44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 2:36:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, of course the situation had escalated. If the Prime Minister had intervened and not sat on his hands for as long as he did and pass the buck to jurisdictions, we might have been able to avert the situation. The fact is that the Prime Minister did not act, and here we are in a situation where it is necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act.
We know what is going on, and we are seeing what is going on. The damage and issue of safety for individuals have been significant. There is no question about it. That is why the NDP is supporting this at this time. However, it is not a blank cheque, and we will ensure these powers are not abused. These powers are not meant for everyday legal protests. Let us be clear that the situation right now is an illegal occupation. Let us call it for—
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:42:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am struck today by the importance of this moment and also by the immense responsibility that we hold as members of Parliament. As people across the country deal with the impacts of the global pandemic, we are tasked with creating the laws that will best help them deal with the challenges they face, keep them safe and healthy and provide the supports they need.
In this already unparalleled moment in our history, on top of everything else, we have witnessed the occupation of our nation's capital. We are now tasked in this debate with examining and deciding on the use, for the first time ever, of the Emergencies Act. This is not a moment any of us should take lightly.
As someone who came to this role through community activism, attending countless protests, standing in front of trucks filled with contaminated soil, delivering food to tree sitters, protecting fragile ecosystems and organizing climate demonstrations, protest, dissent and social movements are vital elements of our democracy. We need to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience remains a protected and valued part of our society.
We also need to ensure there is effective oversight of any additional powers given to government. The Emergencies Act itself has provisions that require, after the emergency is over, an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken. This should also include a public inquiry into the role of law enforcement in these occupations, the reports of officers supporting the occupiers and police refusing to enforce the law. It is clear there needs to be a sober examination of policing in Canada. The difference between how occupiers were treated by police versus how indigenous and racialized people have been treated is stark. This disparity is unjust and also undermines the trust of Canadians in law enforcement.
I have been contacted by many people who are concerned about the use of the Emergencies Act. Many are concerned that we should not set a precedent of cracking down on protests. It is important to note that what we have seen over the past 24 days has not just been a protest. It has not been peaceful.
The core organizers of this occupation were very clear from the outset that their goal was to overthrow a democratically elected government. I have to admit that I laughed when I first read their aim. Like most Canadians, to me it sounded preposterous. They could not seriously think the Governor General and the Senate could just remove the Prime Minister or that it would be possible in Canada to hand over power to an unelected group of occupiers, but these organizers, many of whom are well-known far-right figures, who have espoused Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-indigenous and other hateful views, published their goal to take down the government in a manifesto.
To quote Maya Anjelou, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them”. This illegal occupation raised millions of dollars, had significant foreign involvement and was explicit in its goal to undermine our democracy. We have also witnessed instances of organized militia-style activity, weapons seized, body armour with white supremacist insignia and thousands of rounds of ammunition. In January, as the convoy initially rolled across the country, there were supporters who went on TV to say they had guns and would stand up and bring them out. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them.
While all of this was happening, a number of Conservative MPs were welcoming the convoy to the city, handing out doughnuts, making excuses for the deplorable actions at memorials and encouraging the convoy participants to stay. The member for Carleton said that he was proud of the convoy and stands with it. Convoy participants occupied the city, making it unbearable for residents. They harassed journalists and health care workers. There were reports of attempted arson, bomb threats to hospitals and plans to block airports and railways. Our borders were shut down. Weapons were seized. There were attempted murder charges laid. The member for Carleton, who wants to be the prime minister of Canada, stands with them. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them.
If the Conservative members truly stand with truckers, they should stand with the 90% of truckers who are vaccinated and the truckers who have been profoundly negatively impacted by border blockades. They should listen to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which put out a statement saying that it applauds the use of the Emergencies Act to help end the illegal blockades.
In those initial weeks, while Conservative MPs encouraged the occupiers, the Liberal government stood idly by. As the convoy rolled toward Ottawa, as the far-right rhetoric rose in the truck convoy, as foreign funding poured into a movement that aimed to undermine our democracy, the government did nothing. It should have never come to this.
The use of the Emergencies Act is an acknowledgement of a failure of leadership. The government has allowed things to escalate unchecked and could have addressed this crisis early on but failed to. After over two weeks of turmoil and chaos, the Ottawa Police Services Board chair stated, “Frankly, the response to this crisis so far has been ineffective.” She said that police have been “unable to adequately enforce our law and our residents continue to be terrorized.”
In this debate, we are being asked whether the Emergencies Act is necessary. It has been clear that for the past three weeks the municipality and a number of provinces were not able to maintain security in our nation's capital and at our borders. This is one of the key reasons why the situation meets the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act.
Once the Emergencies Act was enacted, the interim Ottawa police chief made it clear that without these additional powers, they would not have been able to make the progress that they have made. Over the past week, we finally saw police taking appropriate and measured steps to remove the occupiers.
The act allowed the RCMP to direct tow truck drivers to tow vehicles. In addition, without the Emergencies Act, the RCMP and financial institutions could not quickly freeze funds that were fundraised with the explicit intent to destabilize our elected government.
We know there has been significant foreign funding. When the convoy's GoFundMe site was shut down, they started using GiveSendGo, a Christian platform infamously known for being the platform used by many of the groups involved in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and also for raising millions for the Proud Boys, a listed terrorist entity in Canada. A recent data leak identifying GiveSendGo's donors to the convoy campaign showed that over half of the donors were from the U.S. and less than a third of the donors were Canadian.
The Emergencies Act also gives the power to prohibit bringing children to unlawful assemblies. Many of us watched in horror as occupiers brought their children to block the border crossing. We heard reports of occupiers keeping their kids near the police line, using them as shields. As a parent, it is hard to wrap my head around the choice to bring children into such dangerous situations.
The powers granted by the Emergencies Act were needed as they did help secure our national capital. Yesterday, the occupation was still happening and there were still border closures happening in Surrey because of the convoy protest. Today, things are quieter. New Democrats have been clear that we are ready to withdraw our support at any time. If the situation is actually under control, then the government has to provide a compelling reason for why it still needs these emergency powers. If there is not one, then we have said all along that we will withdraw support.
