44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 9:36:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, they most certainly do, but I should reflect that as a sovereign nation, the first concern ought to be the safety and security of our citizens. The threat to overthrow the government by an ethno-nationalist junta has undermined it. It has been underestimated in this country for decades.
Intelligence experts continue to identify white supremacists and ethno-nationalist supremacy in this country as being the number one threats in domestic terrorism. Now is the time to take this seriously. Now is the time to look at the ways in which this movement has been infiltrated by national security experts at the highest organizing levels.
The general public deserves answers. We need to identify the true risks contained within this movement, and speak openly and honestly about them.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:04:55 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, the Conservatives have been spreading their rhetoric that this is a protest of unity, peace and freedom over fear, incited by foreign extremists. They did so while standing with people who bore Confederate flags and swastikas and terrorized women and indigenous people.
This is not unity; this is not peace; this is not freedom. This is violence, violence that threatens the safety and democracy of Canada. The ignorance they have shown to the security threats that continue to be defended on the Hill as we speak is unacceptable.
What are the Conservatives gaining from spreading this hate?
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. As an Inuk and indigenous person, I have inherent mistrust in law enforcement. I have seen all too often how law enforcement treats my community, indigenous people and people of colour. All too often we have been at the wrong end of the law. Law enforcement arbitrarily targets my communities.
My NDP colleagues and I have weighed very heavily the measures allowed in the Emergencies Act. We are deeply aware of the risk to Canada's democracy, and without the drastic measures, we are aware of the security threats to our national security posed by foreign extremists. I have received threats from as far as New Brunswick because of the debate on the Emergencies Act.
Could the member explain to Canadians why this is a national issue requiring urgent action?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:23:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour about the interventions from the member for Nunavut.
I am still deciding how I am going to vote, but I want to ask the hon. member how much, in addition to the economic threats, using the Emergencies Act is motivated by recognizing that this is not a single threat but a vast network that seeks to undermine democracies. The member's last word in his speech was “democracy”, and as informed by Vladimir Putin and forces of the right in the U.S., we are suffering from a foreign-influenced effort to undermine our democracy.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:07:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nunavut for her leadership on this issue. I have been profoundly moved by her questions, both about inclusion and about rights, and now this one.
Arrests have been made. A significant number of arrests have been made yesterday and today. These folks are now before the courts, so I am not going to comment on them directly. The court processes will take place, and we will understand what happens later.
It is my instinct, however, and having followed the news on this and having followed intelligence over the last number of years about who is moving and where our biggest threats to Canada are, I believe those threats are from extremist far-right groups. I think that right now is a time when it has come to a head. We will have a clearer and better picture once our courts have acted.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:09:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was impressed that my colleague for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill followed the line of the legislation from the Emergencies Act over to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act for the definition of “threat to the security of Canada”.
In these debates, we have not identified what it is that required the public order emergency, if it was required. I am very drawn to the fact that what we are looking at here is foreign influence that is affecting Canadian democracy in a negative way. Under “threats to the security of Canada”, subsection (b) states these are:
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.
It specifically does not include normal legal protest. I would ask the member to expand on that.
Are we actually bringing in a public order emergency because of the specific protest in Ottawa, or are we wanting to look at a network that is across Canada, and even global, that chooses to rely on disinformation and fearmongering to create divisions and undermine democracy?
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:10:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my answer would be both. We need to look at what has happened here in Ottawa, why it happened and what threats are here. The larger question of foreign influence and how it is affecting political movements in Canada should be looked at in a broader context.
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:59:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question I would like to ask my colleague is the following: Should the attack organized against our democracy by the extreme right, and financed from beyond our borders, be taken seriously?
