SoVote

Feb/20/22 12:07:51 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. Madam Speaker, this morning, I was relieved to see how the physical entrenchment of the extremists' acts were dismantled in Ottawa, though I was dismayed to see the extremists' ideologies expand to Surrey, British Columbia, as we were shown in the news this morning that protests against important public health measures were going on. Even with the physical entrenchment that was allowed to happen removed because of the Emergencies Act, are there continuing threats to our democracy and to the everyday lives of Canadians?

86 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 12:08:28 p.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind hon. members that when somebody has the floor, to please hold their tongues until it is time for questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

30 words

Mr. Mike Kelloway

Feb/20/22 12:08:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this hits home with the part of my speech where I talked about how there is something happening in Canada right now. It is not what the media is talking about, per se, with the ideologies that are traditionally left, right and centre. There is a whole new ideology that is being born about being obstructionist and where the rule of law does not apply. If we do not take this seriously, what are we going to take seriously? We need to ensure the safety of Canadians, as Mr. MacKay and the senator on the Conservative bench have said, and we will continue to do that. Leadership has been talked about a lot lately in the House. Fundamentally, leadership is looking after those for whom you are responsible. We will continue to do the right things, whether it was two years ago with our pandemic response, or now in keeping Canadians safe.

154 words

All Topics

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 12:09:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member had a very passionate speech. Throughout the past couple of days, I have heard members from the opposition benches say that they do not feel threatened walking through the convoy. They do not feel that their security and safety are at risk. However, we have seen young women being attacked. We have had police reports filed by young women who have had hot coffee thrown at them. The member prior said that there was not a lot of violence—

84 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins

Feb/20/22 12:10:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has to back up statements with facts, as a requirement of giving a speech—

26 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 12:10:19 p.m.
Watch

That is debate. The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills will have to wrap up her question. That will give the parliamentary secretary enough time to respond.

28 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Feb/20/22 12:10:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would love for all members in the House to back up their statements with facts. That would be wonderful. I will ask a brief question for the parliamentary secretary. Why is it so important for us to protect the rule of law? What value does bringing the totality of lived experiences have for Parliament? Why is that so important for us here in Canada?

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Kelloway

Feb/20/22 12:10:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do truly believe in facts as well. Certain members in this House have not experienced a lot of push-back as a result of the blockade, but I have talked to many people, and I encourage members here to talk to people. I have talked to those who are working in hotels and who are immensely stressed out. They are stressed out and traumatized by seeing Confederate flags and Nazi symbols in the hotel. It is so important that we continue to focus on the rule of law, because that is the very essence of who we are as Canadians. The values we share are enshrined in the laws we have, and we must uphold them.

119 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 12:11:39 p.m.
Watch

Again, I know this is a very passionate and important debate. I would just ask members to please be respectful when others have the floor. I am sure they would appreciate that courtesy as well when it is their opportunity to speak. We will resume debate. The hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East.

