44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 11:36:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we agree that the act should not apply in Quebec because there is no way to do that, and we were prepared to support the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois yesterday in that regard, before the Liberals blocked it.
What made me uncomfortable about the Bloc Québécois leader's speech was when he made some questionable historical associations involving us by bringing up some painful memories and the trauma caused by the use of the War Measures Act in Quebec. There is no comparison between the Emergencies Act and what happened some 50 years ago. Even columnist Hélène Buzzetti, who could never be accused of being insensitive to Quebec's views, has said that the two are not at all comparable.
I therefore invite the leader of the Bloc Québécois to look at the provisions of the act in an intellectually honest way and to make the necessary distinctions.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:56:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly convinced that the NDP leader was not happy about announcing his support at the outset, unlike the Minister of Public Safety, who said he was proud to support the Emergencies Act.
The NDP's current position is inconsistent with the history of the party and the legacy of Tommy Douglas, which they claimed to represent when marking the anniversary of the Emergencies Act.
We will be debating this over the next few days before voting on it later this week. The situation we are discussing could also evolve and change.
I would like to know whether there is anything that might make the NDP leader change his mind and withdraw his support for the Emergencies Act.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:59:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear to Canadians that we take this step with a lot of reluctance. We are not in any way proud that we are at a point in our country's history where the Emergencies Act has to be implemented. We think a failure of leadership got us to this point. It was a failure of taking the convoy seriously. People were abandoned. Workers were abandoned and residents of Ottawa were abandoned. As a result, we are in this crisis.
We are going to support this measure, but we are going to do so with a lot of vigilance. We are going to pay close attention to the implementation of the Emergencies Act, and we are prepared to withdraw our support at any moment that it becomes clear that there is an abuse of power. We have the power to do so. There are a number of tools at our disposal, and we will be paying very close attention to the way the Emergencies Act is used. We want to make sure it is used only for the goal of dealing with the convoy and the national crisis, so that Canadians can have restored confidence in the ability of this country to function properly, to protect them and to keep them safe.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:04:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.
I am pleased and honoured to rise today to speak to the invocation of the Emergencies Act by our government and to the motion in this House to affirm the government's decision, but I also do so with a deep sense of obligation.
Canada is a rule-of-law country. By declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law and we are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for a public order emergency to be declared. Our government believes those conditions have been met and that those same conditions required the Government of Canada to act.
The Emergencies Act was enacted in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act. There are two significant differences between the two acts. One, the Emergencies Act contains a number of limits and safeguards, including a parliamentary review. Two, the measures taken under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I want to reiterate this point. The preamble to the Emergencies Act states, “And whereas the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency”. Any and all of our government actions will be subject to the charter, and it is my job as Attorney General to ensure this. I take that responsibility incredibly seriously. There is, therefore, a further check in the parliamentary oversight process as well.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in specific serious circumstances that amount to a national emergency. In order to meet the threshold for a national emergency, three conditions must be met: First, we must be in a situation that either “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians... [and exceeds] the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”. Second, the provinces' and territories' capacity to handle the situation must be considered insufficient or show gaps. Third, we must conclude that the situation cannot be handled adequately under any other Canadian law, including provincial or territorial laws.
Our government believes these conditions were met, and yesterday we tabled an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, as required by the act. We also tabled yesterday, as required, a report on any consultation with the provinces with respect to the declaration. I would especially like to highlight the support of British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as noted in the document invoking the act to respond to this national emergency.
Once an emergency is declared, the Emergencies Act allows the federal government to make the necessary orders and regulations to intervene.
Our government respects Canadians' rights and freedoms, which are protected by the charter. We intend to use only necessary, reasonable and measured powers to resolve this crisis quickly and safely, in accordance with section 1 of the charter.
As members have seen, our government has introduced targeted orders under the act. While the act technically applies to all of Canada, we have been very careful to tailor orders to be as focused as possible, and only in those places affected by blockades and illegal occupations will we see any change at all.
