44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 5:38:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for all the work he has done over many years on human rights. His speech today really highlighted some of the things around human rights.
The hon. member mentioned using children as human shields. Frankly, that is one of the aspects of this protest that has offended me more than almost anything else that has been going on. They are putting children in harm's way, children who sometimes are not able to get vaccinated. One of the reasons for us to get vaccinated is to protect our children, and now we are seeing children being put in situations of danger.
Could the hon. member expand on how that is an affront to the human rights of some of our most vulnerable Canadians?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:39:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, while I do not want to focus extensively on the use of children as shields, I did see it personally as I walked on the streets in Ottawa and I was horrified to see parents putting their kids in danger for some distorted view of what freedom means. It shows that the organizers have little respect for basic rights and freedoms, little respect for what it actually means to be Canadian.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:39:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the consequences of the blockades.
In the world I live in, the real word, we have the Criminal Code, municipal bylaws, the highway safety code and the ability to call in other police forces. There are provisions in the Criminal Code to combat hate crimes.
Is my colleague aware that all of these laws applied before the emergency declaration was made? I would also like to ask my colleague whether he thinks that a member of the House of Commons who votes against the emergency measures is against democracy and for violence.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:40:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I can actually thank the member for that question, but I will say what is very clear here is that some people, and I am not accusing members in the chamber, but some people who helped organize these demonstrations intended to use force and intimidation to change public policy. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what Canada is about. That is not what I am about here as a member of Parliament.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:40:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member referred to being in favour of peaceful protests, but under these regulations, the Emergencies Act order requires financial institutions to cease dealing with designated persons. Designated persons is defined as anyone associated with a protest.
Keeping in mind that we both support peaceful protests, could the member explain what a designated person means in the act? Is it a protest organizer? Is it a protest attendee? Is it a donor? Is it someone who tweets in support? How far does the act go?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:41:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the Emergencies Act, which builds in parliamentary oversight to this process and which allows at any time for 20 members of Parliament to request a vote to revoke these provisions. As the previous member asked what about laws that were already in effect, what I think is really true here is that the Emergencies Act gives us the power as a government, as a society to enforce existing laws and regulations to prevent those who would use force, violence and intimidation to get around those laws. If anyone is using their resources to prolong these demonstrations, blockades and occupations, they will fall under the provisions of the Emergencies Act.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:42:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
I rise today with a very heavy heart to speak in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act by our government and the motion in this House to affirm the government's decision. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people. I want to thank the many truckers in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, and the hundreds of thousands of truckers around the world, who have helped us throughout the pandemic.
Ever since I can remember, I have gone to protests. We have been protesting the rights of Tamils on the island of Sri Lanka from the time I was maybe four or five. After the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1983, I demonstrated for weeks on end at the India consulate in Dublin, Ireland. Later in Canada in the 1980s, I protested apartheid of South Africa. In the 1990s, I protested the cuts to education in Ontario under their then premier Bob Rae. In 1995, I organized a vigil and protest right here on Parliament Hill as Tamils were being displaced in the north and east of the island.
In the 2000s, I extended legal supports to protesters at Queen's Park. I did a number of them throughout the decade. In 2009, I was right here in Ottawa and provided legal support to those who were protesting against the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka. This has been referred to, in the last several days, as the Tamil protest. It started in early February and ended in May of 2009. This included similar protests on University Avenue in front of the U.S. consulate, and I worked with the then chief of police for the City of Toronto, now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, to ensure those protests were peaceful.
I can recall my nephew, who was 10 years old at that time, going to many of these protests with my late father-in-law. My partner and I took our four-month-old in frigid temperatures to protest on Dundas Square in the winter of 2009. During this time, I also attended protests in Washington, New York and Geneva. I am therefore an ardent believer in the right to protest as a tool of dissent and political advocacy. I believe in the right to protest, and I also believe that children should be part of protests, but not used as shields in an illegal occupation.
