44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:44:17 a.m.
- Watch
When these MPs took photos with protesters who were holding flags emblazoned with racist and hate-fuelled symbols, they claimed they had done it inadvertently or, even worse, that there were no such flags there. These members deliberately and egregiously denied and minimized their actions, all while tweeting support for the protest and lending credibility to the organizers and their dangerous plans.
I could give many more examples of all of the deception being used to sow division. We are well aware that some members in this House are masters of partisan tactics. Their strategy is to divide Canadians in hopes of profiting off of that division. These members should be ashamed of themselves. They are prepared to put our security, our economy and our democracy at risk to further their own partisan ends and advance their political careers, or even simply to get an interview on Fox News.
Again, I agree with our government that the blockades by both persons and vehicles at various locations throughout Canada represent a state of emergency. These blockades have a direct connection to activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada.
I agree that these blockades are having adverse effects on the Canadian economy. Canada's economic security is threatened by the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings. These blockades have broken down distribution chains and are hurting Canada's relationship with its trading partners, in particular the United States.
In response to this state of emergency, our government, with the utmost caution, invoked the Emergencies Act. Canadians across the country can have confidence in the fundamental principles of our beautiful country of Canada: “peace, order and good government”.
314 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:24:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is discomforting to stand here today. It is a sad and dark time for our country. Unfortunately, this does not overstate current events.
I have watched with concern the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and key border crossings in Ontario and other provinces. Never before has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has sat on the shelf during some quite challenging moments in our country.
Viewed as a last resort, this act gives the federal government enhanced powers in times of crisis. Its justification and intricacies of procedures are being worked through the House for the first time. There is no precedent. Instead, we are making precedent. The arguments we make, the evidence we evaluate and the tone we take will be judged by future generations.
Everyone has the right to peacefully protest any government policies. This is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by everyone. While these protests are a fundamental part of democracy, so too is the rule of law. We cannot allow prolonged blockades or barriers that paralyze trade corridors, pipelines, railways, supply routes, ports or urban cores at any time. We are not at liberty to decide which laws should apply in some situations but not others.
In a rule-of-law country, consistency matters. It is the foundation upon which legal precedent is built. People who join protests to encourage violence or the overthrow of government undermine democracy, but let us be very clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is looking to overthrow the government. Many are looking just to be heard, peacefully. To them I say that we hear them. I hear them.
Somewhere along the way, we entered a state of lawlessness, but the answer to lawlessness cannot be more lawlessness. The government is asking us to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking others. We are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see democracy itself undermined.
The threshold for invoking the act is supposed to be high, and quite rightly. This is a temporary law that will give the government awesome and extraordinary powers: powers to freeze assets with no recourse, and to compel citizens to act contrary to their own interests in favour of the state's.
In the House, just days ago, the Prime Minister presented a timeline. He held a cabinet meeting on Sunday and a caucus meeting on Monday, followed by a meeting with premiers and finally a press conference on Monday afternoon. Why did it take days for the Prime Minister to address the House, and what evidence has he presented?
It is difficult to determine whether the government is justified without adequate information. There were no briefings. No secret intelligence has been shared. Whether it is incompetence or malfeasance is truly regrettable.
Why was the committee not struck immediately? Is there evidence pointing to significantly compromised public safety or impending danger? Should that not have been made immediately available to members, or at least a subset representing all parties? If we wanted to take the politics out of this, information would have been made immediately available. Otherwise, a conclusion might be that this was politics.
Why do ministers of the Crown opt first to give details to media before the House? Ministers have held press conferences and conducted interviews implying that terrorists are at the steps of Parliament, but have offered the House no evidence. Is it then surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our public institutions? Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister and the government have shown the House and institution little respect.
After all, at the beginning of the pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without the oversight of Parliament. The same government prorogued Parliament to frustrate a committee investigation. To this day, we still have not seen the Winnipeg lab documents that members of the House have asked the government to provide. Forgive me for being skeptical that this move is justified without seeing the evidence.
We must not understate the impact of the ability for individuals to have their bank accounts frozen. This will not just be a 30-day impact. It could affect their ability to receive financial services for 30 years or more. Individuals whose relationship with the state has already been strained, if not completely severed, will be further ostracized from broader society.
This power must be used sparingly, if at all, and the government has provided very little detail on how it intends to use this power. For example, what is the process through which individuals will be identified? Will these powers be confined to protest organizers, or will they apply to anyone who has shown up to Parliament Hill or donated to the cause, no matter how large or small the amount? What recourse, if any, do individuals have against financial institutions if these powers have been mistakenly or unevenly applied?
These powers are not merely incidental. They should not be dismissed, downplayed or underestimated. I approach every decision with an open mind, but the consequences for individuals are too great, and the precedent this sets is too monumental to waive away legitimate questions or concerns. We are setting a dangerous precedent.