We have introduced measures to bring the situation under control. They include temporary regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest; the situation in Ottawa and blockades at certain border crossings have gone far beyond lawful protest.
They also include temporarily designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. These places could include borders, approaches to borders, critical infrastructure, hospitals and democratic institutions.
These measures also include temporarily directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. These persons could include tow trucks and their drivers—for compensation, of course.
The measures include temporarily authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund or support the blockades.
They include temporarily enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences where required, and finally, temporary imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of any order or regulation made under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
These are extraordinary times. The Government of Canada is committed to respecting and protecting individual rights while maintaining public order. This includes all of the measures taken by the Government of Canada in accordance with the Emergencies Act, including any orders, regulations or actions of government representatives.
I want to repeat what I previously stated: It is my responsibility and my commitment as Attorney General of Canada to ensure that all steps taken by our government are consistent with the charter, as required by the act.
The Emergencies Act also contains a number of significant limits, checks and safeguards. As required by the act, on several occasions over the past week, the Prime Minister and members of cabinet consulted with the premiers and members of their respective governments. Having now declared a public order emergency, we tabled the declaration in Parliament, as required, within seven days. In fact, we did so as quickly as possible, well before the seven days, tabling the declaration yesterday for discussion today so that Parliament could perform its important oversight role.
In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while the emergency is in effect. This declaration only lasts for 30 days, unless renewed. However, we can revoke the emergency much sooner, and we sincerely hope to do so.
Parliament has the power to revoke an order, which ensures that any measures taken will be responsible and measured and will comply with the established limits.
Orders must be tabled in Parliament within two days for review by parliamentarians, as was done yesterday, and Parliament has the power to amend or revoke any order made under the act.
In closing, I want to address two critiques of the official opposition. They say this declaration is unnecessary, that the illegal blockades and occupations are ending. I say to look outside. They are not. I say look at the streets of Winnipeg. The ones that have ended did so after the Prime Minister announced we were moving to declare a public order emergency. We are achieving what we intended to achieve with these measures and we are doing it in a most measured and responsible way.
We have seen, further, how fluid the situation is. Since we declared this emergency, we have seen other potential blockades stopped. We want law enforcement to have the necessary tools for a limited time to ensure we do not have a repeat of any of the blockades.
The official opposition is talking about rights. On this side of the House, we take rights seriously, and so did the Progressive Conservative government that introduced the Emergencies Act and ensured it was charter compliant. That was the right thing to do.
We are invoking this act to end illegal blockades and occupations. We are invoking it to restore the rights of those who cannot walk safely on the streets of downtown Ottawa. We are invoking it to protect the rights of workers to earn a living, of businesses to serve the public, of people to move freely across international borders.
Let us not confuse illegal blockades and occupations with lawful protests. We know what a lawful protest looks like. It does not look like what is happening on Wellington Street, or what transpired in Coutts or in Emerson. We have declared a public order emergency to help law enforcement deal with these issues quickly and to protect us from having them happen again.
Our goal is to see order restored and to see this emergency declaration lifted as soon as possible.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:15:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.
I think that everyone on this side of the House agrees that this is a measure of last resort. However, I do not think we are there yet. There are many other tools that could have been used first. It seems to me that this trivializes the Emergencies Act. I am not a legal expert, but it does not take a lot of research to find tools in Canada's Criminal Code that the government could have used before resorting to the Emergencies Act. Why not press criminal charges against the people who were blocking the bridges? Here, people are no longer participating in a legal protest; they have Ottawa under siege. Why were criminal charges not laid?
I would like the minister to explain to me why he did not use the other tools at his disposal under the Criminal Code before invoking the Emergencies Act.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:27:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I note that the deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, would disagree with the minister's suggestion that there is extremist financing of the convoy, but I will move on to my question.
Back in January through March 2020, as the minister said, those people came for the throat. What happened to the throat of our country when our railways were being blockaded and when our pipelines were being blockaded? We could not even get propane to Quebec in the middle of the winter, risking the lives of so many seniors. The port of metro Vancouver was blockaded. The government said we needed to initiate dialogue, and we needed to work with those people to come to a peaceful resolution.
