SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 35

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
  • Feb/20/22 8:24:16 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond. As we all know, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to invoking the Emergencies Act, especially as written in the orders, since the measures would apply to Quebec, even though the Quebec National Assembly, including the provincial Liberals, voted unanimously to oppose the imposition of emergency measures within its borders. As we all know, what Quebec wants, the Bloc wants. Special legislation must not be used lightly. Its application must be measured and proportionate. The Prime Minister himself said many times that the act would not be used where it was not necessary. Therefore, why did he apply it to the whole country? Seven out of 10 provinces said no to the Prime Minister because they felt they had the necessary tools and resources to manage the crisis. Here is what the Quebec National Assembly said in its motion: That the National Assembly be concerned about the current disruptions in Ontario and around certain federal border crossings; That it affirm that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Québec; That it ask the Canadian government to not apply the federal Emergencies Act in Québec; That, lastly, the National Assembly reiterate the importance of close collaboration between the federal government and the Québec government, in particular to ensure peace of mind and safety for citizens in the Outaouais region who are affected by the ongoing demonstrations in Ottawa and who could have to bear the brunt of any further deterioration of the situation. During the protests in Quebec City on the weekend of February 4 to 6, the municipal authorities were able to manage the situation very well without any major problems. There were no problematic protests in Quebec. One week before the arrival of the convoy in Quebec City, the City of Quebec published a detailed press release that listed the measures that would be taken. Hundreds of protesters and about 30 trucks moved around the city during that weekend. The Quebec City police service, the SPVQ, tolerated their presence but enforced municipal bylaws. The city diverted traffic from certain streets so that the downtown would not be completely paralyzed. After the demonstration, the SPVQ held a press conference at which it said: We believe...that we have fulfilled the commitment we made before the events began, which was primarily to facilitate and protect the right to lawful and peaceful protest, while keeping protesters, road users, users of public spaces, and residents safe, in addition to enforcing...laws and regulations. The Liberal Prime Minister could have shown this kind of leadership as soon as it became clear, the Monday after the protest started, that the truckers were not leaving. In fact, he could have done it as soon as the convoy was announced, given all of the people who were involved. Some of them were even saying all along that they wanted to overthrow the government. The government could have taken much stronger preventative measures, but the Prime Minister chose to wait and the convoy grew. The protesters set up hot tubs, bouncy castles and a wooden structure in front of city hall, but nothing was done. Because the Prime Minister refused to take action, the convoy started catching on across the country and even on other continents. The Liberal government seemed to always be one step behind. It did not start focusing on the Ambassador Bridge situation until the White House called. Back in Ottawa, the government waited for a call from the Ottawa police and did nothing to reclaim the parliamentary precinct. The government dragged its feet, even as the City of Ottawa was asking for reinforcements. The Ottawa Police Service was asking for an additional 1,800 officers, but the federal government sent just a handful. Furthermore, most of the 275 RCMP officers who had been sent were assigned to protect ministers and Parliament. Just 20 of them were assigned to deal with the protests. Commentators in Quebec are practically unanimous in saying that the Prime Minister was absent and invisible from the beginning of the conflict, when the City of Ottawa was asking for help. The federal government did not even try to speak directly with the organizers, unlike the City of Ottawa, which was successful in getting the trucks out of certain residential areas. The City of Quebec was also able to get protesters to co-operate. Instead of considering this option, the Prime Minister kept disparaging the protesters, lecturing them and lumping everyone together. The hon. member for Louis-Hébert, himself a Liberal, condemned the lack of dialogue and the politicization of the crisis, which the Liberal government amplified for political gain. In terms of public safety, there is little evidence that the government took all possible and necessary measures to put an end to the blockades before imposing emergency measures. The only reason we are here debating this law today is because the Liberal government did not act quickly enough. The situation could be summarized as follows: The government did not try anything, and, not knowing what to do, it invoked the Emergencies Act when almost all of the occupations were over. Almost all of the blockades had been dismantled or were on the verge of being dismantled when the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act. That shows that it might not have been necessary and that the authorities had all the tools they needed. Almost all of the blockades on the Ambassador Bridge and in Sarnia, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Emerson, and Coutts, Alberta, had already been cleared. The Prime Minister explained to the House and in the documents appended to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the mobilization happening over social media. An act like this is not meant to be invoked when the government thinks that something might happen. It is invoked to deal with a real or imminent situation. It might even be said that the Liberal government is adding even more fuel to the fire with these emergency measures, allowing extremists to cry dictatorship. The situation could easily have been resolved without these emergency measures. I salute the excellent work done by all of the police forces involved, including, of course, the Sûreté du Québec. We saw that what was needed was effective police coordination and collaboration. It could have been achieved, and was certainly beginning to be achieved, without the application of emergency measures. An editorial in Le Devoir called the emergency measures “too much, too late”. It called it another blunder by the Prime Minister because, once again, he failed to listen to Quebec or the provinces. There was no justification for the emergency measures from the beginning. They are even less justified today, now that the blockades in Ottawa have been almost completely cleared. We must therefore vote against the emergency measures.