We have heard again and again comparisons to the War Measures Act, but we know this is not the same law. It is not even close. Under the War Measures Act, there is no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no provincial constitutions. The government would have the power to do anything it wants to intern citizens, to deport any citizen, to arrest any person. We can all agree that is unacceptable.
That is why Tommy Douglas and other New Democrats voted against it. The War Measures Act suspended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why, in 1988, the act was repealed. The Emergencies Act, the act that replaced it, is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
There is a still a valid concern that the government could misuse the powers in the Emergencies Act. This is why New Democrats have been clear that if we vote in favour of the government's request, the government must stay within the established powers or we will withdraw support.
We will protect the right to protest. We must continue to hold dissent and non-violent civil disobedience as sacred, as integral parts of our democracy.
I want to close my speech by speaking to the vast majority of Canadians who have been following public health orders, who banged pots to show support for health care workers, who have been helping out their neighbours, who have made great sacrifices in order to keep their loved ones, their families and their communities safe.
As mandates and restrictions begin to lift, they should know that it is because of their acts of solidarity and the fact that they got vaccinated, and the convoy participants, while they might not realize it, owe the majority of Canadians a great debt of gratitude. The vast majority of Canadians have not only saved lives, but they are also the reason we are going to get through this together.
1656 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:58:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would first like to acknowledge that I am attending this sitting virtually from the traditional territory of the Kanyen'kehà:ka Mohawk people. I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.
I too would like to thank all parliamentary employees, as well as the Parliamentary Protective Service, which always keeps us safe. It is thanks to them and their hard work that we are able to do our job today.
The first time I went to a protest, I sat in a carriage with my mother on the streets of Santiago. We lived in a country where peaceful protests were illegal and where the police were politically controlled by a dictatorship, which is a non-democratically elected government.
My family and I came to Canada as political refugees. As Patrick Lagacé so aptly said, “Real dictatorships do not mess around.” They do not let truckers camp out in the streets of their capital city, waving banners that openly insult the government. No, real dictatorships do not have as much respect for the rule of law. They do not have a charter of rights and freedoms that guarantees protections to all.
I am also hearing my colleagues talk about the tragic events of the October crisis in 1970, and I can understand that. I can understand that Quebeckers are not comfortable, given the trauma they may have experienced in the past. I understand that invoking the Emergencies Act reawakened and reinforced this sentiment.
However, that context was very different from today's, and drawing parallels between the two laws is an undesirable shortcut. It politicizes a historical context that is different from the one we have today. Based on the calls I have received and the conversations I have had, especially with my constituents, people can differentiate the past from the present.
Our government invoked the Emergencies Act because the current situation warrants it. We saw what happened over the weekend. For 24 days now, blockades have been illegally disrupting Canadians' lives and have impacted our economy and public safety.
The trucks came to town to protest vaccine mandates, but the protest rapidly morphed into an occupation of the city by people who openly and officially stated that their goal was to overthrow the government. This protest was a total violation of the public order.
As someone from a family of left-wing socialist activists, am I happy that the Emergencies Act has been invoked? Definitely not. In the current context, however, it is the responsible choice. This legislation does not seek to remove the right to protest, which is essential in a democracy. It is a right that we need in order to defend all our other rights. Historically, protests have led to significant political and social changes.
Every international human rights instrument recognizes the right to peaceful protest and its importance to freedom of expression, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is no exception. We have seen it before: a peaceful protest is the historic march involving half a million people who took to the streets of Montreal to protest climate change in 2019. It is the thousands of young people who stood up for students' rights in 2012.
What we are seeing in Ottawa is not a peaceful protest, but a coordinated occupation and obstruction, and acts and threats targeting the very foundation of our democracy. Tamara Lich is not a trucker. She was the secretary of the separatist Maverick Party and creator of the convoy's GoFundMe campaign. The speculation that the movement benefited from foreign funding donated with a view to destabilizing Canada has now been made public.
Jessica Davis, an author and former employee of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, said, “Is it possible that some of this money is coming in from overseas? I think that this is a very important hypothesis to explore.”
The right to protest cannot be used to occupy a city. The right to protest cannot be used to put a city under siege. The right to protest cannot be used to prevent people from going to work. The right to protest cannot be used to scare and harass residents and force them to remove their masks.
Obviously, we must protect the right to protest peacefully. However, we know that the situation is no longer peaceful and that many laws have been and continue to be broken.
In a democracy, we must take a stand against those who threaten and assault people and prevent them from living freely. At no time should the right to protest infringe on others' rights and freedoms. The freedom to protest also comes with its set of responsibilities.
The purpose of the Emergencies Act is not to infringe on Canadians' rights and freedoms—quite the contrary. The Act has a specific, limited and targeted scope. It allows the government to call in essential services, like tow trucks, and enables the RCMP to take quicker action to enforce compliance with local laws. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportional.
The specific measures in the Emergencies Act are subject to numerous checks and safeguards by Parliament. These measures must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We are all tired of this pandemic. We all want to get back to normal and be done with the health measures. The past two years have been difficult for everyone. Everyone feels that way.
Canadians stepped up and followed public health guidelines in order to keep their loved ones safe. I witnessed it in my own riding, where people were helping each other and proving how resilient they are. A crisis like the one we have been in for the past two years really highlights the solidarity between businesses and people.
The presence of trucks in the city, the occupation and the blockades have direct consequences for businesses. These are real consequences that are jeopardizing businesses, both big and small, as well as Canadians' livelihoods.
We have been through two years of the pandemic, and Canadians do not need another test of their resilience. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home. Now is the time for us to fight for an end to this pandemic, to think about the recovery, about our future together, as Canadians, in a country that unequivocally condemns systemic discrimination, that works to end poverty and that fights to help our communities thrive. Now is not the time to sow division. Now is the time to come together and work with one another.
1108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:08:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.