We should be very careful before we use the awesome power of the state. That this moment is the seminal moment upon which we would decide to invoke a never-before-used act seems disproportional, when there are other actions that the government could have taken.
We should be very careful about normalizing the use of a blunt tool in circumstances such as these. If we must consider using the Emergencies Act every time there's a protest that lasts over a certain period of time, we have much bigger problems. In many ways, that the government has resorted to invoking this act is an indictment of its overall handling of the situation.
I am therefore left with no reason but to impress upon my colleagues that the threshold has not been met, and as a matter of law, If I am wrong, the threshold has been seen to be met by a court that the government is not justified in its use of the act.
While the Emergencies Act is the question before the House today, we should reflect on what has led us here and the lessons we may draw for the future. The hallmark of any democracy is the ability to have reasonable debates with each other about how society functions, but somewhere along the way, we have lost the ability to listen to each other or to consider the perspectives of our neighbours. We are too quick to call something black or white and too quick to demand that each other pick a side. Pro or against, right or left, we leave little room for nuance, reflection or compromise anymore. It should be okay to disagree.
I am sympathetic to those who are frustrated with the pandemic and the government's response. Many of us are frustrated. We are frustrated with overly punitive travel restrictions and redundant and confusing testing requirements, and we are worried about losing livelihoods because of making a medical decision.
We have seen rules that seem more often grounded in politics than in science. This has left deep divisions in society that will take some time to heal. It has been a long two years, and there are no clean hands in this battle of rhetoric.
It is therefore up to all of us to be part of the solution. I am left to consider whether I could have been quicker to call out abhorrent behaviour, or how I could have shown greater empathy to my neighbours. What can I do now to be a positive actor inside and outside of the House?
The tone must start from the top. The Prime Minister must be hopeful, because Canadians need to see a hopeful way ahead. Continued hyperpoliticization will only make the situation worse. It is not leadership when a prime minister discounts and dismisses the views of millions of Canadians with whom he disagrees. It stigmatizes, sows division and escalates.
We must show empathy over judgment, promote dialogue over silence and prefer persuasion over coercion. We must be looking for opportunities to de-escalate. We need to bring people closer instead of pushing them further away.
Great leaders possess the capability of self-reflection. We must acknowledge the possibility that people descended on our nation's capital, or crowded overpasses across the country, in part because of their frustration with being demeaned and marginalized for political gain. It suggests that self-reflection is required.
In 2013, the Prime Minister, as the leader of the opposition, said, “The role of the prime minister is to build a stronger country, not make it easier to break apart.” This is a time for leadership. This is the prime minister I would like to see show up for work. Canadians are depending on him.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:50:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question because it gives me the opportunity to share what the government has done since the very beginning. We have been in touch with our municipal and provincial partners.
Since we are talking about democracy, I need to share a story with the House. Before entering federal politics, I was a provincial member of Parliament. Every single Thursday, a Canadian of Asian descent went to the grounds of Queen's Park to recite all day long, in a language that I did not understand, his thoughts about the world. As a Canadian, I was proud to listen. I know that in other countries people do not have a chance to do this, and what we have seen here is not a peaceful protest.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:54:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am, with mixed emotion, rising this morning to participate in the debate currently in the House. I say that because I have had many, many constituents of mine reach out to me about the troubling situation that was occurring here in their nation's capital. They were concerned about what was happening to the people living here in Ottawa, from the far distance of Prince Edward Island. However, they were also concerned about the tone of the dialogue that was occurring around the situation. Those constituents asked me why governments, in the plural, were allowing this to occur, why government could not take action.
In standing here today and listening to a lot of the debate, I note the discussion has been around protests. I have been in public life a long time. I have been the focus of many protests. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you may have had a few as a provincial politician. Let us not gloss over what was happening here in the streets of Ottawa and call it a protest, which all politicians and parliamentarians have faced over the years. People have the right to protest. They have the right to peaceful protest. As I indicated, I have been the focus of a number of them. I fully respect the right of citizens to protest and express their displeasure with the actions of government at any time. However, we have to do it in a peaceful format. We have to do it with respect.
Let us be clear. What we have witnessed here in Ottawa is not a protest. Let us call it what it is: It is an unlawful occupation. It was meant to intimidate people and it was meant to intimidate parliamentarians.
Anybody who wants to take the time to educate and familiarize themselves with the objectives of the leadership of this group should take pause for concern and reflection. That is what has been so disheartening about watching this over the last three weeks. What was disguised as a trucker's protest was hijacked by individuals with ulterior motives. They are available for anybody to see. This cannot be tolerated by any government or any parliamentarian. No individual or group of individuals have the right to so blatantly trample the rights of other individuals, as we have witnessed here in Ottawa over the past several weeks.