1172 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 8:34:48 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I liked about my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île's speech was the way he summarized the events leading up to the current situation. He talked about the Prime Minister's lack of leadership and about how the PM hid in his cottage for three or four weeks and made only one public appearance where he insulted the people who had come to Ottawa to protest. It seems as though that is what convinced them to stick around. I would like my colleague to talk about the consultations that the government says it held. The government told the provincial premiers that it was going to invoke the Emergencies Act. Usually, the purpose of a consultation is to convince people to see things our way. How is it that seven of the 10 provincial premiers have spoken out against the use of this act?
150 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 8:37:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that the Emergencies Act was useful. However, as constitutional expert Patrick Taillon said, the act must not only be useful, it must be essential. I think that everything we saw could have been done differently. For the past two weeks, we constantly asked the Prime Minister to meet with all stakeholders, to set up an all-party committee with all stakeholders in order take effective action on the ground. I think we could very well have done that without the emergency measures. The government must not make a habit of resorting to these extreme measures for situations that can be resolved by other means.
114 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 8:47:52 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get another opportunity at a future time to talk about the type of legacy that this government and the Prime Minister will be able to leave, but for now, with regard to the Emergencies Act, it is important for us to recognize that by enacting it, we have enabled people like the interim chief of police here in Ottawa and other law enforcement agencies to access laws that will assist them in dealing with things such as the illegal blockade. We know that for a fact, and there are many individuals out there who support this initiative. My question for my friend is this: Does he not see the benefit of having targeted actions taken, such as not being able to use children as a form of blockade and having additional fines in place to protect our borders for international trade and downtowns from being blockaded in the future, if in fact that were—
162 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 8:52:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Drummond for his speech and especially for his masterful use of the French language in this place. I would like to ask him how he can state that the city of Ottawa has been under siege and then, in the same breath, suggest that the Emergencies Act is being trivialized.
60 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 8:53:05 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do not know where he heard me say that the use of the Emergencies Act is being trivialized. That is not what I said, but I do think that it is excessive. The act is far too powerful a tool for what we needed at the time. I am not saying that the use of the Act is being trivialized, but I do condemn it for the overreach that it represents.
81 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 9:23:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today. This is a solemn day that will no doubt be remembered by Canadians for decades to come. Given the gravity of today's debate, I believe it is incumbent on all members to speak candidly, earnestly and sincerely. Today we are debating the Emergencies Act, but before I outline why the invocation of this act is capricious and completely unnecessary, it is best to provide some context to how our country got to where it is right now. Unfortunately, it is truly clear that Canada is a highly fragmented country facing significant economic problems that put our entire prosperity at risk. Our economy has just experienced significant job losses. We are experiencing an inflation crisis, with inflation at a 30-year high of 5.1%. That has real consequences. There are people, many Canadians, who cannot afford the bare necessities of life. We have over $1 trillion in debt that will doubtlessly be pushed onto future generations as they pay for our expenditures. Our country is divided. It is divided between west versus east, rural versus urban, freedom versus security and vaccinated versus unvaccinated. Now our Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. It is an act that suspends the civil liberties of Canadians such as section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association, and section 8, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The police can, literally without warrant or warning, seize one's property. They can arrest Canadians for simply assembling. Never in my life or in my wildest dreams did I ever expect to have five police checks just to get to my office. Never did I expect that in Canada. The invocation of the Emergencies Act has also given the government the right to freeze bank accounts without judicial oversight. This can create financial ruin by putting an asterisk beside someone's financial credit rating for life. This might mean that a mortgage never happens, or that a son or daughter never goes to university, because of this asterisk. Why was this done? According to the Minister of Justice, when he was talking to the media, he said that the grounds could be for as little as supporting causes the government disagrees with. This is shameful. When someone's bank account is frozen, they are effectively being removed from society. They may not have money to pay for food to feed their children, for gasoline for their cars to get to work, or for electricity to heat their homes. The government may literally