Since January 29, 2022, Canada has been gripped by what started off with protesting, and has turned into illegal blockades and occupiers. Many colleagues across the aisle have talked about their interactions with the illegal blockaders. I have a great deal of respect for many of my colleagues across the aisle. They have spoken about their interactions with some truckers and other protesters, and their ability to walk through the illegal blockades and understand and empathize.
Sadly, I do not have that privilege. Many in this House do not have that privilege. Even though, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to enjoy the same level of privilege, I do not share that privilege.
They have called for the overthrow of a government and, de facto, all of us serving in this House. They brought symbols of hate, like the confederate flag, Nazi symbols and others, to the protest. They have destroyed the pride flag. They have threatened media. They have taken food from a homeless shelter. I ask my colleagues opposite to please forgive me if I do not feel the same level of confidence engaging with these so-called protesters.
I would never cast dispersions over a group based on the acts of a few, but after 23 days, many who may feel strongly about the type of hate and vitriol we see on the streets should distance themselves and condemn them, including the Conservative Party of Canada.
The impacts of these illegal blockades on Ottawa, Coutts, Emerson, Surrey and Windsor are profound. These illegal blockades are different in form and substance to the hundreds of protests we see here in Ottawa annually. That is why, after considerable consultation and engagement, our government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022. We did so after the City of Ottawa, Windsor and others invoked emergencies in their municipalities, and after the Province of Ontario did so as well.
Ultimately, Canada is a rule of law country. In declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law and are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for a public order emergency to be declared. Our government believes those conditions have been met.
I want to highlight the preamble of the Emergencies Act, which reads:
AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
Any and all action our government takes will be subject to the charter, and it is the solemn responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure this. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in specific serious circumstances that amount to a national emergency.
In order to meet the threshold for a national emergency, three conditions must be met. First, we must be in a situation that either seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and exceeds the capacity of authority of a province to deal with it, or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
Second, the capacity of the provinces and territories to handle the situation must be considered insufficient or show gaps. Third, we must conclude the situation cannot be handled adequately under any other Canadian law, including provincial and territorial laws.
Our government believes these conditions were met, and we have tabled an explanation of the reasons for issuing this declaration, as required by this act. We also tabled, as required, a report on any consultation with the provinces with respect to the declaration. I would especially like to highlight and thank for their support the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as noted in the document of invoking the act to respond to this national emergency.
As members have seen, our government introduced targeted orders under the act. While the act technically applies to all of Canada, we have been very careful to tailor orders to be as focused as possible and only those places affected by blockades and illegal occupations will see any change at all.
We introduced the following six temporary measures to bring the situation under control. One, regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of peace and go beyond lawful protests. Two, designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. Three, directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. Four, authorizing direct financial institutions to render essential services to relieve impact of blockades. Five, enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal laws and provincial offences. Finally, imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of any order or regulation made under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
There are a number of safeguards built into this act. As required by the act, the Prime Minister met with the cabinet, as well as premiers, prior to invoking the act. After having declared the act, we tabled the declaration within two days, and Parliament has been able to debate it within seven days. In the coming days, the parliamentary committee will be struck and an inquiry will be called. The declaration lasts for 30 days and can be revoked at any time at the will of Parliament.
The situation is urgent. As interim chief of the Ottawa Police Steve Bell said yesterday that the police would not have been able to undertake the enormous operation currently taking in place in Ottawa without the temporary measures extended to it by the Emergencies Act.
We are invoking the Emergencies Act to end illegal blockades and occupations. We are invoking it to restore the rights of those who cannot safely walk the streets of downtown Ottawa and other places.
1424 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:52:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for talking about his personal experiences throughout his life. First and foremost, we are all human, and we have lived through certain situations. I appreciate the fact that he raised those issues.
My question is quite simple. During 17 days, nothing was done by the government. Even on February 11, the Prime Minister said that laws could be applied to solve this problem. Three days later, he tabled that bill. What happened in those three days to have him table that bill?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:53:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to respond to this question, which has come up a number of times. I want to specifically direct the hon. member to the Report to the Houses of Parliament: Emergencies Act Consultations. It outlines all of the measures taken by the government in respect to addressing the situation we have seen.