It is fundamental that government protect the rights of all individuals, but to participate in an unlawful occupation chanting “freedom”, while at the same time having such a blatant disregard for the freedoms and the mental stability and well-being of our fellow citizens, is just wrong. We can look at the interviews with people here in Ottawa. People with disabilities have been traumatized, forced to stay in their own homes. They cannot get out as they are scared. That is not the peaceful protest that this country promotes and endorses. That is, as we have called it, an unlawful protest. We cannot diminish the significance of the difference between the protests that have occurred across this country and those that were intent on overthrowing a government. Anybody who wants to can take the time to look at the objectives of the organizers of this group, what they are doing, who was supporting them and who was funding them. All parliamentarians should be concerned.
The government took the action required to bring this unlawful occupation under control. I want to acknowledge and commend the men and women serving in uniform who are ensuring the laws of this country are being upheld. What we are witnessing is the removal of an unlawful occupation by a professional police force in a democratic country. That is what is occurring on the streets of Ottawa today: a professional police force operating under the rule of law in a democratic country. That is why we elect Parliament and that is why we elect government. It is to give the authorities and legal tools necessary to ensure no individuals' rights are trampled on by a few championing that they are there to protect their freedoms.
This debate will go on for a number of days, and it is interesting to listen to the various perspectives. I have been here for the last three weeks and I have watched it. In fact, I have witnessed some of the hate myself. When I was walking with my parliamentary assistant, he was told by a protester to go back to where he came from because he is brown. It was said in a very racist and harassing tone. My assistant has the same rights that I do because he is Canadian. We have to ensure that Parliament does not succumb to the hate that gets displayed by a few. We cannot champion it. Even by association, we cannot allow it to be legitimized as being right.
That is why I am speaking today. The people I represent in Egmont make up a community that embraces respect, and they support one another. It is a population that is proud of Canada and supports the unity of this country.
Something that has disturbed me over the last several weeks comes from watching one party. It was interesting. The combined failed leadership of the Conservative Party united with the interim leader of the Conservative Party, who united with the aspiring future leader of the Conservative Party, who by association was attempting to legitimize this unlawful protest. It was disturbing that the failed combined leadership of the Conservative Party, with the present leadership and the aspiring future leadership, by association, was attempting to legitimize this unlawful occupation.
As a parliamentarian, I will always stand for the rule of law. I will always support legislation that protects the rights of individuals and does not allow any individual to claim their right to participate in an unlawful occupation while trampling over the rights of other individuals.
990 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:05:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was very specific. I referenced the leadership of this unlawful protest, not the combination of people on the street.
I voted against the motion by the Conservative Party because I will not support motions that are, and this may be unparliamentary, hypocritical. I am saying that because the majority of the mandates have been put in place by the provincial governments.
Let me clear for the record. I support the mandates and the measures taken by the Government of Prince Edward Island under the leadership of Premier King. I did not have the benefit of the medical advice that he was given, but I assume he acted on that advice in the best interest of Islanders.
That is why it will be in conjunction with provincial governments that these mandates will be eased.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:25:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I have no sympathy for what has been happening on Ottawa streets for the past three weeks. Fortunately, after 22 days of siege, the crisis may be over. As we speak, the police are dispersing and arresting the occupiers.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank all the police forces for their courage, patience and professionalism. We have our fingers crossed, but we may well have avoided the worst. Let us be honest: We feared the worst, and the worst is still possible.
Since the beginning of the siege, the Bloc Québécois has recognized the right to protest, but not the right to occupy, to intimidate, to engage in hate speech, and so on. As I said, I have no sympathy for what has been happening for three weeks on the streets of Ottawa. However, my lack of sympathy should not colour my judgment when it comes to the use of the Emergencies Act. That is the national crisis. What is happening outside is extremely serious, but the police are dealing with it thanks to their well-coordinated efforts, not the federal government.
The national crisis is that, for the first time in history, the Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used since being enacted in 1988, 34 years ago. This legislation limits fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of association and freedom of movement. It allows the federal government to intervene in Quebec territory, as well as in Quebec infrastructure, such as hospitals, dams and vaccination centres. It goes against the will of the Quebec National Assembly, which is unanimously opposed to its application in Quebec. It allows the government “to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. The Prime Minister has claimed the right to take inappropriate measures. As parliamentarians, we must determine whether he has truly been able to justify taking these measures.
The Prime Minister is making a historic mistake by invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time ever. I repeat: This is the first time in history it has been invoked. That is why the Prime Minister's decision has two effects that will mark the future: trivializing and setting a benchmark. I say trivializing because he is using this act, even though he has not demonstrated that it meets the necessary emergency criteria at all. It is written in black and white that the Emergencies Act must only be invoked if the government is facing a national crisis that threatens its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity. That is serious. It almost describes a state of war. As we know, this legislation is an updated version of the old War Measures Act.
However, the crisis in Ottawa is not national. It is confined to downtown Ottawa and the neighbouring cities, such as Gatineau. Yes, there are other demonstrations in Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario, and there was even a flash in the pan in Quebec City, but everything was resolved by law enforcement with the tools they already had. The simple truth is that every time governments and police forces have worked properly, in co‑operation, they have prevailed. We are crossing our fingers, but the same scenario seems to be playing out in Ottawa. Each jurisdiction already seems to have all the tools to intervene.
