44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 2:54:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, today we are debating the Emergencies Act and the motion for confirmation of a declaration of an emergency, pursuant to section 58 of the act. There is a lot to be said and I cannot cover everything in 10 minutes.
Under section 58, the government is required to provide a motion for confirmation of the declaration of an emergency and an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, and to report on any consultation with the provinces and territories it is undertaking. Indeed, thousands of people have reached out to me in the last week regarding the temporary measures under the public order emergency, including the points on public assembly, fines and imprisonment, compelling to work on behalf of the Government of Canada and other measures, such as the freezing of one's financial assets.
The powers of Parliament in this unique situation are to protect against government overreach and bad decisions and to support the necessity of ensuring effective checks and balances are in place when a declaration of a public order emergency has been made under section 17 of the act. Upon review of the explanation pursuant to the Emergencies Act, I cannot support the reasons provided by the Governor in Council for the continued use of this act. My reasons relate to the following.
Under point two of the reasons for public emergency, “adverse effects on the Canadian economy”, numerous citations were made regarding protests at points of entry across Canada. It is my understanding that as of February 14, no major blockade was inhibiting the flow of goods between Canada and the United States to warrant this unprecedented action. The ability of law enforcement to deal with the protests was demonstrated last weekend when the protesters at points of entry were removed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
It goes on to explain that threats were made to block railways, which could result in significant economic disruptions. The report outlines that railways in Canada have operating revenues of more than $16 billion a year. A threat can be dealt with under existing laws and Parliament requires more information than the flimsy explanation provided regarding the economic significance of railways in Canada. The Railway Safety Act is a strong piece of legislation. I am sure it could be used if there was a legitimate threat.
I would say the same for point four, “the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods”. Again the reasons provided by the government are without any evidence. Parliamentarians require more than general trade statistics to confirm the application of the most severe measure the government can possibly take. I just cannot support this.
Again the same could be said for point five, “the potential for an increase in the level of unrest”. The government has not provided the House with adequate justification that the situation in which we find ourselves today could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Neither rhetoric nor emotion justifies such actions.
The report to the Houses of Parliament on the consultations regarding the Emergencies Act lack sufficient justification as well. Words like “spoke”, “met”, “regular engagement” and “discussed” are numerous throughout the document. Real and concrete steps, however, taken by the government in the context of consultations are void. For such a time as this, a government simply indicating that it spoke with the provinces and territories is not sufficient. What Parliament needs to know is what was discussed, what the government said to the provinces and territories and the actions it took to prevent national disruptions, and I would say vice versa in the context of the provinces and territories as well.
Let me quote the Prime Minister, who said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly. This is not the first, second or third option. It is the last resort.” Nothing the Prime Minister has provided the House demonstrates what the first, second or third actions actually were.
During the debate on Thursday, the member for Ottawa Centre asked, while pointing to members of the official opposition, that if this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row, how would members be acting?
Arguably, many of the justifications provided relate more to the disasters, floods, wildfires and landslides British Columbians experienced last year. Lytton burned to the ground last summer and this fall every major roadway in the province of B.C. was flooded or washed away. The CP and CN rail lines were not operational. The port of metro Vancouver was cut off from Canada.
In my riding, there was danger to life, lives lost, real property damage for thousands, complete social disruption through the destruction of critical infrastructure and a loss of essential goods and services. People are still without permanent shelter and critical roadways are not fully operational, including the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 8.
Under section 58 of the bill, there is nothing in these documents that shows the government is meeting the threshold of this legislation. I can argue more concretely that the disasters that B.C. faced last year are a much better example of when this act could have been used under part I, “Public Welfare Emergency”.
Friday morning, I was also devastated, as has been mentioned in this House, to read of the horrific acts of violence that occurred in the northern community of Houston, British Columbia. Will this fall under the radar of our Prime Minister and his Emergencies Act? There was real violence there.
I am also reminded of other historical instances in Canada, such as the G20 summit, where the former Toronto chief of police and current Minister of Emergency Preparedness had hundreds of protesters arrested as police cars were burned in the streets and the Emergencies Act was not applied. The eyes of the world were on Canada at that time as well. Our reputation was also at stake in that moment.
In the annex of the motion tabled in Parliament, the Prime Minister included his letter to the premiers. He mentioned that he is concerned about the undermining of the confidence in our institutions. I believe Canadians are concerned the Prime Minister allowed the situation to escalate to where it is today. That is on him. That is on cabinet. I believe his actions are what is actually undermining the confidence in our institutions.