What is the difference with the current situation that we are facing? Why is the Emergencies Act needed?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister and ministers across the aisle, it actually gives me no pleasure to rise to speak to the matter at hand. The invocation of the Emergencies Act earlier this week, for the first time in Canadian history, is a significant moment and it is not a moment to be pleased about. It is a solemn moment. It is a moment when we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this situation in the first place? When we examine the evidence of how we got to this situation, I do not think there is much for the government to be proud of.
The Conservatives thoughtfully considered the justifications, written in law and given by the government, for the enacting of the Emergencies Act. The government has based its justification on one provision: that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada. This claim is not supported by the evidence. Yes, we have seen border blockades in at least four provinces and we have seen a persistent protest in Ottawa that has now been declared illegal. However, before the Emergencies Act was invoked, the blockades at the borders and across Canada were lifted or were well into the process of being lifted, so the government trying to claim credit after the fact is completely absurd. The Emergencies Act is now being used solely for the purpose of addressing the situation in Ottawa, not throughout Canada as defined by the act.
A key part of the threshold for enacting these measures is that existing laws and capabilities have proven insufficient for dealing with the problem. Existing laws are well equipped to deal with these situations. They were well equipped to deal with the situation at Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge, and I submit they are well equipped to be used here in Ottawa.
The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said earlier that they were required to pass this so they could requisition essential services like tow trucks. However, it has been noted by many that under the Criminal Code, police already have the authority to requisition such services, under pain of criminal sanction. That was before the Emergencies Act was brought in, so this argument that the Emergencies is necessary is completely absurd.
I note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.
The police already had the power to compel many of these services. The police already had the power to be coordinated with the RCMP, the OPP and the various police forces and national security forces throughout Canada. They have measures existing under the Criminal Code, such as mischief and intimidation, to be used against illegal protesters and blockades.
The government has used an argument where it is citing potential acts and threats of violence against Canadians and critical infrastructure. This is not just any violence, the Liberals are saying; this is violence intended for the furtherance of an ideological and political objective. I am very concerned with the language that the government is beginning to use, because that language is very similar to the language under terrorism laws. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence to advance a political or ideological agenda. The government is using terrorism legislation against Canadian protesters.
There is very little evidence that there was a serious threat to persons and critical infrastructure from these protests. There was a short-term risk, but it was dealt with by law enforcement.
An hon. member: What about those assaults outside?
Mr. Dane Lloyd: I will address the member's heckle.
I am very concerned about the situation that occurred around Coutts, Alberta, where a small group of militants was arrested with firearms and with the intent to do harm. I am so thankful for law enforcement's efforts in taking down this very real threat, and I am so confident in our law enforcement because I know they had been planning this operation for weeks. They had likely infiltrated this group. They had a plan in place and had the appropriate tools and expertise to deal with this dangerous situation and defuse it before it became a very real and dangerous situation. The fact is that they did this before the imposition of the Emergencies Act.
Clearly, they have the tools. This completely undermines the government's argument that it is justified because the tools were insufficient to deal with the problems. The tools have been sufficient. The threshold has not been met.
I want to address some comments that have been made by the government. At a press conference, the Minister of Public Safety stated very clearly and definitively that there is a connection between the militant faction at Coutts and protesters here in Ottawa. He declined to provide any evidence to back up that assertion. He was asked repeatedly by the media to back up that claim and he failed. His only evidence was to cite social media posts and a general tone that has been seen in protests across Canada.
The government has been very quick to label protesters and anyone who would oppose its political agenda. In 2021, even before the protests began, the Prime Minister called people who opposed mandatory vaccinations racists and misogynists, among other epithets. Since the beginning of the protests, the government has sought to brand and label all protesters as fringe extremists with “unacceptable views”. Despite this unrelenting scrutiny and rhetoric, there has still been no evidence of violent extremists in Ottawa. If there were, I do not know how the government could believe it is being responsible in allowing us all to be here today, walking the streets of Ottawa. It undermines the whole claim.
