44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 2:22:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadian business leaders know these illegal blockades cannot go on, and they support our government taking necessary action.
Goldy Hyder, president of the Business Council of Canada, said this week that the council welcomed the decision as a step toward ending illegal blockades across the country and upholding the rule of law. That is exactly what we are doing.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:23:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me say it again: There are no longer any blockades at the border. The issue was resolved without the Emergencies Act. That is the reality.
This is the first time in Canadian history that the Emergencies Act is being invoked. This legislation's predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used only three times: during World War I, World War II and the October crisis.
The Prime Minister said just last Friday that no additional measures were needed, and then all of a sudden on Monday, boom, he invokes the Emergencies Act.
Can anyone in this government tell us what happened between Friday and Monday to make the Prime Minister do such a 180 in just a few hours?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:24:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we did during the NAFTA negotiations, our government will always do whatever it takes to protect our workers and the national interest. We stood up for Canada during the NAFTA negotiations, and now we are standing up for Canadians against these illegal blockades and occupations. We must and we will continue to do so.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:25:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday with the head of FINTRAC and we are in close touch with that very important organization. The reality is that FINTRAC lacked the necessary authorities to oversee the new world of cryptocurrency, crowdsourcing and payment platforms. With these measures, we have enhanced the authorities of FINTRAC and that is allowing us to stop the illegal funding of these illegal blockades.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:28:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's business leaders know that the illegal blockades cannot continue, and they have supported our government's action.
Véronique Proulx, president and CEO of Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec, said this week that manufacturers applauded any action that would restore order at the borders and Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.
The government is learning a lot from concrete actions that have been taken since the illegal blockades began. For instance, the government has offered additional resources to police forces, which is making a difference. However, at the same time, the blockades have caused the police a great deal of frustration.
That is one of the reasons why we invoked the Emergencies Act. We will continue to provide police services with all the tools they need.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:36:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, there is no justification for these illegal blockades.
The debates in the House on the pandemic are very important, but the way these blockades are being held in Ottawa or at the border is unacceptable. That is why we invoked the Emergencies Act: to help police end these blockades.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances require it.
We have been very clear that we will not use these measures where they are not necessary. I would not want to deprive Quebeckers of these important tools to ensure their security and the integrity of their territory.
There is talk of possible demonstrations and blockades at the Lacolle border crossing this weekend. All the measures in the declaration are temporary, targeted, and exercised in accordance with the charter.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of emergency measures to restore order in a situation that has been steadily getting out of hand. The convoy movement has clearly come to mean many things to many people, but it matters that the stated intention of the organizers has been to disrupt and overthrow Canada's democratic institutions, as outlined in their published memorandum of understanding and their discussions in the media.
A lack of leadership by the federal government and local police in Ottawa have led us to a point of crisis. Coupled with the discovery of weapons caches, allegations by authorities of conspiracy to commit murder, reports of involvement by elite military members and the prolonged harassment of people in their homes and places of work, there can be no question that this has to stop. The status quo is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.
The failure of the Ottawa police so far to bring an end to the occupation and the persistence of border blockades until the declaration of emergency measures show that additional measures are necessary to break the logjam. I am glad that all the border crossings have reopened in the last several days and I look forward to the end of the illegal occupation of Ottawa, an end that I hope comes swiftly and peacefully.
There have been many protests in Canada over the 34 years since the Emergencies Act was developed as an alternative to the War Measures Act. None of them have resulted in a prolonged weeks-long occupation of the nation's capital city. None of them have been characterized as this one is by the active and sustained harassment of residents in their homes, on the street and in their places of work. The fact that many Canadians are feeling legitimate fatigue because of the pandemic challenges we have all had to suffer does not excuse this behaviour. The fact that many Canadians share a desire with convoy organizers to lift public health measures does not absolve the organizers of responsibility for their undemocratic objectives.
The fact that most Canadians fed up with vaccine mandates and passports do not support white supremacy or endorse messages of hate does not make this small number of Canadians who do any less dangerous in this volatile time. I believe that many Canadians, frustrated and tired of the pandemic, have sympathy for the convoy because they want to see an end to certain public health measures, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of them do not support the extremist views and objectives of the convoy organizers. It is very important that there be space in our country for debate about the issues of the day. In our day, that includes the nature and extent of public health measures.
