44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 3:18:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the member from the opposition party for doing everything in his power to take care of the people in his constituency. I know that we are all in this for the right reasons, even though, most often, we disagree in basic ideologies in this House. I want to thank him for that work.
This act protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I said in my comments, there is no peaceful protest that can get in the way of the rights and freedoms of other Canadians. This was an occupation and an illegal protest.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:19:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can only agree, for the most part, with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
People have the right to protest, but not to occupy. Harassment, economic loss and tragedy are unacceptable. As we agree on the end goal, I have a question for him.
Is this the best way we could find—
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about peaceful protests, and I want to commend the law enforcement we have had over the last number of weeks here in Ottawa. They have been keeping the peace and doing a wonderful job of ending the blockade here this week. Conservatives have been calling for an end to it for a while.
Ottawa knew for days that this protest, the “freedom convoy”, was coming into Ottawa. The mayor knew, the police chief knew and security here in Ottawa knew. They knew for days before they even arrived. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people here for weeks on end without so much as a broken window.
What are the first, second and third things the government could have done before dropping the sledgehammer by invoking this legislation? We are still waiting to hear the answer, so I would like to hear the member's answer on that.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:37:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, I am very thankful that the peace officers at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta were able to intercept what was obviously very destructive elements that embedded themselves within the actual protest organization. Once that was discovered, the whole blockade disbanded because they did not want to be associated with that.
This is a problem wherever we are in the world, and it is not right or left. There are going to be elements that break the law no matter what. We have said all along that these blockades were illegal on their own, but when we throw in a mix of violence that is going to potentially injure our peace officers, they have raised the bar, and it has to be addressed very quickly. It does not matter what side of the spectrum it comes from. Any type of illegal activity that leads to violence will be detrimental to all of us.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question to the member for Mirabel has to do with the discussion he opened his speech with, about precedent. I wonder this. Does he really believe that letting groups protest that want to use violence, intimidation and hate to try to overturn elected governments' decisions is a precedent we could have allowed to go on much longer, without that in itself becoming the dangerous precedent here?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:11:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we were just talking about logic. According to the convoluted logic of the member's question, when there is a protest or when someone does not like the government, regardless of the threat level, the organization involved or the government's inaction, the solution is the worst, most radical option, the very last resort.
We never supported the things that went on in the street. We never downplayed the threat or the importance of all this. That is why, for the last three weeks, we have been putting forward proposals.
I am happy to see that the member has just woken up.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:19:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what do we expect from an acting Leader of the Opposition who saw no problem wearing a MAGA hat, which has been seen as a symbol of white supremacy and Trump's far-right rhetoric, and from a party whose heir apparent to the leadership openly supports what is happening? What is really appalling is how the Conservatives are ignoring what is happening just outside Parliament: the racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynist abuse we have all heard about. When I stay in Ottawa, I am in the downtown, and many people I know have been deeply affected.
Conservative MPs have gone out of their way to encourage this occupation. A Conservative MP did an interview in front of a flag with swastikas on it. They have taken pictures, shaken hands and put thumbs up, and in the House they have gaslighted the country by telling us these are peaceful gatherings. Conservative MPs who have fuelled this occupation rooted in white supremacy, which is targeting citizens and the press and is pursuing the overthrow of our institutions, must be held to account. There must be an inquiry into how we arrived at this place: how this occupation came to pass, who funded it, who fomented it, who failed to act, who passed the buck and what the role of the police was. We cannot ignore this internationally funded, politically organized, far-right attack on our democracy. We cannot allow this to happen again.
It comes down to privilege. This protest is being driven by an agenda, by an ideology and by supporters who believe they are entitled to target our population and our democratic system. The abuse is no accident. The agenda is racist, homophobic and misogynist to begin with.
Freedom is rooted in our democracy. It starts with respect. It is not about the freedom to be racist, homophobic and misogynist. The very idea of freedom has been hijacked and distorted. It has been used by many to support privilege, particularly white privilege. It is the privilege to endanger and harass others and the privilege to impose an alt-right, foreign-funded attack on our democracy.