There is no evidence of a plot to violently overthrow the Canadian government, despite constant repetition in saying so. I remember a quote by a previous Liberal minister, who said that if we tell a lie big enough and loudly enough, people will totally believe it. The government is constantly saying things that it does not have the evidence to back up. I would like to see that evidence if it is there. We deserve to see that evidence.
This act was not designed or intended to crack down on peaceful protesters, even if they are protesting illegally. We have other laws to deal with that. The government is citing a so-called terrorist threat. However, although having protesters in Ottawa is very inconvenient and terrible for the people of downtown Ottawa, honking horns does not meet the threshold of a terrorist organization. The government knows that.
Without further evidence of a violent threat, I cannot in good conscience support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Even if I were to accept that the government has met the threshold for calling on emergency powers, I would still have serious reservations about the powers the government has said it needs for dealing with this situation. If it believes there is a threat to critical infrastructure and persons, which it has said, and it shows evidence, I could support declaring Parliament Hill and certain sensitive areas as no-go zones. I could accept that we need better coordination between the RCMP and local police. However, what I cannot accept is the government's need to undermine section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees Canadians a right against unreasonable search and seizure and having their bank accounts frozen.
The Minister of Justice, while on a panel last night, said that anyone who is part of a so-called pro-Trump organization should be worried. I think all Canadians should be worried when a Minister of Justice threatens people because of their political views. That is not the Canada that any of us want to see and it is unacceptable.
Throughout this debate, which we are going to be having over the next number of days, Canadians will know that their official opposition is alive and well. We are prepared to stand up for Canadians' rights. We are prepared to hold the government accountable. We are going to keep fighting. We are not going to stop standing up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start my remarks by thanking the member from the Bloc Québécois because we disagree on many things philosophically, but it is nice to know that, even if we disagree on policy, that there is still some common ground on our principles about using the sledgehammer the government has brought in.
The member is invoking a series of events that happened in 2012. The Conservative Party did not bring in the Emergencies Act in 2012. It is legitimate. There are going to be protests across the country, across time, where various parties are going to agree with the aims of the protests or disagree. We can all express our opinion about whether or not those protests should be happening, but the government should not be bringing in this massive sledgehammer to crack down on dissent when there are existing laws.
The Prime Minister talked about the Coutts border crossing. It was resolved with existing laws and tools that law enforcement have. There is no need for this act.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:02:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.
Today I rise to deliver what may be the most important speech I have given since having the privilege to serve the people of Kings—Hants in the House. Today, we as parliamentarians are debating whether the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act on Monday was justified. I submit, for my colleagues in the House and indeed all Canadians watching, that the threshold required to trigger the Emergencies Act has been objectively met and perhaps exceeded.
As the Prime Minister has said in the House, a decision of this nature is not taken lightly. However, the situation we have seen across the country is serious and warrants a response that is proportionate to the impact we have seen on all Canadians. Let me be very clear: I am in full support of legal protests in this country. It is a constitutionally protected right and, indeed, I have spoken with some of my own constituents who, in their own way, have demonstrated their displeasure with the government's protocols to date. However, we have to delineate between lawful protest and individuals who refuse to abide by the rule of law, who have occupied Ottawa and who have blockaded our key border crossings.
I believe it is incumbent on all of us to look at the facts and to try to be objective. We have seen a group of individuals in Ottawa occupy the city for three weeks now. This is despite orders from law authorities to disperse and to go home. The key organizers of the Ottawa occupation have openly espoused their goal of overthrowing the government, and of meeting with the Governor General to form a coalition.
We have had blockades across the country at key border crossings that have targeted the country's trade relationship, including at Windsor, Coutts and Emerson. At Coutts, the RCMP found weapons and body armour. How can one conclude that this was simply a peaceful protest?
The Minister of Public Safety outlined to the House this morning what impact these were having across the country economically. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars a day in economic harm. Blocking of critical infrastructure and critical trade routes hurts everyday Canadians, and impacts our food security and our supply chain. There has been a targeted impact on the Ottawa International Airport, and the organizers of the “freedom convoy” have expressed their desire to re-establish blockades and occupations elsewhere, even if they are taken down by police.