Dialogue is impossible when, upon seeing a convoy of protesters arriving in the federal capital and setting up in front of the federal Parliament to oppose a federal policy and call out the Prime Minister, the federal government spends three weeks saying it is the city's problem.
Moreover, Canada's territorial integrity is not under threat. What is happening is extremely reprehensible, but it is not an invasion.
Furthermore, there is no threat to Canadian sovereignty. Once again, we have our fingers crossed, but the police seem to have the situation under control.
What has been missing for the past three weeks is that the federal government should have been at the helm, carefully managing the crisis. Now it is embarrassing to see the government claiming that it had no choice but to resort to emergency measures. Over the past three weeks, we have watched the occupiers of the capital of a G7 country set up a hot tub, saunas, bouncy castles and street hockey games. Everyone who is present here has seen it first-hand.
Who in the House can seriously claim that every possible effort had been made to resolve this crisis? Does anyone really believe that?
That is why the Prime Minister is normalizing the use of the Emergencies Act. He is setting the precedent that the criteria to be met to use this legislation are discretionary.
He is setting the precedent that it is acceptable to use this legislation without the consensus of the House and maybe even without a majority. He is setting the precedent that it is acceptable to use it against the will of Quebec and most of the provinces. He is setting the precedent that the federal government can essentially use this legislation to say that it did something after three weeks of inaction.
The Prime Minister is using the Emergencies Act in an arbitrary and divisive way for purely political reasons. This normalizing will be used as a benchmark for every successive prime minister. The Prime Minister is charting a course for every future government. In the future, every political player who faces a crisis will look at how the Prime Minister of Canada invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022. They will all look at his decision and see that the bar for invoking the emergency measures is not as high as the legislation suggests.
Political posturing and pressure in times of crisis threaten to again lower the bar a little bit more, always just a little bit more. This will serve as a precedent for all future governments for assessing things like the funding of environmental movements; grassroots campaigns against climate change; student protests; tense labour disputes; protests on civil rights, self-determination or racism; or highly charged debates, such as a nation aspiring to independence. It will serve as the benchmark.
That is why we must be prudent. That is why we must conduct ourselves as statesmen and stateswomen and rise above the fray. We must consider the consequences of our decisions on more than just the situation right under our noses. We must foresee the long-term consequences and think several steps ahead. We must separate our opinions from the legislative decision, the immediate political situation from the legislative decision. As politicians, that is the only way to respect the contract between citizens and the state.
We cannot control the future. I do not know who will be governing the country in 10 years. I am optimistic enough to hope that all future prime ministers will be careful, compassionate, discerning and aware of the impact of every decision they make. However, I have no guarantee of this. I am profoundly disturbed that the political significance of a last-resort emergency measure, a nuclear option, is being downplayed today and for all time.
As I have said before, I have no sympathy for what has been going on in Ottawa in the last three weeks, but that does not matter. I am opposed to the use of the Emergencies Act, despite what I have seen with my own eyes every day while coming to work. In the House, I am the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Every morning, I remind myself who I work for. I work for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. I will not support a reckless decision that could one day impact the rights of my constituents in Lac-Saint-Jean and all Quebeckers. I cannot trivialize invoking the Emergencies Act. I cannot carelessly chart this path for all future governments to walk on.
Frankly, I cannot be absolutely certain that the Prime Minister did not let his disdain for the occupiers influence his decision. I also cannot be certain that he was not influenced by the immediate political situation to make a decision that feels good today but will feel terrible tomorrow. I am not absolutely certain that he fully comprehends the impact of the legacy he will leave. I am also not absolutely certain that the NDP did not rush to support the decision in part because it too lacks sympathy for what has gone on in the streets of Ottawa. I am not certain that the NDP was not distracted by the immediate political situation, leading it to forget how important it is to protect rights and freedoms in the long term. The NDP seems to be thinking about what legacy it will leave today. That is good news.
We must remember the occupation of Ottawa as the crisis that led to proactive co-operation among governments and police forces. It must not be remembered as a crisis that normalized and set a precedent for the use of the Emergencies Act.
Let us make the right decision for the future of a healthy democracy, for the future of the social contract and for the future of the people we have the honour of representing.
1557 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:37:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when one is Prime Minister, one must listen to everyone who expresses an opinion anywhere in the country. I imagine that is part of the job. The main thing was that the Prime Minister needed to take action on day one of the protests.
I understand my hon. colleague's question, and I thank him for it, but if certain members of the Conservative caucus had not exacerbated the crisis, we might not be where we are today. The fact is, some Conservatives had photos taken with the protesters. They said that we should listen to them and encouraged them to hold the line.