On my part, I believe that the discussion should be led by public health officials on the basis of the best available information. I have been consistent in that position since the outset of the pandemic and I will continue to be, even as I respect the right of others to disagree. Many Canadians want to have a discussion about public health measures, including vaccine mandates and passport systems. There is room for this discussion in a democracy and the right to engage in those conversations has to be protected. Ending the illegal occupation and stopping the extremists who have their own undemocratic political agenda is necessary to make space for that legitimate debate and protest. It may also create space for Dr. Tam to undertake the review of public health measures that she hinted at on February 4, measures that have largely been expected to come after the omicron wave, even before the convoy left for Ottawa.
Making changes to public health orders while the occupation persists is not advisable, in my opinion, because it would encourage people to think that public policy can be set by intimidation and the threat of violence. Capitulation does not work. In Winnipeg, where the Manitoba Conservatives announced a sudden change to public health orders in response to the convoy, demonstrators are still set up downtown, even though the province has said all public health measures will be lifted within the next several weeks.
In my day, I have been part of many different political demonstrations and supported many different causes. I have seen police clear out demonstrations of people protesting against free trade agreements and racism and in defence of indigenous rights far more quickly and far more brutally, despite those demonstrations being truly peaceful demonstrations. I recall not that long ago in Winnipeg, in 2020, in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder at the hands of police, a demonstration at the legislature that was attended by thousands of people. I remember organizers in the lead-up to that event publicly communicating that violent demonstrators were not welcome. I remember them working to make a plan that would make it hard for anyone who wanted to hijack the demonstration with violent or hateful acts, and it was a successful demonstration. Many people made their point, went home and continued to be involved in all sorts of continuing anti-racism activity, including protests and demonstrations, but they did not occupy downtown Winnipeg for weeks on end.
We have even seen camps of the homeless, who have nowhere else to go, get cleared out in no time by police, simply for being in some of the same spaces that are being occupied now in downtown Winnipeg. It was not a problem to clear out the homeless. I do not know why it is acceptable to allow other folks to set up in the way that they have when others who are just seeking to live in some kind of community get cleared out.
I was talking earlier about the demonstration surrounding George Floyd's death in Winnipeg. I think that is what a commitment to peaceful protests looks like in responsible political organizing. It takes work. There are people who do that work. We can tell by their public messages. I have not seen that kind of leadership from the organizers of these occupations. I have to say that if any efforts have been made, they certainly have not been effective.
I was pleased last Thursday when the member for Portage—Lisgar and the interim leader of the Conservative Party finally called for the convoy to go home, but they have not gone home. The Ottawa police have shown they cannot be trusted to send them home, and so we have to have additional measures to move them along.
I agree that the Prime Minister has done a terrible job as a leader through this crisis. While it is right to call out proponents of hate and extremists in the crowd and in the ranks of the organizers, it is wrong to lump the far larger group of Canadians who are tired of public health messages into that group. It has not served our national dialogue, it has not served our country and it has not served our body politic.
I would be remiss if I did not note that the Conservatives have been engaging in their own brand of politics on these issues. The Conservative government in Manitoba was the first to implement a vaccine passport system, but federal Conservatives never showed up on the steps of the legislature to oppose that system. Leaked letters show that the interim Conservative leader has been more concerned about making this a political problem for the Prime Minister than to help the country find a way to de-escalate and get out of this situation. While there is absolutely a very serious responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to provide that leadership, there is also a responsibility on others in this House, particularly the leader of the official opposition. Leaked letters have also shown that the Conservative premier of Manitoba has been happy to privately beg the Prime Minister to intervene while criticizing his intervention publicly.
What I am trying to say is that there are a lot of different political agendas at work in and around the convoy, but the upshot is that the people of Ottawa have been terrorized in their homes for weeks now, while the country careens toward a level of political instability we have not seen in my lifetime. That is why it really is time for the convoy to go home. That does not mean it is time for the discussion around public health measures to end, but it means that those who want to demonstrate and those who want to protest have to start doing so in a peaceful way.
I know there have been many who have done this in a peaceful way, but as with the efforts made by the organizers of the other protests that I was referring to earlier, there has to be an effort to root out the violence and the extremists and those who are intimidating people in Ottawa. That has to become far more a part of the public message of this convoy in order for the real issues that people are concerned about to be heard. They may not agree with me on those issues, and that is okay, but if they want that message to be heard, then their political organizing has to take a shape very different from the shape it has taken in the convoy.