I believe that it is important to be aware that the act is subject to a process of parliamentary transparency and oversight. In addition, we must ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Obviously, understanding where the funding for the protests in Ottawa came from is crucial. Surely, it comes from beyond our borders. All of this will be done under the watchful eye of Parliament and in a way that respects people's rights. It will be done in order to obtain the answers that I believe Canadians deserve.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:54:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak in this extraordinary debate that is taking place in this House.
It is the Sunday afternoon of the Family Day long weekend in Ontario, but here we are, as parliamentarians, debating a very important issue.
As members know, I represent the riding of Ottawa Centre. Parliament is located in the riding of Ottawa Centre. The occupation we all witnessed for over 20 days primarily took place in the riding of Ottawa Centre.
I am speaking today with a profound sense of sadness. The events we saw over the last 22 or 23 days were troubling. In particular, the attempt by police to end this illegal occupation and return my community back to its peaceful state was in fact quite sad. Over the last two days I have had a chance to speak to a lot of my constituents who have been aggrieved by this illegal occupation. I asked them how they were feeling. An overwhelming number of them are sad. They are definitely relieved, but they are also sad.
I spent some time wondering why I am feeling sad when we will hopefully have some sense of normalcy back and why the members of my community are feeling sad.
I do not think I have figured out all of the answers yet, as it is still quite raw, but I have a feeling, a sense as to what it is. I think the sadness stems from the fact that, although we live in the nation's capital, in one of the most democratic countries in the world, I have never seen the kind of illegal occupation we just saw in our community. We have never seen that many police officers descend on our community. That did not give us comfort. We are relieved they did their job and ended this occupation, but it did not give us any comfort. If anything, we feel sad it came to the point where this action was necessary to put an end to this illegal occupation and reclaim our streets and neighbourhoods so people can go back to their normal lives.
I cannot overstate the profound impact this occupation has had on my community. In fact, I talked about that with the time I have been given on the floor of this House over the last three weeks and outlined to members what my community has gone through.
I should have said this at the outset. I am not trying to be partisan, because this debate is far more important than partisanship. I am here to speak on behalf of my community. I do not think members in this House will deny that some members live in my riding of Ottawa Centre. Many of them have personally confided in me about their own experiences, such as the horn honking in the middle of the night for weeks, the hurling of fireworks in a densely populated neighbourhood, and the harassment and intimidation of people on the street as they were trying to go from one place to another and live their normal lives.
I have heard from constituents, and I have read many of those emails in this House, such as the seniors who had not been able to go grocery shopping, because they were just too concerned. None of that is partisan. I am not suggesting that every single one of those people voted for me, probably not, but they are real people with real stories of what my community has gone through. It will take some time for my community to heal from this.
As I have said before, it is not like we have been immune to protests in this community. We recognize that we live in the nation's capital. We recognize that we live in downtown Ottawa where Parliament Hill is located. We have seen protests, festivals and all kinds of marches. We accept it and recognize that it is a very important expression of a free and democratic society. However, they have been lawful and peaceful. In fact, at times there were two or three protests at a time, and we did not know they were taking place. People are free to express themselves in a peaceful and lawful way.
We never imagined that we would come to this point with a protest that should have been peaceful, that should have been legitimate with grievances cited. In the end, there were quite a few different grievances cited by people, which would have been okay had those grievances been cited in a peaceful way. Whether the protesters disagreed with vaccines, disagreed with mandates, were tired of the pandemic, did not like the government or thought that certain things that are happening in society are not correct, whatever the case may be, people are free to express their point of view. However, in a democratic society, they are expected to so in a way that does not rob other people's peace, but we saw that just evaporate in this particular operation. We saw three weekends of mayhem, intentional lawlessness and partying take place in the downtown core in a residential area where people felt unsafe. People felt threatened.
Now that we have started the process of recovering our community, we are still sad that it came to this, that we had to resort to invoking the Emergencies Act to bring law and order back into our community. That is why I am supportive of the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I am a lawyer by training and have served as the attorney general for the Province of Ontario. I have brought that lens, that skill set, to my analysis as to why it is legitimate to invoke the Emergencies Act. The legislation is extraordinary in nature, but the history of the legislation is very interesting, because it was crafted in a manner to ensure that people's charter rights are always protected. That has been the premise of the legislation.
Let us not forget that this legislation replaced the War Measures Act, which was crafted before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into our lives as part of our Constitution. In fact, it had powers of extraordinary measure that could take away people's charter rights.
The government at the time rightly decided that the War Measures Act would not sustain the charter. It needed to repeal that act and come up with new legislation that would be charter compliant. Hence, the Emergencies Act was created.
If we look back, we can see that there was a very thorough debate by our predecessors in this House. I know it has been said before, but is worth repeating: When the government invoked this act, it was in the spirit that the measures are very targeted in geographical scope; they are temporary in nature, remaining in force for only 30 days; and the response is proportional to the situation we are dealing with. All of that is to ensure that the charter is not violated. That is what we are looking at. That is what we are working with in order to ensure that the siege of Ottawa is stopped, as has been the case now for two days, and to ensure that we put an end to blockades at our vital trade links and our border crossings and prevent them from happening. Yesterday we saw an attempt in British Columbia with the blocking of the Pacific Highway. All of those considerations are extremely important in our deliberations here in this House.
I will go back to what I know best, which is Ottawa. I have been involved since day one in all the work that has gone on that led to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, given the fact that I represent the riding of Ottawa Centre. We have engaged from the very first day with our municipal government and the provincial government in Ontario through the work the federal government was doing, whether it meant providing resources by way of the RCMP or the OPP or by providing other municipal services. These resources to put an end to this illegal occupation came not just two days ago, but over time. We made sure that we had the legal authority or legislative mechanisms to take action.
