SoVote

Feb/20/22 8:04:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get a question from my colleague. I appreciate the comment, and I do not want to be mean back, but I appreciate what he is saying. I am kind of stunned though. The U.S. treasury, its version of our Treasury Board, did an investigation on Tides. It found that money from Russia was being funnelled into Tides in the U.S.A. and that money was getting funnelled into Canada. We knew about this. The government knew about that, yet did nothing. There were millions of dollars funnelled in through other environmental groups to fight development in Alberta, probably the Coastal GasLink protest. Why are those okay, but bouncy castle donations are not?

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:05:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on February 5, the Alberta government addressed an official request to the federal government requesting federal assistance in dealing with border protests invoking a necessity to intervene. It stated, “this complex and dynamic situation continues to impede the free and safe movement of not only Albertans, but also of critical goods and services vital to both the Canadian and American economy”. Is the honourable Ric McIver, Minister of Municipal Affairs of Alberta, completely off the track, or is what is good for Albertans not good for the rest of Canadians?

94 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:06:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that what is good for Alberta is good for the rest of the country, as he knows from the equalization payments we pay out. He should note this as well, and he should not mislead the House, that Coutts was settled without bringing in the draconian Emergencies Act. It was settled using existing police powers, just like in Surrey, Emerson and Windsor, and just like it could have been done here in Ottawa as well.

81 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Feb/20/22 8:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's presentation, in which he gave examples of situations that appeared to be far more serious, but for which we did not invoke the Emergencies Act. What does he think of the fact that, three days before invoking the Act, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that the police had all the tools they needed? Are the government and the Prime Minister not using this act to hide their incompetence?

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:07:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleague in the House. My answer is yes. As I said, this is a political emergency created by the government. It is not a national emergency. We have seen in bigger, more serious issues across the country, both in the past years and the past week. It can be solved with the current powers that the police have.

66 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:08:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am disappointed to see the dismissive comments made by the member in regard to unlawful activities that have caused a lot of real trauma to Canadians across this country. Using trucks as weapons of intimidation is not something to be dismissed. Does the member acknowledge that hateful symbols and rhetoric did rear its ugly head during these occupations?