Here is what happened. Lack of leadership on the Liberal side and encouragement on the Conservative side brought us to where we are now, here in the House debating an act that should not be invoked for this kind of protest.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:04:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is also incumbent upon us to tell our citizens what the Emergencies Act does and what it does not do. First of all, it is not the War Measures Act. I know that some members have tried to make a subtle link to that. Some have been less subtle, but it is not the War Measures Act. Second, the Emergencies Act does not suspend charter rights. Here we go back to charter rights. It is important that we tell citizens that the act is not suspending charter rights.
Third, the act does not give the federal government control of local police. Fourth, it does not take away the right of lawful protest. What does it do? It gives FINTRAC the ability to stop the flow of financial support, much of it coming from other countries, south of the border more specifically. That is an important power. FINTRAC still has to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the Emergencies Act does not suspend the charter.
I will stop there and add some points through the answers I will give.
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:54:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn for his interventions today. I have worked very closely with him on getting supports for the people of Afghanistan.
He talked about this as if it is a trucker protest in Ottawa. It is an occupation in Ottawa, but as an Albertan, surely he recognizes that an armed militia was discovered in Alberta that threatened the RCMP and displayed images of white supremacy and racism. It is not just in Ottawa; it is a national issue.
If that is not a reason for the Emergencies Act, what is?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:09:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
I am against invoking the Emergencies Act.
I commend the work of the police officers, who have shown remarkable composure and professionalism. I hope this illegal occupation will end without violence.
Many protesters have made the reasonable choice to leave. However, a fractious group is still refusing to go home. It is possible they are extremists. They are the ones who came to occupy, not to protest. It is to be expected that they will be difficult to remove, but none of this justifies using the Emergencies Act.
To invoke and enforce the act, two things must first be demonstrated. First, that there is a dangerous and urgent situation. Second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation under existing laws. I do not believe this to be the case.
Faced with such a situation, I think it is important to distinguish between an exception, in other words, something that only occurs once and will not reoccur, and a precedent, which is something that is expected to happen again. I do not think we should make a precedent out of an exceptional situation.
I personally believe that invoking the Emergencies Act is the direct result of a terrible lack of vision and leadership. With that in mind, the question that remains is this: How did we get to where we are today?
We all knew that the truckers were coming. We all knew that, once they were here, it would be difficult to remove them. Did all of us really know that? No. The Prime Minister said that the right to protest was important, and I agree. I also agree that everyone should be able to express themselves freely. That was before the protest became an occupation.
Throughout the first week of the occupation, the Prime Minister was quick to lecture us, saying that he could not direct the police, that the police had to submit their requests and that it was the police's job to control the situation. That is why the police chief asked for 1,800 additional officers, but he got only a few dozen. That is when the occupation became really entrenched. Was it a lack of vision on the part of the Prime Minister, carelessness, flippancy or a lack of leadership? Who knows.
To understand the situation—and I propose that we discuss it in order to explain it—it is worth noting that this ill-advised decision is a logical extension of previous decisions, which were all equally clumsy.
The current Liberal government was elected in 2015 on promises for a better future, one where transparency would be a priority and where Canada would reclaim its place on the international stage. That was in 2015, and the Liberals were saying that Canada was back.
It was definitely a breath of fresh air and there was hope for better days. The Prime Minister met with world leaders and graced the front pages of celebrity magazines. The whole world admired his youthful good looks and colourful socks.
Hope appealed to Canadians, but all was not well. In January 2017, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner began an investigation into the Trudeau family's vacation on the Aga Khan's private island, and that investigation resulted in a reprimand from the commissioner.
It was the first time a prime minister had been reprimanded by a Conflict of Interest and Ethics commissioner. The first Trudeau report, because there would be others, was shameful for a prime minister—
605 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:05:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I see the member is following the lead of the interim leader by saying that this is all about encouraging the protest and the illegal blockades. It is about putting it on the shoulders of the Prime Minister. Character assassination is what we have been hearing today coming from the opposition benches. While Canadians are concerned about the economic costs, the costs to our communities, the shutdown in Ottawa and what is happening in blockades, the Conservatives continue to use character assassination inside the chamber to pass blame on an individual.
My question to the member is this. Will he not recognize that the sense of urgency is there? Even the interim chief in Ottawa is using the legislation that we are debating today. An emergency has been declared by the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario. The opposition needs to get on the right page.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's significant debate.
After what we all witnessed on the streets of our capital yesterday, I feel compelled to say we each have a solemn obligation and responsibility to steer clear of excessive partisanship and rhetoric today. What we saw in our national capital should serve as a sober reminder of our solemn obligation to prove resolute in exercising our responsibilities and vigilant in safeguarding the interests of all Canadians. I firmly believe we must each endeavour to steer clear of division and resort to the principles that guide us in our decision with respect to the specific motion at hand. After all, at times such as this, Canadians are entitled to nothing less from their elected officials.