First and foremost, I think that starting on January 31, there were direct conversations with the mayor of Ottawa. There were numerous conversations with the premiers, including Premier Ford in Ontario. There were consultations with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
I can go on. This is an eight-page document that I hope the hon. member can go through to look at the work we did prior to invoking the Emergencies Act.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:54:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, since Friday, apart from a small hiccup yesterday, I have been listening to what has been said about the protest.
I have a question about what members have been saying since this morning. Are we to understand that, from now on, every time law enforcement agencies need to join forces, coordinate and collaborate, the federal government can invoke the Emergencies Act?
That is what is happening; after three weeks, law enforcement agencies are finally coordinating their efforts.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no, that is not what this entails. We have a specific set of situations right now in a number of different areas, including Ottawa, Windsor, Coutts, Emerson and Surrey, that do pose a national emergency. This is in direct response to the situation at hand and it does mean that this should be invoked.
I hope the government never has to invoke this again, but we are in a situation where it does have to be, and that is what we have done right now.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:55:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is a trained lawyer, as am I. We have all heard some concerns raised by the general public that the invocation of the Emergencies Act may set a precedent, so I am curious about his thoughts on that.
I would particularly be interested in his views on the converse of that, which is if we did not act in these circumstances, what kind of precedent does he think might be set by people using economic hostage taking to try to force a change in policy of a democratically elected government. Is he concerned about that also setting a bad precedent in this nation?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:56:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question posed by my friend opposite. This certainly does set a precedent in terms of protest. We cannot have blockades of this nature, which literally bring our economy to a halt.
We have gone through the pandemic. We have serious challenges with transport across Canada right now, and we need to make sure that all of our systems are working properly. If the government were to not get involved in a situation where there are such economic losses and job losses, then we would be responsible. I believe we are doing the right thing right now.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today representing the constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and to speak in this historic debate on the motion to confirm the government's declaration of emergency.
I thank everyone participating in and listening to this important debate. It is critical for our country that we, as a Parliament, work together to ensure that this debate is robust and to address the motion at hand.
In the spirit of unity, I would like to begin by talking about those things that I believe we can all agree on.
First, I believe we are all grateful to Canadians for their efforts over the past two years: for stepping up and following public health measures to protect the health and welfare of themselves and their fellow Canadians, and for working hard on our front lines and our essential services to keep our economy moving and Canadians safe and cared for. We are also grateful to the truckers who have provided these services and, especially today, to our men and women in uniform from across our province and country, for professionally and peacefully working to end this illegal occupation.
Additionally, I believe we agree on our basic rights and responsibilities: the right of all Canadians to free speech and the right to lawfully and peacefully protest, and the responsibility of our government to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada. On a more personal level, there is the responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament to listen to our constituents and to weigh carefully the measures we are enacting.
Likewise, the responsibility of Canadians is to refrain from hate speech and other violent and harassing behaviour toward their fellow citizens, but especially at this time toward our police officers, our frontline public servants, our medical officers and even our own staff as members of Parliament.
I think we can also agree on some facts that were established during the disruptions to public order over the past several weeks. There has been an illegal occupation of the downtown core of Ottawa for over three weeks now. It is an occupation that has not only impeded the operation of businesses and the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of Canadians, but also, and perhaps more importantly in terms of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, it has threatened to disrupt the operation of all three branches of our government, impeding their proper functioning.
The inability of the municipal, regional and provincial governments to disperse this illegal occupation of our nation's capital has further added to the situation.
Let us look at some other facts, such as the publication of a memorandum of understanding by the organizers of these blockades calling for the overthrow of the government if the demands they set out were not met. We should be outraged by the involvement of extremist, white nationalist organizations in the operation of this self-titled “freedom convoy” movement, some even demonstrating with swastikas and Confederate flags. In fact, during CBC coverage of the protest only a few hours ago, a flag of one of the far-right organizations was clearly being waved.
We should be outraged by the discovery of lethal and illegal weapons and the arrest of individuals associated with the organizing groups at the Coutts border blockade in Alberta. We should be outraged by the threats to the life of the Prime Minister, and to the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines trying to peacefully contain and quell these illegal blockades.
