44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 5:51:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the convoy leaders, an individual named Chris Barber, was just arrested about 10 minutes ago, which leads us to believe in what the acting Ottawa police chief said. At his press conference this afternoon, he said that there would be a strong, forceful response and that this weekend would not be a repeat of the previous ones.
Is the Emergencies Act still relevant, given that seven out of 10 provinces refuse it, and all the places in Quebec and in Canada that were blocked by truckers have been cleared, apart from Ottawa?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:06:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and the references she made to democracy. Today, my democracy is suffering. I am concerned about my democracy. It seems to me that the Emergencies Act or the War Measures Act is the final weapon in a democracy.
This week, we heard protesters say that they would keep going and would not stand down. That is usually a left-wing slogan, but now we are hearing it from the right. However, as the member mentioned, the left and the right are no longer relevant here.
The government's attitude is that it is going to plow ahead. However, at some point, we must talk to one another. The government did not show leadership on this. Is my colleague's democracy suffering today as well?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:07:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we should be trying to find ways to de-escalate tension and find common ground instead of using division and escalation of tension for personal or political gain. This is something that has happened far too long in this country, and it needs to stop. Our country is at a breaking point right now. We need to figure out how to make people have hope, how to feed them and how to fix our broken health care system. That is what people are looking to us for.
The use of the Emergencies Act is unprecedented and unnecessary. It does not secure our democracy; in fact, it erodes it, and for that reason, I will be opposing it.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:08:02 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, uqaqtitiji. I would like to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her statement.
Yesterday we heard from the member opposite that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis or the crisis at Caledonia, but these are not comparable to today's realities. The Emergencies Act is a drastic measure for the sole purpose of protecting our safety. For the last three weeks continuing to today, our safety continues to be threatened.
We have heard today from the member's party in a way that I interpret as trying to minimize the dangers being posed by these extremists. Can the member explain why her party has chosen to ignore the behaviour of these extremists while it continues to put Canadians' safety at risk?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:10:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in this House this evening on what is a very important matter. Today we are debating the unprecedented measures the government is taking by invoking the never-before-used Emergencies Act.
I want to be clear that I am not arguing that there is no place in law for the Emergencies Act. What I am arguing, along with many others, is that it is a completely disproportionate tool to effectively deal with these protests and that the government's rationale for using it has way too many potholes to even begin to enumerate.
The predecessor legislation to the Emergencies Act, the War Measures Act, was used only three times: once in World War I, once in World War II and then in the FLQ crisis in the seventies. In order to even think about invoking the Emergencies Act, we have to look at the context in which its predecessor legislation was used and how rarely, in fact, it was implemented.
Number one, there has to be a national emergency. When we look at how the act itself defines a national emergency, the act describes a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. Now we all know that the protests are not an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. I am sure the Prime Minister would have jumped into action 20 days ago if that was indeed the case.
Regarding the act's requirement that a national emergency be of a temporary nature, that part I can agree with, because the situation has been so temporary. In fact, all of the blockades at the international border between Canada and the U.S. had already been cleared before the Emergencies Act was ever implemented, completely without the benefit of this legislation.
The definition goes on to say that a national emergency “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”. Let us be honest: The truckers parked outside of Parliament today do not seriously endanger the lives of Canadians. Again, when it comes to international border crossings, the provinces have both the capacity and the authority to bring that to an end, and indeed they already have.
The act goes on to describe a national emergency as one that “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” If an emergency does not fit that description, then the Emergencies Act is not to be used. If a few hundred parked trucks pose a threat to the preservation of the sovereignty and security of Canada, one of the greatest countries in the world, a G7 country, that is a sobering testament of the government's dismal and failed leadership, leaving our country so vulnerable that its very existence could be called into question by a group of protesters on Wellington Street.
When we look at this situation through the vantage point that we have of being here in Ottawa, I think it is very clear to all members in this House that the threshold for a national emergency simply has not been met, but, for argument's sake, let us say that the Prime Minister and his entire Liberal caucus truly and sincerely believe that the trucks parked on the street just outside these doors are a real emergency requiring unprecedented action from the federal government. To that I would just have to say, what a sad state of affairs. If this is what an emergency looks like to the Liberal government, what incredibly privileged lives they must lead, compared to the experiences that my own constituents in Fundy Royal have had over the past two years in facing the dire ramifications and consequences of lockdowns. Back home, an emergency looks like the gym owner who has lost their business after two years of personal sacrifices in the hope of keeping their business afloat; an emergency can look like the single mom who lost her job because of the government's vaccine mandate and then had that same government tell her, cruelly, that she could not collect employment insurance.