We also know that these activities are being financed by international sources. I ask this, for members of the House: Do we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to take action on internationally financed assistance to organizers of activity that is not only illegal, but represents a threat to Canadian security and the rule of law? I, for one, believe we do. I want to be crystal clear. This is being done to target activities that are illegal and threatening the economic health of the country and the rule of law and order.
For those whose intent is to raise issues about government policy, I have no issue. For those who continue to be a part of illegal blockades here in Ottawa or elsewhere, they do not have the ability to do so. These measures are being implemented because of their unwillingness to abide by the law.
What is the public emergency order being invoked under the Emergencies Act? What does it actually mean? The Conservatives would have people believe that this government is limiting all freedoms. These measures do not take away freedoms. The Bloc members would suggest that this is akin to the War Measures Act, and are seeking to drum up memories of the FLQ crisis. This is not the War Measures Act. It is not taking away the rights of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not calling in the army. This is a specific measure to give additional powers to police and provincial authorities to maintain law and order, to monitor financing, including from foreign sources, that is being used to block and undermine critical infrastructure, and to ultimately remove the blockades and occupations that exist across the country.
Let us examine the actual measures in the order. They include the regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest. I want to be clear: Lawful protest can continue. Designating and securing places for blockades are to be prohibited.
The measures also include directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. This could include such things as tow trucks that could be requisitioned, of course for compensation, by government authorities to help with removing trucks and vehicles that are blockading key infrastructure.
They include authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services that relieve the impact of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund and support the blockades that are undermining economic security in the country.
There are also measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaw and provincial offences where required, and the imposition of fines under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
I submit to the House that these measures are specific, time-limited and geographically focused. The measures will be overseen by a joint parliamentary committee and, of course, must be supported by a majority in the House to remain in force.
I previously mentioned that policing is in the domain of municipalities and the provincial government. Since day one, our government has worked, and continues to work, directly with municipal and provincial authorities and their law enforcement. We have answered calls for additional resources. We helped create integrated operations, and provided additional RCMP officers to try and deal with blockades.
Leading into Monday's decision, it was clear that the provincial and municipal authorities had been unable to address the situation. Ironically, members of the House were calling on us to show federal leadership. Some Conservatives, after openly encouraging illegal activity to continue, were asking the government to stop the blockades. These measures are designed to do exactly that.
My question to members in the House who are criticizing the government for making available time-limited tools under the Emergencies Act to support law enforcement is this. What intermediate step would they suggest the government should have undertaken? Beyond asking the Prime Minister to meet with individuals who fly flags that say, “F.U.C.K. Trudeau”, who want to overthrow a democratically elected government, and who have stated that they will not leave until their demands are met, what security measures would they have suggested this government should have undertaken? That is the key question. As my constituents have rightfully pointed out, it is easy to be an armchair critic, but I have yet to hear many constructive measures from the other side of the House on how to deal with the current situation.
I support the government's measures. They are reasonable, they are balanced and they are proportionate to the circumstances we have seen. They are focused on giving tools to police in jurisdictions across the country to resolve illegal blockades that are hurting everyday Canadians.
It is extremely important for all of us to remember that these are tools that are available. This order is in effect for 30 days. This is to make sure that we have the ability to address the circumstances that we have seen. I would hope that all members of the House believe that this is an important measure so that we can make sure that the blockades, the economic harm and, frankly, the lack of law and order that we have seen in certain elements in this country do not continue.
1317 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:12:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was anticipating the question, because I have noticed that members on the opposite side of the House are trying to create that narrative. I find that they have been inconsistent in their own way, in that they were very quick to call for government action back in 2020, but were silent for nearly two weeks with what we have seen in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country.
The difference for me as to why this situation rises to the level of the Emergencies Act is the fact that it has been an open, stated goal of those who have been involved in the protest to actually overthrow government and to cause disruption and harm to Canadians. I will go on the record and say that it is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the notion and desire of protesters, to block critical infrastructure. I support measures that do this, including in this way here today.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:13:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I profoundly and completely disagree with the Emergencies Act, the topic of debate today.
