44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- 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 4:14:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was in the House yesterday when that member yelled across the floor to a colleague of mine from B.C. in the official opposition, asking them something to the effect of how they would feel if something like this was happening in their community.
I just want to remind the member that last year a huge portion of B.C., my riding and neighbouring ridings in particular, had extensive fires, floods, mudslides, lives lost, houses burnt, substantial infrastructure destroyed and livelihoods destroyed. The member talked about having to go through some checkpoints to get to his office; in British Columbia, for many days and weeks, many members of Parliament could not get around their constituencies and could not even get to the airport to come to Ottawa. It just shows a disconnect with what is happening across the rest of the country.
The member is in the government and knows the serious crisis that we had. Just as a reflection, the act defines an emergency as a situation that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians”. Based on that, was this member involved last summer, due to the serious situations happening in British Columbia, and did he advocate invoking the Emergencies Act at that time, or is he only considering—
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:15:51 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:15:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my heart ached as a Canadian when I saw communities in British Columbia going through the torturing heat or the flooding that I have seen just recently, or the parts of the country that experienced forest fires.
This is a big country, and what binds us, unites us and glues us together is that we care for each other, so I say that I will stand with the member opposite, shoulder to shoulder, if her community goes through a disaster. I will listen to her carefully, because she will be in a better position to share with the rest of us what her community has gone through, as I am sharing with her how my community feels, and I will find ways to work with her.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:16:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member raised an incredibly important point of law around the protection of our rights and freedoms under our charter. It is necessary for him to clearly answer this point in order for us to fully understand the scale and scope of powers granted under the provisions of the proclamation.
I know the hon. member to be a learned lawyer who would have some knowledge of this incredibly important point of law as the former attorney general of Ontario. Will he please confirm and clearly state whether the rights afforded by the charter remain whole and intact; or is the government, through its declaration, attempting to surreptitiously rescue any potential charter breaches, violations and abuses of government authority through section 1 of the charter and thereby being compliant, as he has so far stated? The public and this House deserve to know.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:17:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. He and I had the opportunity to work on very important charter-related issues when we were banning the practice of carding in the province of Ontario. The member was a city councillor then, and he and I worked together on that particular aspect.
The essence of the Emergencies Act is to ensure that charter rights are protected. That is very much the intention and motivation behind it. It states so within the legislation itself. We also have to remember that the charter rights come with reasonable limits. There are reasonable limits that allow for charter rights. For example, as long as a protest is a peaceful and lawful expression of ideas, that is within the charter rights, but if it becomes not peaceful or becomes unlawful, then there is recourse available to ensure that the protest or, in this instance, an occupation almost four weeks long, a total siege, can be put to an end.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:19:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Does he believe that Canada's current laws and the provinces' current resources and powers are so insufficient as to warrant federal intervention when a protest takes place or streets get blocked? If so, should we expect the Emergencies Act to be invoked every time there is a protest on Wellington Street in Ottawa?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we have to remember in this instance is that for over three weeks, we were not able to put an end to the occupation. It continued on. Different tactics were used, with the application of existing law being present, but our law enforcement agencies were not able to end this occupation.
Through the provision of powers, some of which I articulated, and their application, law enforcement was able to end the occupation. We heard that from our local interim police chief in Ottawa. These powers that were given to him through the Emergencies Act gave him sufficient tools to end the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his speech.
I certainly appreciated his analysis of the events based on his experience and his perspective as a lawyer and former attorney general of Ontario.
I would actually like to ask my colleague to tell us, based on that perspective, what test needs to be met to make the Emergencies Act necessary.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:21:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the test is in the legislation. There has to be a threat that is national in scope. We did not have the tools available that could deal with that.
This emergency is national in scope. It has impacted pretty much the entire country. There is not only the occupation of downtown Ottawa, but also the blockades that we saw in Windsor, in Manitoba at the Emerson crossing, in Coutts, Alberta and, most recently, in British Columbia. Certain tactics have been used to impede not only people's lives, like in the case of Ottawa, but also the commerce and economic viability of the country.
The tools that were available to use were not sufficient to put an end to it. This is not to mention the financial aspect, which is very necessary and very much part and parcel of this emergency declaration.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for some good points. I disagree with some of them, but he is debating in a strong parliamentary fashion.