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:09:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am disappointed with the member's question. Clearly, she continues to politicize this issue. In no way and in no part of my speech was I ever dismissive of what was going on. We treat this issue very seriously. The reality is that the government bungled this situation. The government had ways to fix the situation, but it decided, with the help of its coalition colleagues, to use a sledgehammer to break open a nut.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:09:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start by taking note of the recent news that Her Majesty the Queen has contracted COVID. Reports tell us she is well and continues to perform light duties, but, of course, Her Majesty is 95 years old and this places her in a high-risk group, even for the relatively mild omicron variant. It goes without saying that every Canadian wishes her a prompt and complete recovery. Let me now turn to the debate at hand on whether the House should vote to support or negative the government's February 14 proclamation invoking the Emergencies Act. I will frame my remarks by observing that it would be appropriate if the act were named the emergency powers act or the emergency measures act because the act allows the government, in extraordinary times and under a set of narrowly defined circumstances, to implement emergency powers and emergency measures, thereby temporarily acquiring extraordinary powers that intrude upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians in ways that are not permitted in ordinary times. Therefore, it is the powers being exercised by the government, under the authority of this proclamation, on which we are being asked to pass judgment. I will argue that we should vote to negative the proclamation, not merely because the purported emergency could have been dealt with by means less drastic than those contained in the Emergencies Act, but also because the most important features of the proclamation, which are designated by the government as the emergency economic measures order and the emergency measures regulations, assert powers that are not actually authorized under the act. Since these claimed powers are ultra vires the act, this part of the proclamation is itself unlawful. I note that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has filed a brief in federal court asserting that the order and regulations are also unconstitutional, because they represent a clear breach of section 8 of the charter, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The argument of unconstitutionality is not my focus today, but I will observe here that the CCLA's brief is available online and should be read by everyone. Let me return to my main argument. The Emergencies Act designates four types of emergencies. The type specified in the February 14 proclamation is called a public order emergency. The extra powers permitted under each kind of emergency are not identical. Those permitted under a public order emergency are listed in section 19 of the act. They include the regulation or prohibition of certain kinds of public assembly or of travel to or within areas the government can designate, and limits on the use of what the act calls “specified property”. The act also allows the designation and securing of certain protected places such as Parliament Hill. It allows the government to assume control of public utilities or services, and it allows the government the power to compel any person to provide services that the state deems essential, such as, famously in this case, tow truck drivers. In its February 14 proclamation, the government asserts its intention to exercise most of these powers and impose the maximum penalties the act permits on citizens who fail to obey. The government also asserts an additional power that does not exist under any reasonable reading of the act. This is the power that is the subject of the emergency economic measures order contained within the proclamation. This order makes it unlawful to make “available any property, including funds or virtual currency, to or for the benefit of a designated person”. In other words, it is a person “engaged, directly or indirectly, in an activity prohibited by [the proclamation]”, or a person acting on behalf of such a person. This is a truly extraordinary exercise of power. The order and the regulations are the source of the government's claimed authority to deny access to bank accounts without seeking an injunction or a court order from a judge, and to force crowdsourced fundraisers to make known their donations to the state, the latter of which is apparently a measure the finance minister would like to make permanent. The explanatory memorandum provided by the Minister of Justice, pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the act, offers the following description of what the regulations do. The regulations “prohibit directly or indirectly using, collecting, providing, making available or soliciting property to facilitate or participate in a prohibited assembly, or to benefit any person who is facilitating or participating in a prohibited assembly.” The first part of this prohibition is perhaps acceptable, since it is the assemblies themselves that are the events claimed to be emergencies: the so-called blockades and occupation. The second part, however, makes it unlawful to engage in any form of commercial or monetary transaction whatever with a person who is involved in any way with these assemblies. It is unlawful to pay their salary or wages. It is unlawful to provide them with food or shelter. Such persons become, in essence, unpersons, stripped of any power to engage in any economic activity whatsoever, and the rest of us can be punished for failing to make sure that this is so. Most obviously, the rest of us, all Canadians, may have our own assets frozen for failure to obey. This claimed power is the basis for all the detailed regulations that follow, such as the requirement that all financial institutions and crowdfunding platforms must now reveal their transactions to FINTRAC, and that they are under an obligation to proactively comb through the accounts of Canadians, reporting their confidential financial information to the police. However, none of this is actually authorized by the act. Section 19(1)(a)(iii) of the act does state that, in a public order emergency, “the Governor in Council may make orders with respect to the use of specified property”. The argument that absolutely all property in Canada, including all money, falls into this category is self-evident nonsense. It is like specifying that the entire universe is a subset of the universe. The purpose of this provision is clearly not to bring an end to the issues, the blocking of bridges and so forth, that the government asserts are the source of the purported emergency. The actual and rather obvious purpose of this provision is to destroy these citizens, even if they are ultimately found to be guilty of nothing. For this reason, even if the measures contained in the emergency economic measures order and regulations were not an unconstitutional violation of section 8 of the Charter, and even if they were not ultra vires the act, they would be impermissible simply because they are disproportionate. A disproportionate penalty is normally dismissed by a court. We are all familiar with how the courts have reacted to mandatory minimum sentences, for example, but the genius of this provision is that it destroys its victims in ways that cannot be overturned by the courts, just as they were not authorized by the courts. The prosecution is itself the punishment. By the time a person is cleared or assigned a nominal fine for what the court determines to be a minor offence, they are financially destroyed. The only way we can prevent this catastrophe for people who are, as far as I can tell, mostly guilty of being naive, is for us to vote down the government's proclamation as fast as possible before citizens start losing their assets, credit ratings, jobs or contracts and livelihoods. The problem to which I am drawing attention is part of a broader set of concerns, which are brilliantly summed up in a paper released today by Advocates for the Rule of Law. They write: Maintaining this declaration of emergency will endow the Government of Canada with far-reaching powers and it will set a dangerous precedent. If the Government can declare an emergency based on these facts, then it will also be able to do so the next time there is a railway blockade, a threat to pipelines or any other endangerment of national infrastructure. To be sure, each of these is a serious situation that calls for decisive action. But normalizing the declaration of emergencies, especially before other less intrusive (but still significant) measures have been attempted, threatens to render hollow the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians For this reason, along with many others, I ask all members to vote to quash this dreadful and shameful proposition.