starve and freeze Canadians into submission. I watched this weekend as protesters were arrested at gunpoint. They were pepper sprayed. Several protesters were trampled by 2,000-pound horses. How could the Prime Minister ever let the situation get this bad? This is not our Canada. Let us go back and look at what led us to these circumstances. It makes sense to start with the change in tone from the Prime Minister heading into his unnecessary $600-million election. The Prime Minister, based no doubt on polling numbers, made a calculated effort to demonize unvaccinated Canadians and to capitalize on the growing frustration of vaccinated Canadians with the unvaccinated. The choice led the Prime Minister to demean and stigmatize, as the member for Louis-Hébert so eloquently said. The Prime Minister said they are extremists “who do not believe in science, they’re often misogynists and often racists. It is a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a decision in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?” That is repugnant. I have sat here listening to Liberal member after Liberal member saying that we needed to de-escalate and bring down the heat. They should start by talking to the Prime Minister. Also, it was no doubt a part of the Prime Minister's strategy to demonize and exploit cleavages in our society when he decided to implement a 14-day quarantine period on truckers: our heroes who, throughout COVID for two years, when there were no vaccines, went across. They braved the delta variant. They braved the omicron variant. They were our heroes, and now they are demonized. All we have asked, and all the media and the opposition members have asked, is for the government to show us its math. Instead, we get outdated, irrelevant talking points. We have cost thousands of Canadians their livelihoods for purely partisan politics. This is disgusting. We presented the most utterly reasonable motion. Our party simply asked for a plan to end the mandate. It was just a plan. The Prime Minister remained defiant, refusing to support the plan. While the rest of the world opens up borders, while the rest of the world eases restrictions, our Prime Minister will not even give Canadians, who deserve hope, a plan for that hope or a plan to return to normality. Once again, the Prime Minister has chosen politics over science and petulance over leadership. This crisis could have been avoided with strong and compassionate leadership. Instead, the Prime Minister chose partisanship over statesmanship and division over unity. This has led us to the current crisis. The Prime Minister's unnecessary mandate and divisive rhetoric have caused frustrations to boil over. Canadians from across the country began to spontaneously demonstrate and show their dissatisfaction to the Liberal government. Unfortunately, some of the movement splintered into illegal activities, including the blockades at the border crossings at Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Fortunately, the provinces were able to resolve these matters peacefully, and they ended with hugs instead of violence. Here in Ottawa, while many of the protesters were salt-of-the-earth Canadians who wanted to express their grievances, unfortunately there were some who expressed hate. They should all be individually accountable for those expressions. In addition, there were approximately 150 vehicles parked in front of Parliament for over three weeks. Those vehicles disrupted lives. They made it impossible for individuals to go to school or to go to work. They needed to be moved, and that cannot be doubted. To end this, though, the Prime Minister overreached. He invoked the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act is fairly clear and fairly prescriptive. It requires that three tests be met: first, that the public disorder created a threat to the security of Canada; second, that it was national in scope; and third, that the public disorder could not be resolved by other means. Let us review those criteria, one by one. Was there a security threat to Canada? A security threat would presumably be something extremely significant. A clear example would be the potential use of a nuclear or chemical weapon. Those are security threats to Canada. Another would be a paramilitary force threatening to overthrow the Canadian government. What we had here were 150 illegally parked vehicles and a mass of disorganized people, some of them who had repugnant views, including the overthrow of the government, but there is no actual intelligence I have seen or any evidence that there was actually the ability to threaten our government. I walked through there for three weeks, and if in fact the government allowed all MPs to walk through these protests and there was an imminent threat to our government, that is the most malfeasance and insecurity our government has ever had. Second, it is national in scope. Three weeks ago, we may have had an argument about this. When the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were happening, we might have had an argument, but they are gone. Do members know what? So is the protest in Ottawa. Why has this not been revoked by now? Where is the threat? Where is it? It is clear. It is done. Third, it cannot be resolved by other legislation. Clearly, it could be and it has been, at the Ambassador Bridge and otherwise. It is true that it would be helpful. A sledgehammer would be helpful to crack a walnut, but it would not be necessary. That is the case here. Ultimately, this is not about truckers or one's vaccination status. This is about the future of Canada. Do we want a country that is free to dissent? A government that controls the discourse, controls our lives. Do we want a country where environmentalists fear that we are not doing enough on climate change? Do we want a country where Quebeckers can share their request for greater autonomy? Do we want a government where a Conservative can share his contempt for the government? I believe all of these voices should be heard.