I disagree with some of the things he said. As mentioned, under the Emergencies Act, the key test is whether or not existing laws in Canada can solve the problems we face. In the case of Ottawa, and I have been in and out of the city since the truckers' protest began, the actions we saw in the last couple of days were a reflection not so much of the fact that we needed the Emergencies Act, but that the Ottawa police had finally started to act. At the very beginning, we could have avoided some of the challenges that we have today if the Ottawa police had taken a different approach from the onset.
The member opposite is the former attorney general of Ontario. There have been many cases in Ontario where a large police presence was required, such as the G20 summit a number of years ago. It had a huge police presence and was able to contain a large crowd.
I still have not received enough evidence from the government to determine that no other existing laws could have effectively dealt with the current situation.
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:24:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that politicians cannot dictate to law enforcement how to apply the law. We have to rely on law enforcement to do the work.
We have heard from our interim police chief that the Emergencies Act allowed him to do the important work he has done, with the help of many other police services, including the RCMP and the OPP, to put an end to this illegal occupation here in Ottawa.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:24:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.
I have listened quite intently to the debate that has been ongoing on the question of the emergency measures act. While I am sometimes disappointed in the partisan and petty level of debate coming from the opposition benches, I think there are some things we can agree on as a House.
We can agree that all Canadians are protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is our job as MPs in this House to protect those rights, including the right to expression, to peaceful assembly and to the safety and security of the person. We can agree that the majority of Canadians are frustrated and tired of this COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed the lives of over 34,000 Canadians.
We can agree that our Prime Minister did not create COVID-19 or this global pandemic. He and his government created measures to combat it, with the objective of protecting Canadians' health and safety. We can agree that a convoy of protesters drove for days, uninhibited, to Ottawa to protest various provincial and some federal regulations. For at least three weeks, they blocked major streets and were allowed to set up tents, speak their minds and express their feelings.
We can agree that the organizers of this convoy-turned occupation officially called for the fall of this democratically elected government and its replacement by people of their own choosing. We can agree that crowd-sourcing efforts raised millions of dollars for this occupation, and that over 50% of that funding came from foreign lands. We can agree that the Ambassador Bridge was blocked by these protesters for many days, causing hundreds of millions of dollars lost in trade per day, and that those losses still continue.
We can agree that lethal weapons were seized in Coutts, Alberta from protesters and over a dozen people were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. We can agree that children were used as shields in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge. We also agree that Canada is a federation, with separation of powers outlined in our Constitution, and that those powers include policing powers, where provinces take leadership, including in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and so forth.
I have received thousands of emails from across Canada, and not just from my own riding, from people who are confused and scared. Some were repeating misinformation about what is happening in our country. My job as a member of Parliament is to listen to all voices in my riding and balance the diverse ideas into a consensus that I then represent in this esteemed House. I will continue to try to clear up some of that misinformation that has been disseminated irresponsibly by some in this very place.
This convoy does not represent all truckers, and it has been condemned by all major trucking organizations across Canada. I have heard from truckers living in Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they have expressed to me their disgust with the actions we are seeing from certain participants in the convoy. They pleaded with me not to judge them for the protesters' actions, because they do not represent them or their industry.
I do not believe that every person supporting these convoys has behaved in this way. For many, this was a way to express their frustration with the pandemic. The fact is that these incidents keep happening. They keep encroaching on the rights of Canadians, and it needs to stop. When it comes to this issue, the majority of Canadians do not care about a person's politics and they do not care about what colour a person's party is. This behaviour just cannot be defended and our citizens have demanded action.
When these convoys arrived in the GTA, the greater Toronto area, we saw that appropriate police action could minimize the harm and damage to local residents. We need to understand why Ottawa had so much trouble. I appreciate that the hard-working women and men of our police services and our federal government have been responding since day one with all the support we could provide under normal circumstances. To be honest, I am disappointed that the provincial and local leadership could not handle policing these demonstrations to ensure that Ottawa citizens were treated with respect and that our supply chains were secure.
After two weeks of what we saw here, the Premier of Ontario declared a state of emergency and called for greater tools from our federal government to take action, which could be administered only through the Emergencies Act. Instead of leaving Ontario out in the cold, our government is invoking this legislation, after careful consideration and after exhausting all other measures, to provide these greater tools to local authorities to address the situation.