The facts before us are not in dispute. Today marks the 23rd day of the blockade and occupation in Ottawa. Apart from entrenched encampments in Ottawa, we have witnessed weeks of protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. Each of these developments has represented a deliberate and concerted effort to stifle our commercial lifelines or to impede the flow of civic life.
Our democratic right to protest or freely express our views is one thing. A blockade, an entrenched occupation and a permanent gridlock are quite another. Let me say firmly and equivocally that it does not matter what an occupation is about. That is not what the motion before us is about. A protest is generally understood to be time-limited and should never be allowed to devolve into an indeterminate occupation that completely ignores the rights of others. Our government has listened and should always listen to the concerns of all Canadians.
Allow me to talk about the significance of the rule of law. We are blessed as a country and have served as a beacon to people around the world because of our unconditional adherence to the rule of law. That is exactly why I arrived here as a teenager with my family. We were fleeing hateful ideology and extremism of a revolutionary government that had no regard for individual rights or the rule of law. The rule of law is at the core and the very foundation of who we are. The rule of law stands for the proposition that every person is subject to the law and must be held accountable for their actions. That is why none of us should turn a blind eye to what has been unfolding across our country or in our nation's capital in the last several weeks.
Surely, members know that residents of Ottawa have been subjected to sonic assaults for weeks. We cannot overlook that many felt compelled to form citizen brigades against what was occurring here. We cannot remain indifferent to what we are hearing from the residents of Ottawa. Members of the House are also surely aware that hundreds of small businesses, many of which were frequented by members of the House, have felt compelled to remain closed for the past three weeks. Surely we are better than that. We know that some of the protesters were jamming 911 lines in the last several days.
Canadians rightly expect our government to demonstrate resolve in the face of what we have experienced across our country. The only responsible course of action was to invoke the Emergencies Act. We have been in contact with all levels of government and have consistently heard, whether from the chief of police of Ottawa, the mayor of Ottawa or the Premier of Ontario, that the city of Ottawa is under siege, entirely overwhelmed and lacking the resources and tools to deal with the situation at hand. Let me remind every member of the House that a state of emergency was declared by the City of Ottawa on February 6, by the Province of Ontario on February 11 and by the federal government on February 14.
The Emergencies Act spells out a clear process. Despite much of what we have heard today, the act is time-limited and targeted, and must at all times be applied in a reasonable and proportionate fashion. That does not limit anyone's freedom of expression, neither does it limit the freedom of peaceful assembly. The act is replete with specific checks and balances. The legislation, as adopted in 1988, is circumscribed with layers of built-in protection to ensure that our charter rights are fully safeguarded at all times.
The Progressive Conservative government that introduced the Emergencies Act in 1988 ensured that the invocation of the act be done in a charter-compliant fashion. We have heard a lot from members opposite that the facts do not justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act. If the backdrop of developments in Windsor, Coutts and Ottawa has not persuaded the hon. members, nor what we have heard from residents, the police chief, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario, they should consider the following: Let me assure them that the act requires not only a sober assessment of what has happened, but a consideration of possible threats on the horizon.
When Perrin Beatty, a minister of the Conservative government, was asked in committee what justification was required to invoke the Emergencies Act, back in 1988 this is what Mr. Beatty, a Conservative minister, had to say: “It depends not only on an assessment of the current facts of the situation, but even more on judgments about the direction events are in danger of moving and about how quickly the situation could deteriorate.” Mr. Beatty further added, “Judgments have to be made not just about what has happened, or is happening, but also what might happen.”
When the measures were invoked by our government, it was clearly stated that the situation across our country was concerning, volatile and unpredictable. I dare say not a single person in this chamber could possibly take issue with that assessment, so I would ask members of the House not only to refuse to turn a blind eye to what we have seen, but to not prove deaf to the assessment of the Ottawa chief of police, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario. As passionate as we can each be, we do not have licence to allow our judgments to substitute for what we have overwhelmingly heard from public safety officials and national security experts over the course of the last several days. It is imperative that we actually consider this thing and that we look beyond this chamber to determine whether this has been justified.
1110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, those were interesting comments. I would like to compare and contrast for a second. New Zealand just announced, per today's Ottawa Citizen, that it “ruled out forcefully clearing vehicles blocking roads outside parliament in a protest against coronavirus vaccine mandates, saying that would risk ‘wider harm’”. Representatives said, “negotiations and de-escalation were the only safe ways to resolve the protest and [they] would continue to talk to the protesters”. Compare this with the current Liberal government. It had 58 consultations, and the member mentioned a few. However, not one of them was with the protesters.
Did the Liberals purposely allow this to continue so they could clamp down on Canadians they do not agree with?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:36:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the debate is very passionate today, and I understand that. Personally, I prefer to examine the issues in a rational manner.
Let us look at this rationally. What is happening today is that we are using the Emergencies Act, which applies to all of Canada and therefore Quebec as well.
My hon. colleague, whom I thank for his speech, told us that we should listen to certain Ontario politicians.