Unlike the member who just spoke and the Prime Minister, who said this morning that this legislation is proportionate and reasonable, I find it completely disproportionate and unreasonable.
My colleague talked about intermediate steps that should have been taken. My question for him is this: Why did the government not take measures, both political and for the sake of public safety, from the very start instead of allowing the blockade we are seeing now to set up in front of Parliament Hill?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:17:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today's debate is crucial. I would like to address my remarks to all members of the House, of course, but also to Canadians right across the country.
The Canadian government declared a state of emergency this week. This decision was not made lightly, and for good reason. Invoking the Emergencies Act is not the first thing the Government of Canada should do, or even the second. It must be used as a last resort. However, it is clear that this tool is now necessary.
Illegal blockades set up across the country over the past three weeks have disrupted the lives of far too many Canadians. These blockades have caused significant damage to our economy and our democratic institutions. Canadian jobs and prosperity are at stake. The illegal actions that have been taken have shaken international confidence in Canada as good place to invest. We cannot stand by while the livelihoods of Canadians and workers are threatened, while businesses large and small are affected by these blockades across the country.
We cannot and we will not let Canada's reputation on the international stage be tarnished. That is why we are taking action. The emergency economic measures order will allow the government to take concrete steps and actions to stop the financing of the illegal blockades. The main objective of these measures is to limit the flow of money that is used to finance this unlawful activity and to prevent additional financial support. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has said before, this is about following the money.
Two broad categories of financial measures are being enacted. The first are aimed at crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers, while the second will apply to Canadian financial service providers.
Let us look at the first one. Crowdfunding platforms and some payment service providers are not currently subject to the anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing laws in this country. It therefore stands to reason that they could be used to finance unlawful activities, such as the blockades we are seeing. To address this, the order extends the scope of Canada's anti-money-laundering and anti-terrorist-financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment processors they use. Specifically, the entities that are in possession of any funds associated with the illegal blockades are now required to register with FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, and to report suspicious and large-value transactions of persons involved in the blockades. This will mitigate the risks that these platforms could be used to receive funds from illicit sources or to finance illicit activity.
The second group of measures directs our financial service providers to intervene when they suspect that an account belongs to someone participating in the illegal blockades. This means that banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers must now temporarily cease providing financial services and freeze accounts when they believe an account holder or client is engaged in illegal blockades. The order applies to all funds held in a deposit account, a chequing account or a savings account, and to any other type of property. This also includes digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies.
As a result, Canadian financial service providers are now able to immediately freeze or suspend an account of an individual or business affiliated with these illegal blockades and to do so without a court order. Financial service providers are also protected against civil liability for the actions they take to comply with the order.
Of course, these service providers are required to unfreeze accounts when the account holder stops assisting or participating in the illegal blockades.
With the emergency economic measures order, the government is also directing Canadian financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved in the illegal blockades. The order also gives federal, provincial and territorial government institutions new powers to share any relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if that information helps stop the funding of the illegal blockades and unlawful activities occurring here in Canada.
The vast majority of Canadians, those who are law-abiding and not involved in these illegal blockades, will see absolutely no difference. This order changes nothing for them. These measures are designed to stop the funding that enables illegal blockades. They are targeted and temporary. They will apply for 30 days and are aimed at individuals and businesses that are directly or indirectly involved in illegal activities that are hurting our economy and our people. These measures are necessary.
It is true that blockades are only happening in certain parts of the country, and we know that, but they are hurting the entire Canadian economy. It is also true that most areas of the country have not been where these unlawful activities have been occurring. However, the funding for these illegal acts is not just coming from the areas where the semi-trailers are parked; it is coming from everywhere.
Moreover, some individuals have crossed interprovincial borders to participate in these activities, which, I stress, are illegal. Our democratic institutions are under threat. The Canadian economy is under threat; peace, order and good government are under threat in Canada. This is unacceptable. We must end it, and we will end it.