Ultimately, Liberals are trying to use unprecedented emergency powers to respond to an event that does not even meet the threshold of a national emergency as described in the act itself. While the emergency that the Liberals say they are trying to address is not an actual emergency, the consequences and infringements on the civil liberties and rights that we so dearly hold as Canadians are very real.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated yesterday that the government “has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act”. It also warns of a threat facing our democracy and civil liberties if the Emergencies Act is inappropriately applied, as it clearly is in this case. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association just today called on Liberal members and all members of the House to vote against this and for the Prime Minister to revoke the Emergencies Act.
Crises we faced as a nation without invoking the Emergencies Act include, in 1990, the Oka crisis, a 78-day standoff between Mohawk protestors, law enforcement and the Canadian Armed Forces; in 2006, a group of extremists now known as the Toronto 18 plotting to carry out violent attacks here on Parliament Hill; and in 2010, the G20 protests, which turned to riots in Canada's largest city, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damages. Toronto's chief of police at the time was none other than the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness. It was also not invoked on October 22, 2014, when, as many members of the House will remember, there was a terrorist attack on Parliament Hill and the War Memorial, which killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo before Centre Block itself was stormed.
These were serious and at times fatal incidents that were entirely more dangerous and destructive than the truckers parked outside. The government invoking the Emergencies Act at this time just does not add up. Invoking the Emergencies Act bypasses the democratic process. We cannot become complacent and allow these unprecedented powers to become a tool of government to shut down dissent that it does not like. Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are never guaranteed. These principles require constant vigilance to defend. Canada was built on the foundation of these principles, and we cannot allow cracks to form.
Two days ago, I met with a man who immigrated to Canada from Romania. He had tears in his eyes and said that it was a sad day for him. He lost his father to the Romanian regime under a brutal dictator and came to Canada in hopes of finding freedom. Coming from a totalitarian regime where one is persecuted for one's political beliefs, he recognizes what he sees here. It is hard to imagine what it must feel like to live in a country where a person is not allowed to think or speak freely without being under the threat of persecution, but this gentleman I spoke with knows it all too well. The division being sowed by the Prime Minister and the great lengths he is going to stomp out dissenting opinions are much too familiar.
That is what this is. The Prime Minister is trying to eradicate any opinions that do not match his. This is a political crisis for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's instinct, unfortunately, and we have all seen it in the House over and over, as recently as yesterday, is to divide. We know that not everyone who disagrees with the government is a racist, misogynist or white supremacist, but it is a lot better for him if everybody thinks that. Just yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister accused a young Jewish member of Parliament of standing with swastikas. We might be wondering what triggered him to make such a disgusting statement. The member for Thornhill dared to ask the Prime Minister when he lost his way, since he stated in 2015 that if Canadians were going to trust their government, their government needed to trust Canadians. It speaks volumes that pointing out his own hypocrisy sent the Prime Minister into this rage.
The Prime Minister has no problem joining in protests that are promoting the ideology he agrees with. We all know this in the House. When he agrees with it and it is a good look for his brand, he is there. Now that the protests do not align with his views, he is going for the nuclear option of invoking the Emergencies Act. The thing about being the leader of a free and fair democracy like Canada is that we do not get to pick and choose who gets to speak out and on what issues. The Prime Minister does not get to unilaterally suppress the civil liberties of people he does not like. That is what dictators do.
All Canadians should be concerned by the actions of the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. All Canadians should be concerned when a group is targeted by the federal government for its political beliefs. Indeed, all Canadians should be concerned by the precedent being set by the government. I will be proud to vote in opposition to this government overreach.
