44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:30:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to have the right to free expression and to protest peacefully, but occupying the downtown cores of our major cities, protesting and blocking border crossings, is unacceptable. That is why we have given more tools, in a proportional way, to police officers.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister and ministers across the aisle, it actually gives me no pleasure to rise to speak to the matter at hand. The invocation of the Emergencies Act earlier this week, for the first time in Canadian history, is a significant moment and it is not a moment to be pleased about. It is a solemn moment. It is a moment when we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this situation in the first place? When we examine the evidence of how we got to this situation, I do not think there is much for the government to be proud of.
The Conservatives thoughtfully considered the justifications, written in law and given by the government, for the enacting of the Emergencies Act. The government has based its justification on one provision: that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada. This claim is not supported by the evidence. Yes, we have seen border blockades in at least four provinces and we have seen a persistent protest in Ottawa that has now been declared illegal. However, before the Emergencies Act was invoked, the blockades at the borders and across Canada were lifted or were well into the process of being lifted, so the government trying to claim credit after the fact is completely absurd. The Emergencies Act is now being used solely for the purpose of addressing the situation in Ottawa, not throughout Canada as defined by the act.
A key part of the threshold for enacting these measures is that existing laws and capabilities have proven insufficient for dealing with the problem. Existing laws are well equipped to deal with these situations. They were well equipped to deal with the situation at Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge, and I submit they are well equipped to be used here in Ottawa.
The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said earlier that they were required to pass this so they could requisition essential services like tow trucks. However, it has been noted by many that under the Criminal Code, police already have the authority to requisition such services, under pain of criminal sanction. That was before the Emergencies Act was brought in, so this argument that the Emergencies is necessary is completely absurd.
I note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.
The police already had the power to compel many of these services. The police already had the power to be coordinated with the RCMP, the OPP and the various police forces and national security forces throughout Canada. They have measures existing under the Criminal Code, such as mischief and intimidation, to be used against illegal protesters and blockades.
The government has used an argument where it is citing potential acts and threats of violence against Canadians and critical infrastructure. This is not just any violence, the Liberals are saying; this is violence intended for the furtherance of an ideological and political objective. I am very concerned with the language that the government is beginning to use, because that language is very similar to the language under terrorism laws. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence to advance a political or ideological agenda. The government is using terrorism legislation against Canadian protesters.
There is very little evidence that there was a serious threat to persons and critical infrastructure from these protests. There was a short-term risk, but it was dealt with by law enforcement.
An hon. member: What about those assaults outside?
Mr. Dane Lloyd: I will address the member's heckle.
I am very concerned about the situation that occurred around Coutts, Alberta, where a small group of militants was arrested with firearms and with the intent to do harm. I am so thankful for law enforcement's efforts in taking down this very real threat, and I am so confident in our law enforcement because I know they had been planning this operation for weeks. They had likely infiltrated this group. They had a plan in place and had the appropriate tools and expertise to deal with this dangerous situation and defuse it before it became a very real and dangerous situation. The fact is that they did this before the imposition of the Emergencies Act.
Clearly, they have the tools. This completely undermines the government's argument that it is justified because the tools were insufficient to deal with the problems. The tools have been sufficient. The threshold has not been met.
I want to address some comments that have been made by the government. At a press conference, the Minister of Public Safety stated very clearly and definitively that there is a connection between the militant faction at Coutts and protesters here in Ottawa. He declined to provide any evidence to back up that assertion. He was asked repeatedly by the media to back up that claim and he failed. His only evidence was to cite social media posts and a general tone that has been seen in protests across Canada.
The government has been very quick to label protesters and anyone who would oppose its political agenda. In 2021, even before the protests began, the Prime Minister called people who opposed mandatory vaccinations racists and misogynists, among other epithets. Since the beginning of the protests, the government has sought to brand and label all protesters as fringe extremists with “unacceptable views”. Despite this unrelenting scrutiny and rhetoric, there has still been no evidence of violent extremists in Ottawa. If there were, I do not know how the government could believe it is being responsible in allowing us all to be here today, walking the streets of Ottawa. It undermines the whole claim.
There is no evidence of a plot to violently overthrow the Canadian government, despite constant repetition in saying so. I remember a quote by a previous Liberal minister, who said that if we tell a lie big enough and loudly enough, people will totally believe it. The government is constantly saying things that it does not have the evidence to back up. I would like to see that evidence if it is there. We deserve to see that evidence.
This act was not designed or intended to crack down on peaceful protesters, even if they are protesting illegally. We have other laws to deal with that. The government is citing a so-called terrorist threat. However, although having protesters in Ottawa is very inconvenient and terrible for the people of downtown Ottawa, honking horns does not meet the threshold of a terrorist organization. The government knows that.
Without further evidence of a violent threat, I cannot in good conscience support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Even if I were to accept that the government has met the threshold for calling on emergency powers, I would still have serious reservations about the powers the government has said it needs for dealing with this situation. If it believes there is a threat to critical infrastructure and persons, which it has said, and it shows evidence, I could support declaring Parliament Hill and certain sensitive areas as no-go zones. I could accept that we need better coordination between the RCMP and local police. However, what I cannot accept is the government's need to undermine section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees Canadians a right against unreasonable search and seizure and having their bank accounts frozen.
