44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 8:27:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the ball is in the Prime Minister's court. He created this crisis. It is up to him to solve the crisis, and solving the crisis does not begin by invoking the Emergencies Act. It cannot be justified in the circumstances.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:47:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we cannot make dead men speak. However, and I clearly said this when speaking about both situations, there were real and existing difficulties in both cases.
In both cases, the use of the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act is not justified. We have institutions. We have police. We have the army. We have laws. Occupying a city, or kidnapping a minister, as was the case, is illegal and was already illegal. There is no need for a special law to to reaffirm this. Everyone knows it.
The government could quite simply use the ordinary institutions and laws to respond to the situation.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:48:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He did a great job of explaining things. I could never have made a speech like that. He did a great job of explaining the difference between the Emergencies Act, which we are debating now, and the War Measures Act in 1970.
That said, emergency legislation, even if it does not apply in Quebec—which is still uncertain—is still retraumatizing for Quebeckers. It seems highly likely that it will apply in Quebec. I myself participated in movies about those days. There are plays and books about it. Once I was even a part of a performance about the trial of Michel Chartrand, “le procès des cinq”, which was after 1970.
People have not forgotten. That is pretty obvious right now. Our offices are getting calls from thousands of people telling us to vote against it. They could not care less about how it is written. What they care about is what it means, and that is what scares them.
Could my colleague comment on the trauma triggered by this bill?
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a historic and unprecedented situation facing our country. For the first time since its passage in 1988, the Emergencies Act is being invoked by the Prime Minister. The law outlines a type of situation that would merit its invocation. It notes that it must only be used during an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.
While it is the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the act, it is the duty of members of the House who have been placed here to either reject it or ratify it and ensure, if the measures are taken, that they are justifiable and appropriate.
The act enumerates four circumstances that would justify the use of its powers. Let me outline those emergencies described in the act, and hold the circumstances of the current standoff up against these provisions, to see if today's situation meets any of these criteria.
Criteria one involves espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada, or such activities directed toward and in support of such espionage and sabotage. I have seen no clear evidence that blockades have been infiltrated by spies or other acts of espionage, nor has the government brought any such evidence forward to the House.
Criteria two involves foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person. The Prime Minister has alluded to foreign funding by individuals, however it remains unclear how this is detrimental to the interest of Canadians. There is no foreign country that is financing or otherwise supporting the blockades financially, and that is the test. If the Prime Minister believes it is a foreign government funding this, then he has an obligation to share that with the House.
Criteria three involves activities within or relating to Canada, directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or properties for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological objectives within Canada or a foreign state. There has been no concerted, violent effort made by any members of the blockade. In fact, we saw mostly peaceful removal of the protesters on the Ambassador Bridge. Isolated acts of violence do not equate to full-blown acts of violence that are aimed at achieving political objectives.
Criteria four involves activities directed toward undermining, by covert, unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
Every day I have been walking to my office and to the House of Commons, like all MPs, unimpeded by protesters. To be sure, they have effectively blocked several streets, created a lot of noise and made life more difficult for those of us living downtown. Well, what has happened in downtown Ottawa in the last three weeks is nothing remotely close to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act explicitly prohibits the use of these kinds of powers on lawful protests or dissent. If the present circumstances do not warrant using the act for the first time, they absolutely pale in comparison to the previous times the act's predecessor was invoked.
I was a legislative assistant to the government that created this act to replace the War Measures Act to prevent the suspension of charter rights and government overreach. Through our long history, there are only three other times this has happened, during the two world wars and during the October Crisis, when there was an armed insurrection and a diplomat and a politician were kidnapped. Pierre Laporte was murdered and bombs were set off in Quebec.
It was a horrible experience and, even still, some called it overreach. Does a traffic jam on the street in front of Parliament Hill merit the same type of response as those three incidences? Of course not.
