that they wanted this question on the front page of the income tax form, along with the Elections Canada question. I thank them sincerely for that. I thank the 20 members from all parties who seconded my bill and the ones who spoke on this bill throughout the entire process.

There are also some people behind the scenes who made this bill a reality and did some of the heavy lifting and careful navigation through this process. I need to thank procedural clerks Marie-France Renaud, Caroline Massicotte and Isabelle Dumas, and legislative counsel Nathalie Caron and Sylvie Bednar. As well, I want to thank three government staff, in particular, for their non-partisan assistance and co-operation: ministerial assistants Janick Cormier and Christina Lazarova, as well as parliamentary assistant Christopher Lalande.

As I have mentioned before in the House, my inspirations for this bill were Karen Korchinski and my late friend Robert Sallows. I pray the day will never come when Karen will need that liver transplant, but if it does, then perhaps the chances of her getting one will be that much better. Robert Sallows is a double lung transplant recipient who sadly passed away just before my Bill C-316 passed in the House in 2018. We need to get this bill passed so that we can finally tell Robert we finished the job for him. He fought so hard to help others also get a second chance at life. We need to finish this for him.

Finally, I want to thank the many Canadians who shared their personal stories with me along this journey. Some were tragic and some were remarkable, but all of them came from the heart. Let us not delay this any longer. Everything that needs to be said has been said. It is time to get Canada's organ and tissue procurement system on track and give hope to the thousands of Canadians awaiting transplants.

[Canada Labour Code, May 6th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-220, which has been brought forward by my colleague from Edmonton Riverbend. The member and I go way back. In fact, we served together in the Alberta legislature. Now we share the same privilege of serving together in the House.

As an Alberta MLA, I brought forward legislation that created the Alberta organ and tissue donation registry, and my colleague from Edmonton Riverbend strongly supported my efforts then. He then brought forward the Alberta compassionate care leave legislation, which I, in turn, was happy to be a strong supporter of. Both pieces of legislation passed successfully in Alberta, and now we are both here in Ottawa and continue our work.

When we came here, I introduced legislation that would improve our national organ and tissue donation rates by adding the question to our income tax form. In fact, it comes up tomorrow for a final hour of debate at third reading. Now the member for Edmonton Riverbend's federal compassionate care leave bill is before us today, in its final hour of debate, so we are both on the cusp of seeing our legislation pass in the House this week. I find it very fitting that we find ourselves here today, given our shared history with provincial and federal legislation.

We have shown that sensible, compassionate legislation is something that all parties can support. Bill C-220 originally proposed to extend the compassionate care leave program, which federally regulated employees can use to take up to 26 weeks off work to take care of a terminally ill loved one. The bill was later amended at committee to allow for federally regulated private sector Canadian employees to take a leave of absence from their job for up to 10 days following the death of a family member. The 10 days can be taken within six weeks of the funeral of a deceased family member.

I believe that these changes would benefit working Canadians by giving them extra time when they face a very difficult period. They would also allow them the flexibility to take the time when they can. I hope that this is just the first of many ways the government examines how it can make the grieving process easier for families. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us how critical it is that people are supported in the loss of a loved one.

I am really pleased that we are recognizing the importance of compassionate care leave, as it is something that I am all too familiar with. I lost my wife Heather to breast cancer a number of years ago, and I was fortunate to have had the ability to take time off from work to support my wife before she died and, just as importantly, to support my three young daughters after her death. I cannot imagine for a second what this would have been like if I did not have the support I did at the time.

I was a member of the Alberta legislature at that time, and I cannot thank Premier Ed Stelmach and my colleagues enough for their support. The premier went out of his way to make it as easy as possible for me to focus on my family, and I will forever be grateful for it. He even rearranged cabinet to allow me to stay closer to home. My colleagues picked up some of my workload, and the member for Edmonton Riverbend was one of them. I will never forget that.

I want to take a moment to thank our registered home care nurse, Donna Dryer, who played a critical role in supporting my family and my wife. Donna helped us with our needs and, most importantly, made Heather comfortable in her final days. We thank her to this day, and I only hope those who must go through what we did are lucky enough to have someone like Donna assigned to them.

Grief is something we all experience differently, and it is almost impossible to put an appropriate mourning or grief period into legislation. However, we have to find a reasonable balance between need and resources. I think that the bill is an excellent first step, but I would like to see the legislation reviewed after a few years to ensure that it is meeting its goals.

I recall that a few months after I lost my wife, I met a guy at an event. He was a firefighter who, coincidentally, had lost his wife around the same time I did. Tragically, she had died suddenly in a car accident en route to the grocery store.

I chatted with him for a bit, and I will never forget him saying to me that at least I was lucky enough to be able to say goodbye to my wife. That really resonated with me. It was true. I was able to say goodbye to my wife, and I was lucky enough to say goodbye. He did not have that opportunity; he was not able to say goodbye. I cannot imagine how difficult that would be. It made me realize that the grief we were both experiencing at the time was very much different.

There are many factors that can affect the depth and the length of the grieving process. Was the death foreseeable, or completely sudden and unexpected? Did the family have the opportunity to say goodbye? Does the person's death dramatically alter the financial situation of the family? These are all factors, but the biggest determination in how people grieve is the level of support they get from family and friends. Bill C-220 would ensure that people have at least some level of support from the government, and that is a really good thing.

Death is something that we all have to deal with at some point in time. We all lose a loved one or a close friend. Sadly, as we get older it becomes more and more frequent, although this does not make things any easier. As the Willie Nelson song goes:

It's not somethin' you get over
But it's somethin' you get through

For those who are struggling with grief, there is help available. It is important that they reach out and ask for it. They can Google “mental health hotline Canada” and call the 1-800 number, which is 1-833-456-4566. Youth can call the Kids Help Phone, at 1-800-668-6868. Hopefully one day, thanks to the member for Cariboo—Prince George, they will only have to call a three-digit number, the 988 number, to seek help.

In closing, I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-220. The member for Edmonton Riverbend has brought forward sensible, compassionate legislation that will help many Canadians. I am pleased that his efforts have been welcomed by all parties in the House of Commons, and I wish him all the luck in the world as he moves the bill off to the Senate. I hope we can make this legislation a reality before the next election.