Let us not forget that this situation got to the point where the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario had to declare states of emergency, yet despite all of that, the occupation continued. It was with the powers that came through the invocation of the Emergencies Act that law enforcement authorities were able to put an end to it. One of these powers was declaring a set geographic area as a no-go zone, which in Ottawa is called the red zone, so that no protests or occupation could take place. Another power facilitated the transfer of police services from other jurisdictions to come here and enforce the law, which would otherwise have to be done by swearing in police officers to give them jurisdiction to operate in Ottawa, which takes time. Another power enabled the procuring of tow trucks so that the trucks blocking the roads in the downtown core could be towed, as we saw happen over the last 24 or 48 hours.
That is not to mention that when we learned of the sophisticated nature of this occupation, including the coordination aspects and the role of foreign money, we were able to give financial measures to FINTRAC to enable our banks to stop the flow of money that was fuelling this illegal occupation.
All these steps and measures were necessary to have a successful outcome, and we are still not out yet. I just got in to the House of Commons through I do not know how many checkpoints, because I am a member of Parliament. Imagine how sad I feel, as I was saying earlier, to see my downtown feel like a war zone. My beloved city and hometown has roadblocks all over, and I ask members, all of us, to close their eyes for a moment and imagine their communities in that state. I have stayed pretty calm all through this ordeal because I am a calm person by nature. I know that many people would not, because of the tragedy of it. I am saying this in the hope of persuading members to support this measure or at the least to demonstrate to members my reasons for supporting the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I think my time is limited. I want to say this at the end, and I am going to speak as a fellow parliamentarian to all the members.
We are quite privileged to be the 338 people who have this incredible opportunity to serve not only our communities but our country, and I am confident when I say that every single one of us loves our country. Every single one of us is here for the same reason, which is to build Canada into an even better place than we found it. We may differ in the path we take to do it, and that is totally legitimate. I hope we do, because that exchange of ideas would result in a better path forward. That friction is a healthy friction in our democracy, but I think we are more united than we like to think, and I think it would serve us well if we remind Canadians of that unity as well.
I have been listening to a lot of this rhetoric that we are developing about how we are so divided. I disagree. We may have our disagreements, but as a country we are not divided. When I look at the number of people who have gotten themselves vaccinated, I see that it is over 80%. Have we ever seen Canadians agree that much on anything? Over 80% of Canadians being fully vaccinated tells us how united we are to get through this pandemic, which has been terrible and devastating to all of us, and I think that is the unease and the anxiety that we feel right now.
If I asked members right now to raise their hands if they love their country, to raise their hands if they love their province or their territory, to raise their hands if they love their city, their town, their village or their hamlet, to raise their hands if they love their community, to raise their hands if they love their family, we will see that we have more in common than divides us. Let us work together.
2110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:22:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member cited a lot of people in his speech, but I wonder what he thinks about the comments from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White, who said:
...what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. Leaving aside the stated manifesto of the organizers to overthrow the government, these protests are weakening our economy and disrupting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
As we have seen, many citizens, particularly in downtown Ottawa, were not able to leave their homes. They felt unsafe, they were harassed and they were shouted at.
What are the member's comments to those law-abiding citizens? Does he think that his former colleague, former MP Peter MacKay, and Senator Vern White are wrong?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:36:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I liked the points in the member's speech that focused on section 58 of the Emergencies Act. However, I disagree with the member based on the fact that adequate evidence has not been provided to the chamber to determine that no other law in Canada could deal with this.
I encourage the member to look at the Emergencies Act NOA submitted by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, especially paragraph 51. It outlines:
...the Government’s precipitous invocation of the Emergencies Act appears to have been motivated by its view that the provinces have not gone far enough in addressing intraprovincial protest. However, this does not mean that the provinces lack the capacity or authority to deal with the protests....
The provinces “have all the tools they need”, according to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It goes on to argue, “The Emergencies Act was not intended to provide the federal government a pathway to arrogate provincial powers to itself in circumstances where the provinces do not exercise those powers in the way the federal government would have.”
Can the member provide any form of evidence to the chamber demonstrating that the federal government actually had to go as far as it did?
209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:22:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like the Conservatives, we disagree with the motion. However, I must say from the outset that we do not agree with the protesters, either. Unfortunately, I heard a number of Conservatives in the House say that there was a link to be made between the vaccine mandate and the protests outside.
Does my colleague agree with some of the members of his caucus who say that everything we are seeing right now is a result of the vaccine mandate and the provincial rules that to some degree limit personal freedoms?
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:37:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear that 52 years later, we are invoking an entirely different and substantially refined piece of legislation. The Emergencies Act is not the War Measures Act. Indeed, the accountability mechanisms included in the Emergencies Act are a testament to the strength of Canada's democracy. I salute all those in this House in years gone by who worked to make it so.
We know the steps that were attempted to reach a solution. For three weeks, Ottawa as a city was held hostage and occupied, forcing businesses that were poised to move on to the next stages of reopening to stay closed, harassing and disrupting the life of communities, putting lives, homes and businesses at risk.
There has been much discussion, particularly from across the aisle, about how innocent and well behaved people attending the occupation were. Sure. I also walked around and people smiled and said good morning or good evening. I, too, saw the bouncy castle and the barbeques, the sing-songs and children playing, but I reject that these were simply innocent and peaceful protesters. They may have started with intentions to simply state their objections to the mandates, but by being present in the occupied city core, whether friendly or not, they were actively complicit in an occupation that had long seized being a simple protest.
Others, including the testimony from my colleagues today, have well documented the other elements that led this well beyond a protest to an actual threat to public order: threats from the extremist elements that have brought this from protest to siege, the funding, the foreign influence, the disruption to citizens of Ottawa, the blockades that virtually stopped our trade with the U.S. in its tracks, affecting already strained supplies that have led to shortages all the way to stores in rural Yukon.
All Canadians have the right to protest, and I will always fight for that right. That right is enshrined and protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our right to protest, however, should not infringe on the rights of others.
In Ottawa, the city has been occupied and, given the inability of existing levers available at the municipal and provincial authorities alone, greater federal involvement through this act was critically needed to lift the siege. I never thought that the word “freedom” could be co-opted into a threat, or that our beautiful national flag could become a symbol of occupation. The occupation of Ottawa must end, as it has, and we must move on from this. I believe the Emergencies Act was necessary to get us there.