We are taking action to keep Canadians safe, to protect people's jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. If we look outside, we will see that the emergency orders we are debating right now are already helping local law enforcement restore safety and a sense of normality to the streets of Ottawa.
After weeks on end of working day and night, they now have the tools they need to enforce the law, thanks to the federal government. Citizens should be able to walk freely without the fear of being harassed. They have the right to safety and security. Small businesses in the downtown core should be able to open their doors to the public again without fearing for their safety and that of their staff. These organizers have had weeks to address the hate symbols and disturbing statements, weeks to root out the participants who are putting the citizens of Ottawa in danger, weeks to leave and go home. They refused at every turn, and that is what brought us to today.
The Prime Minister has said this over and over again and I will say it once more. These measures are temporary. To be clear, the Emergencies Act does not involve the military and will not be used to limit people's freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
In fact, the Emergencies Act requires that any steps taken be reasonable and proportionate to the situation. There is a strict time limit of 30 days, unless the House votes to extend, and the House of Commons has the power to revoke these measures at any time. It will not prevent people from peacefully protesting. It will certainly not infringe on individual rights, which will always be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There must also be a joint review by Parliament, including the Senate, to ensure that all requirements under the act were followed and justified. Residents in Erin Mills have told me that they would expect such a review to also scrutinize the response of provincial and municipal governments and why they needed to kick this issue up to the federal government.
We must maintain the appropriate balance between Canadians' rights and their freedoms, including the right to peacefully protest. At the same time, we must protect the safety and well-being of Canadians and of our nation's supply chains. I assure my constituents that I will be the first to defend them against government erosion of their rights. I sincerely do not believe that these powers are abusive, and I sincerely do believe they will help to restore peace and order and the rule of law in our Canada.
I recognize that we are all tired of the pandemic and we are all tired of the public health measures that have separated us from our loved ones for over two years. We want life to go back to a semblance of normalcy, and that is what we are all working towards every single day.
Our government has already been loosening certain restrictions at the federal level that pertain to travel, and will continue to do so at a pace that ensures that Canadians' health and safety are protected.
If we are to live with COVID-19, then we need to make COVID-19 livable for everyone, especially vulnerable residents for whom this virus is a death sentence.
I am encouraging all of us to take a step back and start connecting with our residents on the ground rather than with spectators on social media, to take the time to clear up the misconceptions and misinformation that are beginning to fester in our grassroots. It is time we really talked about the real issues, and I am looking forward to spending time this coming week connecting with Erin Mills and celebrating Black History Month the way we should.
I look forward to hearing from constituents about our ongoing budget, which is our plan forward out of the pandemic and out of this economic downturn.
1483 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:35:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act allows the government powers without judicial oversight. That is what is going to happen. The Emergencies Act removes judicial oversight regarding the freezing of bank accounts.
Earlier today, members on the Liberal side mentioned 73 bank accounts have been frozen. Andreas Park, a finance professor at the University of Toronto, expressed alarm at the scope of the government's financial measures. He says, “It doesn't just raise eyeballs, it makes your head explode.” He believes that Canadians have a “fundamental right to participate in the economy”.
What the member supports is that without judicial oversight, the government can order financial institutions to freeze bank accounts. Does she think that is right? How will charter rights be protected if there is no recourse? Will people have to go to their financial institution? Do they have to go to court?
There are also civil liabilities. The banks are protected when they do this, so if they do it in error to someone, how will a person have recourse during this so-called emergency the government is claiming?
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the incident that has occurred over the past number of weeks and months, we saw how much foreign interference there was in the funding of the convoy and occupation. I think we need to be very strict with how we approach this to ensure that Canadians are protected, that our borders are protected and that we are making our own decisions as citizens.
As I mentioned in my speech, these measures have a very limited time frame. An inquiry will happen and a joint committee will sit. Canadians will have their rights protected through this.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:36:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to stay on the topic of the financial measures.
I was reading the order and its requirements. It talks about financial monitoring and accounts getting frozen. All of that is already part of the existing Criminal Code, but what about cryptocurrency?
If that is the only element that is not in the Criminal Code, was it really worth proceeding with the Emergencies Act, instead of quickly passing a bill to include cryptocurrency as personal property that can be seized in the event of illegal transactions, as the member said?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:37:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we need to do is take swift action to ensure that we are protecting rules-based laws and the lives we live very peacefully here in Canada. Through this, we are also seeing some of the gaps that exist within our current FINTRAC laws, for example.