The act must only be used as a last resort. That is what the Prime Minister said. If this measure is his last resort, what were his plans A, B and C, because we did not see them. Did he make himself available to meet with the delegation of protesters to hear them out? Of course not. Did he dispatch a delegation of his ministers to meet with them, any key caucus members or senior officials other than the RCMP? Of course not. The government's report to Parliament on the Emergencies Act consultations confirms this.
There are 58 engagements on that list. I searched through the details of the 58 engagements. Did I find a reference to one government official, one minister or the Prime Minister meeting with Canadians on this? No, I did not. The government and the Prime Minister had meetings with themselves, not with Canadians. They went from sitting on their duffs in unproductive meetings to implementing the most heavy-handed act available to government. The Prime Minister said he did not take it lightly, but the evidence in his own documents shows otherwise.
The government does not need the Emergencies Act to arrest illegal protesters. This is done often, just ask the Minister of Environment. Cutting off the funding of an illegal activity does not require the Emergencies Act. The proceeds of crime legislation deals with that. The deputy director of FINTRAC, in a statement before a parliamentary committee, said that there is no evidence of foreign extremist financing behind these demonstrations. There is no need then for the Emergencies Act to stop foreign funding.
For 21 days, the federal government has had the regular legislative tools to deal with the Ottawa protests, but it has not used them. It has not stopped one jerry can of fuel, one hot tub or one barbecue propane container from being carried through the protest right by the police. Meanwhile, provincial governments in Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. used standard policing tools to dispense with the protests.
Days before the convoy had even arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister was stigmatizing and vilifying the participants. He called them racists and misogynists, a fringe minority that holds unacceptable views. This is how the Prime Minister operates. He divides, stigmatizes and drives wedges between himself and those who do not agree with him, and he does it for the most naked of political reasons. He thinks it makes for good politics for himself and the Liberal Party, and that it goes over well with his base.
This is not a prime minister for all of Canada or all Canadians. This is a very selective prime minister, one who picks and chooses his causes based on the degree to which they further his vain, glorious self-image or the interests of the Liberal Party. Not long ago, the Prime Minister calculated that it would be in his interest to opine on the agriculture reforms that were being proposed by the Government of India, the world's largest democracy and a fellow member of the Commonwealth.
In the ensuing diplomatic spat that resulted from his unsolicited and righteous remarks, the Prime Minister justified his intervention in the domestic affairs of the world's largest democracy by saying, and I know the government is listening, “Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world”, except apparently at home. The Prime Minister passionately supports the principles of free speech and peaceful protest. It is just the practice of free speech and peaceful protests that he opposes, especially at home in front of the symbol of free speech and democracy, Parliament Hill.
Conservatives sympathize with those Canadians who have been affected by the blockades. Critical trade links were halted, but have now been restored, and many small businesses have had to shut their doors in light of the protests. The protesters here in Ottawa brought a message and that message has been heard. The Conservatives have heard them. We will stand up for them and for all Canadians who want to get back to normal life. We will not stop until the mandates are ended.
Canadians have sacrificed so much. We all know that. Every member of Parliament has heard and seen first-hand the sacrifices. However, in a country more divided than ever, the Prime Minister has decided to purposely politicize the pandemic for his own gain.
1430 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:21:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a precedent-setting, first time ever invocation of the Emergencies Act. They did not seem to be so quick to impose it recently when there were blockades. I disagree with blockades or violence anywhere. I have spoken out against it as an MLA in British Columbia and as a Conservative MP. They pick and choose, and go way over. The blockades were actually gone before this imposition. This is totally unnecessary. This is totally for the purpose of diversion.
Let me just say one thing and that is this. Why are we having this all of a sudden? It seems to me it is a couple of things. Their pandemic strategy might be what is going on here, to impose mandates on truckers who needed to drive back and forth in the past two years to keep the supply chains open, bring that in and try to double down when there is push-back. They do not care if tens of thousands of Canadians are losing their jobs. I talked to them. I have talked to truckers. I have talked to many others.