1459 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 9:33:57 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was an impassioned speech. I have to admit that I am struck by much of what the member said. In the spirit of thinking through some facts, he mentioned that many people were trampled. Mr. Philip Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I did not. I said two. Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed: Mr. Speaker, two people were trampled. News reports say the reporter actually admitted that there was, in fact, no trampling. I just want to make sure we clarify the facts in the House. I would ask the following question. The other side does not trust the government. Would the members trust the national security adviser to Stephen Harper, and the former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden? He said that it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it related to the federal banking measures, which were not covered under other legislation.
144 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 9:38:41 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has cited a public order emergency throughout Canada as its justification to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is wrong. In this chamber, the Prime Minister said he invoked the Emergencies Act because the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada. That is false. The leader of the NDP talks about tools available, should the government abuse the power provided within this act. However, he has missed a critical point, which is that the abuse has already happened. Neither of them is listening to Canadians; they are instead choosing a path of divisive policies, distinctly separate from democracy and the voice of Canadians. Freedom is at the heart of democracy, and the right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Let me say that again: The right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Freedom is what so many hundreds of thousands of Canadian women and men have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend. A Métis man in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia wrote me this week to tell me a story of his father's and his family's commitment to preserving and securing democracy, and his concern about the current government actions. He told me the story of his great-grandfather, who was wounded in the First World War. He holds tightly, as a reminder of how he came to be free, the very bullet that tore through his great-grandfather's leg. He also told me that his grandfather fought in the Canadian First Infantry Division, which made its way through Ortona, Italy to stop Hitler's advances through Europe. These are but two examples of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have sacrificed for our freedoms, the very freedoms the Liberal government has restricted. Why did the Prime Minister go directly to invoking the Emergencies Act? He had numerous opportunities to address the situation peacefully over the past few weeks, yet he chose to do nothing. I can think of four reasonable actions that would have allowed us to avoid the difficulties we have faced. The Prime Minister could have sent a delegation. The Prime Minister could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. The Prime Minister could have met with opposition leaders, like the Conservative leader requested. Finally, the Prime Minister could have met and listened to these Canadians himself. Of course, the government could have removed COVID restrictions and vaccine passports at our border crossings and airports. However, listening, the one thing that would have helped de-escalate, is the very thing he did not do. Having a significant background in law enforcement, I know that the basic rule of law is to listen to concerns and work towards a peaceful resolution, not to enter into a fight first. I cannot imagine what would happen if every police officer went to a call and did not listen to the issues first. Dialogue is significantly more productive than the Emergencies Act. Instead, what the Prime Minister decided to do was further rachet up, escalate and divide Canadians with hurtful rhetoric. Canadians are not buying divisive rhetoric. The Prime Minister no longer has footing rooted in democracy, and all members of the House have a simple choice to make. Do they side with freedom and the institutions of democracy, or do they side with the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP, who want to seize the bank accounts of Canadians with whom they disagree? Apparently, accounts have already been frozen. This sets a precedent that for all illegal blockades of roads, logging sites, pipelines or railroads, the future funding is subject to this process. Going back to the Emergencies Act, I choose freedom. Let us not be so foolish as to water down the significance of this movement, our obligations to those we serve and the impacts this will have on generations that follow. The decisions we make in this chamber on this issue will reverberate through the walls of history, and we will be held to account. The choice is simple: Protect and defend democracy or tear it down. I will be voting to defend it. We must not accept a situation where it is up to a prime minister or any member of the government to decide, outside the laws created in this chamber, which protests are legal and which are not. We surely must not tolerate a scenario where families are separated because their ideas or beliefs are different from those of the prime minister or the government of the day. Kootenay—Columbians see this as being about a Prime Minister's ego, about a lack of leadership and weakening precedents. I would like to take this moment to speak to those members of the Liberal