This cannot be a moment in time when we sit idly by as the far right becomes emboldened. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow fascism to be normalized and legitimized. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow for the police and other institutions to belatedly respond and then carry on to crack down on people peacefully defending their rights, including workers on strike, indigenous peoples defending their lands, Black and racialized communities rising up and climate activists fighting for our survival. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow for the status quo to carry on. This is not the Canada we can be. We can be and we must be a country that practices respect, denounces bigotry, strengthens our democracy and acts on the racial, social, economic and environmental justice we all deserve.
507 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am, not surprisingly, both happy and sad to have the chance to speak in the debate on the confirmation of the use of the Emergencies Act to break the border blockades and lift the siege of the capital.
I am happy to speak, because I think that the situation had reached a crisis point, and the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary to counter a real threat to democracy and the rule of law in Canada. However, I am sad that it has come to this. I am sad, because the Liberals let the situation go on for so long that we reached this crisis point.
It is important to consider how we got to this point. There is enough blame to go around when it comes to the widespread failure to understand that the blockades and the siege of downtown Ottawa and the parliamentary precinct are not protests or exercises in free speech. Instead, the self-described freedom fighters who organized this came prepared to use intimidation, harassment and coercion to get the policy changes that they want. That is not how democracy works; it is not how peaceful protests work, and these tactics have nothing to do with the right to free speech.
We have a rich history of protest in this country, and at times, many of us have been participants in those protests. However, the goal of those protests has always been to change minds and thus bring about change in policy by political means. Their goals have always been to convince governments to change course by making it clear that the political price of failing to do so would be too high.
Blockades and occupations are another thing altogether. None of what has been going on outside of Parliament for three weeks is part of any rich tradition of civil disobedience. Those engaging in civil disobedience do so with a clear understanding that they are taking on any harm to themselves. They accept that it is they themselves who will face harm from the arrests and penalties that result from their law-breaking. They accept that harm to themselves in order to make a strong, moral argument. Instead, those involved in the blockades and the siege seek to inflict harm on others until we all give in to their demands.
Legitimate protests never aim to extort change by intimidation or by deliberately causing harm to others. As the judge in the case resulting in an injunction against around-the-clock sounding of high decibel air horns in Ottawa said, he was not aware that honking was an expression of any great ideas.
I am critical of the Liberals for failing to recognize the nature of the threat that these blockades in Windsor and Coutts and the siege of downtown Ottawa represented. It is hard to understand how this could have been missed, when the organizers clearly stated their intention to force change and even to replace the elected government, when they set up base camps outside downtown Ottawa to ferry supplies to the occupiers downtown or when they organized an attack on 911 services in Ottawa to deny emergency services to residents. This is intimidation. This is extortion.
It is hard to understand how it could go on so long when the evidence of harassment and intimidation of residents and local businesses went on right on the steps of Parliament. We ended up with a situation where, according to most reports, over 50% of businesses downtown were forced to close altogether, and more than 85% had to curtail their activities in order to keep their workers safe. It is bitterly ironic for those businesses that the result of the tactics adopted by those who were arguing that we should open up actually resulted in further closures and heavy losses for local businesses and local workers.
It is hard to understand how the fact was missed that blockades at border crossings in Coutts and Windsor were designed to inflict economic damage severe enough to force change. Workers in factories, including those at GM plants, at a time when we are fighting hard to keep the auto industry alive in Canada, lost shifts as the border blockade interrupted the supply chain.
The ultimate irony is that the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades cost thousands of truckers, for whom the organizers falsely claim to speak, hours and even days stuck in the resulting jams. Once removed, those organizers tried to block the bridge in Windsor once again.
While I do hold the government responsible for letting the situation get out of hand, at the same time I reject the idea that somehow the government or vaccine mandates created division and that division explains the blockades and siege. Yes, there are some truckers involved in these disruptions, but never forget that over 90% of truckers are vaccinated. Never forget how they continued to work through the pandemic before vaccinations were available, at considerable risk to themselves and the health of their families, to protect the rest of us and our economy.
They know, like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, that masks, vaccinations and social distancing are what have brought us as close to escaping this pandemic as we have come so far. They know that social solidarity and standing united behind our health workers saved literally thousands of lives and gave a death rate from COVID less than half that of the United States. They know that only continuing to pull together as a society will get us to the other side.