This attack is intended to intimidate our fellow Canadians and force Parliament to close because of security threats. Should it be taken seriously? Should we take serious measures at all levels?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:28:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague says he has difficulty seeing what basis there might be for the Emergencies Act, so I want to put some of the facts to him: a serious border closure at the Ambassador Bridge, jeopardizing $330 million in trade a day and a threat to Canada-U.S. trade; interruptions to Canada's auto industry and our manufacturing sector in the Golden Horseshoe; a cache of weapons and murder conspiracy charges in Coutts, Alberta; a blockade of streets in Ottawa for three weeks, shutting down many businesses in our nation's capital; harassed and threatened citizens; undercover intelligence revealing plans to expand the blockade to ports and airports; an openly published manifesto calling for government change; foreign interference and funding in our domestic affairs; far-right involvement; threats to towing companies and drivers; and the use of trucks and tractors as blockade weapons.
Does my hon. colleague really think none of those facts are relevant to an honest assessment of whether the Emergencies Act is triggered? Does he think there are no facts present in Canada that might warrant such an examination?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:29:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of things the hon. member listed are of concern. They are of great concern and they need to be dealt with. However, there is a very high bar for using the Emergencies Act and it certainly has not been met. We are not talking about threats to the sovereignty of the country and we are not talking about foreign invasions, things that would ordinarily be requirements for this.
The hon. member mentioned one thing that I want to touch on briefly: foreign funding. There has been a lot of talk about foreign funding, and I have raised this many times in Parliament and in committees. The fact is that many times it is used to try to block critical infrastructure in this country, like pipelines. Where was—
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:13:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have thought a lot about this as a member of the defence committee, where we have heard about authoritarian governments around the world and the tactics being used by them. In the last session, I sat on the human rights subcommittee, and I heard from parliamentarians from truly authoritarian governments where there was exactly that. Language, intimidation and threats of personal harm and of being thrown in jail were used very specifically to create fear and to get rid of democratic institutions.
This is something we should be very mindful of. Foreign investment and funds to promote this should be something that all Canadians take very seriously—
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:14:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to offer any free legal advice to anyone in the House, particularly a colleague. However, given what she has experienced by way of the message of vitriol on her answering machine, I want to remind my colleague that this is what the Criminal Code of Canada is for. What she describes is intimidation. What she describes is uttering threats. There is no limitation period for those matters. She is free to contact the police and have an investigation commence.
However, the primary focus of my question is about what she and the Liberal government, particularly the Prime Minister, have indicated. Since it was common knowledge that the manifesto called for an overthrow of the Canadian government, why did the Prime Minister wait three weeks to act, instead of consulting with the RCMP and having the organizers charged with treason?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:38:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on Friday, I listened to my colleagues for nine hours. Today, I have been listening to them all day right from 7 a.m., even though I went to bed at 3 a.m. because I was writing this speech, and even though I will be here until midnight.
I have noticed the extent to which the polarization that I see on social media has crept into the House. I had difficulty writing this speech, which says a lot, because anyone observing me even a little in the House knows that I am constantly writing.
It is difficult to find the words to avoid polarization with all these emotions present. Emotions are running high, and I am hearing a lot of heated comments in the House at present.
It was not easy to write this speech because the invocation of the Emergencies Act is a historic event that will set the bar for its invocation in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that its use will not be taken lightly in the future just because it has been taken lightly today.
Canada has experienced some very dangerous, critical and urgent situations. Almost all of my colleagues have mentioned the Oka crisis, the rail blockades in 2020, the Caledonia crisis, September 11 and COVID‑19.
I want to make one thing clear right now. I never have and never will have sympathy for extremists, on either the right or the left. I have never had sympathy for hate speech or threats. I was outraged and shocked to see Nazi and Confederate flags. I felt sick with anger. I will never minimize threats that someone may receive. I have been threatened myself after a member of Parliament spoke to the media and shared misinformation regarding a vote in committee.
All day yesterday, I responded to hundreds of emails, and every single one of them was calling on us not to enforce the Emergencies Act. I was getting emails not only from my constituents, but also from people in Calgary, Vancouver, Burnaby, Prince George, Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and even Ottawa. The people of Ottawa have been most affected by this situation. All that was missing were some emails from Prince Edward Island.
This legislation scares them very much, and they have the right to be listened to, to be heard and to get answers. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act states that the government must demonstrate that there is a dangerous and urgent situation that cannot be effectively dealt with ordinary laws. However, the order does not demonstrate that existing intervention powers are inadequate.