There is no compassion. It is like this is political fodder for them to win, to strategize, without thinking, without realizing how many countries are opening up and how many provinces are opening up. No, they are going to double down on this right here.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:24:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that my colleague will agree with me that what is happening outside no longer has anything to do with vaccines, masks or health measures. It has moved way beyond that.
We are hearing that the movement was infiltrated by extreme right-wing groups. We are also starting to hear that the Emergencies Act is going to throw fuel on the fire, that it will result in further radicalization. The more protesters are told the police are going to move in, the more they will want to stay. Does my colleague agree with me?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:26:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I happen to be indigenous. My family went to residential schools. I understand that, but that is not what this is about. This is about the Emergencies Act being imposed as it has never been before. It is disgraceful.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:27:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, these are examples of the tolerance and intolerance of our Prime Minister and the Liberal Party primarily. I just gave a variety of examples, including the Unabomber. There are all sorts of different examples. There are so many. There is a constant approach, and we oppose this imposition of the Emergencies Act as extreme.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:39:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this morning, when the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, he said something that was rather interesting. He said that invoking this law was not something to be done lightly, that it was not the first, second or even the third option, but the last resort.
We really wonder what three options the government considered before invoking the Emergencies Act that we are debating today.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:39:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the Emergencies Act is not the first option exercised or even the third or fourth. It is important to remember that local police are the first responders and the force of jurisdiction. In the case of Ottawa, it is the Ottawa Police Service. From the beginning, since the City of Ottawa began to make requests for support and resources, the government has worked with the city to ensure the RCMP is providing the support the city asked for.
First the City of Ottawa declared an emergency and then the Province of Ontario did, and we continue to coordinate with and support local authorities. We established an integrated command centre with the Ottawa police, the OPP and the RCMP to bring more resources forward. Only when it was clear that this crisis was national in scope and that existing authorities available to the local police of jurisdiction were insufficient did the government reluctantly take this action.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:54:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, all evening, I have felt that my Liberal colleagues have been taking great delight in trying to associate us with those members who refuse to recognize that some of the protesters have been engaging in reprehensible acts. We have been saying for three weeks that some of the protesters' behaviour has been reprehensible. They may have ties to far-right groups. Everyone agrees on that.
Now, one needs to have principles in life, and having principles means not invoking a legislative measure that would suspend freedoms. That is what the Emergencies Act does.
I would like to ask my colleague if he is aware that the government could have used other existing measures, rather than trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe we are here. I certainly did not expect this to be my experience when I was elected into the 44th Parliament, as I am sure many of my other colleagues did not either.
The starting point for this discussion is how we even got here. How did we get to a point that the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, previously known as the War Measures Act? To give context to the gravity of this action, the War Measures Act was invoked only three times: during World War I, during World War II and during the FLQ crisis. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked until now. What is it? It is “An Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof”.
Leah West, associate director of the prestigious Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and assistant professor of international affairs, national security law, counterterrorism and cyber-operations, has recently been featured in a CBC article regarding the Emergencies Act. She said, “To invoke a national emergency, the government would need to be saying that these protests threaten the security of Canada, our sovereignty or our territorial integrity. I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have.” If members take home anything of what I am speaking about tonight, it is that quote right there.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation 'seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada' and when the situation 'cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada'.” It went on to say, “Governments regularly deal with difficult situations and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”
I will go back to my original question: How did we get to this point? Let us go back 21 days and ask how we got to the point that so many Canadians got so angry that they mobilized across the country, drove thousands of miles and spent thousands of dollars just to be heard.
Protesting takes different levels of commitment. People can sign a petition, join a social media group or mobilize. Mobilizing takes another level of commitment. What happened to make people so frustrated that they mobilized across this country?