In preparation for today's debate I looked back at the Debates of 1988 when the Emergencies Act was before Parliament as a bill. I learned that parliamentarians of all political stripes were concerned about the future application of the bill and its relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
NDP MP Derek Blackburn, on April 25, 1988, referred to the horrific experiences of Canadians of Japanese descent who suffered internment under the War Measures Act, the preceding legislation. Although in support of the bill, he was concerned that the Emergencies Act could still infringe on Canadian rights and freedoms beyond what is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. I share his concern. Mr. Blackburn suggested that the Supreme Court review the bill to be more confident that we would strike the right balance and Canadians would be protected. No review ever took place and look at where we find ourselves today.
In closing, I want to remind all members of the House of the thoughtful reflections of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, former MP for York Centre and Liberal member of the House of Commons, from July 11, 1988, who at the time was in the official opposition. He stated:
The legislation we are passing today [the Emergencies Act] still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four...categories of emergencies provided for under this legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation.
We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not...abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in...the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched.
The Prime Minister needs to be watched. The government needs to be watched. It needs to be accountable. I stand here on behalf of my constituents, who expect me to hold the current government to account. I am asking all members of the House to carefully consider how they will vote on this unprecedented and unnecessary measure. Confidence in our institutions depends on it. The trust Canadians have in us collectively as parliamentarians depends on it. Our nation depends on it.
I encourage all members to vote in opposition of this motion out of respect for a concern of government overreach.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:24:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I usually start by saying that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak here. However, it is the first time in 24 years that I needed a police escort to enter this chamber, and it is likely that all of us will need police escorts to exit this chamber. That is the state of emergency affairs in Ottawa as we speak.
Sedition, by definition, is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state”. Emergency, by definition, is “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” There is a further definition in the Emergencies Act that largely supports this notion:
threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve...sovereignty [and] security
Over the last three weeks, we have seen a ragtag convoy of truckers, apparently here to protest mandates, morph into an anarchistic challenge to legitimate authority, seriously impairing the life, economic well-being and safety of Canadians from coast to coast: from Ottawa to the Ambassador Bridge, to the Ambassador Bridge times two and times three, to Toronto protests, to Quebec protests, to the Blue Water Bridge, to the Emerson, Manitoba, closures, to the Coutts, Alberta, closure and to closures in British Columbia. There has been billions of dollars's worth of economic disruptions and broken supply chains. Citizens have been rendered hopeless and fearful. Citizen have been threatening each other and threatening to take the law into their own hands in the face of police impotence or their refusal to act.
I do not know what else we could possibly want before declaring a state of national emergency, with the possible exception of violence in the streets. Some seem to think that should be part of the debate and is a necessary precondition. It is also equally clear some insurrectionists would be pleased if that happened, if anarchy and lawlessness prevailed and legitimate authority were undermined. All the while, these “brave anarchists” are hiding behind children in bouncy castles and waving Canadians flags, sometimes right side up and sometimes not.
The protest has migrated from misguided complaints about mandates to sedition. Most of the mandates are from provincial authorities and are being cautiously lifted with the guidance of public health authorities. The blockade, if it was ever about mandates in the first place, should be in provincial capitals. The sole mandate within the federal jurisdiction is at the border and can only be lifted in conjunction with the American government. They should take their protest to Washington, assuming they can get across the border.
What is this seditious blockade really about? I am sure members have heard about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation. As my hon. friend mentioned in his speech, at the public safety committee and the defence committee we heard a lot of testimony about misinformation and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors. I do not have any personal or direct evidence of the attempted destabilization of a G7 NATO country in opposition to Russia on the verge of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I have to think that works to the advantage of President Putin. Any destabilization effort that erodes national consensus works to the advantage of our two major adversaries, China and Russia.
Russian TV has been promoting alternative theories of the utility of vaccines and paranoid theories about implanting chips. It also questions the effectiveness of mandates, sowing doubts in the minds of those looking to express their frustration and anger. At this point, it is directed at Parliament, the government and the Prime Minister.
The evidence of non-state actors is a bit more clear. Funding from the U.S. is blatantly obvious and is from sources in the U.S. associated with the most odious elements of American society. The Conservatives have been saying for weeks that all we need to do is talk to these people, so I started returning telephone calls and responding to emails. I cannot help but observe that I have become quite popular in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. All of these non-constituents want to help me vote for my constituents. Just today, we received 1,300 emails, and we had 600 the day before.