We should be outraged by the significant economic damage that these blockades have done at border crossings critical to vital trade between Canada and the United States. What Canadians are not outraged by the inflow of foreign money funding this political movement? It is money from the U.S. and the Cayman Islands, including money identified as coming from over a thousand donors who also donated to the illegal attempt to overthrow the government of the United States on January 6. How can the Conservatives not be equally outraged by these acts?
The question before us right now is whether the situation we are currently facing warrants the invocation of the Emergencies Act. This act has been invoked under Part II: a public order emergency. A public order emergency is described as resulting from serious threats to the Government of Canada. When defining threats to the security of Canada, the act references the definition provided in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This definition includes espionage, sabotage, detrimental foreign influences, activities that support the threat or use of violence for a political, religious or ideological objective, or those activities that threaten to undermine or otherwise destroy or overthrow the Government of Canada.
I hope that after hearing the facts I have just enumerated, and given the definition of when we are facing a public order emergency under the act, members will agree that the motion before us should be supported.
Let us remember that we are debating the declaration of an emergency under an act that was introduced, debated and amended in 1987 and 1988 by the then Conservative government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It was a Progressive Conservative government, very unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party opposite.
This is a well-written and thoughtful act that was introduced to address concerns that many Canadians had with the only act available to our government at that time: the War Measures Act. As former Prime Minister Mulroney pointed out, one of the major things that the Emergencies Act did was to require the concurrence of Parliament in the declaration of an emergency. This is an important feature of the act and the reason we are here today.
Perrin Beatty, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who was the minister of defence at the time that this act was introduced, said that the government's use of this act is an indication of how serious a threat the blockades are to public safety and the economy.
To quote a primary source, Mr. Beatty's Twitter account, he said, “When I brought in the Emergencies Act 35 years ago, I wished that it would never need to be used, but I knew there would inevitably be future crises and that it was essential to protect the basic rights of Canadians even in an emergency.”
This is what the act does. Let me once again review the measures in this act that ensure the protection of our basic rights. The act ensures that the government's actions are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. The act is time limited and targeted, and measures introduced will be reasonable and proportional. The act lapses after 30 days and may be ended prior to that.
There are many checks and balances. We are here today, and I have been here since 7 a.m., to fully debate the invocation of this act, as is required by it. A committee must be established to monitor the measures implemented, and the implementation of the act will be reviewed by the courts.
I trust that, given the many current threats to the safety and security of our country that I outlined earlier, in combination with the safeguards that were so wisely incorporated into this legislation, members will concur that this is a judicious and warranted declaration of emergency by our Prime Minister, and will support this motion.
This is a time for action. Canadians are counting on us. The world is watching us. Let us not be afraid to enact tough, bold measures to protect our country, our border, our economy and our civil society.
1299 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:05:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that yesterday night, because of the police presence here, I missed a very important dinner with two very dear Kurdish friends of mine: Jowana and her husband Shaheen. I just wanted to mention that at the start.
I listened to the member's speech and I want to put a couple of actual facts on the table. In the lead-up to the declaration of this emergency order and the information the government provided to our opposition benches, it did not provide evidence of how the act should be used. It did not provide briefing material to our caucus before our caucus meeting. In fact, our opposition House leader, and I am his deputy, said to the media that we did not receive any of this information.
If this was a public emergency and the government actually wanted our support and meant to get it, it would have provided this information up front: the evidence that extremist groups were involved, the evidence of which donors were involved, and the actual public safety concerns involved. The government provided no documentation.
I do not have a question. That is just to put it on the record.
204 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:06:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is the first time this act has been used since 1988, since it came into force.
Despite this, in response to the friend from the NDP—
30 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:06:41 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Mirabel.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:06:46 p.m.
- Watch
I must interrupt the hon. member for Mirabel.
The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on a point of order.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:06:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
With all due respect to my colleague from the Bloc, I believe this is the time for questions and comments; therefore, the member opposite has an opportunity to respond if she wishes to.
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:07:01 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is correct.
The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