The other day I was walking to my office in the Confederation Building. For those who know Ottawa, it was a very cold day, about -25°C. It was freezing. I walked down Wellington Street and saw the trucks. I have walked this route since the day I was elected, a female, by myself, and I never felt unsafe. As I walked, I thought that they must want to go home, so I asked. I stopped and asked one of the truckers, “Do you want to be here? Don't you want to go home?” They said, “Yes, of course we do, but no one is listening to us.”
I remember walking to Parliament Hill during the first few days of the protest and speaking with police on the ground. They were polite and engaging. The police have been fantastic. I asked them how they were managing, and they said pretty well. They told me this protest was nothing like Caledonia. They said they had been working protests for decades, and force always escalates a protest. They said force never works for a peaceful resolution. They said the number one thing that works is when protesters are heard. They asked me if I knew why the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge them. I told them I wondered the exact same thing.
Just for fun, I thought I would Google crisis management tactics, just to see what Google had to say. Of course, a top seven useful tactics list popped up, and I am going to share it.
Number one, tell the truth.
Number two, own it and speak from the heart.
Number three, have a plan.
Number four, provide a respectful response.
Number five, use the moment as a learning tool.
Number six, say the same thing to everyone.
Number seven, take all stakeholders into account.
The Prime Minister has a lot more tools at his disposal than Google, yet he still jumped to invoking the Emergencies Act before using the simplest of tools. I do not know that any of those seven tactics has been used by Prime Minister.
Last Thursday, February 10, the Conservative Party put forth a motion in the House asking for a plan, communication and transparency. The Liberal government, whose members have been over-speaking my entire speech and who have no respect, clearly, for the House, voted no. Canadians want and deserve clear and transparent communication. If they do not want to listen to me, they should leave.
On Monday, during a press conference, the Prime Minister said, “Some people will say that we moved too quickly, other people will say no, we should have acted weeks ago. The reality is this, the Emergencies Act is not something to take lightly. It is not the first thing you turn to nor the second nor the third.”
I asked the Prime Minister to please tell Canadians what the first, second and third actions were that he took before invoking the Emergencies Act. I, along with the rest of Canada, am still waiting for an answer. The relationships that have been destroyed in the country may never be rebuilt. The division, segregation and stigmatization have deeply and negatively impacted Canadians.
There have been countless opportunities for the leader of the country to unite Canadians, but instead of bringing us together, our Prime Minister says things like, “They are extremists who don't believe in science. They are often misogynists, also often racists. It's a small group that muscles in and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country, do we tolerate these people?”
Those are the Prime Minister's words. This is a far cry from the Prime Minister we can quote from 2015, when he won and said, “A positive optimistic hopeful vision of public life isn't a naive dream, it can be a powerful force for change. If Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians.”
Where is that Prime Minister? Where did he go?
Our office has received thousands of emails and messages from very scared and confused constituents. Some of the messages I have received today alone are the following. People are very concerned about the serious misuse of power and the over-reach of federal government.
One constituent sobbed on the phone that she is frightened and cannot sleep because it reminds her of the October crisis. Another constituent phoned in because he feared he would be arrested if he spoke in public in our local community. People have phoned in, very concerned, that the act is already being implemented and that this debate is purely window dressing.
The general public is confused as to the extent of the powers, and that there is no check on the government's implementation. People are afraid that their bank accounts will be frozen, not because they donated but because they have supported the truckers on social media. Constituents are worried that if they donated even $50 their accounts would be frozen and forever jeopardize their credit ratings.
What are the facts that make the government believe that the blockades are associated with the threat of serious violence for an ideological purpose? What is the legal basis for this extreme action by government?
A constituent wrote to me right before I spoke tonight, and he told me that he received a scam email that his account had been frozen. Has the government acknowledged that this Emergencies Act may have opened the door for fraud and for innocent Canadians to be further traumatized?
Another constituent wrote to me and said, “I am a senior, Michelle. I cannot pay for my food. I cannot pay for my mortgage. Why is the government not dealing with this?”