To these non-constituents, I offer an insincere apology for ignoring them. My constituents, on the other hand, I do not ignore, and have not for nine elections and 24 years. There is more of a mix among those who want me to vote against the legislation, and they are more vociferous this week. However, last week others wanted me to end it. The conversations with those who want me to vote against the bill exhibit a belligerence, coupled with a substantial amount of misinformation and disinformation, that makes one despair.
When the conversation starts with, “I have never voted for you and I never will”, we know we are off to a bad start. For nine elections and 24 years, there must have been a great deal of frustration for this individual caller. When the conversation is peppered with the Prime Minister's last name in conjunction with what the Speaker would rule to be unparliamentary language, all seemingly starting with the same letter, we know the conversation is not going to go well. Also, trying to carry on a conversation with a blowing horn from an 18-wheeler in the background is indeed an impediment to civilized discourse.
What is so discouraging when we get through all of this is the dissonance of fact. Minimal understanding of civics and science must be the basis for civilized discourse, but the “alternative facts” narrative, perpetrated by that notorious Trump acolyte, has taken hold here. That is ultimately what is so discouraging. By one means or another, this insurrection will end, but the damage to political discourse will linger. It is difficult to have conversations with horns blaring, engines revving, diesel fumes in the air, a commitment to alternative facts and certain politicians giving aid and comfort to sedition.
I therefore support, wholeheartedly, this initiative as a measured, scaled, charter-consistent response to the blatant disregard for the rule of law. If revocation of licences, revocation of insurance and freezing of bank accounts will not do it, I support the police cordoning off areas and arresting those who refuse to leave, which they are doing as we speak. I have been very impressed by the measured and careful response of the police in the last couple of days.
I condemn the lawless thugs hiding behind children. I condemn violence. This legislation should serve as a warning to lawless brigands, especially to the organizers, both foreign and domestic. We are a nation where the rule of law prevails in all matters. This misinformation and disinformation campaign, whether from foreign or domestic sources, is deeply settled in the minds of these insurrectionists, who see conspiracies everywhere and seem to be incapable of adjusting deeply held preconceptions of certain basic facts. It takes us, as a nation, into a very dark place.
1182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:39:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley West.
It is an absolute honour for me to stand in the House of Commons today on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.
Earlier this week, on February 14, our federal government declared a public order emergency and invoked the Emergencies Act. This was the first time this act had been used since it was created in 1988. There were clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for the public order emergency to be declared. The act was invoked only after exhausting other options.
The act is time-limited to 30 days. It is geographically targeted. It proposes measures that are reasonable and proportional to the threats it is meant to address, and it does not displace or replace provincial or territorial authorities. The act was invoked after discussions with the cabinet and caucus, after consultations with the premiers from all provinces and territories, and after speaking with opposition leaders. I support this decision.
For almost three weeks now, blockades have been illegally disrupting the lives of Canadians. They have been harming our economy and endangering public safety. The “freedom convoy 2022” has created a critical, urgent, temporary situation that is national in scope and cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The blockades at the ports of entry have disrupted the transportation of crucial medicine, goods, fuel and food to Canadians. They are causing significant adverse effects on Canada's economy, on its relationship with trading partners and on supply chains. These trade disruptions, the increase in criminal activity, the occupation of downtown Ottawa, the lawlessness and the threats of violence, as well as the presence of firearms, constitute a public order emergency. It is an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.
What may have started as a protest by truck drivers against border mandates quickly morphed into a rallying point for anti-vaccination, anti-government, anti-authority and white supremacist groups with demands ranging from an end to all public health restrictions to the overthrow of an elected government.
At occupations and blockades across the country, we have seen harmful racist and violent behaviour, and attempts to minimize or discount the harm done to Canadians. It was also clear that there were serious challenges to, and gaps in, local law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law.
It is clear that extraordinary measures had to be taken to keep Canadians safe, protect people's jobs and restore confidence in our institutions. Canada, at the very core of its existence, is a country that fundamentally believes in, and is governed by, the rule of law. In our blood and in our souls, we believe in peace, order and good government.
Over the last three weeks, we did not see peace and order in specific parts of our nation, and especially here in Ottawa. There was a complete shutdown of key parts of Centretown due to the occupation. It stopped people from going to work, stopped businesses from reopening and stopped people from carrying on with their normal lives.