54 words

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 12:12:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in solemn but resolute support of the Emergencies Act. The past weeks have given me time to reflect on the words and actions of those who came to protest public health measures. One of the words we heard most from the demonstrators was “patriotism”. This frequently repeated word compelled me to consider its meaning. An act of patriotism is ultimately an act of self-sacrifice. It is a selfless act on behalf of our families, friends and communities. During the past two years we have seen extraordinary acts of selflessness by Canadians who sacrificed and stood together to keep each other safe during a pandemic. Canadians found the strength to persevere in our shared values, our determination, our dedication and our commitment to community: Canadian truckers, front-line nurses, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, grocery store staff, our law enforcement officers and every essential worker across the nation, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso just mentioned. Although many of the demonstrators label themselves as patriots and were invoking the memory of our veterans and their sacrifices, they forgot the lessons those veterans taught. During World War II, a typhus vaccine was developed and administered to Canadian soldiers. They did it to protect each other and their units. They did it so they could protect their nation. Not only did these vaccines work, but vaccine technology also grew rapidly. In the 1950s and 1960s, vaccines for polio, influenza and tetanus all emerged, and today, polio is a thing of the past. It is gone. It is gone because of the dedication and hard work of scientists, doctors and the millions of people who placed their trust in them. Over the past two years, Canadians pulled together and cared for one another. They wore masks, physically distanced and got vaccinated. It is because of this that federal and provincial restrictions are slowly lifting across the country now, but we still need to hold strong. Regretfully, most demonstrators refused to heed the advice of doctors. They neglected the example set by our veterans and chose to ignore the fact that we do not live in a society racked with polio. This is their right, but having made this choice of their own free will, Canadians who refuse vaccines must also accept responsibility for their choice. Others believe that federal and provincial public health measures went too far and chose to exercise their charter right to protest. That is their right. Unfortunately, according to the intelligence assessments prepared by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, extremist groups were using the protests as a cover. These groups' motivations extended well beyond grievances about public health measures and policy. Instead, their intent was to use the protest to advance an anti-democratic agenda. With the intent of using trucks to blockade Ottawa's downtown core, demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. Some even demanded an immediate and unlawful change in government. These actions emboldened others to blockade the downtown Ottawa core. Demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. They blocked border points at the Ambassador Bridge, at Coutts, Alberta, at Emerson, Manitoba, and the Pacific Highway crossing in B.C. The Ottawa hospital and the Windsor mayor received bomb threats. Not only did these blockades costs hundreds of millions of dollars due to the loss of trade, but they interrupted the very supply lines these protesters claimed to be protecting. As the Ottawa occupation dragged on and even more anti-government demonstrators arrived, the unlawful conduct of the demonstrators continued. The citizens of downtown Ottawa were subjected to constant and excessive horn honking and fireworks, a DJ blaring loud music, causing days of sleep deprivation for many residents. The demonstrators' disregard for mask mandates forced businesses to choose between employee safety and staying open. Most closed and remain closed today. The people of Ottawa reported numerous cases of illegal parking, idling, verbal, sexual and physical assault, intimidation and, worse still, death threats, an attempted arson, parliamentary staff followed home and children being used as shields. Protest by its nature is disruptive, which we accept in a free and democratic society, but protests cannot be used to take hostage the charter rights of other Canadians as a means to force the government to accept political or ideological demands. This conduct gave way to a state of lawlessness in downtown Ottawa and compromised every resident’s section 2 right to security of the person. While these actions may not represent the majority of participants, it is also more than “a few bad apples”, as the official opposition would say. Weapons seized from the Coutts border blockades and bomb threats received by the mayor of Windsor escalated this crisis. These actions are not peaceful; they are not lawful and they are not the actions of Canadians who share the values that got us through the pandemic. The financial and additional enforcement powers, as well as streamlining jurisdictional concerns, have helped police authorities to responsibly disperse or arrest the unlawful demonstrators in Ottawa. It must be remembered that these demonstrators do not represent most Canadians. Roughly 85%, or more, of Canadians got vaccinated, and most of those who did not have not engaged in these disruptive protests. Much more unites Canadians than divides them. The senseless and harmful acts of the past days do not reflect the attitudes of most Canadians. Initiating the Emergencies Act was a difficult but necessary decision to protect the rule of law and give Canadians their freedom.

925 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/20/22 12:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am curious. In the member's speech he referred to security intelligence reports showing the protests were a threat to democracy. I believe he knows that privy councillors are subject to the Official Secrets Act. Our leader, as a member of the Queen's Privy Council, was not asked or invited to anything. I do not believe the hon. member is a member of the Queen's Privy Council. Could he share with us the intelligence briefings that he got as a person who is not a member of the Queen's Privy Council on the security threat to the Government of Canada?

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Parm Bains

Feb/20/22 12:20:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was quite clear. We have received caucus updates as national caucus members. It was very clear that the groups that were demonstrating put forward a manifesto to overthrow government. I think we need to look at the many facts that came forward and were well reported as indicators. Bomb threats, blockades, seized weapons; all of those things are quite evident and they are all before us. Everybody has access to that information.

