44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 10:11:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to mention right away that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
As we speak to the confirmation of the February 14 proclamation of a state of emergency, on the other side of these walls, the police are lifting the siege in Ottawa. We all want it to be done as peaceful as possible. As colleagues have done before me, and as others will undoubtedly do, I encourage the participants in this siege to leave without further delay.
I want to acknowledge the excellent work of the men and women who have been working since yesterday to bring order to the streets of the capital. This effective work demonstrates what we have been saying since the beginning of the siege: We do not need the Emergencies Act. We need concerted action by all police forces. We need a crisis task force and a coordination centre. As we have been saying for the past three weeks, we need a plan.
What has been lacking since the siege began is not the use of the Emergencies Act. What has been lacking is leadership from the top, starting with the federal government.
We are calling on the government to not use this legislation, as all governments have refrained from doing since 1988, or for 52 years, if we include the use of the War Measures Act, the predecessor to this act. More than half a century has passed since this legislation was used. There must be good reason for that.
Let us have a look at the legislation, which states:
WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;
AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;
That is part of the preamble at the beginning of the Emergencies Act, which serves as a warning of sorts, saying “handle with care” or “caution: dangerous material”.
The act states: “to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. I really want to repeat that part again, because it carries a heavy burden in a democracy: “special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”.
The authors of this legislation and the parliamentarians who passed it warned us that we are entering at our own risk.
Such warnings should be taken seriously. At the same time, the Emergencies Act exists and must therefore serve some purpose. Parliament does not pass laws that it does not intend to use.
There is no doubt that this act serves a purpose, but it is meant to be used in extraordinary situations: in case of a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. It is a law to be used in the case of a disaster.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a siege here. It is true. We are talking about angry Canadians who are unhappy with the public health measures, people who are irrefutably and without a doubt participating in an illegal activity. They deserve to be fined, to have their vehicles seized and possibly even be put in prison in some cases. Is that a disaster? Is it a national crisis? Is it an extraordinary situation?
Over the past few weeks, we have been witnessing a siege. The participants are misguided, ill-informed, fractious and fully aware that they are participating in an illegal activity. In many cases, these people have their children with them.
The police are dealing with this, but I would like to say that I find it extremely irresponsible to bring children into such a situation. I would ask those who brought their children here to leave, because they are putting their children in danger.
From day one we have been asking these people to leave. On Monday we asked the government to tell us its plan. On day six we asked that a crisis task force be created and that it include every police force. The government did nothing.
The people outside do not have the right to be there. At the end of day one, it was no longer a demonstration, but an occupation. At the end of the first week, it was no longer an occupation, but a siege.
What should have been an incident in our lives has become an episode in Canadian history. This government is writing these people into our history.
We have before us a siege that required police intervention and not the invocation of legislation that is used in war time, in times of international crisis or during an earthquake.
This law was not needed during the ice storm. It was not needed during the Oka crisis, or the fires in British Columbia. It has never been needed in the past 25 years.
When the entire world was dealing with a pandemic in 2020, the government was not compelled to use the Emergencies Act.
We are supposed to believe that this out-of-control protest justifies its application today. That creates a dangerous precedent, much like lighting up that first cigarette after not smoking for years. The trick is not to have that cigarette.
Some of us have more conservative values, others more liberal ones. For some, the priority is clean energy, for others it is the fight against climate change. We can have a debate, insult one another in the House and get carried away. Some of us want Quebec to be a country, others want the federal government to be more centralist. We know that we will never agree on several issues.
However, I sincerely believe that all members of the House are democrats and care deeply about democracy. The Emergencies Act provides for “special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. We do not need them, not for those people. Even though the government has chosen this path, we need not follow. The House must not support this proclamation. We must be bigger than that.
The Emergency Measures Regulations of Tuesday's order in council state, “A person must not travel to or within an area where an assembly referred to in subsection 2(1) is taking place.” Participating in a public assembly that could severely disturb the peace is prohibited. I understand that.
Nevertheless, people who are not in the area are prohibited from travelling to get there. That is what I am trying to understand. It is prohibited to have the intention to do something that is prohibited. Somebody who is about to do something, without however having done it, is guilty of an offence and could be fined. The government should have a good reason to make freedom of association a relative concept and jeopardize freedom of movement. I do not see it.
What I see are people who are committing mischief and other illegal actions, as well as trucks that are dangerously blocking public roads. I see crowds that should have been dispersed a long time ago and trucks that should have been towed a long time ago. From the outset, we have been calling on the police to intervene peacefully, but firmly. Invoking the Emergencies Act is frankly not necessary for that purpose. If it is invoked to deal with these people, if we open Pandora's box, if we smoke that first cigarette, where will that lead us?
As I have said, I understand the purpose of the Emergencies Act, but if we confirm the declaration, it will say much more about us than about those in the streets. Yes, there have been biker gangs, white supremacists, racists and homophobes in this rather strange crowd. Yes, there are some people in the crowd who believe in the great reset, who think that the vaccine contains sterilizing agents and who believe in other conspiracy theories. There are also people who have disengaged from our institutions, who no longer believe in the government or in the media.
I want to acknowledge the brave women and men who are putting themselves in the middle of this to keep us informed. I am thinking of Raymond Filion, who was assaulted while he was out reporting. Being informed is freedom.
Frankly, there is more freedom for the media than for the opponents. This siege is not sympathetic, nor are the occupiers. Police intervention is necessary, and that is what is happening. However, the government has not convinced us of the need to use the Emergencies Act and should refrain from doing so.
1500 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:38:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention. I am certainly concerned that it has got to this point and that the government left it for so long.