As we go through the process, it will be a great learning experience for all members of the House to see how we can strengthen our laws to ensure that we are protecting Canadians from fraud, protecting Canadians from crime and protecting Canadians from the national security issues that some of this has triggered.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:38:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is very much incumbent on the government to explain to Canadians on an ongoing basis the justification for the Emergencies Act. I agree that a situation exists that requires its invocation now, but in her mind, what conditions would need to exist to convince her that the Emergencies Act is no longer necessary? I think Canadians really need to have that kind of an explanation because they are quite concerned with it being invoked.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:39:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act that is being invoked now has a sunset clause of 30 days. Not only that, but members in the House can revoke it at any time. Those are the powers within the House. On a consensus basis and a majority basis, we can continue to debate and continue to keep ourselves apprised of the fluid situation to ensure that everything we are doing is within the limits. In fact, as the Prime Minister has said, none of this applies to the whole country. All of the measures taken will be very targeted to the issues that we are facing currently, and as those issues are resolved, we will be bringing this issue back to the House.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:40:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the clash of words and social media clickbait we are witnessing around this conflict, I feel it necessary to remind the House and Canadians that we are taking part in this critical debate as people, speaking from our individual vantage points. It is the same for all who comment, who analyze, who interpret and who express their opinions. We are all just people.
We are here today to deal in facts and to debate the unprecedented use of a tool of government to deal with a crisis. The Emergencies Act authorizes the taking of special, temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies. With its inception, it created more limited and specific powers for the federal government to deal with security emergencies of five different types: national emergencies, public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies.
To demonstrate my support for deployment of the act, I am going to share facts from my vantage point, which, as I also hope to demonstrate, comes from a place of love and deep respect for this country.
I have formally trained in critical studies and education. I have had the privilege of studying the lenses of oppression in our society from a white gaze. I am going to recommend that all who identify as the same check that privilege when having this discussion. While we are talking about privilege, as a scholar of Canadian and international military history, we must also check our privilege as citizens in a democracy and in an ever-progressing judicial system designed to protect our individual freedoms. We represent less than 0.5% of the total world population and have the second-largest land mass. We are truly among the most privileged people in the world. We must never forget that.
I challenge Canadians and members of the House to question their echo chambers, to check themselves and their privilege and to try to see things from the other side, even if it is only to strengthen their arguments. At least that moves us past assumptions, which are the real scourge of our society. They are what really divide us.
Many Canadians are being misled. These Canadians do not need us to encourage them or keep them blissfully ignorant. Today, far too much of Canadian discourse is hateful, reactionary and dangerous, and the political rhetoric that ramps it up is reprehensible. We are indeed facing extremism in Canada, and it is incumbent on each of us to call it what it is.
As New Brunswick's commissioner on systemic racism said, continuing to pretend that what we have witnessed over the last three weeks is not a cover for a maturing anti-government, anti-pluralist, far-right extremism does nothing to combat the rising hate in this country. That extremism culminated in the occupation of our nation’s capital and other key locations, in a politically motivated coup attempt, and it requires decisive action with measures that are targeted, temporary and proportionate.
This is what has brought us here today. I have heard many in the House ask this question during this debate: How did we get here? It has been clear from the outset, long before the initial convoy colonizers arrived in Ottawa, Windsor, Surrey or Coutts, that the intent has been to disrupt and indeed overthrow our government. This is not a simple question of public health mandates. This cannot be denied, and there is no integrity in calling these protests peaceful.
A protest cannot be deemed peaceful unless every citizen feels safe and protected while being exposed to it. That was certainly not the experience of hundreds of people across this country and the residents in Ottawa. People were being harassed and intimidated by illegal occupiers simply because they were wearing masks. Women were targeted, noise levels were unbearable, hotel lobbies and retail spaces were taken over, staff were terrorized and ultimately businesses were forced to close. The narrative that this was peaceful was false from the beginning.
It feels as though the Conservatives are celebrating these occupations, purposely inflaming the debate, intentionally escalating tensions while claiming the opposite. Sowing mistrust in government institutions and public health advice is causing further harm. I have had many conversations about vaccines specifically in my community. I encourage people to listen to their health care providers, not politicians and certainly not the loudest voices in an angry mob.