Yes, people are free to reject science and the unequivocal advice of medical experts. They can choose to do so, but freedom means accepting the consequences for the choices we make. It does not mean we have the right to inflict the consequences of our choices on others. Those who reject the mandates should not be surprised to find restrictions on what they can do due to the risk they pose to others and to our ability as a nation to survive the pandemic.
No doubt as the pandemic drags on we all want to see restrictions lifted, but for the vast majority of Canadians, this should happen only when it is safe to do so. Five new deaths from COVID were recorded yesterday in British Columbia, including yet another on Vancouver Island, where we are still continuing to lose an average of more than one person per day to COVID. Those are families that lose a loved one each and every day. As of yesterday, the number in critical care in B.C. dropped below 1,000, a number that is still far too high, although thankfully it is down considerably. However, even with numbers dropping, our hospitals and health care workers are near the breaking point.
It is this tension resulting from the ongoing pandemic that the organizers of the blockades and siege have exploited for their own ends. Members should make no mistake that the organizers are extremists and anti-democratic in their goals. It is their clear intention to use force, intimidation and for some, as we have seen at the Coutts border crossing, violence to achieve their ends.
In downtown Ottawa we have seen the open display of hate symbols, racism and homophobia. We have seen the intimidation of residents demanding they remove their masks. This happened to me personally more than once, but it has been most often directed at those the occupiers perceive to be weak and vulnerable to such pressure: women, racialized Canadians and members of the 2SLGBTQI community.
Before some say that every protest has its bad apples or that it is only an extremist minority among the protesters, let me point out that the organizers never once condemned things like the display of Nazi flags, nor did they condemn intimidating local residents by demanding they remove their masks, and supporters have argued that there were only a few swastikas flying in the Ottawa occupation, although I personally counted six in three blocks in a single day. Let me repeat the obvious question: How many swastikas are okay? The obvious answer is none.
People say Confederate flags are just symbols of rebellion, and those who argue that may want to stop and think for just a moment about making that argument in this current context. Confederate flags are clearly symbols of racism and the violence associated with anti-Black racism. That is why I support my colleague the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's private member's bill to ban the public display of these ugly symbols of hate, which discourage full participation in Canadian society by some of our citizens.
We have seen invasions of businesses who are enforcing mandates to keep their employees and all of us safe, and now, with more than half the businesses in downtown Ottawa forced to close, there are literally thousands out of work because of those closures. More than 1,500 people who work at the Rideau Centre mall alone have been out of work for three weeks now.
We have seen the physical intimidation of journalists and the use of children as shields. There have been open threats of violence against the Prime Minister, cabinet and us as members of Parliament both on the streets and online. Perhaps most relevant to our debate here about the invocation of emergency powers, we have seen repeated statements from the organizers that they would not leave until the mandates are lifted.
This is why New Democrats are supporting using emergency powers to put an end to what are, in fact, organized attacks on democracy. As we have done for the past three weeks now, New Democrats continue to reject the narrative that Canadians are more divided than ever. The evidence is, frankly, just the opposite.
When I stand to vote on this motion to affirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I will be standing with health care workers, with first responders, with grocery workers, all front-line workers and yes, the vast majority of truckers, but I will also be standing to pledge vigilance to ensure these necessary but extraordinary powers are used only to remove these serious threats to democracy and never to infringe on our rights to protest and dissent.
Again, let me say I am sad it has come to this, but I am proud to stand firmly against the use of intimidation, hatred and violence to overturn our democracy.
1747 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 5:54:09 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 5:56:10 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 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 6:40:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have said it before and I will reiterate it again: It should have never come down to this. The occupiers that have held downtown Ottawa hostage for weeks made it clear that this was their intention from the onset, yet the government did nothing. The member opposite may agree that, instead of showing clear and strong leadership on a path forward, the Prime Minister was missing in action. Now here we are. We have rolled out a red carpet for those who feel it reasonable to overthrow our democratic system. This is an occupation fuelled by hate, disguised as a peaceful protest.
Does the member agree now is the time for action?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:41:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with everything up to the point where she talked about how the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing. That is obviously, patently true. That point is really important. The difficulty here, as I pointed out in my speech, is the question of how we got here. We got here because of this terrible, unbelievably poor leadership and if we did not have that, we would not have had to come here.