To the people of Ottawa—
1417 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:07:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague asked what the basis is for invoking the Emergencies Act. There is $450 million a day in trade that is being blockaded by illegal activity. The illegal occupation here in Ottawa is harassing and holding Ottawa residents hostage. The other reason is we have seen very clearly in the news that 52% of those who have donated to support this campaign have actually been from the United States, 1,100 of which supported the January 6 insurrection.
Those are very clear reasons. I ask my colleague on the other side when she thinks foreign interference in our democracy is appropriate.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:08:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I guess my answer would be exactly what I said in my entire speech: How did we get here? What are the first, second and third actions that were taken before invoking the Emergencies Act?
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:13:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today, and I take no pleasure in having to be in this place this evening to debate the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I will say from the outset that I strongly oppose this measure, and I will be voting against it.
In its current version, the Emergencies Act has never been used before. It was invoked this week. It was passed in 1988 to add parliamentary supervision and to make changes to its predecessor, the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was only used on three occasions: during the First World War, World War II and the FLQ crisis in Quebec.
Let us be clear. The protests that are happening outside of these walls are a political emergency for the Liberal government. It is not a national emergency facing Canada. Furthermore, it is a political emergency for the Prime Minister, and it is one of his own making. He has no one to blame other than himself, his cabinet and his Liberal backbenchers for allowing this situation to arise and to get to the point we are facing today. This week, the Prime Minister admitted that the Emergencies Act was not something to take lightly. In fact, he indicated it is not the first thing to turn to, nor the second.
Canada's Conservatives continue to press the Liberal government on what those first and second options were. We continue to wait. Instead of dialogue with a recovery plan and a path forward, the Liberal government is so devoid of leadership that it has decided to double down and continue to revel in the practice of the politics of disunity and disharmony. It is concerned more with capitalizing on the divisions caused by wedge issues, rather than working to bring all Canadians together.
The Prime Minister has made no effort to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he has insulted and disrespected Canadians. When this issue grew into a national movement, instead of listening to what concerned people have had to say, his government opted to implement the most extreme measure in response to deal with these protesters in downtown Ottawa.
Let us also be clear. The Emergencies Act was not needed before the border blockades were cleared up. Police in law enforcement agencies in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia were able to use their existing powers to end those blockades without incident. What is different with policing in downtown Ottawa?
In my riding, a protest was planned for the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie this past weekend. Due to the work of the local police authorities of the Niagara Regional Police, OPP and the Niagara Parks Police, they were able to address the issue, allow the protest to remain peaceful and have their views heard before the protests came to a natural end. Effective planning and policing was responsible for this, not the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Imposing the power of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent. The Government of Canada should not have the power to close the bank accounts of hard-working Canadians, simply on the suspicion of supporting political causes of which the government does not approve or support.
This is a slippery slope, and it is not how any government should operate in a free and democratic society. In fact, the Canadian Liberties Association is now planning to sue the federal government over the Emergencies Act, news which only broke a few hours ago. About the government's decision, it said, “Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”
The protest in Ottawa is entering its fourth weekend. If this was such a pressing public order emergency, as the Liberals want it to appear, then why did it take so long for them to act?
Two weeks ago, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency because of these protests, so seized with the matter that on that same day, the Prime Minister needed to take a personal day off, despite being in the same city. Let us not be deceived. This again is not a national emergency. This is a political emergency for the Liberal government, and it is one of its own making.
Ultimately, the job of government, of all elected representatives, is to work together for the greater good to bridge differences, find accommodations and propose solutions for the benefit of all. That is why I chose to stand for public office. It is to help people. I am sure all elected members here in the House feel the same way.
Canada's Conservatives proposed such a solution. In fact, it was a way out of this mess, which the Liberal government with the NDP foolishly chose to ignore. Our motion called on the government to put forward a plan that would outline the steps and dates when federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions could be rolled back. This approach would have reduced the temperature across the country on this pressing issue, and it could have addressed the concerns of many Canadians, not just those who were protesting. Conservatives offered the Liberals this olive branch. Instead, they turned it down and unnecessarily invoked the Emergencies Act.