75 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 12:21:26 p.m.
Watch

Again, I want to remind members of the official opposition that even members who are participating virtually are actually part of the House and they deserve respect. There should not be heckling while a member is speaking. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

48 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/20/22 12:22:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Steveston—Richmond East. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I really liked his definition of patriotism, and I think it is something we need to consider here. However, he was quick to paint patriots as the good guys, the ones who wanted to adopt the Emergencies Act, and said that the others were not patriots. I want to know two things. First, does he therefore think that Bloc members are not patriots? Second, does he think that the Emergencies Act was the only solution, despite the problems and illegal activities that were going on?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Parm Bains

Feb/20/22 12:23:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, weapons were found and weapons were seized. There was a threat to government. A manifesto was put forward threatening the government. In my comments, I did indicate that some people may have come peacefully to protest and patriots in Canada come in many forms. However, when there are people who are organizing to try to overthrow a government, I do not see the patriotism there.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 12:23:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the intelligence assessments referenced by the previous speaker were prepared by Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre and were made available to the general public via The Guardian newspaper. The thought was that tens of millions of dark money were flowing into the coffers of far-right extremist organizers like Tamara Lich and Pat King, into the coffers, potentially, of those currently charged with conspiracy to commit murder. It was made very clear early on in this occupation that crowd funding and now cryptocurrency was being used to fund illegal activities and the organizers who seek to put in place their own undemocratic government. This demonstrated that concerning gap in reporting requirements. Why did the government not take immediate action to ensure that the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations were updated to ensure these companies were not exempt from reporting suspicious transactions to FINTRAC?

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Parm Bains

Feb/20/22 12:24:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have to get a little more information on the FINTRAC involvement in this investigation. It is a great question, and I take it on notice.

