44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 2:59:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government had the power to freeze the bank accounts of those participating in an illegal protest from day one. There was no need to invoke the Emergencies Act. It could already do this under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. The federal government has had the power to freeze funds belonging to those who have been occupying Ottawa for the past 21 days.
I will repeat my question because we in the House want the numbers.
How many bank accounts were frozen to try to resolve the situation before it turned confrontational?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:59:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before the use of the Emergencies Act, it was impossible for all the information to be shared between the national, local and municipal security forces and the banks. Before the use of the Emergencies Act, we also could not require the banks to do these things. These financial tools are important—
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:17:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP rose on a point of order, and we are certainly sympathetic to the member for Yukon. However, the easiest way we can resolve the situation with interpreters is to get back to normal Parliament so that we are all here.
The debate we are having in this place, whether we agree or not with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, is probably and arguably one of the most important debates we are going to have in a generation, or at least my generation. As the eyes of the nation are upon us, I ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:26:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre.
I rise today with some humility. I rise to speak not on behalf of a political party, because I firmly belief this issue cannot be partisan today. I rise not as a representative of a particular community, because I do not think it is a regional issue that we are discussing today. I rise today, in all sincerity, as a member of Parliament, as a member of this chamber, the House of Commons, committed to serving the public, to serving all Canadians in a genuine effort to do what is best for our country.
At this stage, I firmly believe that the only way to resolve the present threat that is facing this country is to declare a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act.
I want to start by talking about the charter. Let me state at the outset that the right to freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is entrenched in section 2(b) of the charter for a reason: because it is the hallmark of our democracy, and indeed of any democracy. It is the ability for citizens to voice their discontent, to challenge authority and to seek change. I do not deny any of this. To the contrary, I vigorously defend it. I also do not deny that the people gathered outside this very chamber right now, who have been on the streets of Ottawa for what is now 21 days, have legitimate grievances; criticisms of my government, of my party; perhaps even of me personally, which they have every right to air.
However, in our democracy, freedom of expression, while sacrosanct, is not absolute. This charter protection under section 2(b) extends toward lawful, peaceful protest; the charter does not protect illegal, violent blockades. It is the latter, unfortunately, that this protest has devolved into.
I want to reference Ottawa. How do I substantiate this assertion I just made? I substantiate it with the evidence I gathered with my own eyes and from the accounts of other parliamentarians that have been shared with me.
Far from seeing people exercising their constitutional rights to disagree vigorously with the government, we have instead seen intimidation, threats and harassment. We have seen deliberate nuisances being created by truck horns blowing at all hours of the day and night, rendering the city effectively uninhabitable for local residents. We have seen open displays of hatred, such as swastikas and Confederate flags, and acts of direct hatred when windows are smashed on coffee shops that dare to fly the pride flag. We have seen the desecration of national monuments, including our national war memorial. We have seen deliberate efforts to block the movement of people and goods by people intentionally disabling large vehicles and trucks by activating their air brakes or actually removing the tires from their vehicles. We have seen death threats follow toward an Ottawa tow trucking company accused of being complicit with police efforts to remove such disabled vehicles.
We have seen the shuttering of businesses in the entire downtown core, impeding residents' ability to work. It is puzzling, to say the least, to see protesters who claim to eschew lockdowns themselves causing Ottawa's downtown to enter into a lockdown for a period of now three weeks. We have seen intimidation and threats toward the media, again ironic for those who would be more ardent defenders of freedom of expression than even I am, in terms of what I have articulated. We have seen the active sabotage of 9-1-1 emergency call lines and even an attempted arson.
The protest ostensibly began over vaccine mandates. It has morphed into what resembles an occupation of the city by people who have openly declared on the public record that they are seeking to overthrow the government. That constitutes a complete breakdown of public order in Ottawa. Despite efforts from the Ottawa Police Service, law and order in the nation's capital have been impossible to maintain.
The evidence that I am outlining here extends beyond the nation's capital. Members have heard references to the borders. I want to address this now. What commenced as a protest targeting this city and this Parliament has emerged as a concerted effort to block our national border crossings and impede the flow of people and goods. In Texas and Florida and in other parts of the United States and indeed in other nations, foreign entities openly and publicly have declared their sympathy with the blockades and admitted to sending money and resources to help the blockades continue. Today the Anti-Defamation League showed a result of their analysis of the GiveSendGo website; it found 1,100 people in the United States who supported the January 6 insurrection last year actually donated money under GiveSendGo to these blockades. Just let that settle in for a moment, in terms of what the motivations are for such types of people.