1602 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:22:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly all members of the House denounce anti-Semitism of all kinds. The Conservatives have been saying that it is time to move on; it is time for the trucks to go. We have been saying that, but what is very clear is that the Emergencies Act is an absolutely inappropriate tool. Seizing the bank accounts of individuals who we disagree with because of their political beliefs is unprecedented and it is wrong.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:23:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fundy Royal for his speech and for rising to oppose the Emergencies Act. I am doing so as well. I remember that, in question period either last week or the week before, because this situation has been going on for three weeks, the government was asked why it was not taking action, why it was not moving, why it was not doing anything about the protesters. The answer was that it was up to Ottawa police to handle the situation. Three weeks later, the government invoked the Emergencies Act. It makes no sense. How did we get to this point?
The Ottawa police chief announced that they are finally going to take action. What is the member expecting to happen this weekend?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:25:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of members in the House seem to be confused. If something is an emergency or an inconvenience or if there is something we want to change or disagree with, it is a matter of debate. The fact of the matter is, to enact the Emergencies Act, the territorial integrity, security and sovereignty of Canada have to be at risk. No one can seriously claim that the protest on Wellington Street is impacting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. If it is, we have bigger problems than we think.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:48:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention tonight. I also appreciate the pain she is in and certainly hope she is well soon.
The order in council released by the government authorizes the government to do the following. As I think this would add to the member's concerns around certainty, I will quote what is in the order in council:
...other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.
The government is authorizing itself to do things. It essentially asks the House to hand it unlimited authority. We have seen in the past, in matters such as the documents from the Winnipeg lab, that the Prime Minister has little or no respect for parliamentary oversight. The SNC-Lavalin scandal again demonstrated his lack of respect for the independence of our justice system.
How does the member feel about adding that particular section of the order in council to her list of reasons why she would be very apprehensive about supporting the Emergencies Act?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:51:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. I know she is a great democrat, perhaps one of the best in this House.
She gave a detailed, nuanced and constructive analysis. We have not heard a lot of constructive comments or a focus on dialogue from the government these days.
My democracy is suffering too, under the circumstances. I am very concerned about the fact that the government is responding so radically with the Emergencies Act.
Could my colleague share her thoughts on the government's arrogance, lack of planning and demagoguery, especially since it announced it was invoking the Emergencies Act?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:57:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will splitting my time with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
I will start by acknowledging that we have all been in the pandemic for two years, and frustrations are mounting. People certainly want to be to able to get on with their lives. To some extent, this has culminated in what we have seen over the last few weeks. However, make no mistake: We really do need, as parliamentarians and indeed as an entire country, to acknowledge the intense gravity of the situation we find ourselves in. This truly is a watershed moment in Canadian political history, because we are now, as a House, being asked by the government to confirm the declaration of a public order emergency that was proclaimed on February 14 of this week.
This is something that has never happened before. This is the first time that this act has been invoked in this way. I and, I suspect, many members of Parliament have been receiving concerns from constituents who are concerned over this drastic step. I owe it to the great constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to talk about this extraordinary time and why we have found ourselves here.
We need to have a serious conversation about why we find ourselves in a place where the enacting of the Emergencies Act is suddenly a necessary action, because it should never have come to this. The use of the Emergencies Act, even the consideration of its use, is an acknowledgement that we have had a failure of leadership from many different levels of government. The citizens of Ottawa rightly feel abandoned by their own police. The provincial government has not been there, but more importantly, the federal government has not been there. That is what I am here to focus my remarks on.
We are now two and a half weeks into an occupation. It might have started off with many people who joined this movement thinking it was a protest. Certainly people have that cherished right in our democracy. The right of citizens to peacefully assemble, protest, make their views known and push for change is very fundamental to a well-functioning democracy,
However, what we see in Ottawa and what we saw at many of Canada's border crossings were not protests. They were not peaceful assemblies. They were occupations and they were blockades. They started having a very negative impact on residents, on small business owners and on workers. That is where the line was crossed.
People in Ottawa did not feel safe in their own homes. We saw reports of attempted arson in some of the buildings. We know that people have been suffering verbal abuse on a daily basis. Sometimes it has been physical. They have had to deal with all sorts of noise complaints and ongoing pollution from idling trucks. The city of Ottawa, our national capital, has seen some of our most precious and honoured national monuments defiled and, in some cases, completely walked over. It has been completely unacceptable.
The border blockades have impacted far more people. We know that trade between Canada and the United States numbers in the millions of dollars every day. Factories in southern Ontario had to shut down, impacting families there. Many agricultural manufacturers, processors and producers out in the Prairies and across Canada were negatively impacted by the blockades. They was having an impact on those people.