As well as a public health physician, I am also, or at least was until recently, an emergency physician. There are two reflections I have, in closing, that I would like to share. Working in the emergency room, of course, can be very busy, as many will know from either receiving or perhaps providing or supporting the care. People can be mildly sick, critically ill or just worried. Our job is to tell the difference and to make a decision that could affect the rest of that patient's life. Sometimes, the decision can be made in seconds, sometimes hours, but decisions do need to be made, and sometimes many decisions have to be made each hour. Timely decision-making is critical.
Deciding to call a national emergency is similar. Was it necessary? If necessary, was it called too soon or too late? At some point, a decision must be made based on the best evidence available at the time. Similarly, since Ottawa's occupation is over and the blockade has ended, was invoking the act still a necessary decision? I am glad the decision was made. I am glad it was made only after many other efforts were made under normal laws and regulations. Those efforts were not working, certainly not for Ottawa and apparently not for Surrey, and the risk of further blockades has continued to be acutely present.
Thankfully, we have public scrutiny and all the checks and balances and time-limited nature to help us ensure the intervention is as minimally intrusive as necessary. Perhaps for the next crisis, we will have better mechanisms in place to avoid having to trigger the Emergencies Act. In a similar future scenario, the precedent will be set, and so will experience with implementation of the act, thresholds and interventions that could render another invocation unnecessary.
The second reflection I have is that in the emergency room, every now and then there could be a violent incident in the department, one where prevention may not have worked and where attempts at de-escalation are clearly overwhelmed. In such cases, we would call on the RCMP, and on such occasions I would never be so glad as to see our friends in uniform. I felt a little the same way yesterday, after the previous three weeks, some of which I have spent in Ottawa. I felt grateful and proud of the professional way in which our combined police forces from all around the country, empowered and reinforced under the Emergencies Act, were able to de-escalate and end the occupation without significant violence. I want to thank all those brave men and women who helped resolve this crisis.
I know that many have expressed concern about the way policing failed in the initial weeks of this occupation, and how the response to this particular, mostly white-person, siege differed from police responses to recent indigenous and racialized protests. I want members to know that I share those concerns, and other concerns about how this crisis was initially handled and perhaps even enabled by local police. However, I also appreciate the professionalism and the successful end to this siege without violence, a testament, again, to the ability to act with sufficient numbers and coordination made possible under the provisions of the Emergencies Act.
I also want to thank all of our essential workers: our truckers, who have hauled goods all over the continent throughout this pandemic; our health care workers in both public health and health care who, even while I see another light in the tunnel, are preparing for whatever lies ahead; and indeed, all citizens who have stepped up and contributed to our collective journey through this pandemic. I thank them all.
I look forward to working with all members in this House in standing up for peace, order and good government. We have more than enough ahead of us to accomplish together.
1092 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must profoundly disagree with many of the premises of my colleague from Edmonton West's statement.
I want to probe into one issue that has come forth, which is the financing of these protests. One report says that 1,100 of the donors to this protest were also donors to the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. Of course, there has been a lot written about them and the motivations there. We also see the protesters here with very hateful flags and symbols, reports of shelters being overtaken, and so on.
Can my colleague opposite talk about the funding and, if he is worried about the impact of the funding on Canada's political system, what kind of impact—
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:49:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, obviously an excessive law will provide effective tools, but does that mean they are justified? Does it take a baseball bat to smash a mosquito, or would a fly swatter or even a hand do the trick?
This calls for a measured, predictable, proactive response. It is best to let people do their jobs and give them the tools they need when they need them.
We saw this crisis coming. It took weeks to plan the convoy. We knew days in advance that it was coming to Parliament Hill. It was predictable and could have been stopped. We have had protests in Quebec and Canada before. This is not the first. It could have been handled just fine without this law, which I feel is excessive.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:03:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question. He said that the point of all the protesters was to overthrow the government. I have been closely following the Ottawa Police Service and they are now laying out charges against people they detained and arrested. I have noticed that nobody has been charged with treason, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious intentions or rioting.
I wonder if the member can please explain to me how the government can claim something rhetorically and amp up the language in this chamber, as we talk about civil debate, when the charges being laid by police services and prosecutors do not match what the government is claiming these protests were about.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:27:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this reality is threatening the safety of citizens and institutions, and the very sovereignty of this country. We know that this threat is real, and that the online environment is amplifying it. The power of online disinformation can be exemplified by the varied reports of a protester being trampled by a police horse this weekend. A phone call to my office that I picked up on Friday from a distraught constituent, as well as emails, reported that one victim was a woman, or it was a senior woman, or it was a senior woman with a walker, or it was an indigenous elder; that they suffered a shoulder injury; or maybe a horse stepped on their face and throat; or maybe they lost a limb or died. The only consistencies were inconsistencies in those stories.
It is time to get serious about the very dangerous consequences of the spread of disinformation, which gave rise to the length and size of the unlawful occupation in Ottawa, along with occupations and blockades across Canada. Again, I will say that it should not have come to this, but it did.
Let us stop looking backwards in this House and start looking forward and acknowledging the facts we are dealing with. When Ottawa called a state of emergency, it did not stop the lawlessness on our streets. When Ontario called a state of emergency, it did not stop the lawlessness. When indigenous leaders called for the occupiers to go home, they did not. It was only when the Emergencies Act was invoked that finally there was some initial resolution to this unlawful attack on the rights and freedoms of the citizens of Ottawa. The interim chief of the Ottawa police has been clear that without these additional powers, they would not have been able to achieve the outcomes so far.
Many members have spoken about how the threats are now over, but I want to share with this House what is happening in B.C. Protests are building here, and the agitators are increasingly aggressive. The RCMP had to pre-emptively close down the border yesterday and 16 were arrested. Other unlawful activity could not be addressed on the spot, due to a lack of resources.