The first week of the occupation had an unprecedented amount of noise, which caused great distress to all those living in or near the occupied area. It seriously impacted the mental health of nearby Ottawa residents. The mental health of many was already fragile due to the unprecedented pandemic we have all had to live through over the past couple of years.
At the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario, trucker convoys blocked the crossing and stopped trade from moving between the United States and Canada. This is a border point that sees over $400 million in trade per day. Many Canadians were temporarily laid off, and the economies of both countries were impacted. What is worse is that our reputation as a place to do business with ease across our two borders was greatly impacted.
Our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said that the disruptions had shaken Canada's reputation as a place in which to invest and do business. She further said the world was watching us and that our jobs, our prosperity and our livelihoods were endangered, and we would not allow Canada's privileged trading relationship with the United States to be compromised.
Windsor was not the only border crossing that was impacted. We saw trucker blockades in Coutts, Alberta, and in Emerson, Manitoba. The impact economically was $48 million and $73 million in trade each day, respectively. The threat exists for other border crossings across our country.
There were guns found in Coutts, Alberta. Protesters have been charged with conspiracy to commit the murder of police officers, and a large cache of guns and ammunition was seized by the RCMP. All of these actions and threats demanded that our federal government take extraordinary action.
It is important to note that this act does not suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the act was created to flow from and uphold the charter. The act's preamble explicitly states that any measures taken under the act must be compliant with charter rights. The invocation of the act does not limit freedom of speech. It does not limit peaceful assembly, and it does not prevent people from exercising their right to protest legally. We are reinforcing the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free.
The Emergencies Act also provides additional powers to stop the flow of money that has been funding these trucker blockades and occupations. Leaked data has shown that the majority of the donations, over 50%, have been coming from outside of the country, primarily the United States. When police notified GoFundMe that the funds it was collecting were being used for unlawful purposes, the campaign was shut down. Protesters then turned to the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo, which raised almost $11 million.
In order to stop the flow of funds for these illegal blockades and occupations, the Emergencies Act includes four key financial measures. From a press release and announcement that our Deputy Prime Minister made earlier this week, we learned a lot about the details.
The first of those measures is that the act extends the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment processors they use. This change covers all forms of transactions, including digital assets such as cryptocurrencies.
Second, the order directs Canadian banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers to temporarily cease providing financial services when the institution suspects that an account, either personal or corporate, is being used to further the blockades.
Third, the act also enables and directs Canadian financial institutions to review their relationship with anyone involved in the illegal blockades, and to report the assets and related transactions of those involved to the RCMP or to CSIS.
The fourth measure provides federal, provincial and territorial government institutions with new authority to share relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if the information will help put a stop to the funding of illegal blockades and illegal activities. Canadian financial service providers will be able to immediately freeze or suspend the account of an individual or business affiliated with the blockades without a court order.
All of these new requirements and authorities will help mitigate the risks for Canadian financial institutions and crowdfunding platforms to transact illicit funds, increasing the quality and quantity of the intelligence received by FINTRAC in allowing us to stop the flow of funding to these illegal blockades.
It is important to highlight the safeguards, and the parliamentary oversight and accountability measures, that are contained within the act. As was required, the government tabled the declaration of emergency so that the House could debate and decide upon the declaration. The government also tabled the orders, as required, before the House. The oversight this legislation gives us as parliamentarians is important to ensure that it is acting with the law, and I take that responsibility incredibly seriously.
We have seen support from a number of provinces for this action, including from British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario. Our federal government is conscious of the need for transparency and parliamentary oversight as we undertake this action. In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while the emergency measure is in effect. As well, an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency must be initiated once the state of emergency is over.
To conclude, I thank the residents in my riding of Davenport who have called and written to me all this week. I appreciated hearing their thoughts and having them reach out. It is an extraordinary moment in the history of our nation, and this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is absolutely the responsibility of our government and myself as a parliamentarian to make sure that we explain why we need to invoke this public order emergency, and why this Emergencies Act needed to be introduced.
1558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:50:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Davenport, whom I like very much.
From what I understand, she agrees with the principle of using the Emergencies Act, because she agrees with how it is being applied and the rules for enforcing it. However, this is special legislation that is supposed to protect us from arbitrary government. It is to be used only in emergency situations when nothing else can be done.