The Minister of Justice, while on a panel last night, said that anyone who is part of a so-called pro-Trump organization should be worried. I think all Canadians should be worried when a Minister of Justice threatens people because of their political views. That is not the Canada that any of us want to see and it is unacceptable.
Throughout this debate, which we are going to be having over the next number of days, Canadians will know that their official opposition is alive and well. We are prepared to stand up for Canadians' rights. We are prepared to hold the government accountable. We are going to keep fighting. We are not going to stop standing up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:47:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for agreeing to share his time with me.
It is very important for Canadians to understand that the government's proposal to invoke the Emergencies Act is in no way connected to public safety, restoring order or upholding the rule of law. We know this because we know what it has done with previous protests and blockades. When the Prime Minister agrees with the aims of protesters, he does nothing. Actually, it would be unfair to say he does nothing. He does nothing to end the blockades, but he will send negotiators, who send government delegations to meet with protesters and even propose settlements and compromises when he agrees with the political aims of those protesting.
We know this because in 2020, anti-energy protesters, and anti-oil and gas protesters held up vital transportation links for weeks. At the time, the Prime Minister had a much different tone. Let us look at what he said when vital transportation links and rail lines were blockaded, crippling the Canadian economy for weeks at a time. He said, “Therefore, we are creating a space for peaceful, honest dialogue with willing partners.” Compare that to the rhetoric and inflammatory language that he has used over the past several weeks in 2022.
Make no mistake, the protests that are happening in Ottawa and have taken place across the country are a direct result of the Prime Minister's actions and rhetoric, and the demonization of people who are fighting to get their rights back. Canadians have had two years of incredible hardship, of politicians and government agencies telling them they were not allowed to have family members visit them inside their own homes, of governments telling business owners that they had to keep their doors shut and their employees laid off, of people not being able to use the various support systems they have had in their lives, such as relying on friends and family. Gyms were closed and activities for children were cancelled.
After two years of this, just as there is hope on the horizon, as other jurisdictions around the world and even here in Canada were lifting restrictions and easing mandates, the Prime Minister added a new one. He added a new restriction after two years of telling truck drivers that they were essential services and that they would be allowed to travel across the border to bring vital goods to our markets. After two years of deeming them an essential service, just as there was hope and reasons to lift restrictions and mandates, the Prime Minister added a new one without any data or evidence to back it up.
Then people started objecting to this. They were finally saying that enough is enough, they want their freedoms back, and it is time for the government to retreat back to the normal boundaries of government interference in their lives. When people started doing that, gathering to peacefully protest against government overreach, what did the Prime Minister do? He called them names and tried to smear them with broad brushes. He called them racists and misogynists. He asked the rhetorical question of whether or not we should tolerate these people. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question: What does not tolerating these people look like? What he has done over the past few weeks has been shameful.
The Prime Minister has lowered the office in which he serves to unprecedented depths. In my 17 years of being a member of Parliament, I have never seen a prime minister or, for that matter, any other politician so debase the office that they hold, hurling insults at people and referring to a Jewish member of this House as standing with people waving swastikas. It is outrageous.
My hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches have often admonished their political opponents for even sharing the same postal code as someone who may be holding an offensive flag or a placard with unacceptable language on it. When Conservatives denounced that, it was not good enough for members of the Liberal Party. They say we are supposed to paint the entire group protesting with that broad brush, but they do not hold themselves to that same standard.
I see many hon. members across the way, some of whom I have served with. I know them to be honourable people. I do not assume that they are all racist because their leader has performed racist acts by putting on blackface so often in his life that he cannot remember how many times he has done it. We do not paint every single Liberal member of Parliament with that brush. They have no problem being photographed with the Prime Minister, despite his history of racist acts, neither should members of Parliament paint the entire group of people who are protesting for their freedoms with that same broad brush.
Let us look at the lengths to which the government goes, and indeed not just the government, but many of its friends in the corporate media, to paint every single person who is protesting and demanding an end to the restrictions and the mandates with that broad brush. They go to great lengths to discredit and dehumanize those people, who are just fighting for their traditional civil liberties.
We could look at this in two different groups. On the one hand, we have people who are saying that after two years of hardship, sacrifice, and being forced to comply with unprecedented government intrusion in their lives, with government telling them where to go and who they can have in their house, which is a level of government interference of the like we have not seen in recent Canadian history, after two years of that, they just do not believe they should be fired for making a health care decision.
On the other hand, there is a group of people who are saying that anybody who holds that view is a racist, a misogynist or an insurrectionist. There is a group of people who are saying that government should have the ability to tell people who they can have in their house, and whether or not their business is allowed to stay open.
Which group seems more unreasonable? I would say that after two years, those who are fighting against the government intrusion in their lives have a legitimate case to make. Whether or not we agree with them, we must respect their right to advocate for their views. The Prime Minister has not provided any legitimate justification for bringing in the Emergencies Act. He asks us to trust him. He says we should not worry, that the government is going to make sure everything is fine with the courts and that everything is compliant with the charter.