caucus who are feeling uneasy about being whipped to a vote they know to be wrong. Their country needs them to uphold the values of democracy and freedom. Our country will be strong and free long after we leave this place, and it is our responsibility to ensure it is so. The Emergencies Act was not invoked during fears and protest around the Spanish flu, which took 50 million lives around the world. It was not invoked during the Great Depression and the workers strikes in the 1930s. It was not invoked during the crises of Oka or Ipperwash, or in the aftermath of 9/11. During my time in law enforcement in British Columbia, the act was not invoked to solve the riots in Penticton and Kelowna, where downtown storefronts were destroyed. It was not invoked to address a month-long illegal standoff at Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest in the history of the province. There were RCMP members shot, helicopters taking rifle fire and landowners unable to go home. I was at this event and can say with certainty that it was much like a war zone, in British Columbia, Canada, and there was no Emergencies Act invoked. Currently, there is an illegal blockade and protest at the Coastal GasLink drill site on the Marten Forest Road near Houston, B.C. On February 17, there was an attack on a number of CGL employees and RCMP, and a member was physically injured in the attack. Initial damage to equipment and buildings is estimated at over $10 million. RCMP are investigating mischief, assault, criminal harassment and man traps set purposely to injure police. This appears to be a violent, illegal action that the Emergencies Act would support law enforcement in, especially given that its financial support, from GoFundMe.com, has financing from outside Canada. Where other methods and authorities exist to deal with disagreements, governments should use these methods and authorities. Governments should not subject free people to abuse of wide-ranging, freedom-altering overreach. I stand before members today on behalf of the people I represent and the thousands of phone calls and emails from individuals concerned about their charter rights and freedoms. I stand in this chamber, after a lifetime of experience within the RCMP, to explain to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this House that he is wrong in his actions. Police agencies have the tools they need, but it starts with dialogue. The government had numerous other legislative options it could have considered before going to the extreme of invoking the Emergencies Act. The act makes it clear it is only meant to address urgent and critical situations that cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law in Canada. The government wants the public to believe otherwise, but in fact it does have the power to direct the RCMP under section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The government did nothing for weeks and is now taking unprecedented steps that are not necessary. Regardless of the talking points being used by the government and what it would like Canadians to believe, the fact remains that the Prime Minister's actions represent real limits on our charter rights. Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are all principles that require constant vigilance to defend. The measures under the Emergencies Act raise serious questions with respect to the rights of Canadians. Section 2 guarantees our freedom of association and assembly. Section 7 guarantees our right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 guarantees our protection against unreasonable search and seizure. How and why can Canadians be assured the government is protecting our rights with this extraordinary and unprecedented invoking of the Emergencies Act? The following organizations have now come out publicly against the Prime Minister's overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to opposition from the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Who wholeheartedly agrees with the Prime Minister and the Liberals? The NDP, that is who. Twenty-five votes in this 338-vote House separate the will of Canadians from democracy. As Canadians learn about the Emergencies Act and the NDP support for it, they are sounding alarm bells. The silent majority is awake. Canadians are watching and will not forget the decision we make in this chamber on this issue. Freedom will prevail on Friday, or it will prevail when the government fails. Make no mistake: Freedom will prevail. However, the current leader of the NDP is supporting the Prime Minister at any cost. We arrive at this unfortunate moment as the direct result of failed leadership by the Prime Minister and his government. I implore all colleagues to take note: Future generations will read and learn about their actions and their support and abuse of power. It will be recorded in history, written in textbooks and taught in classrooms. This wayward principle has lost control long ago. Opposition to the NDP-supported Liberal overreach is growing. Invoking the Emergencies Act is clear government overreach, and the Conservatives will oppose it. I want to add that I really appreciate the thousands of individuals in Kootenay—Columbia who have reached out to me, hoping common sense prevails. It is difficult to understand the federal government when so many provinces have eliminated most COVID restrictions. For example, I was in Calgary and there was no vaccine passport. Therefore, why does the federal government continue with vaccine restrictions at federal-regulated locations, border crossings and airports? We would not be here if the government followed common sense and science as its provincial partners are doing. I hope the government starts to listen. We need Canada united and proud. It is time.