Does she not think it sets a precedent if she focuses only on the use of the act and not on the criteria for invoking it?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question. The first is if I am satisfied with how it is being used. The truth is that I probably do not know all the ways it is being used right now, but I have a lot of confidence there is going to be an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency. That inquiry has to be initiated once the state of emergency is over.
With respect to setting a precedent, for me what is important is that I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of how we declared this Emergencies Act. I appreciated that it is time and geographically limited, as well as proportional and reasonable to—
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I must ask how someone so irresponsible can be entrusted with such great responsibility.
Our country is more divided than ever before. Over the past two years, we have seen the government divide Canadians for political gain over and over again by pitting one region against the other, pitting east against west, pitting Canadians against each other, eroding trust in our institutions and flouting the rule of law.
The primary responsibility of the Prime Minister is to maintain peace, order and good government. What grade should the Prime Minister get? He gets an F in my book. We do not have peace. We do not have order, and I think all Canadians know the answer to the third question. That is right. It is an F.
The Prime Minister has decided to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time since its inception 34 years ago. This legislation gives the government unprecedented power and control over the lives of Canadians, and it should only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances. It should not be used where existing laws are sufficient.
The threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has simply not been met. It is not even close. This is a clear case of government overreach. So far, the Prime Minister and his ministers cannot even articulate a coherent reason.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation is such that it:
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The Emergencies Act is there to address certain types of extreme threats to Canada only when all other existing options will just not work The act is not there to allow the Prime Minister to arbitrarily, and without reason, curtail the rights of all citizens.
The Prime Minister says that the issues that have arisen over the past three weeks cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Experts disagree, saying that existing Criminal Code provisions are sufficient, and extraordinary powers are an overreach.
Here is an example. The justice minister is justifying the Emergencies Act as needed to compel tow truck drivers to remove illegally parked vehicles, but there is a problem with that. Paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code already gives the police this power. It applies to anyone who:
omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace,
The Criminal Code also already contains other sections that address unlawful assembly, harassment, intimidation and mischief.
Our country has experienced many crises in the last 30 years that were resolved without the need for Emergencies Act overrides. It was not invoked during the 2008 financial crisis. It was not invoked during the Oka crisis in 1990. It was not invoked in the aftermath of the Ottawa shootings that tragically ended the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in 2014. It was not invoked during 9/11. It was not during invoked in 2020, when rail crossings were being blocked across the country for weeks on end, disrupting supply chains, the delivery of goods and livelihoods.
It has not been invoked to deal with the opioid crisis. Most recently, it was not used during the greatest crisis that this country has faced since the Second World War, which is the COVID pandemic. In fact, it was not even used last week to clear the Ambassador Bridge, the Emerson border crossing or, for that matter, any other crossing. The crossings were clearly cleared peacefully, without violence and under existing laws.
Why invoke the Emergencies Act? Why suspend the rights of all Canadians? Sadly, we do not know why. The Prime Minister will not tell us his reason for this historic and unfettered power grab.
It is clear the the Prime Minister has lost of control of this situation and is desperate to save his political skin. Yes, the sunny ways of 2015 have given way to the dark, cloudy haze of 2022. He has lost control, and we should not be surprised in the slightest.
Here is why. When a government reduces sentences for serious offences, as this government has, when a prime minister tries to cut his friends at SNC-Lavalin a special deal to avoid criminal prosecution, when a government abandons the fundamental adherence to the rule of law, when certain politicians call to defund the police and the Prime Minister does not even immediately and strongly repudiate that terrible idea, what happens? What happens is lawlessness, and that is what has happened here. That is right: lawlessness.
Parliament has been surrounded by trucks that have blockaded the streets of Ottawa, cut off the free flow of traffic, made downtown residents' lives miserable, subjected them to honking noises 24-7, shut down businesses and cost people their livelihoods, all because of the weak policies of the Prime Minister.
As we have seen in Coutts, Windsor, Surrey and even in my home province of Manitoba, law enforcement has been able to peacefully clear border protests through negotiations without resorting to any Emergencies Act provisions. In fact, Manitoba and many other provinces are telling the Prime Minister that this step simply is not necessary and may even inflame the situation.
However, the government is insisting on triggering this draconian legislation that dramatically expands the ability of the state to interfere in the private lives of Canadians, a law that includes requiring banks to freeze an individual's bank account without due process.