The message is clear. From the finance perspective, if people are funding blockades that harm the Canadian economy, their bank account will be frozen. If people who fund blockades think they can get around the law by using cryptocurrencies, it will not work. If a company's truck is used in an illegal activity, the vehicle's insurance will be suspended and the company's bank accounts will be frozen.
Semi-trailers should be on our roads, not parked for weeks on end in front of Parliament. They should be delivering the goods and services that will grow our economy, not holding up traffic at border crossings or paralyzing our city centres.
That said, I remain optimistic. I remain optimistic knowing that the law will soon be restored and the blockades dismantled; that we will put this pandemic behind us while being there for each other; and that we can strengthen our economy not by honking horns, but through the hard work of our entrepreneurs, our small and large businesses, and through thoughtful and responsible economic policies.
1055 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:27:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure it will come as no surprise that I entirely disagree. Canadians have lost confidence in many different institutions as a result of what has been happening over the course of the last three weeks. Top of mind are the police. I believe many Canadians across the country question whether law enforcement was there, and this Emergencies Act provides more tools to our police force to maintain confidence in law and order in this country.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:28:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Canadian flag is the flag of all Canadians, including all Quebeckers, and I wear it proudly every day.
In reply to my colleague, because I did not really understand his very bizarre question, I would like to point out that I have just seen that Quebeckers agree with the use of the Emergencies Act.
More than 70% of Quebeckers approve of the invocation of this act, and I am proud to represent them.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:29:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie. This is a completely different act. The Emergencies Act is not the same as the act invoked in 1970. Soldiers are not being deployed on Canadian soil or Quebec soil.
I agree that there is transparency and that parliamentarians in this House all have the power to revoke the application of the Emergencies Act at any time.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:31:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time for remarks with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.
It is an honour to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, not only in this House generally but in such important times. Sometimes we do forget what a tremendous honour it is. I am sad, though, to be here discussing emergency measures today. This has been a time, with respect, where the Prime Minister has inflamed, has incited and has divided.
The Prime Minister took that same inflammatory approach yesterday when he spoke in response to a question from the member for Thornhill. I was dismayed that he did not apologize for that today. Instead, he came into this House this morning and doubled down on years of division, so let us recap. The predecessor legislation was invoked three times: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis.
The Prime Minister invites and likes Canadians to think that he is the common person. I am not sure if he has walked through downtown Ottawa of late, but I did yesterday and today. I saw trucks in streets. There were a few streets that were plugged and those trucks need to go, period. The question then becomes how that should be done.
I took an oath when I was sworn in. It was the greatest day of my life to take that oath on behalf of all Canadians and particularly on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I took my oath to do my job to the best of my ability. I have to be satisfied as a legislator that the preconditions for this act have been met. That is my job. That is the oath I took and that is something that I take very seriously.
I read the act and I considered it. I actually had to read it twice. I have practised law for 14 years. I previously taught at a law school for a number of years, so when it came to my analysis of the act, I did what I taught my students to do. I went back to first legal principles, first statutory principles. We apply legal principles and statutory principles not because it is popular, not because we want the trucks to be cleared in any way possible, but because we here, the 338 of us, must apply the law.
After all, the Prime Minister has made the same remarks about the rule of law. He would not strip Canadians of citizenship just because it was popular, just because people may like it, but instead we must accede to the rule of law.
Let us apply the rule of law. Let us apply the legislation here. This legislation is clear. It says that its application must be the last resort. Members of the House have repeatedly asked what step one was. We hear crickets. What was step two? We hear crickets. The police were not even stopping people carrying jerry cans in. What was step three? We hear more crickets and a word salad. The official leader of the opposition asked the Prime Minister to attend a meeting with all party leaders, with a view to bringing this matter to an end. By my count that was about 10 days ago. Again, we hear crickets.