The blockades that have emerged around the country are deliberately targeting critical infrastructure. We know about what happened at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and Detroit. The multi-day siege on Canada's busiest border crossing alone, and I am now wearing my hat as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, resulted in the suspension of nearly $400 million in daily trade between Canada and the United States, the cancellation of shifts at multiple auto plants in southern Ontario and an intervention by President Biden and the Governor of Michigan showing that confidence in Canada as a safe place to invest, do business and trade with is starting to erode.
Blockades have occurred in Surrey, Emerson and Coutts, Alberta. What should be startlingly alarming for every person in this chamber and every Canadian watching right now is that when members of the RCMP went to clear the Coutts border crossing, they made 13 arrests, including laying charges for conspiracy to commit murder. They found firearms, ammunition and body armour. That bore out certainly my worst fears, and I think all of our worst fears, that blockade protesters were armed and preparing for violent confrontation with law enforcement. The violence is continuing to ratchet up. We have had bomb threats at a Vancouver hospital as well as suspicious packages and language about hanging members of Parliament being sent to colleagues of mine from Nova Scotia.
I am laying this all out in such excruciating detail because there is a legal test that must be met when we are doing something that has not ever been done under this legislation or even in this country under antecedent legislation in 52 years. The test is high, as it should be, when we are considering a statute that temporarily permits the suspension of civil liberties.
What is the test? It is entrenched in section 3 of the Emergencies Act, which states:
a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) 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) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
It is my fundamental belief that this high legal threshold has been met in this case. When we have a blockade laying siege to an entire city for 21 days and counting, intimidating, harassing and threatening locals and rendering a city uninhabitable, it is endangering the safety of Canadians. When those blockades limit the ability of medical first responders to respond quickly to emergencies, they are endangering the lives of those on the other end of those 911 calls. When factions armed with weapons and ammunition are blockading borders, they are directly endangering the lives of Canadians. When groups are deliberately blocking trade corridors with our single largest trading partner, grinding our border traffic to a halt, they are threatening the ability of the federal government to preserve our sovereignty and economic security. These are important.
In the last two minutes, I want to address some of the general objections we have heard, not just today but prior to this.
To those who say there is an overreach here, I say there are five checks that are important.
First, everything done by a government under the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter. That is entrenched in the preamble.
Second, all declarations are time-limited to 30 days and no more. In fact, it may be less, and hopefully it will be less in this context.
Third, the very act of declaring an emergency under the declaration must be reviewed by a committee of all members of Parliament and senators from all parties.
Fourth, the exercise of powers under the declaration must be reviewed by that committee.
Fifth, following the end of an emergency, a full inquiry must be held.
What we are doing is not a power grab and it is not the invocation of the War Measures Act; we are simply giving the RCMP the power to enforce local laws and work quickly with local law enforcement. We are not calling in the armed forces. We are not putting the RCMP or any other police force under the control of the government. Policing operational decisions remain independent, as they must in any democracy.
I am going to end with the right to protest, because people have asked about their children's rights to protest. I take this very seriously, because I myself have taken my children to protests. This law talks about the right to lawful protest. It is in entrenched in black and white. The measures we are contemplating would address or prohibit public assembly that is a threat leading to a breach of the peace; we are specifically carving out the right of lawful advocacy, protest and dissent.
I would say this to those who say the threats have been addressed: Windsor had an attempted blockade yesterday, and we know the protesters are returning to the Quebec National Assembly on February 19.
I will conclude with this sincere undertaking to the members of this chamber and all Canadians: I will do everything in my power to ensure that this act lasts for only as long as is absolutely necessary; I will do everything in my power to ensure that there is no overbreadth; I will do everything in my power to ensure that charter rights are always fundamentally protected. All members of Parliament should strive for nothing less.
1771 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:38:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into hypothetical situations or backtrack. However, what I do want to point out is that the City of Ottawa and the Government of Ontario have declared a state of emergency. Both levels of government were unable to resolve the situation here, in Windsor or anywhere else.
The third and final step is to use the Emergencies Act, if it would help, to resolve the situation. This is a serious situation, and it requires serious action.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:41:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am disheartened to have to give these remarks today. I am saddened by the events that continue outside the doors of this building, which have continued for the last three weeks, and by the blockades that have closed borders across the country.
Let us be clear. This is no longer a protest. It is an occupation that advocated to overthrow a democratically elected government. On Monday, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice, Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Minister of Public Safety announced that our government was invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision that I support.
This is a situation I do not think any of us wanted to get to. However, the defiance of those who continue to occupy the streets of Ottawa and attempt to block our border crossings needs to end. These individuals need to go home.