The fact of the matter is that the governments in the different provinces already have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests. This was confirmed last week when the Minister of Emergency Preparedness actually said that police already had all the tools and resources they needed. Why then, a few days later, invoke the Emergencies Act?
This is a prime minister who thought it was a good idea to take an all-expenses-paid trip to the Aga Khan's island, a prime minister who embarrassed Canada by dancing through India with a known terrorist, a prime minister who paid $10 million to Omar Khadr and who gave his friends at WE Charity a $500-million contract in exchange for $500,000 in speaking fees for his family.
This is a prime minister who has been cited, not once but twice, by the Ethics Commissioner for ethics violations; who tried to pressure the first indigenous Attorney General in our history to cut a special deal for his friends at SNC-Lavalin, to go easy on them because of criminal charges they faced; who pretends to be a feminist while removing strong women of colour from his caucus for simply disagreeing with him; who flew to Tofino for a vacation on the very first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, after spending years pretending to care about reconciliation; who personally mocked indigenous protesters for simply wanting clean drinking water; and who spent years dressing up in blackface, so many times he cannot recall how many times he did it.
Now, just last week, in response to a reasonable question, he shamefully said to the hon. member for Thornhill, who is Jewish, that Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas and people who wave Confederate flags. What an insult to the member, to the Jewish community, to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust, and to the brave Canadians who served in World War II and helped defeat the Nazis.
To make matters worse, he has refused to apologize. Such comments and actions are far, far beneath the office of the Prime Minister.
Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe any illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. However, the actions of the Prime Minister, of invoking the Emergencies Act, could have the exact opposite effect.
The great American poet Maya Angelou wrote, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Canadians should heed this advice.
I ask again, how can someone so irresponsible be entrusted with such great responsibility as the invocation of the Emergencies Act? The answer is simple: They cannot.
1426 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:07:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague something that really builds on the question that was asked of the member for Kingston and the Islands. The member for Kingston and the Islands asked this hon. colleague's colleague about the Emergencies Act. I really hope that this gets through. That is this. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that the Emergencies Act was necessary to use to bring in other police officers.
If we look at the Ontario Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, which I was able to research in about 45 seconds, it says under section 21(1):
In an emergency, the Minister may make an agreement with the Crown in right of Canada, or of another province, or with any of its agencies for the provision of policing.
This would seem to fly directly in the face of the statement from the member for Kingston and the Islands. Could this hon. member please comment on that?
181 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 5:54:50 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 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 6:09:35 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 6:22:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my response to that question is that we have legal provisions and mechanisms and laws sufficient to enable law enforcement officers to deal with all aspects of criminality, all aspects of law enforcement in this country, without the imposition of such a heavy-handed act, which should only be used for national emergencies. This situation is not a national emergency.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:26:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons, especially in this seminal moment in Canadian history. I did not want to do it this way, but I did come back to my riding. I thought it important to understand very clearly what the national emergency was, and I will come to that more in the rest of my intervention.
There are many difficulties with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and to be debating something that has already happened is somewhat counterproductive. However, that will be an important part of the mandatory review of the entire process as we go forward. The two main issues, as I see them, really boil down to how we got here and what the justification is for the Emergencies Act.
There are those here who wish to muddy the waters as to the legal justification for using the Emergencies Act, and I do believe that there are people out there who have that very important skill set. That will form part of the review as well. The question we need to start with is how we got here, and this, in my mind, has been the most dismal display of leadership I have ever seen.
As many in the House have been, I have been a part of sporting teams, committees and leadership positions in the medical community, and I have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. One thing that is very crystal clear is that when we encounter those who do not fully agree with our position or support what we think is important, then that moment in time represents a significant opportunity for dialogue. Also, as a physician, I think the opportunity to discuss options and negotiate with patients presented itself to me on a daily basis, and I will be so crass as to say that this is communications 101.
Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been shocked and appalled with respect to the language used by the Prime Minister when commenting upon those who have been vaccine-hesitant. I have been concerned about vaccine hesitancy since the beginning of the pandemic, and certainly I took the opportunity to review the scientific literature on the topic of vaccine hesitancy. There are innumerable papers, and I have had the opportunity to review them, and there was absolutely no mention of division, stigmatization or name-calling. The language used in these scientific papers would be more along the lines of building relationships, building trust and understanding the other person's position.