I guess I am concerned that perhaps this pathway was as planned out by the Prime Minister as the protest was.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:43:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been very patient and I rarely raise points of order, but something that the member for Cumberland—Colchester said really offends me as a parliamentarian and I am going to give him an opportunity to retract his statement.
He belittled members and fellow parliamentarians who are members of the health committee for their reluctance to exit a committee in the dark during the midst of this protest. Although he has gone on at length to explain how he has been unaffected by these protests and feels quite comfortable with them, clearly residents of Ottawa and other parliamentarians do not.
I am going to give him an opportunity to retract that statement and clarify, for the record, that he would not want to belittle the subjective feelings of fellow parliamentarians and members of this House, how they perceive this protest and what it represents to them.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:44:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the experience of the chair of the committee was different from mine. That did, in fact, happen, so saying that my comments are misleading is inappropriate, because it did happen. Those are the facts, and I think that trying to be factual is a very important thing here. I do not think that is belittling people. That is portraying the facts. People who have not even been out in this protest continue to report what other people have experienced, when I have been out there and colleagues of mine have been out there and experienced it.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:10:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I respect the member opposite, but I am going to take strong disagreement with one point that she and her party have made repeatedly in today's debate, which is that there is no crisis.
I think we are in agreement that the blockades still exist outside the chamber, so in Ottawa there clearly is a problem. We know that on February 14, the declaration was put into force. On February 16, we know that in Windsor, there was an attempted resurrection of the blockade, which was thwarted successfully, which was great, but reports are showing that even today the Surrey border is again being closed on account of blockades. Clearly, the protest continues and the problem has not been resolved.
Does the member opposite agree that indeed these tools are required in order to address what is clearly a national problem that must be regulated in order to ensure that the economic security, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of our borders are not compromised by unlawful and illegal blockades?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her important question.
As politicians, we definitely needed to listen to the different voices that were heard loud and clear during the protest. This was not about commenting, taking sides or taking a stand. Our goal was to bring the various parties together.
My colleague talked about the lessons we can learn from all of this. What we need to remember is that we need to listen, but more importantly, that we need to bring everyone together, for example, through the all-party committee we talked a lot about.
We could have brought many people together, held—
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:15:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thought that we lived in a democracy in Canada, but in a democracy, the government cannot suspend people's rights, freeze people's assets or seize their bank accounts just because they disagree with them. That is what we are seeing today. That is what we are seeing with the application of the Emergencies Act.
That is why, when we vote on this on Monday night, I will be opposing this completely unwarranted infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and I will do so for three reasons.
The first is the government failed to understand why this is happening. The second is the government failed to know what to do about it. The third is, most importantly, the government has absolutely failed to provide any legitimate justification for this unprecedented overreach.
I will start with the last reason, because we need to talk about what is required to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. Using the Emergencies Act demands a true threat to national security, such as the threat of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective, or the overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
We have the government arguing to invoke legislation that is designed for things like a foreign invasion, a civil war or a terrorist attack. I ask, is this a civil war? Is it a terrorist attack? Is it a foreign invasion? It would be very difficult for anyone to argue that it is any of those things.
It is also required under the act that something needs to seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. Notice the importance of the word “and”. It would require that all of those things, the sovereignty of this country, its security and its territorial integrity, to be threatened, and the Government of Canada to feel that its ability to preserve those things would be impossible without its use.
Can it really be argued that our territorial integrity and sovereignty as a country are at risk here? Again, we are not talking about a foreign invasion or a terrorist attack. We are talking about illegal acts that are happening. People are blocking streets and roadways, and that is clearly illegal. It needs to end, but it does not constitute the need for the use of the Emergencies Act.
One of the things we can do to look at the reasons why this is not justified is to look at some of the other examples of situations where this act has not been warranted and has not been applied. I have heard lots of talk about disruption of daily life in Ottawa. I have heard lots of talk about potential threats of violence. That has been littered throughout a lot of the speeches that we have from Liberal and NDP members to try to justify their voting for the use of this act.
If we use that as the barometer, think about the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto. In that instance, we had 10,000 protesters. We had police cars that were flipped over and set on fire. We had millions of dollars of damage to local businesses and we 97 police officers were injured. Despite all of that, the use of the Emergencies Act was not warranted. I am not arguing that it should have been. There are other ways to deal with situations like that. The Emergencies Act was not used in that situation, so the arguments that we are hearing about these disruptions of daily life and things like that are pretty flimsy.