There is a shocking amount of misinformation and plain lies being spread about the occupation, public health measures and the Emergencies Act, and some have been supported and echoed by members in the chamber.
To begin, I think we should start by clarifying a few important points. Let us be clear on what the Emergencies Act is, and this is for those on the other side of the aisle who are provoking fear, spreading misinformation and encouraging conspiracy theories that legitimately concern Canadians who want to understand what is going on in their country.
This is dangerous and harmful. I encourage those who have been supportive of this movement to think long and hard about the long-term consequences of their actions and words in support of the occupation.
These are temporary, proportionate and targeted measures. I will repeat that. These are temporary, proportionate and targeted.
The act was invoked to supplement provincial and territorial authorities, address the blockades and the occupation, ensure the safety of Canadians, protect people's jobs, and restore confidence in our institutions. Our government enacted this act after local and provincial efforts were unsuccessful in resolving the situation. The Emergencies Act provides law enforcement new authorities to prohibit blockades, ensure our essential corridors remain open and regulate crowds. It allows the government to mobilize essential services such as tow trucks, and it gives the RCMP the ability to act quickly to enforce local laws.
This act will also provide more power to stop the flow of money. The scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules are being broadened. They will cover crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers, as well as those using digital assets such as cryptocurrencies.
In situations where there is suspicion of an account being involved to further the occupation or illegal blockades, Canadian financial institutions now have immediate authority to temporarily seize providing financial services. Corporate accounts can and will be frozen for those participating in the blockades. They are also at risk of having their vehicle insurance revoked.
I have seen a significant amount of misinformation about the powers granted under the act. Let us clarify a few things that the Emergencies Act does not do.
The Emergencies Act is limited in scope compared to the War Measures Act of the past. The act does not involve the military. For the military to be involved, the National Defence Act would need to be invoked. This has not happened.
I think we also need to make very clear that no individual's charter rights are being violated. In fact, the Emergencies Act must be compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The specific measures provided in this act are limited. Parliament provides many checks, safeguards and transparency. This is the reason we are here today debating. We are going through this process of checks and balances.
I would like to pivot now to the impact of the occupation and the blockades on the lives of everyday Canadians. For those taking part in this illegal occupation in Ottawa, many seem to be enjoying themselves. There are pancake breakfasts, hot tubs, dance parties in the street and bouncy castles. Contrary to the narrative being driven by supporters, though, this has not been a peaceful experience for residents, businesses and employees in Ottawa.
Honking continued most of the day yesterday and early this morning, despite a 60-day extension of an injunction requiring by law that it stop. On top of that constant honking, there have been drums beating, loud fireworks and music at all hours of the night.
The health consequences of this constant bombardment of noise is not exclusive to residents. Occupiers are doing considerable damage to their own health and the health of the children they have brought with them, whether it is from the loud air horns or constant cloud of diesel fuel lingering on the streets from idling trucks.
It has been a very frustrating time for the residents of Ottawa, especially those who live and work in affected areas. Residents complain of being harassed for wearing a mask, and of being accosted with racial and anti-Semitic slurs. Employees and businesses do not feel it is safe to keep their businesses open. Real peoples' lives are being impacted by a loud minority in very real and significant ways.
The lack of empathy toward the residents and businesses in Ottawa is shocking and unacceptable. Thousands of people have been out of work in Ottawa. The Rideau Centre alone employs 1,500 individuals, and it has been closed for weeks.
A woman who lives in my building here in Ottawa has been working from home due to the pandemic. She told me that she had to leave the city to go to her parents' home in Toronto in order to work and get some rest because she does not feel safe. Not only has the constant noise disrupted her sleep, but it has also prevented her from working during the day.
Vaccine clinics, libraries and other important community resources have been shut down in the downtown core for weeks due to safety concerns. These resources are relied upon by many residents and many vulnerable residents in downtown Ottawa. The people of Ottawa are not strangers to protests. However, they know the right to protest comes with limits. Those limits stop when protesters are causing harm to the people around them.
I have heard from staffers and employees on the Hill that they have been taunted and yelled at for simply wearing a mask. Many of the occupiers show disregard for public measures by going into restaurants and places of business without masks, thereby putting those who work there at risk.
This week at the airport on my way home to B.C., I met a woman whose husband is a truck driver. He was not able to work for days because he could not cross the border due to blockades. She urged me to get the borders open so her husband could continue to work and provide food for their family.
The week before, I received dozens of calls from trucking companies and families of drivers stuck on the other side of the border in Coutts and could not get back. They are the people who are making sure that there is food on our tables and that supply chains remain open. While the borders are back open again now, the blockades have taken a serious economic toll on our communities.