It is those people we need to keep our remarks focused on to answer the question of why we are here today, suddenly debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act, of course, was first brought in as a piece of legislation all the way back in 1988. Pursuant to section 17(1) of that act, we have had a public order emergency declared by the Liberal government. There are a few things that come about as a consequence.
Now the government has the ability to designate specific areas and declare that any assemblies in those areas will henceforth be unlawful. This would include the downtown core of Ottawa so that the main thoroughfares can be cleared of all of those trucks and so that the residents can get their lives back. It will also include some of our critical infrastructure, notably our ports of entry with the United States, the Windsor Ambassador Bridge; Coutts, Alberta; and Emerson, Manitoba being the most recent examples. However, we also saw disturbances in Vancouver and in other ports of entry, such as Sarnia.
The act is going to allow the federal government to direct essential services, such as mobilizing tow trucks to help with clearing those streets. It is going to give FINTRAC the ability to cover crowdfunding. Also, the federal government is going to have the extraordinary power of freezing the commercial bank accounts and personal bank accounts of people who are funding these illegal occupations. It is a very real and extraordinary attempt to cut off the funding that is supporting the occupation of Ottawa and all of this misery. As well, it is going to give the RCMP the power to act as provincial police officers and municipal police officers and enforce their respective laws.
I certainly have personally wrestled with the invoking of the act, wondering if I am doing the right thing in supporting it, but what gives me some level of comfort, and I want to be very clear to the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, is that this is not a blank cheque. The powers we are granting to the government will be carefully reviewed on an ongoing basis. I will not hesitate to withdraw my support if I feel the government is overstepping its confines. By that I mean that the application of these powers has to be specific and it must be in relation to the disturbances that we are seeing from the blockades and the occupation. These powers must be used only in relation to that situation, and they must be quickly withdrawn once public order has been restored.
It has taken a long time to get to the point where we find ourselves now. I am very proud that my caucus colleagues in the NDP and I have been trying to push the government to take this crisis seriously, because the warning signs were there from the beginning. As the public safety critic, I was able to initiate a study at the Standing Committee on Public Safety into crowdfunding platforms and their possible involvement in funding movements like this. I was also able to move a successful motion to call upon the RCMP, the CBSA, the Ontario Provincial Police, Ottawa police and the minister for public safety to eventually come before our committee to explain how we got to this point. Why did we have such an intelligence failure and lack of coordination over the last two and a half weeks, bringing us to the point where we now have to use the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act?
Of course, I have to recognize my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and his private member's bill to basically ban symbols of hate, which we unfortunately have seen evidence of in this occupation. Also, our leader was able to initiate an emergency debate in the House of Commons so that we could give parliamentarians their first opportunity to focus on this situation.
In conclusion, Parliament is where we make the laws of this country. It is the pinnacle of our democracy, and every single one of the 338 members who serve in the House of Commons was duly elected to this place to make laws and to hold the government to account on behalf of the citizens in their ridings. To try to subvert that is an affront to the people who participate in our democracy, and we must uphold that cherished right.
I will end by saying that it is with great reluctance that we are going to be giving our support to these emergency powers, but I can assure people that we will not take our eye off the ball and we will not hesitate to withdraw our support should any powers be used past their intended purpose.
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:22:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member talked about withdrawing support if New Democrats see abuse. As she knows, the Emergencies Act provisions are already in force. What we are essentially talking about here is a confirmation vote by the House of Commons on whether to keep these provisions in place. What we should be doing is preventing harm from happening in the first place. What my caucus and many Conservative members want to do is to prevent the harm we see going on with innocent people having their bank accounts frozen based on commentary that has been made by the Minister of Finance.
I want to draw the member's attention to what the NDP caucus did in 1970, 11 years before I was born. I was born in a country where there was martial law at the time. In 1970, Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stance, many people would say. I would have probably disagreed with his position, but it was definitely courageous to do. He stood against the War Measures Act at the time. Today, the NDP has decided to side with the government and allow the government extraordinary powers for 30 days. I wonder if the member would explain why.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:53:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my hon. colleague.
The first is around powers. Just a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to speak to a constituent who was concerned that this was a broad overreach by the government. When I explained the different measures within the public order, he understood and said that it was reasonable because it was giving tools to the police to be able to address this situation.