I would say that he should listen to certain Quebec politicians, actually to all Quebec politicians, because the National Assembly is demanding that Quebec be excluded from the application of this act. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case.
In a rational manner, I would like to pose the following question to my colleague. Ten years from now, if a right-wing party was in power as the Government of Canada and a leftist movement wanted to protest and block pipelines that had been built, that party could base its actions on the decision made today, in 2022, by the current government. That party would point out that it had already been done by the Liberal government in 2022, and it could then—
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:37:58 p.m.
- Watch
My apologies, Madam Speaker.
Allow me to assure the member that I truly believe that we are not supposed to look at the substance of what is going on when there is an occupation or a lengthy protest. It is imperative that we continue to stand up for all Canadians.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:52:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote.
Freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest do not give any Canadian the licence to break the law. I call on [the Prime Minister] to enforce the law and direct the RCMP to shut down these illegal blockades.
Members may think this was a quote having to do with the illegal blockade in Ottawa, but this is actually from a member of the Conservative Party, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who has called for the stoppage of the blockades.
I wonder why the member feels like when it is blockades of one type, his party is very much against it, but when it is blockades of another type, they are very much for it and happy to stand in front of it, taking credit and selfies.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:04:55 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, the Conservatives have been spreading their rhetoric that this is a protest of unity, peace and freedom over fear, incited by foreign extremists. They did so while standing with people who bore Confederate flags and swastikas and terrorized women and indigenous people.
This is not unity; this is not peace; this is not freedom. This is violence, violence that threatens the safety and democracy of Canada. The ignorance they have shown to the security threats that continue to be defended on the Hill as we speak is unacceptable.
What are the Conservatives gaining from spreading this hate?
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:19:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think there are a ton of nice people outside who are protesting because this illegal protest brought out two years of frustrations. I could have been out there in the protest just as well as they could have. We are all fed up with this. We have all been through a difficult time, but we have to do what we have to do, and that is to respect each other.
There are some extremists out there who are here to cause nothing but trouble, and when we look at the signs saying, “Down with our Prime Minister,” and hear the kinds of threats he has been receiving from many folks across the country, that is very unfair. I would not want any prime minister of any party to have to experience what he and his family are going through.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:20:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if we had to wait another five or six days before we could start to remove the illegal protest and illegal blockage that is there, what kind of damage would that continue to do to Canada's reputation?
Many of our small businesses deliver biscuits or other things. They are valuable businesses and they have anywhere from five or six to a dozen employees. They were feeling the strain. I do not want to see those businesses go out of business.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:24:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by sharing a story. One of the earliest photos I remember of myself and my grandparents is from the mid- to late eighties. For background, my grandparents immigrated to Canada after World War II from Ukraine, and my grandmother survived the Holodomor, the famine genocide in 1932-33 when Joseph Stalin closed Ukraine's borders and confiscated all food to destroy millions of Ukrainians for opposing his rule. My grandfather risked his life on many occasions, because he was peacefully advocating for a free and democratic Ukraine.
In that photo I was mentioning, I am about nine or 10 years old and I am standing in front of the Ontario legislature, known as Queen's Park, along with my grandparents. At the time, we were asking that Canada and the international community stand up for the people of Ukraine and other countries that had been conquered by the Soviet Union, because their freedoms were being violated. People could be arrested for not speaking Russian, for holding a different political view or for suggesting that Ukraine should be a democracy or free.
That day, with my grandparents in front of Queen's Park, we were protesting for the freedom of millions of people. We actually did so on many occasions after that, and I have done so many times in my life. Despite the horrors my grandmother lived through, despite the horrors my grandfather's family was still living through back home, and despite the hurt, trauma and anger, on that day, and many other days afterward, my grandparents protested for freedom, but they always did so while respecting the freedoms of other Canadians.
I am sick of COVID restrictions, and so are many of my constituents. They have voiced that in many ways. They have sent me letters, they have sent emails, they have called me and I have spoken with them. Some of them have protested. I have always taken the time to listen and try to understand their perspectives. Often, constituents help me understand issues better. They offer solutions and they point out better ways for government to proceed, and I welcome that. That is what makes me a better representative, and that is how we make our country better, but those constituents I am talking about, just like my grandparents, have voiced their concerns while respecting the freedom of others.
Peaceful protest is the right of every Canadian. We have the right to be heard, to communicate our views and to say anything we want, as long as we abide by the law, because the law protects the freedoms of others. These blockades are not respecting the rights and freedoms of others. They are violating the law and doing harm to so many Canadians in many ways.
They have threatened the safety of Canadians and the welfare of our communities. We have heard stories throughout this debate about what this has done to the people of Ottawa. They have done great harm to our economy and the livelihoods of so many Canadians, especially with the blockades at the border crossings. They risk impacting our economy in the years to come by undermining the confidence of our trading partners, who we are trying to convince that Canada is a good place to invest. Canada is a great place to trade with, yet our borders are being blockaded and trade is being prevented from happening. They have undermined the rule of law and they risk undermining confidence in our laws and institutions, which are designed to protect our rights and freedoms.