These individuals blocking critical infrastructure, and their supporters, claim to want to ensure that groceries shelves stay full and our trade routes keep running smoothly. However, their actions have led to serious disruptions in our supply chains, including putting people out of work in the auto industry because of plant closure. They have caused the exact thing that they claim to want to protect our country from.
This blockade has damaged trade relations with our most important trading partner, the United States of America. Around 73% of our exports go to the United States and billions of dollars in imports come from our neighbours to the south annually. Truckers were stuck on the other side of the Coutts border crossing for days and were forced to drive for hours to get through a different crossing.
The blockade at the Coutts border cut off a vital trade route for agriculture and other goods, and cost our economy hundreds of millions of dollars. Jobs in Manitoba were at stake, because of the Emerson, Manitoba, crossing. Here, too, traffic was forced to divert to other crossings increasing travel time, creating chaos for truckers and other travellers.
Windsor also experienced days of blockades at one of Canada's most important routes over the Ambassador Bridge. This bridge alone is responsible for 30% of trade going back and forth between Canada and the U.S. That is $390 million in trade per day. Around 40,000 commuters, truckers and others cross that bridge daily.
In my own community, truckers and others trying to cross the Surrey border crossing were harassed by individuals blocking the border. There were reports of demonstrators driving on the wrong side of the road, a dangerous and reckless behaviour that endangers the lives of others.
The Surrey crossing is home to hundreds of millions of dollars in trade back and forth. Organizations are speaking out, like the Surrey Board of Trade. The impact of these blockades is choking us and has already impacted supply chains, businesses and jobs. This is unacceptable sabotage to the economy.
To be clear, everyone has a right to peaceful protest, but these type of demonstrations are impacting businesses and livelihoods. This is not a movement for the people. These are not peaceful demonstrations. Those who remain are unlawful, destructive and are looking to defy the law and abuse their fellow citizens. It has done a great deal of harm and it must end now.
The pandemic has been a challenging time for everyone, and if people are still in Ottawa, I encourage them to leave now and allow residents to get back to their lives.
1677 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:53:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what is happening right now is complicated and a source of anxiety for many. I am talking not only about the blockade, but also about the Emergencies Act.
All the hot spots, except Ottawa, have been dismantled without implementing emergency measures. Why invoke them now? Ottawa is the only one left.
If someone threatens someone else, the Criminal Code applies. If someone has an unlicensed weapon, the Criminal Code applies. The Criminal Code already covers everything the government wants to accomplish with the Emergencies Act.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:55:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. When some members of Parliament on the other side, particularly the Conservatives, are aiding and abetting, as she states, by sometimes telling protesters to go away, sometimes saying, “Stay”, and sometimes saying, “We are for you”, while their aspiring leader supports the convoy, things become very difficult.
The government has done an impeccable job at being controlled, complying with laws, allowing injunctions to take place and allowing the police and the city to do what they have to do. However, unfortunately, it has reached the point where we now have to invoke the Emergencies Act. There is no choice.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:56:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.
My phone has not stopped ringing. Constituents and concerned Canadians are emailing me en masse. I have had hundreds of phone calls and literally thousands of emails since the news of the government's plan to invoke the Emergencies Act trickled out on Friday. Not one of those emails and not one of those phone calls has been in favour of this enactment. What they did want was to ensure that their voices were heard by the Prime Minister and the misguided Liberal and NDP MPs who plan to support this overreach. Before I begin with my own thoughts, I thought it important for the House to hear about this, and specifically the members opposite who may be tempted to remain loyal to their party lines despite a heavy heart and conflicted conscience. While these emails were sent to me specifically, they are really intended for the members across the way, who could still change their position.
Lanny writes, “It's deeply disturbing to see the Prime Minister invoke the Emergencies Act under present circumstances. He failed to act with the powers that he previously held, and then asks for open-ended powers with no real motivation. I do not support this. He has failed as a leader.” Lanny knows that the Prime Minister has been disengaged, unwilling to meet and unwilling to listen, and, most importantly, that this is not what a leader does. She is right: This is failed leadership. This is a failure to use negotiation and use the authorities that already exist. It is simply a power grab by someone who is beyond his depth.
Lanny is not the only one who feels this way. Here is an excerpt of an email from a lady by the name of Rena: “I feel very strongly about the Emergencies Act. Frankly, it's overkill and quite frightening for a citizen of Canada. There is no reason to invoke this. It's giving far too much control over a situation that can be negotiated.” Does that sound familiar? The Prime Minister's inability to negotiate, frightened Canadians, fear tactics and too much control are repeating themes, not today, not this week and not this year. This has been the tone of the Prime Minister his entire time in office, and Canadians are beyond frustrated with it.