I want to be clear, though. He refers to land defenders and environmentalists. A somebody who has been very engaged in movements, including Idle No More, I can say that we were peaceful. We never had guns. We never chose insurrection against the government. We never threatened to kill police. That constant measuring post in the House is deeply troubling and concerning. It fuels and feeds notions of white supremacy, which also fuel ideas in this illegal occupation.
Would the member not agree that minimizing what is going on out there is further encouragement for the kind of extremist occupation, led by white nationalists, that we are seeing outside?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:38:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on Friday, I listened to my colleagues for nine hours. Today, I have been listening to them all day right from 7 a.m., even though I went to bed at 3 a.m. because I was writing this speech, and even though I will be here until midnight.
I have noticed the extent to which the polarization that I see on social media has crept into the House. I had difficulty writing this speech, which says a lot, because anyone observing me even a little in the House knows that I am constantly writing.
It is difficult to find the words to avoid polarization with all these emotions present. Emotions are running high, and I am hearing a lot of heated comments in the House at present.
It was not easy to write this speech because the invocation of the Emergencies Act is a historic event that will set the bar for its invocation in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that its use will not be taken lightly in the future just because it has been taken lightly today.
Canada has experienced some very dangerous, critical and urgent situations. Almost all of my colleagues have mentioned the Oka crisis, the rail blockades in 2020, the Caledonia crisis, September 11 and COVID‑19.
I want to make one thing clear right now. I never have and never will have sympathy for extremists, on either the right or the left. I have never had sympathy for hate speech or threats. I was outraged and shocked to see Nazi and Confederate flags. I felt sick with anger. I will never minimize threats that someone may receive. I have been threatened myself after a member of Parliament spoke to the media and shared misinformation regarding a vote in committee.
All day yesterday, I responded to hundreds of emails, and every single one of them was calling on us not to enforce the Emergencies Act. I was getting emails not only from my constituents, but also from people in Calgary, Vancouver, Burnaby, Prince George, Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and even Ottawa. The people of Ottawa have been most affected by this situation. All that was missing were some emails from Prince Edward Island.
This legislation scares them very much, and they have the right to be listened to, to be heard and to get answers. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act states that the government must demonstrate that there is a dangerous and urgent situation that cannot be effectively dealt with ordinary laws. However, the order does not demonstrate that existing intervention powers are inadequate.
In other places, law enforcement used the tools it was supposed to use, municipal bylaws, highway traffic acts and the Criminal Code. That is what should have been done here from the start. Some might say that there was no way to predict the future or know what was going to happen.
Of course Ottawa served as an example to others, but Ottawa was indeed aware of the situation. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons mentioned that extremist groups have been on social media for two years. They also mentioned that on social media and in the media, there was talk of a convoy 70 kilometres long. The warning went out one week before the convoy arrived, which should have been enough time to plan and figure out how to contain the situation before it got out of hand the way it did. This type of action is possible through coordination, teamwork, the creation of an emergency response team, collaboration and visionary leadership.
The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the associations and the mobilization that is possible on social media. However, the act makes it clear that it must be invoked not based on hypothetical events, but on the presence of real danger.
The act is to be used when the police are unable to enforce the laws and bylaws available. Right now, I feel that the act is more of a positive move than a reasonable one. A reasonable move would have been to recognize that the problem lies primarily in Ottawa and not elsewhere in the country.
Several incidents have been cited in the House to persuade us that the Emergencies Act is necessary. On February 17, the theft of a trailer full of weapons in Peterborough was mentioned. At 1:55 p.m. that day, the member for Parkdale—High Park drew a connection between that theft and the protest that was going on at the time in Quebec City. That was on February 17. However, the trailer was found on February 16. It was wrong to couple the two together. That is misinformation. This incident cannot be used to support the invocation of the act.
On the same day, the crane truck that was parked in front of the Prime Minister's office was considered a threat. It is no longer there now, but if it was a threat, why was it not moved from the start? The Criminal Code is clear. Paragraphs 423(1)(a) to 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code deal with such incidents, threats and intimidation. The vehicle already would have had to be moved under the existing Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.
Members talked about the threats in the videos. I saw those videos, and I did not like what I saw. My colleague talked about this earlier. We have known about some of these Facebook groups for two years. I cannot understand why they were not shut down in accordance with the Criminal Code.
I know of seven sections of the Criminal Code that could have been used to silence the people who made those videos and bring them to justice because what they were doing was illegal: paragraph 261(1)(a); subsection 423(1), which I talked about earlier; subsection 46(2); subsections 59(1) to 59(3), paragraphs 63(1)(a) and 63(1)(b); and subsection 72(1). There are plenty of them.
For money coming from the United States and possibly, according to sources, from extremist supremacist groups, sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04 of the Criminal Code cover that. Section 83.11 says that banks can freeze assets. We had all the legislative tools we needed to address the crisis before it turned into a 23-day occupation.
To sum up, all law enforcement needed was coordination and the ability to call in tow trucks. The Criminal Code covers that too. With a court order or an order from the Attorney General, the tow trucks would have had no choice but to act, and they would have been supported.
In a crisis, we must all weigh our words and our actions carefully, whether we are MPs, the Prime Minister, law enforcement officers, mayors, municipal councillors or protesters. During a crisis, we must take the time to balance our emotional and rational selves. Too much of one or the other is not a good thing. Inaction can be just as damaging as sudden or extreme action. On both sides of this issue, consultation, collaboration and coordination between the various police forces were possible without applying the Emergencies Act. It took planning and leadership.
It was possible to arrest people who threatened others without applying the Emergencies Act. It was possible to arrest the ringleaders without applying the Emergencies Act. I could go on much longer. I have another two pages of examples.
The police asked for help as far back as February 7 and 11. Leadership and consultation are what this protest needed, and that is what police forces are providing right now.
We do not need to create a precedent.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
