SoVote

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

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

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

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

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

Feb/17/22 6:08:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we need to respect the rights of indigenous and first nations persons in Canada. At this juncture, I believe that the illegal blockades in Ottawa must end. I said that throughout my speech. I also outlined how the federal government could be using many of the tools that are at its disposal or could have used them in the past, but instead chose the nuclear option of the Emergencies Act. This benefits no one. This power grab takes away power from everyone in Canada, including first nations and indigenous persons. We should not be supporting it. We should be trying to find ways to come together, to uphold the rule of law while resolving our differences without giving further power to the Government of Canada.

127 words

All Topics

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 33