Chris Voss, who is a famous FBI negotiator, during one particularly difficult case, spoke through an apartment door for six hours with no response. In the end, the fugitives and the hostages emerged suddenly. The fugitives commented, “you calmed us down.... We finally believed you wouldn't go away, so we just came out.”
I think it is important people know I have been in Ottawa for the last three weeks, since the protests began, and every day I walked to work. I realize, as has been brought forward by others, I am a white man. I understand that. I have never been accosted, accused or threatened. I wear a mask, but sadly, Canadians who do not agree with the Prime Minister have been vilified, stigmatized and called names. Let us keep that in mind.
Even on Wednesday evening just past, I left my office at the corner of Bank and Wellington, and I walked all the way up to the Byward Market during the protest. Indeed, I did not feel unsafe. Nobody even spoke to me. Was this a public order emergency? Certainly, I do believe there are other avenues to deal with this situation, and certainly, as I have mentioned previously, I returned here to Nova Scotia and there is absolutely no public order emergency here. Life is going on as normal, and I think parliamentarians portraying what is going on in Ottawa as a public order emergency are a little misguided.
This isolated issue here in Ottawa does not a national emergency make. I have heard many Liberal colleagues talking about how dangerous or scary—
700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:39:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. He has demonstrated that the government did absolutely nothing, or very little, before declaring an emergency.
This leaves the impression that this emergency declaration is basically an attempt to save face for the government and the Prime Minister, who did absolutely nothing for some 20 days.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:45:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Shefford.
I must confess something: I am exhausted. I am completely exhausted. I am intellectually, physically and mentally exhausted.
It is 6:45 p.m. on a Saturday night. I should be having supper with my wife and children at home, but I am here, in Parliament, discussing legislation regarding a national emergency, when there is no national emergency. It is over. There are no more people in the streets in front of Parliament. The trucks are gone, the people are gone. The crisis is over.
I have no problem with spending hours and nights talking about housing, seniors, health, climate change or any manner of important topics. I would spend my weekends here. I would camp here, with my sleeping bag. I would sleep in Parliament for all those worthwhile issues that are so important to people.
I am searching for the national crisis. Where is it?
We are still looking. We are looking for the national crisis. We keep looking for it, but we cannot find it. The outrageous truth is that there is no crisis.
I would like to commend the police outside. For 24 hours, they have been doing truly incredible work. I am not sure if members have seen them, but step by step, they have been slowly advancing. They had a strategy. That is the crux of the Bloc Québécois's argument. What tools do they have, now that the act has been in effect for the past few days? What more do they have now?
If they were able to do that now, then the government needs to explain to us how the police managed to carry out this strategy that they were unable to implement before.
I was there in 2001 at the Summit of the Americas. The police did roughly the same thing as they did today. They used pepper spray a bit, not too much. They advanced slowly. They managed to get the protesters under control. It went very well. There was no special legislation.
358 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:57:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, whom I am very fond of, is incorrect. All it would take is a court order. Just order the companies to go tow the trucks, and it is done. There is no need for a sledgehammer or a big club like the emergency legislation before us today.
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:08:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked whether anybody had realized that the trucks had been cleared since the emergency measures were invoked.
Did she realize that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared without the emergency measures? Did she not notice that the border in Alberta was cleared without the emergency measures and that weapons were actually seized there? Did she not realize that this means that the emergency measures are not needed to clear this up?
Finally, as the parliamentary secretary for intergovernmental affairs, did she realize that Quebec and seven out of ten provinces did not want this legislation?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:20:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the use of the Emergencies Act, even consideration of it, is an acknowledgement of a failure of leadership that has allowed things to escalate unchecked since the beginning. I am hearing concerns. I too am worried this emergency measures legislation could later be used against those truly participating in peaceful protests. What we are currently facing is not that.
This is an illegal occupation that has been harassing people for weeks. Does the member agree that action should have been taken earlier to avoid us being here today?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:52:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have heard other Bloc Québécois members say this was not an emergency. I disagree.
When occupiers hold Ottawa residents hostage to the point where they are afraid to leave their homes for weeks, that is an emergency situation.
Would my colleague agree that this is an emergency situation and that we need to act now to ensure that it is treated as such?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:12:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this legislation, the Emergencies Act, has been on the books for 34 years and it has never been invoked. The hon. member gave a 20-minute speech but not once did he talk about the legal threshold that must be satisfied, namely that the emergency is a situation that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
Does he honestly believe that the situation in Ottawa met that threshold?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
