SoVote

Feb/17/22 5:42:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is something done with much thought, much diligence and much judiciousness. It is timely, proportionate and targeted. There are many safeguards put in place. The situation outside is now in day 21. It needs to be resolved. We need to act as a country. The federal government is there working with the province and the municipality, and this is justifiable. That is what this comes down to for me: Is this justifiable? My answer is yes.

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/17/22 5:42:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just this Monday, the City of Ottawa still claimed it did not have enough resources from provincial and federal governments to deal with the occupation. Just the day before that, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness was blaming the police for the lack of enforcement. While there may be some truth to both claims, both are finger pointing and blaming each other. This is not what Canadians need. They need leadership. Do my Liberal colleagues agree that it is unacceptable that we see arguments about resources in the third week of this occupation? Why has this not been figured out yet?

102 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/17/22 5:43:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not believe in Monday-morning quarterbacking. What I believe in is leadership and action. Our government, every step of the way, has worked with the City of Ottawa and provided resources whether it is RCMP officers, intelligence or intelligence gathering. We will continue to work with every single province and territory and with our municipal leaders as well.

62 words

All Topics

Ms. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 5:43:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, invoking the Emergencies Act was a difficult but necessary decision our government chose to make for the good of Canada. It was made after carefully considering all other possible solutions to our ongoing emergency. We recognize the powers of the Emergencies Act, which was enshrined into Canadian law in 1988, should only be utilized in very specific and dire circumstances. The criteria are strict, but we believe the current situation meets the definition of threats to the security of Canada as outlined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. As the Minister of Public Safety has noted, numerous consultations were completed prior to moving forward. It is important to note that this decision is not a catalyst for a military intervention. We are not preventing Canadians from exercising their right to peaceful assembly or to protest legally. We are not suspending fundamental rights or freedoms, or overriding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not limiting the freedom of speech of Canadians. This decision aims to keep our citizens and our institutions safe. Through these new powers, the government is enabling the RCMP to have jurisdiction to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences; prohibiting taking part in a public assembly where it is considered a breach of peace and goes beyond lawful protest; regulating the use of certain property, including goods used in blockades; designating secure and protected places and infrastructure that are critical to the economy, such as the airport or border crossings; compelling those capable to render essential services, in this case ordering tow truck drivers to move vehicles blocking roads; and imposing fines of up to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to five years on those who breach any of the above orders. The current situation requires additional tools not held by any other federal, provincial or territorial law. These disruptions and illegal blockades are being supported by funds that appear to come from foreign sources. Therefore, the following first-time deterrents will be put in place: directing Canadian financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved in the illegal blockades and report to the RCMP or CSIS; giving federal institutions new, broad authority to share information on anyone suspected of involvement with the blockades with Canadian banks and financial institutions; and giving banks and other financial service providers the ability to immediately freeze or suspend an account, personal or corporate, without a court order. As the Prime Minister mentioned earlier this week, we cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue. Blockades have stifled the flow of goods between Canada and our largest trading partner, the United States. The RCMP has arrested 11 individuals who were part of the blockade at Coutts. According to the RCMP press release, the group was said to have a willingness to use force against the police if any attempts were made to disrupt the blockade. As part of the operation, the RCMP seized long guns, hand guns, body armour, high-capacity magazines and a large quantity of ammunition. Meanwhile, residents in the city of Ottawa continue to be subjected to what has now been weeks of unlawful behaviour that has challenged the capacity of local law enforcement and closed local businesses. In recent days, Ottawa residents have taken to the streets themselves in order to prevent additional vehicles from joining the occupation. The invoking of the Emergencies Act sends a strong message to protesters across the country. The protesters have been heard. They should stop hurting this nation. It is time to go home, please. If a protester is a company owner and their truck is being used in an illegal blockade, it is time to put it back on the road so it may serve a better, more productive purpose.

630 words

All Topics

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC)

Feb/17/22 5:49:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in your speech, you are basically implying that there are acts of terrorism that have been performed or are going to be insinuated throughout this. You and your fellow colleagues have always talked about—

37 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 5:50:01 p.m.
Watch

All questions and comment must be addressed through the chair and not directly to the member.

16 words

Mr. Gerald Soroka

Feb/17/22 5:50:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the Liberals are talking about acts of terrorism or types of terrorist activities, but what proof has actually been brought forward? We have never talked about this, and we were never told about this. That is what I am questioning. What information has this member not been sharing with the public or with her fellow members of the caucus?