We are more than two years into this pandemic, and Canadians simply want a return to their normal lives. When will we get there? Perhaps it will be when the current federal government displays the needed leadership in getting Canadians the health care tools they need and are looking for, for themselves, their families and their loved ones.
Since the early days of this pandemic, Canada's Conservatives have been strong proponents of both vaccines and rapid testing. Why is it only this week that we were debating allocating $2.5 billion toward the acquisition of rapid tests? We should have been debating that a year and a half ago. That would have been the federal leadership Canadians were looking for and desperately wanted and needed. This is the type of federal leadership that is sorely missing from the government sitting across from me. Leadership means bringing people together. Instead, the Prime Minister is polarizing Canadians, wedging Canadians against one another and constantly working to divide us. It is a political strategy that only serves to benefit the Liberals at the cost of our national unity, economic stability and the well-being of our beloved country and citizens.
It also disappoints me greatly that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are delaying access to critical health care tools that can give all Canadians greater freedoms and choices, especially as they pertain to managing their personal health care and family well-being. Where are the additional resources our provinces have been asking for, in terms of federal health transfers to address the lack of surge capacity in our health care system? For two years, the provinces have been asking for this. Rather than live with the existing very limited capacity, which is constantly at risk, why not invest in our health care infrastructure now to increase this capacity and create relief?
This past January, many of my constituents in Fort Erie, Stevensville and Crystal Beach were angered when the Niagara Health System was forced to close the Fort Erie urgent care centre because of staffing shortages elsewhere in Niagara. This is evidence that our province and our local health authorities require additional resources and the support that the federal government needs to enable. What is the Liberal response to this? The Prime Minister says the government will look at health care transfers once this pandemic is over. That is simply unacceptable.
It has been two long and difficult years. All Canadians deserve a federal government that is here to serve them and protect our national best interests. That means it does not matter what their political party is, where they live in this country, what faith they follow or what their vaccine status is. This is the team Canada approach that we all need. All Canadians deserve so much better from their federal government than we are getting now.
From the very beginning of COVID, the Liberal government was grossly unprepared for this pandemic, just as it was unprepared to deal with the protest when it arrived in Ottawa four weekends ago. The weight of responsibility for this pandemic and Canada's response to it is on the federal government's shoulders, yet instead of working collaboratively to solve the issues facing Canadians, this Prime Minister's attempt to turn the page is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Throughout the country, provinces are reducing their public health restrictions, and have put forward plans to reopen their economies, yet the federal government continues to remain silent on its plans to fully reopen areas of federal jurisdiction, especially in time for our all-too-important summer season in areas that are dependent on tourism, such as in my riding of Niagara Falls.
The Emergencies Act is not justifiable to deal with the protesters in downtown Ottawa. Let the police and local law enforcement officials do their jobs, just as they have done at the international border crossings that were blocked in multiple provinces. While the police do their important work, Canada needs its Prime Minister to start doing his by producing a plan to end all federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions so all Canadians can get on with their lives, peacefully and together.
1592 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:26:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, not only does Quebec have concerns with this legislation, but I believe five provinces altogether have expressed their concerns with the implementation of this act. What we are asking this government is why it had to take that extraordinary step of implementing the Emergencies Act. What data, proof or situation forced the government to do this and not use the existing Criminal Code elements or the existing legislative regulatory authorities?
Again, we had a protest at our border just last weekend, and police were able to accommodate it without the Emergencies Act. Why was this step needed? In fact, it is not.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:29:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean.