I appeal to all those Canadians who may be frustrated and angry with me because I have not called for an end to all public health measures right now. I prefer to defer to public health officials on this point, but I call for them, in their good spirit and in their good faith, to start actively calling on the convoy organizers to promote peace, to dislodge themselves from downtown Ottawa and anywhere else where they are hanging on, and then to engage in the kinds of peaceful protests that Canada knows very well. I think that is how we get this dialogue back on track and create a path to unity in Canada.
1698 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:52:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what test has been met in order to justify this extreme measure? The former NDP member of Parliament Svend Robinson has said:
I was in the House during 1988 debate on the Act, when we were promised that “emergency powers can only be used when the situation is so drastic that no other law of Canada can deal with the situation”.
That test has not been met.
@NDP can [you] stop this.
It is clear from the member's speech that the New Democrats are not going to stop this. What is happening in Ottawa that regular laws cannot deal with? We saw all the other blockades at borders removed with existing laws. What is the specific law that has to come into place to take care of something that has been taken care of elsewhere?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:53:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would note that some of those border blockades were only cleared out once the state of emergency had been declared. Therefore, in some of those cases, this declaration has played a role in having those clear out.
Second, I would note that for as much as there may be powers under existing laws to clear out Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Service has not done it. Something in the context needs to change, and this is how we get to the position we are in.
I wish we had had a more unified call across party lines early in the convoy to send the message that they should all go home. Instead, we saw a lot of people in this place encourage them, which is not to say that they should not be giving voice to the legitimate questions about public health measures. Even where there is disagreement between the NDP and those folks who hold views about—
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:08:02 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, uqaqtitiji. I would like to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her statement.
Yesterday we heard from the member opposite that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis or the crisis at Caledonia, but these are not comparable to today's realities. The Emergencies Act is a drastic measure for the sole purpose of protecting our safety. For the last three weeks continuing to today, our safety continues to be threatened.
We have heard today from the member's party in a way that I interpret as trying to minimize the dangers being posed by these extremists. Can the member explain why her party has chosen to ignore the behaviour of these extremists while it continues to put Canadians' safety at risk?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:08:59 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:53:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my hon. colleague.
The first is around powers. Just a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to speak to a constituent who was concerned that this was a broad overreach by the government. When I explained the different measures within the public order, he understood and said that it was reasonable because it was giving tools to the police to be able to address this situation.
Could the member speak about how these powers to give those tools are restricted under the Emergencies Act, and that it is about leadership, not just here in Ottawa but in his own city of Winnipeg and in other places of the country, to make sure that law enforcement, if they choose to use this discretion, have the tools to stop blockades and protests that are truly illegal?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:22:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I were elected together in 2015. We have gotten to know each other, and one thing I have gotten to know about him is that he stands, or has stood, for law and order. The member opposite has said that there is no national emergency and that there are maybe some illegal activities, but those illegal activities taking place are okay and not that bad. There was $450 million in trade a day blockaded. The Emergencies Act was announced on Monday. There were still blockades at that time at our border points. Today, in Windsor, Ontario, a woman was arrested for threatening to bomb the house of the mayor. A blockade was stopped on its way to the Ambassador Bridge. In fact, if we just walk out of Parliament, there is a blockade in Ottawa.
The member opposite is saying, to the thousands of residents who have been held hostage for the last 20 days, that their safety and security do not matter. What is he saying to the Canadians who elected members in all parties in the House just a few months ago, and to the people who are out there who he served coffee to, who he took pictures with, who have said they want to overthrow, not the government, every elected member—
222 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:23:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand is whether the threshold has been met to invoke the Emergencies Act. That is the question. Based upon a review of the legislation, it is very clear that the bar has not been set, with respect to the blockades. It was existing law enforcement tools and powers under the authority of the provinces that dispersed the situation. At Coutts, the situation was dispersed by many of the protesters themselves. What the Prime Minister needs to do is turn down the temperature, instead of pouring fire on this situation.
With respect to the hon. minister, I say this could be ended very quickly. The path toward ending it is for the Prime Minister to move forward and lift his punitive and discriminatory vaccine mandates. That would resolve this issue.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 9:37:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is certainly much from the speech by the Liberal member across the way that I would like to comment on, but there was one specific thing she said that really piqued my interest.
The member referenced that there would be commissions and inquiries related to the response to these blockades. I am glad to hear that. I wish that the Prime Minister had said that. I am pleased to hear that the government is willing to look into it.
If the Prime Minister's actions, and the actions of other members of the Liberal government, are found to have been inflammatory and to have played a role in what has been taking place, will the member accept the findings of those commissions and inquiries?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