65 words

All Topics

Ms. Anju Dhillon

Feb/17/22 5:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when a group holds a city hostage, when they hold its people hostage and try to compel change through force and violating the rights of others, that is terrorism. When a group scares people, honks throughout the night and people are confined to their homes, that is terrorism. There is a women's shelter here, where women who are already victims of abuse and have suffered trauma are terrified to go outside. This is pretty much the definition. Our city is being held hostage and this is no way to ask for change. There is peaceful protest. There is legal protest, and this is not it.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

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

Ms. Anju Dhillon

Feb/17/22 5:52:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. Yes, this law really is necessary. No one has been able to get the individuals on Wellington Street to move. The people who were able to bring about change in Coutts— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

49 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 5:52:41 p.m.
Watch

Order. Unless they have the floor, I would ask members to be very respectful of those who do. If members have questions and comments, wait for me to ask them when it is time for questions and comments. Wait for me to put that question to the floor. The hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

57 words

Ms. Anju Dhillon

Feb/17/22 5:52:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this legislation does not force the provinces to use the measures in the act. The government is giving them the option if they need it. No one is being forced to use them, and jurisdiction is still respected. In order to solve certain problems, this legislation is indeed necessary.

51 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/17/22 5:53:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I helped my neighbour recently, pleading with the occupiers who have held residents in Ottawa hostage, back into her home, she said to me that nothing she does matters. Nobody cares and nobody is helping. Unfortunately, I could not say anything to ease her concerns. It should have never come to this. A lack of clear leadership on the part of the government is why we are here today. Workers have lost wages, businesses have shut down and the health and well-being of the residents of Ottawa have declined. Does the member agree we could have avoided being where we are today if the Liberals had shown immediate and clear leadership from the outset?

118 words

All Topics

Ms. Anju Dhillon

Feb/17/22 5:54:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we respected jurisdiction and, as the Prime Minister said, if he were to be asked for additional help, he would give it. He was asked and he gave it. This was as quickly as our government could have acted. I really hope that everybody can get on board with this and realize that things need to be settled and people need to go back to their peaceful lives. They can continue protesting legally and peacefully, but not the way it is happening right now.

86 words

All Topics

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Feb/17/22 5:55:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, tonight I make an appeal to every Canadian. We are a nation on the brink. Our country has not been tested like this in a generation. After two long years that have tested nearly every one of the societal systems that sustain our peace, health and prosperity, we have reached a tipping point of confluent crises. Many cannot afford food, energy and housing. Our health care system is broken. Many have lost jobs and are struggling with the burden of a loss of identity and meaning that comes from work. Many are struggling with children who have had more days out of school than in—

108 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/17/22 5:55:39 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I may have missed it because I was sidetracked, but I am wondering if the member mentioned that she was splitting her time.

31 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Feb/17/22 5:55:52 p.m.
Watch