Here is another really sad security threat. Private citizens are now feeling compelled to stand up against these aggressors. In Vancouver yesterday, convoy supporters and counter-protesters were facing off in the streets. In B.C., at YVR, police presence has been increased, and the cost of maintaining public safety at our borders in these times is mounting. I have to share that in the riding next to mine, the home of the provincial minister of public safety was affronted yesterday by protesters. In B.C., this is far from over.
The NDP takes the invocation of the Emergencies Act under public disorder very seriously. We have said over and over again that we will not give a blank cheque to the government. The government will have to stay within the established powers or we will withdraw any support. We will continue to protect peaceful protesters, including land defenders, and will protect the Charter of Rights for all Canadians.
Going forward, the federal government and all levels of government need to take responsibility for their failures, for not taking seriously the very real safety threats and infringements on rights and freedoms that the majority of Canadians have endured these past weeks. Going forward, they must accept and address the very real threats of intolerance, hate, discrimination and disinformation happening online and manifesting physically in our communities across Canada. These are real threats to the safety and security of every person and the institutions in this country, as well as our democracy and sovereignty.
The NDP has consistently shown leadership during these occupations and has used the tools available as the progressive opposition to act. We have moved motions to investigate and expose weaknesses in crowdfunding platforms, brought forward an emergency debate on the occupation of Ottawa, and tabled bills in this House to address hate and hate symbols. The NDP has shown leadership in standing up for health care workers, frontline and essential workers, and all workers who have gotten us through these two years of difficult, difficult times. We continue to stand up for them.
While the NDP has been focused on solutions, there has been a lack of forward thinking and leadership by the government.
The Liberals have failed in so many ways. They have failed to take seriously the declining standard of living for Canadians. They are no longer in touch with what is really happening in our communities. The years of neglect for the need for affordable housing, of not addressing the climate crisis with urgency, of declining to introduce pharmacare, of not addressing Canadians' high cellphone bills are just a few examples. I could go on.
The government has created an environment in which too many Canadians are hurting, and when people are hurting, when things are desperate, people can easily find themselves being taken advantage of by sinister actors who exploit those vulnerabilities for their personal gain. It is the job of all parliamentarians to protect Canadians from that.
It is late, and in this eleventh hour there is still work to be done to protect Canadians from the very real threat of hate and disinformation that fed off the vulnerabilities of exhausted, scared and anxious Canadians who live in every riding of this country. What manifested in Ottawa, in Coutts, in Windsor, in Surrey and in Winnipeg is no accident. It is well funded and well organized. It is an exploitation of the weaknesses in our government and our government systems that has led to the spread of hate and disinformation, and it is not over yet.
In closing, I must look to the future too, so I call on all my colleagues to support the NDP's private member's bill, Bill C-229, which would prevent anyone from selling and displaying symbols that promote hatred and violence in this country in the future.
1016 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:37:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I call myself a progressive.
We know that freedom movements often involve protests. I do not agree with the protesters' arguments, which, in my view are not valid. However, what worries me is that the government is using a law that in future could limit the actions of people who have valid arguments and are trying to effect social change.
Does my colleague not believe that invoking the Emergencies Act will create a terrible precedent?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:37:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP has been very clear that we fully support peaceful protesting and exercising the right to gather together and fight for ideas and for change in the government. We absolutely protect the right of land defenders, environmentalists and those who take part in peaceful protests. What we saw over these last few weeks was unlawful occupation.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:11:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my newly elected colleague, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, for sharing his time with me this evening.
I am pleased to rise in the House this evening.
My riding of Acadie—Bathurst is one of the most beautiful places in our country. The people there are extremely welcoming and generous. My riding is home to many generations of families from different cultures who stuck together in good times and bad. My community would simply not exist were it not for a long history of families helping each other.
I am very sad to see what has been happening in our country over the past few weeks where people are turning their backs on each other. That is not the Canada I know and love.
I understand that many Canadians are frustrated and angry. I, too, am tired of this pandemic. I also understand that, as an MP, it is my responsibility to listen to people and find ways to help them. Unfortunately, some people who want to make their voices heard also chose to draw the country's attention by behaving in an extremely worrisome way.
I have some personal experience with protests because the people in my riding of Acadie—Bathurst have always made themselves heard loud and clear, and they are not afraid to protest. In particular, they protested in support of civil rights and language rights. In 2013, they protested reforms the Conservatives made to employment insurance. Protests are a fundamental and important part of a democratic country. I always supported the right of people to protest peacefully, even in front of my office, and I have participated in several protests before and since I was elected.
That said, I will never support bullying, threats, physical altercations, damage to private property, theft, hate symbols or desecration of our cherished monuments. There also seems to be a misunderstanding going around that citizens have the right to bring semi trucks to a protest and to block streets for three weeks. Nowhere in the Charter does it say that is a right.
When the goal of a group is no longer to make its voice heard but rather to intentionally hurt people or damage infrastructure, it is no longer a protest: it is an occupation and an attack on our democracy. I makes me so sad to see these blockades happening in front of children, and even more so when I see children being used strategically to advance causes they cannot understand at their age. I sincerely hope that people taking part in these blockades will reconsider their behaviour and strive to set better and more positive examples for our younger generation, for the sake of our democracy.
Being a law-abiding citizen is the most fundamental responsibility of Canadians. We know that many of the people who are protesting have legitimate concerns, that they are worried about their future and their livelihoods. However, what is frustrating is that their concerns would be alleviated if they could simply trust the science.
In Canada we have been lucky to have world-class doctors and scientists guiding us through this pandemic. Thousands of scientists all around the world have devoted their lives to protecting and saving the lives of others. Never before have human beings been so scientifically advanced. Let me say clearly, slowly and surely for all Canadians to hear that vaccines work. It has been nearly two years since we were plunged into this COVID‑19 pandemic and I will be eternally grateful to those who developed these miraculous and effective vaccines. Thanks to them, countless lives have been saved, as will countless more in the future.