My constituents are in no way the only Canadians concerned. As The Canadian Press notes, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it “does not believe the ‘high and clear’ threshold needed to invoke the act has been met” and notes specifically that the law states the Emergencies Act “can only be used when a situation cannot be dealt with using any other law in the country”. The executive director went so far as to warn that normalizing emergency legislation “threatens our democracy and our civil liberties”.
Why? The Prime Minister and his misguided ministers surely have had legal opinions, like the one provided by Leah West, a former national security lawyer with the federal Department of Justice. As noted in a CBC article, “she's not convinced that the ongoing protests rise to the level of a public order ‘emergency’”. She has even gone so far as to state publicly, “As someone who studies the law very carefully, I'm kind of shocked, to be honest, that the government actually believes this meets the definition to even invoke the act.” The article goes on to elaborate: “West said that, under the existing provincial emergency order, Ontario can already do some of the things that the federal government is now contemplating.” She says, “It's not clear to me why you would need the federal authorities to do that.”
The Emergencies Act is not required. We have heard that expressed by constituents, by Canadians and in legal opinions. The Emergencies Act powers become available immediately, and the government then has seven days to table legislation in Parliament. I do not want to put words in the legislative drafters' mouths on this, but surely they were thinking, back in the day, that there would never be a Prime Minister so brazen as to utilize the powers of this act without a clear and evident emergency requiring them to do so.
In a situation that would properly utilize the Emergencies Act, the threat would be so inherently grave that invoking the powers within the act would jointly be called for by parliamentarians across party lines and provincial leaders and would unite all Canadians, while protecting our country and our freedoms. Our predecessors in the House would be ashamed of the audacity of the Prime Minister, the government and the NDP coalition propping it up in allowing the Emergencies Act to be used as a divisive tool and not as the unifying, nation-building and life-saving tool it was designed to be. This is not the case and this is not the time. The government does not have my support and it does not have the support of Canadians.
What is required, but has been lacking, is leadership. The provinces have been able to resolve their issues with protesters, just as we saw in my riding at the Coutts border crossing. What does Coutts have that Ottawa does not? It has leadership. A peaceful resolution was achieved via dialogue and open, frank and honest conversations between protest organizers and elected officials. Alberta MPs, provincial leaders, locally elected officials and law enforcement all had a hand in the peaceful resolution by showing true leadership and genuine concern and by taking the time to listen and be heard.
No one, not the Prime Minister, not one government minister and certainly not the leader of the NDP, possessed the leadership to have one meeting with protesters, even when it was offered to them. Was it their privileged perch from their ivory tower offices that made them feel superior to the working-class citizens beneath them? Was it their intolerance of opinions they disagree with? Or has this single incident exposed what the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP are really all about?
At election time, we hear phrases from the Prime Minister like, “We know that Canada has succeeded—culturally, politically, economically—because of our diversity, not in spite of it.” However, in situations like the one we find ourselves in today, we know the Prime Minister instead thinks that our diversity is a national emergency, not something to be embraced.
The leader of the NDP is no better. When he needs people's votes he tweets, “diversity is a strength not a weakness. We were meant to stand out, not blend in”, and uses the hashtag #makeitawkward. When his convictions are truly tested, his voice is nowhere to be heard. His silence and lack of leadership blend in well among the Liberals, and the only awkward person here is him as he continues to empower the Prime Minister to treat hard-working Canadians as second-class citizens.
What do the Oka crisis, the conflict at Caledonia, the Wet'suwet'en rail blockades, the B.C. pipeline protests and 9/11 all have in common? None of them warranted the use of the Emergencies Act. This is the first time we have had a Prime Minister audacious enough to invoke the Emergencies Act since it was created in 1988, and Canadians know he is doing so as a power grab. This is an example of political gamesmanship, not political statesmanship. Constituents, Canadians and legal practitioners all agree that invoking the Emergencies Act is unwarranted and unwanted.
Do the Liberal members opposite and those in the NDP whose votes would be required to pass this motion have the courage to do what Canadians are demanding of them and oppose this motion? I do. I hope they find it within themselves to rise above the political fray and do the right thing.
1359 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:05:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that have constituted global emergencies. By the way, I should say to the hon. member, because I do not think I have put it on the record yet, that I am still trying to decide how to vote on this. There are pros and cons to the act's use. We had a collapse of police here in Ottawa. The chain of command broke somewhere, and we are in a very different situation now than if we had acted based on the information that, it now appears, we should have had about the security threat that was implicit in the convoy.