Yes, Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Fundy Royal. Many are struggling with barriers, magnified over the last two years, such as racism, misogyny, bigotry and poverty. All of us, whether we admit it or not, are struggling with the trauma that comes from the loss of personal control that happens when our freedoms are restricted, when trust in government institutions and democratic systems is eroded, when we are in conflict with one another, and when there is a lack of clarity on when or if life will ever return to what it once was. Most of us are guilty of finding solace in social media algorithms, politicians and news outlets that discourage us from finding common ground with one another while rewarding us when we calcify or radicalize our beliefs. To the convoy in front of Parliament HIll, let me be clear. Protest can be peaceful but still break the law, and the blockade occurring in downtown Ottawa is breaking the law. Trucks have never been allowed to legally be parked in the middle of a major thoroughfare, or on the Ambassador Bridge, or at the middle of border crossings. To those who are illegally blockading public infrastructure, the law must be respected. They must move out, and not afford the federal government the opportunity to attempt to justify the use of the Emergencies Act with recalcitrance. To those who do not believe COVID restrictions should come to an end, let me also be clear. As one of my Liberal colleagues stated last week, not everyone can work from the comfort of home. Precious few of the class of politicians and bureaucrats who have been making the decisions to extend restrictions, with no plan to do the heavy lifting of fixing the broken systems, have actually experienced the conditions of frontline workers in Canada over the last two years. If they cannot find empathy and common ground with the people who bear the burden of their restrictions, then they have lost the authority to be in their position. Be better and rise to the occasion. To those who would inflame these frustrations and divisions with rhetoric, outright lies, diversions, borderline slander, conspiracy, uncompassionate behaviour and hate for their own political or personal gain, instead of leading us through the breach, for shame. Left or right, we will resist them with critical thinking, understanding and radical compassion. To those who would use these frustrations and division to preach violence against leaders, frontline workers and those who do not share their brand of rigid world view, for shame. Left or right, right or left, we will resist them with the law and with courage. To those who would use these frustrations and divisions to suggest that our democracy should be overthrown or thrown out, for shame. Left or right, right or left, we will resist them by fighting to protect our democratic system, strengthening it and cherishing it. I turn now to the matter at hand, which is the historic and unprecedented decision by a Prime Minister of our nation to invoke the Emergencies Act. A representative democracy only survives when it can demonstrate to the people who put the trust of their liberties into it that their voices will be heard, that due process will be given, that the independence of the judiciary will be upheld, that Parliament will reign supreme and that the rule of law will be maintained. Over the past several years, we have witnessed the federal government attempt to take the Speaker of the House of Commons to court. We have seen the firing of Canada's solicitor general over refusals to interfere in the independence of the judiciary. We have seen the suspension of Parliament, massive spending with minimal scrutiny, hiding of documents, delayed freedom of information requests, underfunded auditors and more. We have also seen federal COVID restrictions extended with no metrics or end game. Not once has the current government demonstrated that it will give back the power that it took from the people of Canada. For that reason, the Emergencies Act, in the hands of this Liberal government, should be opposed. The federal government has not demonstrated to Canadians that existing laws and measures, which are bound by judicial oversight, are not sufficient to end the illegal blockades. That is, there is no evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act. In Ottawa, systemic failures of local law enforcement and delayed reaction by all levels of government likely have led us to this juncture. However, the federal government has not made a compelling case that the suspending of normal democratic processes via the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve the situation. The reality is that the federal government went from doing virtually nothing about the crisis to invoking the nuclear option that is the Emergencies Act. At a time when they are asking Canadians to trust them, the members of the government are not providing briefings to parliamentarians on the situation or on what action they have or have not taken. There are many existing laws that could be used by the federal government, but it has not explained why or how they are not sufficient, which undermines the argument of proportionality. For example, while many Liberal partisans will say they cannot direct the police, the fact is that the federal government very much can offer direction to both the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. Section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act states: The Governor in Council may appoint an officer, to be known as the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to hold office during pleasure This section actually provides this type of direction. In another example, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has the power to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. The federal government also has the authority under section 273.6 of the National Defence Act to issue directions authorizing the Canadian Forces to provide assistance in respect of any law enforcement matter if the Governor in Council or the minister, as the case may be, looks at several considerations. All of this is to say that the federal government had multiple legal options when it came to showing some leadership to put an end to this crisis through law enforcement and prosecutorial means. Instead, the Liberals chose to go straight to the Emergencies Act, without justification to Parliament. In fact, blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the Coutts Crossing were resolved prior to its invocation. This lack of clarity is reason enough for opposition. The Liberals insist that these measures are compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Emergencies Act itself states that any temporary measures must be compliant with the charter and the Bill of Rights. However, many civil liberties advocates and experts have already expressed concerns that the OIC, the Order in Council, has many issues with respect to the right of Canadians to peacefully assemble under section 2, the right of all Canadians to life, liberty and security of person. Under section 7, for example, how can they conscript towing companies without violating their liberty? Section 8 provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure. How can they freeze assets or report transactions without violating this section? The Liberals argue that all such violations are reasonable limits and justifiable under section 1 as proportionate to the objective of clearing the blockades. The issue with section 1 arguments is that these matters are for the courts to determine through well-established legal processes like the Oakes test. All of this could take a much longer time than the Emergencies Act could be in effect, but would have an impact on the actions taken while it was in effect. To justify the use of the act, the Liberals should table a charter statement to further explain their reasoning as to why and how what they are proposing is charter compliant. The fact that they have not done this is reason to oppose the act. Further, the Liberals have not engaged the Privacy Commissioner to demonstrate how Canadians' right to privacy would be maintained. Today I wrote to the commissioner to ask him to begin an inquiry into this matter. The illegal blockades in Ottawa must end. The escalation of rhetoric and tension in our country must end. COVID restrictions must end. A path forward to empower and inspire Canadians in coming through the brokenness of the last two years is what we should be focused on at this juncture, not extending government power over the people of Canada without jurisdiction or justification. This is an unprecedented use of power in Canada. We should be looking for every way possible to de-escalate the situation, as was done at the Ambassador Bridge and at the Coutts border crossing using existing processes. The use of the act should never be normalized. In debate today, I fear it is becoming so. Our nation needs hope. We need to come together. Further extending the power of the federal government without scrutiny, without use of oversight by the judiciary, will not heal these divisions. For that reason, I believe the act should be opposed. I call on every Canadian watching this debate tonight to come together in unity and move forward through the crisis of the pandemic.

1578 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/17/22 6:05:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to read a quote. What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. That is a quote from February 14 from Peter MacKay, a previous member of Parliament, as I am sure this member knows very well. I am curious if she could comment as to whether or not she agrees with Peter MacKay's assessment of what is going on.

94 words

All Topics

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Feb/17/22 6:05:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, former minister MacKay was faced with many national crises and many instances when he had to use his power as a minister to help de-escalate situations in the country. That is the exact opposite of what the government has done. At this juncture, instead of trying to seize power from Canadians, we should be trying to give it back to them. That does not mean that these blockades should not end; they should. The federal government should be assisting law enforcement in doing so. However, instead of it looking at ways to de-escalate the situation and give power back to Canadians, the Liberal government is doing the opposite. For that reason, this act should be opposed.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 33