In Ottawa, over the last three weeks, residents lost their sense of safety. Countless testimonials describe vitriol and harassment. Our 2SLGBTQ+ community members, racialized community members and women had to limit their movement, shelter at home or, as a last resort, leave the city because they were not feeling safe. Terrorizing people for weeks is an act of violence, regardless of the perceived merits of the original intent.
Minimizing what is happening here and how we got here is unacceptable, as is minimizing other large-scale demonstrations and incidents of civil disobedience because of what they too were trying to say and how they felt the need to express it. There is a lot to be learned from what has transpired.
I have committed to the people of Fredericton that with each new issue, I ask for input. I ask constituents to engage to help me take the temperature, to listen, to learn and to then act after thoughtful, informed, evidence-based consideration.
I know I am not alone in the House in saying that I received thousands of emails, letters and calls and had many conversations on what has been playing out. Many are asking to be heard, and I am listening. While there are many who have legitimate questions and concerns that I do my best to address, what I am also hearing are strings of false narratives and scapegoating. I see fear based on misinformation.
A lot of people need help right now. That is unequivocally clear based on the number of threats I have received, that my staff has had to endure and that anyone involved has been subjected to. I have been told that my family is also at risk, and that if I exercise my vote in a way some do not agree with, I should watch my back. There have been threats to our Prime Minister and all government members with bullets and nooses. It is enough.
That is how I know these are not peaceful protesters. It is how I know we have a very real and serious problem in Canada.
I have been mad, disrespected and wronged, and I have stood up. I have protested for justice for many causes, with the law on my side, within my rights and with a firm understanding of the charter. I also took things further when I felt it was not enough and felt the system had failed and had to be changed. I organized and ran for office, again with great privilege. It takes a lot of hard work and dedication, it takes sacrifices and it takes a toll, but it is the greatest honour. Thanks to political financing laws, we are a collection of everyday Canadians who have the trust and respect of our electors.
Here in Canada, to vote is a sacred right and a duty, and I serve to protect that right every day in the House. Those who disagree with me, based on the laws of this land and under our flag that has been so disrespected, do not get to shut down critical infrastructure, illegally disrupt the lives of Canadians and endanger public safety. We are not living in a dictatorship; we are not living in tyranny. The misleading, the agitating, the grifting, the harassment and the threats must all come to an end. It has become clear, after three weeks of coordinated, foreign-funded and right-wing white supremacy infiltration, that we have reached the threshold of emergency requiring the implementation of this act.
I have heard Conservative members of the House suggest that this is not necessary, that we have not met the threshold, that there are more options available and that our focus must be on de-escalation. On that last point alone, I agree. We absolutely must de-escalate, which is what we see unfolding before us in a renewed law enforcement operation, initiated only after engaging the Emergencies Act.
In the words of the interim Ottawa Police chief, without the additional legislation, we could not have done what we did. De-escalation was stopping the weekend protest tourism from ramping up again in Ottawa. De-escalation was stopping the never-ending stream of supplies and funds from siege supporters laughing in the wings. Compromise has been on the table since the beginning, and the comparisons with how demonstrators of different stripes have been treated within mere hours of assembly suggest to me, as far as law enforcement and government go, that we have been more than tolerant, perhaps unjustifiably so. I would support a national inquiry into the original police response.
I was born and raised in a military town, with military roots and a deep respect for our Canadian Armed Forces. I was also raised to respect the men and women in police uniforms serving and protecting our communities. Having said this, after watching video of uniformed police saying it feels like war, with a service weapon on their hip, or high-fiving, smiling for selfies, using squad cars as carnival rides and turning a blind eye to bylaw and Criminal Code infractions, or when neighbours from my local military community threaten me directly, I know we have a very serious problem.
I am white. I can only imagine how some Canadians who have demonstrated in their lives against oppression must be feeling as they watched how white protesters were comfortably dealt with over the last weeks. We have been watching the entitlement of those who party in hot tubs, with their barbecues and fireworks, having street fires or stockpiling diesel and propane near the parliamentary precinct. They claim oppression, claim that we do not live in a free society and claim that there was no other recourse for their grievances to be heard. It is enough. This needs to stop, and that is what the government is committed to doing.
1718 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