I will get back to the subject at hand. Some of the protesters are indeed worried about the vaccine mandates, masks and lockdowns. However, other elements of these protests are deeply rooted in far-right ideologies and have dangerous ties to organized crime. What is more, the foreign presence that is evident through donations is very worrisome. Whatever the motivations of the people participating in these protests, we cannot allow them to continue disrupting the peace and the lives of peaceful citizens. Every Canadian deserves to live in peace.
For three weeks, we have seen municipal and provincial leaders raising their hands and asking for help. I am proud that our government has been working in partnership with them from the early days the protest, and I believe that we were taken up on our offer of assistance with all of these measures.
One thing is clear: These blockades need to be removed. Canadians are worried and they need us to show strong leadership. Over the past few days, other Canadians and I have listened to many speeches. We have all watched the news and participated in thorough discussions about the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Many members of our party talked at length about why using the Emergencies Act is justified and presented solid arguments in support. Some opposition members and other Canadians have severely criticized that decision. They are saying that the decision to invoke the act is extremely excessive.
Personally, I find it difficult to accept the argument that this is an unnecessary use or blatant misuse of government powers. As the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have said many times, these measures will be used with great restraint and they are both time limited and geographically targeted. The fact is that we have exhausted all of the other options. I am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current circumstances meet the threshold required by the act to declare a national emergency.
Let us focus for a moment on what is happening in Ottawa.
From the first day that the convoy arrived on Parliament Hill, the Ottawa police service was unprepared to deal with the situation. I am not levelling an accusation, and I cannot speak to the resources that the police did or did not have. I can only speak to what I saw and what everyone saw, namely, that the Ottawa police was not going to be able to resolve this situation without support.
This evening, I had the opportunity to rise in the House knowing what had unfolded in recent days, while a major police operation was under way.
I believe that most of my colleagues will agree with me that the police operation in downtown Ottawa on the weekend was a success. There are fewer trucks, fewer protesters, fewer blocked streets and fewer reports of intimidation and violence.
We now have tangible evidence that the powers conferred by the Emergencies Act have had a considerable impact. These measures led to action that would not have been possible otherwise. The interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Mr. Bell, stated that the scale and scope of this weekend's operation would not have been possible without the declaration of emergency.
In conclusion, the Emergencies Act has enabled the federal government to provide tools to the Ottawa Police Service, when and where they were needed. It has also provided the Ottawa Police Service with the necessary tools to stop the flow of money that is supporting illegal activities. It has enabled municipalities to fill gaps, such as using tow trucks to remove illegally parked vehicles. It has also helped put an end to grey areas around jurisdictions and to clarify responsibilities at complex but important sites such as border crossings.
I want to be clear that while our government had to make this choice; it should not be seen as a celebration. However, I feel much more at peace knowing that many people are feeling some relief from the decision to use these measures.
We saw how Canadians reacted to the police operations that took place in Ottawa over the weekend. In my opinion, Canadians very clearly support the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act.
I would like to address everyone who is listening to us by saying that although we may not all share the same values, we can have empathy for each other.
The pandemic has taken its toll, and we are all very much looking forward to putting it behind us. Unfortunately, the events of the past few weeks were not the right way to end it. The protests have taken up valuable resources and time that were badly needed elsewhere to deal with the pandemic.
I will close with this. Some joined the convoy with the goal of promoting peace and freedom. Unfortunately, the target was not the right one, and their actions had the opposite effect. The convoy was pointless and caused a disturbance in the freest of countries, our Canada.
1456 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:24:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we were keeping a close eye on the situation.
After three weeks, during which many protests took place on Parliament Hill, it was time for the government to intervene. We gave all police forces the tools they needed to put an end to this convoy once and for all.
I am pleased that my colleague is saying that the charter provisions will be respected and that the act will be used with great restraint. It will be time limited and target the geographic areas where it is needed.
I think that people are tired of these protests, and we want to provide law enforcement with all of the tools and powers needed to put an end to these protests.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:26:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
We are here this whole weekend debating the merits of the Liberal government motion to invoke the Emergencies Act.
Before I get into that, I want to take the opportunity to thank the many people in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove who have reached out to me to encourage me and to plead with me to vote against this motion. I can assure them that I and my Conservative colleagues will definitely vote against it, and I will explain why that is. I also want to thank those people who told me they were praying for the peace, security and healing of this nation. I am praying for that as well in what hopefully soon is going to be a post-pandemic world.
On February 14, the Liberal government issued a declaration invoking the Emergencies Act based on their finding that there was a public welfare emergency existing in Canada at the moment. To understand what that means, we need to take a look at the definition section of the act. It states that:
For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it
It concludes, “and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
It is a very high burden of proof and that is exactly what the drafters of this legislation intended back in the 1980s. It was supposed to be a tool of last resort, not a tool of first resort. What is the situation that is alarming the government to the extent that it now feels it has to invoke this very drastic step?
What we have is trucks parked in Ottawa, big trucks, rigs clogging up the streets in downtown Ottawa. It is a real nuisance along Wellington Street and some of the side streets. It is a real problem for local businesses and people who live in the downtown core. I and other members of the House who come into the House every day had to negotiate our way across Wellington Street and that is the same for all the employees as well in the House and in our parliamentary offices.
It is a nuisance, an inconvenience and an irritant, yes, but a national emergency, no. It fails that test. This does not attain the very high level that was set by the drafters of this emergency legislation.
The order in council also makes reference to blockages at border crossings in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and in my home province of British Columbia. The Liberals have a better argument here, because that is going to be very devastating to our economy and also to our international reputation.
However, here is the challenge that we have. Before this declaration was made, a week ago, all those blockages had already been cleared up. How? It was done by provincial forces, by municipal forces, by the RCMP that came under provincial jurisdiction. The police forces were doing exactly what they were supposed to do and the fact that they were successful proved that the situation did not exceed the capacity or the authority of the province to deal with it. I submit that it fails the test.