In other places, law enforcement used the tools it was supposed to use, municipal bylaws, highway traffic acts and the Criminal Code. That is what should have been done here from the start. Some might say that there was no way to predict the future or know what was going to happen.
Of course Ottawa served as an example to others, but Ottawa was indeed aware of the situation. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons mentioned that extremist groups have been on social media for two years. They also mentioned that on social media and in the media, there was talk of a convoy 70 kilometres long. The warning went out one week before the convoy arrived, which should have been enough time to plan and figure out how to contain the situation before it got out of hand the way it did. This type of action is possible through coordination, teamwork, the creation of an emergency response team, collaboration and visionary leadership.
The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the associations and the mobilization that is possible on social media. However, the act makes it clear that it must be invoked not based on hypothetical events, but on the presence of real danger.
The act is to be used when the police are unable to enforce the laws and bylaws available. Right now, I feel that the act is more of a positive move than a reasonable one. A reasonable move would have been to recognize that the problem lies primarily in Ottawa and not elsewhere in the country.
Several incidents have been cited in the House to persuade us that the Emergencies Act is necessary. On February 17, the theft of a trailer full of weapons in Peterborough was mentioned. At 1:55 p.m. that day, the member for Parkdale—High Park drew a connection between that theft and the protest that was going on at the time in Quebec City. That was on February 17. However, the trailer was found on February 16. It was wrong to couple the two together. That is misinformation. This incident cannot be used to support the invocation of the act.
On the same day, the crane truck that was parked in front of the Prime Minister's office was considered a threat. It is no longer there now, but if it was a threat, why was it not moved from the start? The Criminal Code is clear. Paragraphs 423(1)(a) to 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code deal with such incidents, threats and intimidation. The vehicle already would have had to be moved under the existing Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.
Members talked about the threats in the videos. I saw those videos, and I did not like what I saw. My colleague talked about this earlier. We have known about some of these Facebook groups for two years. I cannot understand why they were not shut down in accordance with the Criminal Code.
I know of seven sections of the Criminal Code that could have been used to silence the people who made those videos and bring them to justice because what they were doing was illegal: paragraph 261(1)(a); subsection 423(1), which I talked about earlier; subsection 46(2); subsections 59(1) to 59(3), paragraphs 63(1)(a) and 63(1)(b); and subsection 72(1). There are plenty of them.
For money coming from the United States and possibly, according to sources, from extremist supremacist groups, sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04 of the Criminal Code cover that. Section 83.11 says that banks can freeze assets. We had all the legislative tools we needed to address the crisis before it turned into a 23-day occupation.
To sum up, all law enforcement needed was coordination and the ability to call in tow trucks. The Criminal Code covers that too. With a court order or an order from the Attorney General, the tow trucks would have had no choice but to act, and they would have been supported.
In a crisis, we must all weigh our words and our actions carefully, whether we are MPs, the Prime Minister, law enforcement officers, mayors, municipal councillors or protesters. During a crisis, we must take the time to balance our emotional and rational selves. Too much of one or the other is not a good thing. Inaction can be just as damaging as sudden or extreme action. On both sides of this issue, consultation, collaboration and coordination between the various police forces were possible without applying the Emergencies Act. It took planning and leadership.
It was possible to arrest people who threatened others without applying the Emergencies Act. It was possible to arrest the ringleaders without applying the Emergencies Act. I could go on much longer. I have another two pages of examples.
The police asked for help as far back as February 7 and 11. Leadership and consultation are what this protest needed, and that is what police forces are providing right now.
We do not need to create a precedent.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:49:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is this: Did the tow truck drivers go in alone? I understand that some were afraid. I understand that, hence the importance of the words “consultation” and “collaboration” with law enforcement. They both needed to work together, as they did over the past two days, even if it meant getting help from the RCMP, from Toronto and other neighbouring cities, which is what happened in the end. By working together from the start, a lot of mistakes could have been avoided.
I understand that people were afraid of getting death threats. I have been on the receiving end, and it is not pleasant.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
