44th Parl. 1st Sess.

February 17, 2022 10:00AM

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

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 33