44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- 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 10:39:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is exactly the type of question that, in my view, is part of the problem. I asked everybody on all sides to tone down the rhetoric. That is on my side and the other side. We all have that responsibility, all 338 of us. To single out one member when all of us have an equal responsibility is wrong.
I personally want to say that I deeply appreciate the member for Thornhill. I enjoy working with her, and I will continue to work with her in a good way going forward.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:40:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is always very reasonable.
As I think I said in my speech, we are all extremely disappointed by what has happened in Ottawa. For various reasons, the Ottawa police were unable to adequately address the situation.
The federal government does have obligations, and it has taken action to increase resources in Ottawa. However, getting RCMP officers from all across the country to Ottawa does take time. They have to be flown or bused in, and they have to be trained on exactly what is happening on the ground here. These things take time.
The federal government has now assumed its responsibilities, and that is what we are debating today.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:42:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who always speaks so intelligently in this chamber. Yes, I think there are such people, and I think the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells gave a great description in his speech of what was happening.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:43:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always inspired by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I listened to her very thoughtful speech earlier today, and I am sure many others did as well. I would be very happy to speak to her off-line about the questions she raised.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