We come back to what was going on in Ottawa. We have heard members on the Liberal side of the House quote the interim chief of the city of Ottawa Police Service, saying that the Emergencies Act was a very helpful tool for him, for them, to solve the problem. We do not dispute that at all. Of course the nuclear option is going to be successful. We know that and there is no argument with that, but that is not the test.
The test is not whether it would be successful, but whether it was necessary. I submit that it was not necessary. The proof is that provincial police forces and municipal police forces were able to solve the problem at the borders and also control other protests that were going on in other cities across the country. It fails the threshold.
I now want to turn my attention to a constitutional analysis of what is going on. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that the Emergencies Act requires that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights be honoured, respected and maintained.
It is interesting that the Bill of Rights is included in that. It is an older piece of legislation and people sometimes assume that it was subsumed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that is not the case. It is still a good law in Canada today. It is very useful for our analysis today, because it talks about property rights for individuals. What property are we talking about? We are talking about bank accounts, bank accounts that have been frozen under the regulations.
Shortly after the announcement was made on Monday, my office started getting phone calls. I started getting text messages. People were asking, “Is my bank account going to be frozen? I made a donation to the convoy through GoFundMe.” I assured them, “No, no, no. This is Canada in the 21st century. We are a modern, free and democratic society. There is no way that your federal government is interested in donations that you might make to a cause that is important to you.”
Then I picked up the regulation and started to read it. I was wrong. I was hoping that I was misreading it, so I checked with some lawyer friends of mine who said, “No, absolutely that is exactly what it says.” Then I was hoping that maybe it was just a drafting error. All doubt was set aside the other day when our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was interviewed on national television.
This is how the conversation went. The interviewer asked, “A lot of folks said, 'I just don’t like your vaccine mandates and I donated to this, now it’s illegal, should I be worried that the bank can freeze my account?'” The Minister of Justice said in reply, “If you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating hundreds of thousands of dollars, and millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you ought to be worried.
There it is, straight out of the mouth of the Minister of Justice. If someone has made a donation to the freedom convoy, then the Minister of Justice thinks they are part of a Trump movement and that they ought to be worried. The Liberal Party is no longer the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has become the party of correct political thought. People now have to think like the Minister of Justice does or they ought to be worried.
I plead with members of this House to vote against this motion. It is incumbent upon us to do this. This is wrong legislation. We must defend Canadian rights and civil liberties. We must vote against this. I plead with members of the NDP. They can make the difference. Members should please vote with the Conservative Party on this one.
1261 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have to say that I believe this is exactly what the Prime Minister would like parliamentarians to be doing here in the House. Instead of focusing on the overreach of invoking the Emergencies Act, he wants us to be arguing about whose fault it is that the protests lasted for as long as they did in the city of Ottawa.
To be very clear, I firmly support the right to peaceful protest and the freedom of peaceful assembly, and I agree with the premier of my province, who called on the people of Saskatchewan to exercise their rights without impeding the rights of others. However, I will reiterate that I believe there is only one person who bears the responsibility—
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:54:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not pleased to be rising in the House tonight. The reason for my disappointment is due to subject matter that I wish the House did not have to be debating. Nonetheless, tonight's debate is on a very serious subject, the implementation of the Emergencies Act. I would like to believe that all hon. members of this place, irrespective of their political party, would also wish not to be here debating this subject. Unfortunately, we are.
I believe that the events that have transpired at various Canadian border crossings and in our nation's capital over the last three weeks converge to provide few alternatives. Some may not see it that way, and I encourage them to take a hard, long second look.
I appreciate that emotions remain high. I would like to do an objective, factual level-set. To do that, I want to take the location out of it and take the city where the protest has occurred out of the debate. Let us put aside that the protest was in Ottawa and ask ourselves how we would feel if it was a hon. member's city and their community that had its main streets and downtown core barricaded by trucks and crowds. Imagine if it was an hon. member's constituents and their neighbourhoods effectively held hostage in their own city, their own community and their own homes. Imagine if people from their community were being harassed and intimidated, with some actually fearing for their own personal safety. What about their right to protection and their right to freedom of movement?
In our community of Spadina—Fort York, we are no stranger to protests. Toronto City Hall is in our riding. The provincial legislature at Queen's Park is just outside of it. In fact, the route people take to these places to exercise their democratic rights often means they would literally be driving by my home. When they do, they would often be honking. My girlfriend and I would look out, see who they were and even look up and see what they were advocating.
However, my rights to freedom of expression and assembly should not, must not, include the oppression of others.
As the son of refugees, I know that my family knew terror and injustice. They endured two years in a refugee camp to find a new home that shared their values, a place that valued democracy and the rule of law. I am sad to say that I did not see those values when I looked at the streets of Ottawa or at the Ambassador Bridge.
What we did see was our national monument to Canada's fallen disgraced and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier being jumped on and urinated upon. It is tragically ironic that the soldier inside the tomb was once a person who knew well what fighting for freedom was all about. The same applies to the statue of a remarkable young man. Terry Fox raised more money than anyone in this country for those fighting an insidious disease, including those who are immunocompromised. The monument and the statue are precious symbols of the best of who we are as a country. That they were defiled is a disgrace.
Some of the most impactful symbols are flags. Sadly, we saw protesters walk around with the flags of evil and racism. Even in the country where Nazism started, anyone who parades around with that flag today gets arrested.
Then there was the Confederate flag, which some protesters chose to fly, a flag that continues to conjure up hatred and intolerance and celebrates a time when people were placed in chains and human slavery. My colleague, the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer, recently eloquently reminded the House of what that flag represents. It does not mean freedom. It does not mean inclusion. It represents intolerance and human slavery.
Flags matter and symbols matter. Our Canadian flag is a beacon of hope for so many people here at home and abroad. I was distraught, as a person who had also proudly worn the flag and the uniform of our country, to see people wrap themselves in our flag and use it as a shield for behaviour that was often anything but honourable.
What I have commented upon thus far is described in revolting detail and I think lies at the heart, the very foundation, of those who came to Ottawa. They did not—
748 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