These blockades and occupations are having tremendous consequences for our economy and for our democracy, and that is why these blockades have to end.
I believe the Emergencies Act powers are needed to stop the blockades, and I want to share why. It is abundantly clear that we do not have to be law enforcement experts to know that local law enforcement has been unable to enforce the law and clear the blockades, especially here in Ottawa. That is very clear.
Let us talk about what the Emergencies Act does, and then why I believe it is necessary. What does the Emergencies Act actually do? This is not the War Measures Act. This is not calling in the military. To suggest those things is not to be truthful with Canadians. What the Emergencies Act actually does is allow the RCMP to enforce local and municipal laws, which it previously could not. It allows the federal government to mobilize essential services such as tow trucks. That is what my colleagues have spoken about. It provides new authorities to law enforcement to prohibit blockades and keep essential infrastructure open, such as border crossings. It provides powers to stop the flow of money that is supporting illegal activity such as the blockades.
Under these powers, the government is doing a few things. It is providing direction so accounts that are supporting blockades can be frozen, and vehicle insurance is revoked.
It is broadening Canada's anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing rules so that they can cover crowdfunding platforms such as cryptocurrency. Originally, the blockades were being funded through conventional means, and then they went to cryptocurrency. Why? Because that is harder to track. The government wants to make sure it can track that and stop that. It provides the ability to authorize banks to cease providing financial services when a person is using their account to fund illegal activity.
These are the kinds of things that the Emergencies Act is doing.
Experts have said that it is critical to clear the blockades. It is critical that we have the RCMP able to enforce local law, because the act provides the ability for multiple law enforcement agencies to come together really quickly, as we are seeing right now in Ottawa on the street.
The act provides the ability to compel tow truck drivers to tow vehicles. We need to be able to do that to clear these blockades, and we were not able to before.
It provides the ability to ensure that certain infrastructure can remain open, such as border crossings, and to ensure that the people who are blockading know that they will face penalties. If they know that their accounts will be frozen, they know they will face a penalty and that there is a consequence to their illegal behaviour. That is important.
It is an important measure to enforce the law, to ensure that we stop the blockades, and to ensure that money supporting the blockades ceases to flow.
These are all things that are under the Emergencies Act. This is what the Emergencies Act is doing. These are the specific steps.
There is no doubt that these measures I have just mentioned have helped to clear the blockades at the borders and in Ottawa. We do not have to take my word for it. Chief Bell in Ottawa, and multiple police chiefs and security experts, have repeatedly said today and in recent days that we would not be able to clear the blockades if it were not for the measures in the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act powers are clearly needed to enforce the law, to stop the blockades and to protect Canadians' freedoms.
Some have said that this is overreach: that this is the War Measures Act. Let us be clear. This does not involve the military. In fact, the military cannot be called in under this act. It is a completely separate act called the National Defence Act, which is required if we want to call in the military. That is the first point.
The second point is that the declaration is for a limited time. It is for 30 days, and I know the government would really like to be able to remove its invocation even sooner than that if it can. The scope of these measures is geographically targeted. It is about specific infrastructure. It is about specific locations we are trying to protect, and the act is always subject to the Charter of Rights. We cannot argue that this is a violation of people's rights or freedoms if the Charter of Rights is supreme to the act. Everything that happens under the act must be subservient to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is where our freedoms and rights are enshrined and protected. It conforms with that. It protects our rights.
We are having this debate in Parliament because it is required in the act, so there is that accountability mechanism. There will be a parliamentary committee struck to provide oversight. When the measures expire, the act requires a public inquiry to examine its invocation. There is a lot of transparency and a lot of accountability, so that Canadians and MPs can assess the implementation of the act and make sure it was done for the right reasons and in the right way.
I started my remarks by talking about my grandparents and how they taught me to advocate for freedom but always to respect the freedom of others, to respect the freedoms of Canadians, while doing so. These blockades have not done that. They have threatened the safety of Canadians and the welfare of communities. They have done massive harm to our economy, hundreds of millions of dollars every day, and harm to the livelihoods of Canadians. People have lost their jobs. They have lost their businesses. These blockades risk impacting our economy in the years to come by undermining the confidence of our trading partners, especially the U.S. They have undermined the rule of law. They risk undermining confidence in our laws and institutions, which are here to protect our freedoms and our rights. These blockades, and these occupations, are not respecting the freedoms of Canadians.
I support the invocation of the Emergencies Act in this case. We cannot allow these illegal and dangerous blockades to continue. I believe it is necessary to keep Canadians safe, to protect our economy in the short and long term and to restore public order.
It is limited in time, its scope is proportionate and it is subject to oversight and accountability by MPs of all parties.
Just as my grandfather or grandmother would have said if they were here, it is what is necessary to protect our economy, our democracy and our freedom.
1729 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