This is the same guy who fired his attorney general because she would not go along with his plans to interfere in a criminal court case. Pardon the members of the Conservative Party if we are not going to take the Prime Minister's word that he is not going to abuse the power that he is granting himself.
He points to specific instances that the Conservatives denounced. We denounced the rail blockades in 2020 and we denounced the border blockades in 2022. We do not believe that the right to peacefully protest should mean the right to infringe on the freedoms and rights of other people. We raised that point in 2020, calling on the government to do something about the rail blockades when it was the anti-energy workers. By the way, there have been a lot of radical left-wing protests across the country where we could see all kinds of placards, including anti-Semitic placards and banners advocating violence against police officers, and we do not see the government rushing to crack down on those.
The government is talking about foreign funding. What about the foreign funding that is pouring into Canada by the hundreds of millions of dollars to help groups fight against energy projects and natural resource projects across the country? That did not seem to bother the government then. Now, all of a sudden, it says it has to do something about it.
It is a little like the scene in Casablanca when the inspector comes to Rick and says that he has to close the place down because there is illegal gambling going on, and then the croupier comes over and puts his winnings in his pocket. That is what the government is doing. For years, it has relied on foreign funding coming to help its allies in the political spectrum fight for its goals and fight against Canadians and their interests.
This is the exact same playbook that we have seen dictatorial governments use across the world. They dehumanize their opponents. They invoke threats of foreign influence. Let us remember, the Berlin Wall was ostensibly built to keep others out. Governments always talk about their good intentions when they take away rights and liberties. I am asking Canadians not be fooled by this.
I am asking members of the Liberal Party who actually believe in civil liberties, who actually do believe in the natural limits of government, to do—
1545 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:25:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to clarify the record. I misspoke during my questions and comments in regard to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I indicated she was the only member of the House to have been arrested for protesting illegally. I completely forgot the image of the Minister of Environment in his orange jumpsuit. He too was arrested for illegal protests and I—
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:37:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about what I am hearing today from the member of the NDP. It is painting a picture that is inflammatory by implying that the majority of those who are protesting are racists, rather than a few who show their ignorance whenever an opportunity arises.
Personally, I have multiple examples of indigenous, Black, Indian, Muslim, Sikh and Jewish participants who have taken part in this peaceful protest and are proudly talking about it. They are either here to do that or have shared their information after fact-checking what they are hearing from mainstream media and from members in this House.
When did the member personally interact with these individuals who are behaving in the way he is claiming they are?
125 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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:26:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague frequently refers to indigenous peoples who are peacefully protesting on their unceded territories. I wonder, if he was in government, what he would do if a national police service refused to enforce the rule of law, as it has been doing at Wet'suwet'en. This includes what we saw with militarized police: They took an axe, a chainsaw and an attack dog to take down the door of two unarmed indigenous women on unceded territory. This is something that was affirmed in Supreme Court rulings. We are now witnessing police in Ottawa who have been dangerously lenient to these so-called “protesters”. I would refer to it as an illegal occupation. In fact, we even have photos and news broadcasts of police officers hugging blockaders.
I am wondering this. What would the member do if he was in government?
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:11:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to be speaking to this bill. Actually, I would rather not be speaking to this bill and these measures. I do not think it is necessary and is a total overreach of the government for political expediency. It is inappropriate and very selective. That will probably be the nature of my comments tonight.
First of all, I want to thank all the staff here this evening: the table officers, interpreters, food services and maintenance. We appreciate what they do for us in these late hours of the night. The cafeteria workers are here half an hour later than we finish tonight, so I thank them. I also want to thank the Parliamentary Protective Service, which has had long hours on the Hill for the past three weeks in order to keep order. Its members have been having a lot of polite conversations with the protestors and approaching them with a calm, professional demeanour.
If the Liberal government would have had the same approach, I cannot help but wonder if the situation would be where it is today. As a matter of fact, I am sure it would not be. The government made absolutely no effort to reach out. It is not just in the past three weeks. This is the approach it has had over the years, during and before the pandemic.
I cannot think of a single time the Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet have even taken a minute to voice any degree of willingness to listen to the Canadians who disagree with the measures the government has taken to promote the exclusion of Canadians based on vaccination status. The Prime Minister and many other Liberal caucus members try to paint anyone not fully vaccinated or not supportive of exclusionary mandates as enemies, questioning whether they should be tolerated.
This is Canada we are talking about. We are known for our tolerance. We are known for our multiculturalism, yet this is the type of approach the government is taking constantly. It is its mode of operation.
Last year, when 50 churches were burned down, the Prime Minister said:
One of my reflections is I understand the anger that’s out there against...institutions like the Catholic church. It is real and it is fully understandable. The shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians.
Those are such pious words. It is wrong. The burning of churches, for the Prime Minister and the Liberal government, is understandable, but there is no desire to show concern for those protesting now. He told several church leaders that evangelical Christians were the worst part of Canadian society.
An hon. member: What are you talking about?
Mr. Marc Dalton: Yes, exclusionary tolerance is what I am speaking about. I am talking about 3%—
481 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