1782 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 9:52:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the mayor supports the Emergencies Act. The local police force supports the Emergencies Act. Why does my colleague not think this is necessary when peoples lives have been impacted and business supply chains have been impacted? Why does he not think it is important?
46 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 9:53:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I never said it was not important. For example, just before COVID we had the railway blockade where $6 billion was lost for our economy and we did not react to that. When she asks that question, I will say I do care and I think we should be doing something. I do believe we do not need the Emergencies Act to keep our streets safe.
68 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:03:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the government may have heard the protesters who came here full of energy, but it did not listen to them. It is important to admit that. I have a question for the member. I held consultations when I worked in the private sector. Usually, when we hold consultations, it is to convince the people being consulted that we are right or to present an argument we want them to take seriously. One of the rules in the Emergencies Act says that the Prime Minister and the government must consult the provinces. If the government consulted the premiers of the 10 provinces, how come seven of them, after being consulted, explicitly said that they did not want the Emergencies Act to be used in our country?
127 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:04:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking that question in French, and I congratulate him for it. Canada is a big country, and the situations are different from one place to another. The Emergencies Act contains a rigorous implementation process, as I was saying in my speech, including consultations, which took place. Another benefit of the act is that it applies on demand, based on need. Some provinces made the request and wanted the act to be invoked. That is the beauty of it, that it can be used where it is needed.
94 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:07:25 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the Parliamentary Protective Service, the interpreters, who enable us to have this debate, as well as all law enforcement agencies over the past few days. I have a question for my colleague from Sherbrooke. Why wait three weeks? People drove thousands of kilometres. We knew they were coming. They wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government if they did not get what they wanted. They even threatened the Prime Minister. They were receiving foreign funding. Nevertheless, the Liberal government dragged its feet and did nothing, letting the situation escalate before deciding to invoke the Emergencies Act. Is that not an admission of failure by the Liberal government?
119 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:19:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The Emergencies Act is only meant to be applied in the event of an existing or imminent crisis. The situation taking place on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks appears to have been cleared or is well on the way to being cleared. Does my colleague still think it is necessary to enforce the Emergencies Act?
66 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:34:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is nice to see that the New Democratic Party recognizes the true value of the Emergencies Act. It is legislation that is actually required. We have seen that expressed by the interim chief here in Ottawa and we have been asked by the Province of Ontario as well as the trading corridors that she made reference to. We can talk about that, but for me, it is all about the people and the freedom of people to be able to live in peace, to have jobs and to not feel threatened. She made reference to the issue of racism we saw raise its ugly head during the blockades. Could the member provide her thoughts on why it was important for Ottawa to work with the Province of Ontario and the municipality of Ottawa and others to be able to resolve this issue?
145 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:36:01 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the provisions in the Emergencies Act is warrantless search and seizure. This provision is especially relevant to the freezing of bank accounts of those known to be connected to the protesters outside or of people who are related to them, which could happen further down. I would like to hear the member comment on the fact that the government no longer needs to go to a judge to obtain a warrant to freeze a bank account or financial assets. Does she have any concerns whatsoever that the government could abuse this power because there is no longer judicial oversight?
103 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • 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!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:49:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on what the member just stated. At this time we are talking about the Emergencies Act, but think of how much better it would have been to be talking about the heroes of the pandemic. Here we are pushing the three-year mark, and at the end of the day, so much good has taken place. Moving to his speech, there are a couple of points I would like to highlight. One is the importance and supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have heard the word “freedom” a lot during this debate, and the Emergencies Act does not override any aspect of the charter. Second, as the member made reference to, at any point in time there are four political entities in the House that have more than 20 members. All it takes is 20 members to require a vote on the revocation of the act at any point in time. If the member could pick up on those points, I would appreciate it.
175 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • Feb/20/22 10:50:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I hear two main points. The first one gives us an opportunity to again thank all of the frontline workers and health care workers in this country who, while we debate this legislation, are tasked with the critical job of dealing with vulnerable people, helping patients and getting us through what is still a pandemic. I think that is always important to keep in mind as our attention is taken elsewhere. Second of all, it was a major part of my research and speech to note that the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted in response to the excesses of the War Measures Act and contains within it many parliamentary oversights, restrictions and careful parameters to ensure that the excesses of the War Measures Act are not repeated. I think that is also a very vital point to make to Canadians to assure them that their rights remain paramount, even with the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
158 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border