Being a member of Parliament is an awesome responsibility. In our system, the 338 of us have enormous power to establish the laws of this nation and oversee the activities of our government. Each and every debate we have and each and every vote we take is important, but there are still some debates and votes that are more important than others. This is one of them. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked in its 34-year history. Any time we increase police powers or limit civil liberties, we have to ensure that what we are doing is reasonable and proportionate.
This is an important debate and Canadians are watching us. We are all tired and frustrated after living with an epidemic for two years. Nerves are frayed. Politicians are passionate people and we often use overheated rhetoric, especially on social media. However, we need to turn down the volume.
I have been watching the House over the last two weeks and growing more and more concerned. Last year, my friend, the Conservative member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, and I wrote an op-ed and reminded Canadians we can disagree without being disagreeable. Both he and I used to be mayors. In the municipal world there is far less partisanship. We can disagree about policy and vigorously debate while still being respectful, but I have not seen much of that over the last two weeks. There have been far too many personal attacks and insults and generalizations based on party membership, instead of respect for people as individuals.
Most policy decisions are not black and white. They are grey. Let us show Canadians we can listen to one another and recognize that even if we disagree, we all love our country and are advocating for what we believe is best for it. We do not want to end up like our American neighbours, who over the last couple of years seem to sometimes live in two different realities depending on what cable news network they watch. That responsibility is not one man's; it is all of ours.
Members should ask themselves two questions about the Emergencies Act.
First, do we believe that the requirements of the act have been met, that is, does the situation meet the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act?
Second, even if it does meet that definition, is invoking the act a good idea?
On the question of whether or not the definition is met, we have to look at the circumstances we have been witness to over the past few weeks. The right to peaceably assemble is a core constitutional right under section 2 of our Charter of Rights. Freedom of expression is too. People have every right to complain about the government, including here on Parliament Hill. However, as many others have said before me, a blockade is not a peaceful assembly.
Over the last several weeks, we have seen bylaw after bylaw flouted in Ottawa. Blockading streets with trucks, including residential streets, is not peaceful assembly. Honking horns all night long and polluting the air by running engines 24-7 is not peaceful assembly. Harassing and assaulting residents, threatening journalists and closing small businesses is not peaceful assembly.
As we have seen, the blockades have had a confused leadership, with various ideological grievances ranging from ending all public health restrictions to overthrowing the elected government. Then these blockades expanded to border crossings across the country to impede the incredibly important trade relationship between Canada and the United States. The U.S. is our most important trading partner, with approximately $2 billion in goods travelling across the border each day. Over the last 10 days, there have been blockades or attempted blockades at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, at Sarnia's Blue Water Bridge, at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, in Emerson, Manitoba, in Coutts, Alberta, and in Surrey, B.C. These blockades have led to a disruption in the flow of goods and services, the cutting of shifts at Canadian manufacturing plants and concerns being raised in the United States about whether Canada remained a reliable trading partner.
In addition to the blockades at the border, protesters attempted to impede access to the Ottawa airport and threatened to blockade railway lines. They also made bomb threats to hospitals, and noxious substances were mailed to MPs. People linked to the blockades in Coutts were arrested with a large quantity of ammunition, and four of them were charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
I could go on, but my time is limited. In my view, the current situation meets the definition in section 3 of the act.
However, that does not yet satisfy the second question legislators must ask. We also need to determine if we believe the use of the act is a good idea at this time. We need to weigh the need for public safety against the potential limitation of civil liberties. We need to determine if there are other and better ways of ending the blockades.
I want to start by noting that for weeks Ottawa police were unable to manage the situation to anyone's satisfaction. Under our Constitution, policing powers are generally provincial and then delegated to municipalities. The only federal role would be offering support when asked. However, from the beginning, there were questions in the House from all parties about what the Government of Canada was doing to manage the situation.
I was one of many who said that people did not care about jurisdiction here, that they just wanted all governments to work together to fix the problem. However, the problem was not getting fixed adequately. The police clearly needed more resources and more tools in the tool box, and somebody needed to step forward and take charge. Invoking this act is a way for the federal government to give police more tools in the tool box and to step in where necessary, which is exactly the leadership that was being asked for.