The examples the hon. member used of when we did not use the Emergencies Act were exterior to Canada. Goodness knows that Canadians, and particularly those in Halifax and Newfoundland, reacted so brilliantly and generously when 9/11 happened in taking care of people who were completely stranded. However, that does not rise to an emergency in Canada; I do not even think it is plausible. In the Wet'suwet'en protests, I was arrested in a non-violent civil disobedience protest, and on many similar occasions, Kinder Morgan never even called the police. Those are not emergencies that would rise to the level that is anything like this.
I ask the hon. member to reflect on the differences in each of the examples he put forward.
236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:06:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my answer will not be as long as the member's question. However, I will say that in some of those circumstances, the situation was as serious or more serious than what we face today. The Emergencies Act was not invoked then and it should not be invoked now.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:09:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping someone would bring that up.
Let us clear the air here. It has been very clear that a criminal organization, weeks after the Coutts border crossing protests began, joined the group and infiltrated the group. It was not part of the group. It had ulterior motives. It was not part of the protest. It was tied to organized criminal organizations from here in the nation's capital and across this country. We should be very concerned that there is violence and that those extremists exist in our society, but they exist, and it is not because of this protest. They attach themselves to every sort of movement.
What is important to realize here is that the situation in Coutts was resolved using the legislation that already exists. With authorities from the RCMP and the elected officials, it was resolved. Those individuals who were planning to commit criminal offences were dealt with appropriately without enacting the Emergencies Act. That is a prime example that shows we can do this and settle this without this nonsense from the government.
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:11:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Prime Minister has already invoked the Emergencies Act. What we are debating in the House is whether or not we believe that his invocation of the act should be endorsed or revoked. In order for the House to endorse the invocation of the Emergencies Act, two very high thresholds need to be met. The government, at the time that this legislation was introduced, set a very high bar on purpose. The Emergencies Act is like a fire alarm that can only be activated when the glass has been broken, and we should only allow the glass to be broken when it is justified.
The Emergencies Act is only to be used when there are threats to the security of Canada that are so serious that they constitute a national emergency and cannot be addressed using any of the laws or tools that are currently on the books. This invocation fails on all counts. There are no threats to the security of the country. There is a noisy protest happening around Parliament Hill, but it is not impeding the ability of Parliament to function, as we can see clearly today. The House continues to sit. MPs walk through the protests every day. The Prime Minister holds press conferences mere steps from where the truckers have set up their rigs and their signs.
This protest is not even a threat to the continued security of the House of Commons, let alone the security of Canada. It is also not a national emergency. The protest stretches over a few city blocks of downtown Ottawa. Has it been disruptive? Yes, it has. Should the trucks move on or be moved at this time? Yes, they should. Does the Emergencies Act need to be invoked to allow that to happen? Absolutely not. There are more than enough powers granted to enforcement agencies to allow them to manage the situation and resolve it peacefully.
We have seen this at the border in Coutts, at the Ambassador Bridge, in Surrey and in Emerson. All of those incidents were peacefully resolved using existing police and government powers. The predecessor to this act, the War Measures Act, was only invoked during World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis. These are seminal moments in Canadian history. What we are seeing right now in Ottawa does not even come close to the level required to take this draconian response.
Conservatives will oppose this overreach. The Bloc Québécois has indicated that it will oppose this overreach. Liberal MPs will do what the Prime Minister tells them to do, as they always have and always will. Therefore, it comes down to the votes of the NDP to determine whether or not the House will endorse using the Emergencies Act to suspend the civil rights and civil liberties of whomever the Prime Minister deems to be a designated person engaging in an illegal protest.
In 1970, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau used the War Measures Act to send in the army and suspend the civil liberties of Canadians, the NDP stood in opposition to it. The vote was 190 MPs in favour and only 16 against. NDP leader Tommy Douglas, who I am quite sure I have never quoted before, said, “This is overkill on a gargantuan scale”. Calling the emergency legislation an act of panic, he went on to compare the invocation of the War Measures Act to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The exact same quotes could and should be used to describe the Prime Minister's gross overreach by using the Emergencies Act today.
Numerous former NDP MPs have weighed in in disbelief at what their party is prepared to endorse, recognizing the dangerous precedent this will set for future governments to crack down on their own citizens protesting the direction of a future government. Today's NDP is joining the Liberals in endorsing the use of legislation that takes away the rights of Canadians the government disagrees with. Today's NDP members are willing to sacrifice their own principles to provide comfort to a Liberal Prime Minister who has none.