Could the member speak about how these powers to give those tools are restricted under the Emergencies Act, and that it is about leadership, not just here in Ottawa but in his own city of Winnipeg and in other places of the country, to make sure that law enforcement, if they choose to use this discretion, have the tools to stop blockades and protests that are truly illegal?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give a good example. Yesterday, or maybe it was Tuesday, when I was walking down to Parliament Hill, a police officer was meeting with some of the individual protesters and handing out a piece of paper.
As I walking by, he was referencing the Emergencies Act. This is another tool for law enforcement agencies to be able to ensure that the illegal blockades and protests come to an end. That is why we have it before us today. There are measures within it, such as a standing committee to review it on an ongoing basis. We will also have an inquiry, once all is said and done. There are all sorts of transparency and accountability mechanisms to make sure that it is not abused.
It is a wonderful tool and it can be effective.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:55:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is often both entertaining and enlightening.
It is interesting to hear him talk about the political aspects of this. It seems that the first thing that comes to mind is the pot calling the kettle black.
The Prime Minister expects us to believe that “the Emergencies Act will be “geographically targeted”, and that is a quote. That is what he told Canadians when he made the announcement. However, the Order in Council itself states that “a public order emergency exists throughout Canada”, and again that is another quote. We have nothing to suggest otherwise, nothing in writing. I can assure this House that the premiers from Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and many other provinces in the country do not want this in their provinces.
How does the member explain the contradiction, and why should we trust him and his Prime Minister when the first thing they did in the announcement of the act was mislead Canadians?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:56:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are here debating the use of emergency powers as has been laid out by the Prime Minister. This is really an indictment of failed leadership. This is about a Prime Minister who has not only dropped the ball when it comes to dealing with this crisis, but has also failed to unite Canadians because he constantly divides, stigmatizes, insults and marginalizes those who have concerns about vaccine mandates and the restrictions that have been brought in by the federal government. He does not seem to listen.
I do not believe the Emergencies Act needs to be used. I do not believe the threshold has been met under the definitions of the Emergencies Act. I do not believe the federal government has used the powers it already possesses to deal with these situations. What I do believe is that in this order in council, under I believe section 19 of the Emergencies Act, there are open-ended powers being handed over to the current Prime Minister.
We know that, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Prime Minister tried to ascertain how much power and control was possible over Parliament, the treasury and the executive of the government, because he thought he needed to grab on to that power. We know that his lust for power brought us to an early election, because he thought he could win a majority in the middle of a pandemic. He ignored the plight of Canadians who were dealing with the issues surrounding the pandemic and he ignored the plight of the Afghan refugees who had worked alongside our soldiers and were trying to get to Canada, all because he wanted more power and thought he could get his majority.
In the past, we had the War Measures Act. I acknowledge that the Emergencies Act is a modernized version of that, but it still has the same ultimate goal of dealing with major catastrophes in our country. Have we had a major hurricane or an earthquake? Were we attacked? No, we were not. Are we in a world war, such as World War I or II? Have we gone through something like the 1970 FLQ crisis? Have leaders of government been kidnapped or murdered? No, there have not. There is no way that the sovereign nation of Canada is under threat so that we have to use the Emergencies Act.
What we see out on the streets is sometimes annoying to those who live there. I am a property owner. There is no doubt, and I denounce all of those who show signs of hate. I have spent my entire political career, and before that, denouncing racism, anti-Semitism and those who fly Nazi flags and dress up as Nazi soldiers. I denounce those who are carrying Confederate flags. We have to stop racism. Each and every one of those people who have infiltrated the convoy need to be called out and held responsible for those hateful acts.
However, at times, to get attention and make a point, part of being a Canadian is to have a peaceful protest. Sometimes that includes civil disobedience. I have said this in the House before. When the Liberals had their long gun registry I refused to register my long guns. That was my act of civil disobedience, to stand against an overbearing, overreaching Liberal government policy.
I will also say this because there is a lot of concern about how traffic, borders and infrastructure have been blocked. I always oppose blockades. We cannot hold our economy hostage. I believe everybody has made their point. I am glad they are going home, and they are going home from our border points without the use of the Emergencies Act. It was provincial governments, local policing and local municipal leaders who were able to negotiate and remove those blockades, the same way the current government has dealt with blockades in the past at our Vancouver port, pipelines and railway crossings. They went on for days. We did not call in the Emergencies Act to get those blockades removed, because we listened to the people and their concerns. The government refuses to talk with the truckers on Wellington Street. That is disturbing to say the least.