Even without the Emergencies Act application, which is alive right now, protesters could be arrested under the current regime. There are laws about causing a disturbance, mischief and participation in these sorts of illegal activities. The Criminal Code is very clear on that and I am not even touching on the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. The trucks could be seized, incidental to arrest, as evidence. They could be seized with a warrant, all things that the police have at their disposal right here, right now, to address the very situation that the Emergencies Act says it will deal with as a last resort. These first resorts have not been addressed.
Let us next look at what was resolved without the use of the Emergencies Act: Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. Why? It is because the police had the powers to do so and used those powers. My point is this. The legislation says that we do not resort to its use unless it is absolutely necessary. What we have seen in these three instances I just mentioned is that it is not absolutely necessary and, as a legislator, I need to be convinced that the threshold has been met or I will not vote for such legislation.
I wish we could simply invoke legislation to make our problems go away. That is just not the case. It cannot be done as a measure of convenience. Let us not forget. This was not done during 9/11. This was not done during COVID. This was not done during railway blockades that had a crippling impact on our economy and economic consequences. This was not done throughout many protests throughout the country. This was not done when B.C. highways and rail were washed out due to recent flooding.
I recently received an inquiry from a constituent in the north Thompson area near Blue River in my riding. There have been protests in that area for years. Blue River is a small community. There has been violence, threats and blockades. I told that constituent what I am telling the House. The legislation is a last resort to be used in extraordinary circumstances of national emergency when nothing else will do.
As one of the members for Ottawa said earlier today, this has been going on for four weeks and I echo that sentiment. I understand that it has been going on for four weeks and those committing illegal activities need to stop. It has been going on for much longer in my riding and those people are asking the same questions.
In closing, I do agree with the Prime Minister on one point. He did say that he is trying to save jobs. Unfortunately, I would eliminate the plural. He is trying to save one job, his own, and that is not right.
1036 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:39:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member indicated he read the statute. He knows full well that, in terms of COVID, enacting a public welfare emergency requires the provinces to initiate such a request. No request was forthcoming.
Second, he asked what steps have been taken. The first step was actually the City of Ottawa declaring an emergency, which did not render the results. The next step was the Province of Ontario declaring an emergency, which has not rendered results. The final step is this very important debate that we are having today.
I want to put to the member an issue about the capability of the province under its authority to deal with this, which is clearly an issue because the provincial order that has been made by Premier Ford fails in two important respects. It does not compel essential workers like tow trucks to actually tow vehicles away. Second, it cannot compel a vehicle's licence to be suspended when that vehicle originates in another province such as one of the western provinces.
Are those not instances of a lack of provincial authority that necessitate the usage of the Emergencies Act in this case?
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:41:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I agree with him on a number of points. This morning, the Prime Minister said that there were several options and that the Emergencies Act was the last resort, but we did not hear about the first, second or third options.
I have a question for my colleague. Does a government that is unable to keep the public safe in the context of these protests and the presence of truckers deserve a seat on the United Nations Security Council?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:54:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I respect the member opposite a great deal and served with her on the justice committee in the last Parliament.
I have heard the narrative throughout the debate thus far that the tools are no longer necessary, because the blockades at the border have been cleared. I would also put to her a few simple facts, simply from one lawyer to another.
We know that there was an attempted resurrection of the blockade in Windsor just yesterday, and the Windsor police used the tools under the Emergencies Act to their benefit in preventing and thwarting that quickly. We also know that protesters who have threatened to take up arms have openly declared that they will be returning to Quebec City on February 19 in front of the Assemblée nationale, and we know the type of arms that were seized at Coutts.
Do these threats and ongoing threats not merit the necessity of using a federal power, including the Emergencies Act, to deal with what is an ongoing, current and future situation in this country?
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the illegal blockades must come to an end, and law enforcement has the resources it needs to do that without the government's invoking the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has said that this should not be the first, second or third response, but he has been unable to tell us what his first, second and third responses were.
After taking no action, the Prime Minister is now moving to the most extreme action. We have seen crises in this country before, many times and in many different situations, where the Emergencies Act in its current form was not utilized. This is an unprecedented overreach and it is a result of a failure in leadership on the part of the Prime Minister.
Parliament must reverse this decision immediately.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