The order attached to this invocation is far-reaching. Canadians who have been involved in completely legal and legitimate protests that have taken place over the past weeks could be retroactively caught up in this dragnet. Canadians who donated small amounts of their own money or gave home-cooked meals to truckers on their way to Ottawa could be caught up in this overreach. What does the Prime Minister say to those who have raised those concerns? “Just trust me. Give me the benefit of the doubt.” Trust is earned, and the Prime Minister deserves none.
The emergency order allows the government to freeze and seize bank accounts without legal recourse. The government is encouraging banks to never do business again with any of the protesters. It allows for the suspension of insurance products and the seizure of private property. It proposes up to five years in jail for people who are advocating for an end to government restrictions.
Let us think about that for a minute. People who are fighting for freedom, using their rights as free citizens to criticize government policy, could be thrown in jail for up to five years. They could have their ability to provide for their families taken away. They could have their mortgages revoked. They could lose their homes. This has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with punishing those who have dared to speak against government policies. We are sent here to protect the rights of Canadians, not to take them away on the flimsiest of excuses or to punish those who embarrass the Prime Minister.
There are many who will say “good riddance” to the protesters, and many who will cheer on their financial ruin. Clearly, while there are many supporting the protests, there are many other Canadians who are disgusted by them. Indeed, many Liberal supporters are cheering on the Prime Minister's strong-arm tactics against our fellow Canadians. They will point to public opinion polls, showing that people agree with the government's decision to put the boots to those who are embarrassing them on the streets of Ottawa, to put the protesters back in their rightful place and to serve as a warning to others that there are consequences for daring to question or push back against the government.
I will remind the House that many of the darkest chapters in our history, many of the things we look back on in disbelief and shame, and many of the suspensions of freedoms and liberties that past governments have brought down upon our own people were cheered on by the majority of Canadians and the majority of MPs, and were justified in these halls. That does not mean they were right. It does not mean they were just. Indeed, I believe that if we allow this to stand there will be a time when a future prime minister rises in this place and apologizes for the actions of the current Prime Minister in this case.
The Prime Minister has made a purposeful, political choice to create the division we see in this country today. This has been confirmed by the Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert. Instead of seeking understanding and common ground, the Prime Minister sought political advantage through division. When his pollsters told him he could turn vaccinated Canadians against unvaccinated Canadians, friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour and family member against family member, he jumped at the chance.
He spent the entire election pitting Canadian against Canadian. He called those who disagreed with him racist misogynists who should not be tolerated and a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”, as if being the Prime Minister or being a Liberal gave him a monopoly on what acceptable views are. He inflamed the situation in Ottawa with his rhetoric and then went into hiding. He continues to divide for partisan advantage. Now he wants the House to simply roll over and allow him to steamroll the rights of Canadians he disagrees with, and he wants to use a tool he has no justification to use.
The use of the Emergencies Act and its order in this case are unjustified. The thresholds have not been met. Its invocation will only serve to further deepen the divisions that have been purposely sown by the current Prime Minister. Invoking the Emergencies Act will not resolve a national crisis. Indeed, it may create one.
It is time to stop using the powers of government to punish those who have made difficult, unpopular decisions about their own health. It is time to stop going down the Prime Minister's path of division and instead choose the path of healing and reconciliation. The first step on that path is the rejection of the use of the Emergencies Act against our fellow citizens. We must vote against this motion and instead work together to lower the temperature, give Canadians back their rights and work together to heal the divisions in our land.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:21:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, who I have aligned myself with are the Canadian people who have rights under our Constitution and who do not deserve to have those rights trampled upon because there is a protest taking place in a few city blocks of Ottawa. This does not meet the threshold of the Emergencies Act. As much as the Liberals want to say it does, the only emergency is a political emergency for the Prime Minister who has utterly failed this country and who has utterly failed to deliver the leadership that he is supposed to give.
There is no need for the Emergencies Act. Anything that has been described can be dealt with under existing legislation and under existing tools. The idea that we need to use this draconian act when its predecessor has only been used three times, during world wars and during times when people were being kidnapped and explosions were happening in the streets, and to compare that to what is happening outside of Parliament is ridiculous.
We need to reject the Emergencies Act provisions immediately.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:22:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. This piece of legislation has never been enacted before. He is trying to suggest that the Emergencies Act is the same thing as the War Measures Act, and he could not be further from the truth. They are completely different and call on different measures.