The biggest concern I have is that this is suspending our civil liberties and charter rights because it is open-ended at this point in time.
I am of Ukrainian descent and I want to remind everyone that under the War Measures Act, in World War I, my baba and gedo came to Canada on Austrian passports. They were declared enemy aliens and for four years had to go 20 miles one way to the RCMP station every week to register. Summer, winter, fall and spring, it did not matter what they were doing on the farm, they had to register, even though my baba's brother was fighting for Canada in World War I. They still had to report in and they had to for two years after the war ended because the government refused to lift the War Measures Act and that violation of their charter rights.
I am concerned that the Liberal government will want to continue to erode the civil liberties that we have now. We have to make sure that does not happen. I do appreciate and acknowledge that the Emergencies Act does provide parliamentary oversight, and that is why we are having this debate tonight, to make sure that we can ask for it to be revoked if it passes with the support of the NDP. I have to say that I am really upset that the NDP would stand against freedom and the charter and support the Liberals and the Prime Minister in this ham-fisted approach to dealing with the crisis they think is out on the street.
Section 2 of the charter, peaceful assembly, right now is undermined. I walk through the convoy every day. Everybody says hi and has been very polite. Sometimes they honk the horns, which at 10 minutes to seven this morning was annoying, but they do not do it all day long, just for short periods here and there. The first week it was a bit overbearing, I will say that.
Section 7 is life, liberty and security. How are the Liberals going to ensure those things to the tow truck companies when they are commandeering equipment to tow away the vehicles on the street right now? What is beyond the pale in all of this is that they are violating section 8 of the charter, unreasonable search and seizure. They are locking down the bank accounts of people who gave generously to help the trucking convoy. They could not join and felt they had no other voice, so they financially supported the convoy. Now having their bank accounts locked down is disgusting. This is an overreach of the Government of Canada and I am concerned, now that they are on FINTRAC, that they are going to be treated like they were funding a terrorist organization and will not be able to get loans, access their savings accounts or even get mortgages. That, to me, is really disturbing.
Really, what is next? Section 19 of the Emergencies Act and referenced in the order in council says that there are going to be other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the act. That is not known.
I again come back to the issue of failed leadership, inaction and paralysis by the Prime Minister. I have been here for quite a while, 17 years, and I am shocked that we do not have an emergency management plan for the Parliament buildings and Ottawa as the capital city. I was here when the terrorist attack happened in 2014. We witnessed what happened January 6, 2021, when the riot occurred on Capitol Hill. We know there should have been plans made to deal with a situation like this.
When the Minister of Emergency Preparedness was the Toronto police chief in 2010 and protests were taking place at the G20 in Toronto, in a couple of days 1,100 protesters were arrested. The RCMP, the OPP, the Toronto city police and regional police in the area were brought in to deal with the situation. If we did not need an Emergencies Act to do that then, why do we need it now?
It is time to de-escalate this situation. The Prime Minister has to stop stigmatizing, marginalizing, traumatizing and name-calling those who do not agree with his policies and bring people around, take the heat off and end these restrictive and divisive mandates so that we can get back to a normal life again and live as a strong, united Canada.
1464 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:07:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his strong denunciation of hate, anti-Semitism and racism. I really appreciate that and thank him for doing that so strongly.
I want to also comment that the Emergencies Act specifically is designed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am also happy to hear Conservatives speaking so highly of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well.
The question I want to ask my hon. colleague, in a sense, I think he answered part of when he spoke about the danger to tow truck operators. Why is he concerned with their security if everything that is happening out there is so peaceful?
The second question I would like to ask is because I know he has a long history when it comes to protecting the safety and security of Canadians. He spoke about the financial transactions and he spoke about January 6. The Anti-Defamation League in the United States has put out a list of 1,100 donors who also donated to the January 6 insurrection in the Capitol. How can he square that circle and does he not believe that foreign interference in our democracy is an issue that we must stand firmly against?
210 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:09:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be skeptical about the idea of seizing the bank accounts and financial resources of certain protesters. He seems to be skeptical about the idea of towing the trucks of some of the protesters.