Think about 9/11, in 2001. That is the very definition of terrorism. Air space was restricted. All flights in and out were cancelled. There was fear. I remember people saying things to me like, “Is this the beginning of the third world war?” and “Is this the end of the world as we know it?” Those were the kinds of feelings that people had at the time. I hear lots of people talking about being afraid of this situation, but it certainly does not compare with the fear that many felt then. I am not suggesting that the Emergencies Act was needed at that time either, but it tells us that it is probably not required in the situation that we are in today.
I have heard lots of arguments on the effects on the economy and critical infrastructure being blocked, things like rail lines, highways, border crossings and so on. I think the best comparison, looking at that kind of a situation, is when there were very similar types of blockades going on two years ago, pipelines and railway blockades that were going on across the country. Those went on for a few weeks at that time as well. All of those same arguments that are being made now, to justify the use of this act, could have been made had the decision been to use the Emergencies Act then. Again, I am not suggesting that it should have been used.
At that time, the Prime Minister said that we are a country that recognizes the right to protest, and we will ensure that everything is done to resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes. His aboriginal affairs minister at the time said we needed to ensure that we get to a peaceful solution that involved dialogue. I do not hear any discussion of trying to find a way to do that, to have a peaceful solution, to find dialogue. I actually believe that in this case, had there been some sort of dialogue with the folks who came with concerns to Ottawa, had there been some way to address those concerns, we probably would have seen this come to a very quick resolution. If I have time, I hope to speak to that in a moment or two.
I want to also raise an issue. There are many speeches I heard today and otherwise that claimed there is some threat to Parliament and, therefore, to our democracy. Yes, there is proximity to the Parliament. I have not seen anyone try to storm into the Parliament buildings. I have not seen any of those kinds of actions take place. They are here to make a point and, yes, there is an illegal nature to what has been going on. I absolutely make it very clear that I do not condone illegal acts, whatever the point that someone is trying to make.
It was in 2014 when Corporal Nathan Cirillo was killed at our National War Memorial by an armed attacker who then stormed our Parliament. Nobody suggested using the Emergencies Act at that time either. I am not suggesting that should have done at that time, but that was a far bigger threat to our Parliament and to our democracy than what we are seeing today.
We have a government that really fails to understand why this is all happening. It has its reasons as to why it is happening. Why it is happening is because people are sick and tired. They are frustrated. They do not see the justification for some of the things that the government is doing. We can debate all we want whether it is appropriate to engage in illegal acts. It clearly is not, in order to make that point.
There are many people in this country. Many people supported the convoys and the blockades, and they may have given $50. They are tired of lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. Is it really fair to argue that someone who had no idea that there would be any kind of illegal activity taking place should have their bank account seized or their assets frozen because they gave 50 bucks, mostly because they are just tired of COVID restrictions?
The government does not have a right to make decisions like this just because it disagrees with someone's point of view. The government failed to act on it when it could have. We gave it the an opportunity to end mandates or, at least, bring forward a plan to end all the federal mandates and restrictions. Had it done that, it would have been following in the footsteps of many provinces and many other countries. It would have been following the science and evidence, and what it shows.
The government chose not to do that. Instead, it has caused more fear and more division in this country. People are afraid. I have heard from many people who are scared because they gave maybe $50 or $100 to some of these efforts. The government is refusing to tell those people whether their bank accounts will be seized. That causes fear. That causes division, and that causes disunity. The government should be ashamed of itself for taking this step. I will be opposing it all the way.
1497 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us talk about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Prime Minister's statements in 2020 compared with his statements now. They are very similar types of situations. Blockades were happening that were going on for weeks. They were across the country and were blocking critical infrastructure. These are all the arguments we are hearing today for why this act is required. The Prime Minister, at that time, said that we should “resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes”.
We offered an opportunity to the government. We could have had a constructive outcome by ending the federal mandates and restrictions in order to make sure that the many other Canadians who feel the same concerns but are not part of any kind of illegal protest could see the end of them as well. That would have been the opportunity to have a constructive outcome. This is hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is full of it.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