What I find most alarming is that this member wants to align himself with a group outside, a group whose first objective in their calls to action is, if we can believe this, to have the Governor General of Canada and the Senate get together to overthrow a democratically elected Parliament and set up a citizen advisory committee of Canadians that will then govern the country. That is what this member is aligning himself with when he supports the people outside.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:24:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
My question is about something the government said to him just now about how the Emergencies Act and the War Measures Act are completely different. I think they are brushing off concerns and being a little too simplistic in their attempts to dissociate the two.
Could my colleague comment on that? After all, there are a few little similarities between these two acts. Moreover, neither of these two pieces of legislation, the current one or the former one, is called for right now.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:25:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I said that it was the predecessor to the Emergencies Act, which is demonstrably true. I think it is quite simply ridiculous. I heard another Liberal member say just before that the government has done an impeccable job of managing this situation. I think Canadians would disagree. It has been a catastrophe. However, the government's catastrophe and the failure of the Prime Minister does not justify the use of an Emergencies Act to punish Canadians for voicing views that are outside of what the government finds acceptable.
This can all be managed under current laws, as it has been done at the Ambassador Bridge, Coutts, Emerson and Surrey. These have all been managed without the draconian overreach of the Emergencies Act. The House must oppose this action.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:26:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from La Prairie spoke about trilogies, but I for one am interested in the fourth instalment, something like Police Academy.
The member also used the term “atomic bomb”. I think the use of this new Emergencies Act is historic. I have never seen anything like it. The act is unique, and there is nothing more powerful. The situation needs to be absolutely critical.
The situation only became so bad because of a lack of leadership. The government invoked the act on Monday, but today is Thursday. What has been going on the past three days? Where is the leadership?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:42:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is something done with much thought, much diligence and much judiciousness. It is timely, proportionate and targeted. There are many safeguards put in place.
The situation outside is now in day 21. It needs to be resolved. We need to act as a country. The federal government is there working with the province and the municipality, and this is justifiable. That is what this comes down to for me: Is this justifiable? My answer is yes.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:43:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, invoking the Emergencies Act was a difficult but necessary decision our government chose to make for the good of Canada. It was made after carefully considering all other possible solutions to our ongoing emergency. We recognize the powers of the Emergencies Act, which was enshrined into Canadian law in 1988, should only be utilized in very specific and dire circumstances. The criteria are strict, but we believe the current situation meets the definition of threats to the security of Canada as outlined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.
As the Minister of Public Safety has noted, numerous consultations were completed prior to moving forward. It is important to note that this decision is not a catalyst for a military intervention. We are not preventing Canadians from exercising their right to peaceful assembly or to protest legally. We are not suspending fundamental rights or freedoms, or overriding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not limiting the freedom of speech of Canadians. This decision aims to keep our citizens and our institutions safe.
Through these new powers, the government is enabling the RCMP to have jurisdiction to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences; prohibiting taking part in a public assembly where it is considered a breach of peace and goes beyond lawful protest; regulating the use of certain property, including goods used in blockades; designating secure and protected places and infrastructure that are critical to the economy, such as the airport or border crossings; compelling those capable to render essential services, in this case ordering tow truck drivers to move vehicles blocking roads; and imposing fines of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to five years on those who breach any of the above orders.
The current situation requires additional tools not held by any other federal, provincial or territorial law. These disruptions and illegal blockades are being supported by funds that appear to come from foreign sources. Therefore, the following first-time deterrents will be put in place: directing Canadian financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved in the illegal blockades and report to the RCMP or CSIS; giving federal institutions new, broad authority to share information on anyone suspected of involvement with the blockades with Canadian banks and financial institutions; and giving banks and other financial service providers the ability to immediately freeze or suspend an account, personal or corporate, without a court order.
As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier this week, we cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue. Blockades have stifled the flow of goods between Canada and our largest trading partner, the United States. The RCMP has arrested 11 individuals who were part of the blockade at Coutts. According to the RCMP press release, the group was said to have a willingness to use force against the police if any attempts were made to disrupt the blockade. As part of the operation, the RCMP seized long guns, hand guns, body armour, high-capacity magazines and a large quantity of ammunition.
Meanwhile, residents in the city of Ottawa continue to be subjected to what has now been weeks of unlawful behaviour that has challenged the capacity of local law enforcement and closed local businesses. In recent days, Ottawa residents have taken to the streets themselves in order to prevent additional vehicles from joining the occupation.
The invoking of the Emergencies Act sends a strong message to protesters across the country. The protesters have been heard. They should stop hurting this nation. It is time to go home, please.
If a protester is a company owner and their truck is being used in an illegal blockade, it is time to put it back on the road so it may serve a better, more productive purpose.
630 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