29 words

All Topics

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Feb/20/22 12:25:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. The Talleyrand quote “all that is excessive is insignificant” could have been said today about the situation we are debating in the House. Yes, we are in the midst of a crisis, but the federal government chose to enforce an act by proclamation, which would allow the state to infringe on citizens' rights. Although the government could have taken many different paths, it chose to break out the heavy artillery. All that is excessive is insignificant. The Liberal government claims that the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve this crisis, but in reality, it needs to use this act because it was unable to properly manage the crisis from the outset. This type of act is meant to be used exceptionally, especially if it was designed to apply to Quebec. The War Measures Act may have gotten a new name, but it still brings back bad memories for Quebec. If I may, I would like to provide a brief history of the introduction and use of the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. The War Measures Act was introduced and came into force in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Its purpose was to give additional powers to the government in the event of a war, invasion or insurrection. The act was used again in 1939 because of the Second World War. The third time the government invoked this law—we still remember it in Quebec—was during the October crisis in 1970. Immediately following the adoption of an executive order issued during the night at the request of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, the army took to the streets of Montreal in large numbers, striking terror and fear in the hearts of all Quebeckers. That was when their rights and freedoms were trampled on. In total, 497 Quebeckers were arrested and thrown in jail without reasonable cause or recourse. It happened before I was born, but the people have certainly not forgotten: “Je me souviens”. In 1988, the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The new act changed the way the federal government can use extraordinary powers in times of crisis. Since it was passed, the government has never invoked it, so why now? To answer that question, let us look closely at the present situation and the invocation criteria for this act. To have the right to invoke the act, the government must prove two things: first, that a dangerous and urgent situation exists; second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation with any other existing law. First, is the current situation dangerous and urgent? The government does not meet this requirement for the unilateral application of the act. Allow me to demonstrate. On January 15, 2020, proof of vaccination against COVID‑19 became mandatory to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Two weeks later, on January 29, a truckers' movement opposed to this measure decided to gather and protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. So far, it all seems reasonable, because the right to protest and freedom of expression are guaranteed by both the Quebec and the Canadian charters of rights and freedoms. The protest that was supposed to last a few days at the most turned into an occupation of the downtown area. At that point, the government should have dealt with the situation. Instead of taking action, the government washed its hands of it, claiming that crisis management was the Ottawa police's responsibility. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and the next day, on February 7, the Ottawa police force requested assistance from the federal and Ontario provincial governments. On February 11, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency, granting additional resources and powers to law enforcement services. The federal government continued doing nothing, except to polarize the public with inflammatory statements. Let us keep in mind that in addition to the Ottawa siege, border blockades were set up in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, in such places as Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. However, these situations were resolved through existing laws. The same was obviously true for the protests in Quebec City. As to whether this was an urgent and critical situation, if the situation was cause for concern, that was only true in Ontario, specifically in Ottawa, and nowhere else, especially not in Quebec. The Emergencies Act was to be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner, as the government had announced. That is clearly not the case. The Liberal government's lack of leadership caused to the situation to deteriorate. Each day of inaction strengthened the protesters' position. Each day required more effort to enforce the law and each day the Prime Minister refused to take action, choosing to throw fuel on the fire with disparaging statements. As a result, the offenders were allowed to organize. They were allowed to set up tents, toilets, kitchens, cafeterias, a stage and barbecues. They even let them install a hot tub. A hot tub impeded the smooth functioning of democracy in a G7 nation. By allowing the situation to fester, the Prime Minister gave the protesters time—time to fortify their position, time for radicals to get from one coast to the other or to cross the border, and time for foreign elements seeking to destabilize democracy in Quebec and Canada to raise funds in support of the offenders. Had action been taken earlier, we would not be here in Ottawa on a Sunday. We would be home with our constituents, which is where we should be. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a massive smokescreen, a diversion to trick Quebeckers and Canadians into looking elsewhere so they will forget how things got to this point. It is unnecessary, dangerous and disproportionate. To be clear, the January 29 protest no longer has anything to do with the die-hards who decided to place the House under siege. Those who continue to resist, if any, are extremists who should have been contained by law enforcement long ago. Now let us turn to the second criterion for invoking the Emergencies Act. The situation must be such that ordinary laws cannot address it. Could the crisis have been addressed with existing laws? The answer is yes. These protesters had been breaking the law for weeks. All the police had to do was enforce the laws already in place, and the whole thing would have been over in two days. The government had plenty of options. The Criminal Code is full of offences that were committed by the protesters. Subsection 63(1) talks about “unlawful assembly”; section 64 defines the term “riot”; section 68 deals with people who fail to peaceably disperse and depart from a riot; section 430 talks about “mischief”; subsection 181(1) describes “common nuisance”; subsection 423.1(1) talks about the intimidation of a journalist; and section 129 talks about the obstruction of public officers or peace officers. Some police authorities claimed recently that the only solution was the integration of the various police forces involved. However, there is no need for the Emergencies Act to request reinforcements and coordinate efforts. The RCMP, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the OPP, municipal police forces from neighbouring cities and even the Sûreté du Québec were already working together, and this legislation was not required. As for the claim that the occupation could not be dealt with using ordinary legislation, as I have demonstrated to the House, the Criminal Code was already more than adequate to deal with the threat. The government decided to use legislation by proclamation, in other words without consulting the opposition parties or allowing the smallest amendment. By ignoring those who were elected by the majority of the voters, this minority government is undermining its legitimacy and proving its detractors right. The Prime Minister decided to ignore the verdict of the voters, who gave him a minority mandate. He is acting as though he was granted all the power. That is not what the voters chose. The government could use the act in specific locations, when the provinces request it. Quebec made it clear to the federal government that it wanted absolutely nothing to do with its emergency measures. Several Canadian provinces did the same. Rather than consult the provinces and Quebec, the Liberal government chose to impose an act that applies across Canada. This law therefore cannot be limited. It is foreign to the reality of Quebec. It should not apply to Quebec.

1466 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 12:35:27 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, the member's speaking time has run out. The hon. member can finish her remarks during the period of questions and comments. The hon. member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount.

38 words

Dame

Hon. Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 12:35:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with respect to the Emergencies Act, the interim chief of the Ottawa police said that it is because of the application of this legislation—which we hope will be temporary—that the police were able to take the various actions they did in the past few days. What does my colleague think of this statement? Is what the interim chief of police is saying true?

69 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35