I do not agree with the Emergencies Act at all, because it is like killing a fly with a bazooka. However, my colleague seems to be suggesting that no measures are possible. I wonder how he would stop what is going on out there.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:12:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this evening to the government's unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act. This act has been on the books for 34 years, and in those 34 years it has not been used on a single occasion: not during the Oka crisis, not during Caledonia, not in the wake of September 11, and not following the 2020 blockades of critical infrastructure, including railway lines and pipelines, that went on for two months. Never before has this act been invoked.
There is a good reason that this act has never been invoked before, and that is because it is exceptional legislation meant for the most extreme circumstances. It provides the government with sweeping powers that infringe upon the charter rights and civil liberties of Canadians. These are powers including prohibiting public assemblage, seizing property, freezing bank accounts without warrant and limiting or prohibiting travel within Canada. I could go on. These are extraordinary powers indeed.
In light of the exceptional nature of this legislation, intended for the most extreme circumstances, the threshold that must be satisfied in order to establish that there is a national emergency pursuant to the act is indeed extremely high. An emergency under the act is an “urgent and critical situation that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians, or seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.”
Not only that, the emergency must be of a nature so as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, and so no other law on the books can effectively deal with the situation.
It is patently clear that the very high threshold has not been satisfied. Indeed, it has not come close to being satisfied.
The government, in justifying the invocation of these extraordinary powers, talks about ending blockades. When one turns to the order in council issued on Monday that specifies the nature of the purported emergency, the order in council speaks of the continuing blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings. It speaks to the adverse impacts these blockades have had with trading partners, particularly the United States, and it speaks of a breakdown in the supply chain and availability of goods as a result of these blockades.
However, there is a big problem for the government. There are no blockades in Canada today, on the Canada-U.S. border or anywhere. There were no such blockades on Monday, when the government invoked the order in council and the Emergencies Act.
There were blockades on the Canada-U.S. border at Coutts, Windsor and Surrey. Those blockades were unlawful. They were wrong, and they were dispersed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act under tools already available to law enforcement and under existing laws.
I remind the government that in the act, in order to utilize the Emergencies Act it must be demonstrated that no other laws on the books can reasonably be used. That simply has not borne out to be the case.
We are now left with the situation here in Ottawa. There are trucks outside on Wellington St. in front of Parliament Hill. There are some protesters. In addition to the street in front of Parliament Hill being affected, there are some streets immediately around the parliamentary precinct and downtown Ottawa that are affected. Yes, it has created unpleasantness. Yes, it has been a nuisance. Yes, there have been illegal activities by certain people who are here. That does not make a national emergency.
Indeed, all of the tools that exist are there and have been used. For example, the honking of horns has largely been addressed by way of an injunction issued by a judge. The Criminal Code, transportation laws and municipal bylaws are tools on the books to address this situation. What cannot be justified is invoking the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act is not needed and is not warranted, because there is no national emergency. What we have is a Prime Minister who has invoked the Emergencies Act absent a national emergency. That is an abuse of power on the part of the Prime Minister. It is a perversion of the rule of law. It threatens the rights and freedoms of Canadians right across Canada, not just those who are standing outside Parliament Hill. It also sets a dangerous precedent of normalizing the extraordinary powers authorized pursuant to the act.
The Prime Minister knows the threshold has not been met, but the Prime Minister does not care because, for the Prime Minister, it is all about political theatre. The Prime Minister knows that what he is doing is wrong and that he is acting unlawfully. The members on that side of the House, the members of the NDP, the coalition partners of the government, have a choice. They can follow the law pursuant to the Emergencies Act, or they can aid and abet this abuse of power on the part of the Prime Minister. The choice is clear.
848 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:23:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand is whether the threshold has been met to invoke the Emergencies Act. That is the question. Based upon a review of the legislation, it is very clear that the bar has not been set, with respect to the blockades. It was existing law enforcement tools and powers under the authority of the provinces that dispersed the situation. At Coutts, the situation was dispersed by many of the protesters themselves. What the Prime Minister needs to do is turn down the temperature, instead of pouring fire on this situation.
With respect to the hon. minister, I say this could be ended very quickly. The path toward ending it is for the Prime Minister to move forward and lift his punitive and discriminatory vaccine mandates. That would resolve this issue.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