I want to thank former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who is otherwise known today as Mark's dad, former minister Perrin Beatty and all the members of Parliament in 1988 who replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act. If it were the War Measures Act we were debating, I would be squarely against it. Under the War Measures Act, in the days before the charter and the Bill of Rights, we had gross violations of human rights, such as the roundup of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War.
The Emergencies Act is very different. This act is subject to the Charter of Rights, it is subject to the Bill of Rights and it even makes note of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yes, there may be temporary added minor limits to civil liberties, but any such limits have to remain compliant with the charter. This means that any limitation to a right still must be reasonable in a free and democratic society. It also means the courts will continue to have oversight.
It is somewhat ironic to me that various members who have complained about rights being limited here have themselves supported the use of the notwithstanding clause by provincial legislatures, which truly has the effect of undermining charter rights. I oppose the use of the notwithstanding clause in all circumstances.
I also note it is important that members of Parliament have continually and rightly asked for involvement and oversight regarding decisions being made related to ending these blockades. The Emergencies Act provides exactly that oversight. The invocation of the act and any extension need to be authorized by Parliament. A parliamentary review committee consisting of MPs from all recognized parties and senators needs to be established to review the exercise of the powers under the act and report to Parliament at least once every 60 days. After the emergency is over, there has to be an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken for dealing with the inquiry.
The last point I want to address is that some people think the act should not apply to certain provinces. That makes no sense to me.
Two orders were made. The first concerns emergency economic measures, such as allowing insurance companies to cancel or suspend insurance for a vehicle involved in the illegal blockade. It would make no sense for that not to apply to a vehicle from the other side of the river, from Gatineau, involved in the blockade in Ottawa.
It also allows banks to freeze the accounts of people participating in illegal activities. Here again, it would make no sense for that to apply to bank accounts belonging to people who reside in Ontario, but not to people residing in Quebec.
In conclusion, I believe that invoking the act is indeed a reasonable, wise and proportional decision to take in the current context, and I support the motion.
1512 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:42:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to echo what the member just said about the member for Mount Royal. The tone of the member's comments was, as ever, extremely helpful.
We need to lower the temperature in this place and be honest with Canadians about the difficulties we face and why it is important to distinguish between what the War Measures Act was and what the Emergencies Act is. The Mulroney government repealed the War Measures Act and put in place a far more thoughtful piece of legislation that does not in any way suspend civil liberties. However, I still have concerns about it.
I ask the hon member for Mount Royal if he believes that in the course of this debate we might even see some changes from the government in terms of the regulations, to be very specific.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:55:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage seems to be a bit agitated this evening. He has been called to order a few times now. Had he been asked to leave, I would have found that to be disproportionate, and I would have defended him because I like him. It would have been disproportionate.
Now, I have a question for my colleague. Is it possible that the Emergencies Act is disproportionate?
I have been saying all evening that this is the equivalent of killing a fly with a bazooka. There are many other options available to us. We are setting a precedent and that is what scares me.
Governments will be able to reuse this legislation later, and possibly for more dubious purposes. I am not suggesting that the government has bad intentions, but there may be future governments that use these measures for purposes that are less palatable than what we are seeing today.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:56:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when I speak to people here in my riding of Victoria, they want action to be taken. The use of the Emergencies Act, while some have concerns about it, makes it clear we are at an emergency state. It is an acknowledgement of the failure of leadership at all levels of government, but really of the federal government, which allowed things to escalate unchecked.
One thing I have heard asked time and again is why it took weeks to deal with this issue, when there are clear links to white supremacy. There were clear concerns from the beginning. When it comes to how the RCMP and the government deal with land defenders, indigenous rights activists and environmental activists, there is a very different approach.
I am curious whether the member is committed to changing this in the future. What is his government going to do to address these inequities?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