1420 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:18:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. Both a Conservative, Stephen Harper-appointed senator, who used to be the chief of police for Ottawa, and Peter MacKay, a former strong Conservative leadership candidate, have been very clear in saying that we should in fact be voting in favour of this legislation and passing it. Does the member have any thoughts as to why he believes those two individuals would have taken that position, given that the entire Conservative caucus has made the decision not to?

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid

Feb/20/22 8:19:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they are not the only Conservatives who have been in favour of it. Premier Ford has been in favour of it. This is the same Premier Ford who got rid of an entire level of government because of a vindictive desire to keep a rival, predecessor Conservative leader from having a chance at elected office. It is the same Premier Ford who, last year, engaged in shutdowns in which he made it unlawful to buy children's clothes and rain boots but people could buy garden gnomes. It is the same Premier Ford who invoked the notwithstanding clause so he could make a change to Toronto City Council structure. I do not respect or admire many of the things that he says, and I do not think I am required to pick sides with him or Peter MacKay against the Conservative premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, all of whom think this should not have gone in place, and two of whom, or at least one of whom, is looking at legal action to stop this terrible measure.

180 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 8:20:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two positions that should be avoided in this debate. There is the Liberals' position, which is to deflect attention from their contemptible conduct by using an act that is very severe, in fact too severe in this case. Then there is the position of my colleague's party, which tends to justify some of the protesters' resentment. I would like to know what he thinks. In my opinion, it is important not to legitimize the protesters' disruptive actions. Is my colleague prepared to condemn the fact that some protesters definitely went too far?

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid

Feb/20/22 8:21:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, some of the protesters' actions, such as blocking bridges and staying in Ottawa too long, caused problems. However, it is not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act to deal with the situation. I believe it would be preferable to use ordinary means.

44 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:22:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing that struck me as I was listening to the member's comments was that it seems to me the Conservative members are not taking any responsibility for their part in escalating the situation. There is no question that the Prime Minister did not act. He sat on his hands for far too long and let the situation get way out of control, to the point where people's safety was literally put at risk. There were Conservative members who actually applauded, and in some ways cheered on, the illegal occupation. From that perspective, would the member take a moment now to say to his Conservative colleagues that it was the wrong thing to do?

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid

Feb/20/22 8:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not advocating unlawful action. However, let us be clear about this. This was civil disobedience. Most of the people out there, in front of the House of Commons were engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Using martial law to crush civil disobedience is a terrible idea. I do not think I have to explain why that is the case. It is just obvious, quite frankly. Before I sit down, I will just say that I got my start in politics with a fascination with civil disobedience. The first thing I ever wrote that was published was an essay about Henry David Thoreau's great essay on civil disobedience. Sometimes one has to say that a somewhat unlawful action that is not violent, and that has no danger of being violent, ought to be tolerated. There should be negotiations with folks, and that is the best way to cause them to move on for the benefit of all. That worked just fine with the border blockades, and it would have worked fine here. The use of violence was very much inappropriate.

185 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

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

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:33:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois claim to be the voice of Quebeckers in the House of Commons. However, the surveys published this morning show that 67% of Quebeckers support the Emergencies Act, as do 55% of Bloc supporters. Has my colleague forgotten the voice of the people he is representing in the House?

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Feb/20/22 8:34:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a poll of about 300 people. In any case, what does my colleague think about the fact that the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously against the use of emergency measures? After seeing what has been happening in Ottawa for the past three weeks, it is only natural that people want it to stop. However, putting an end to this situation does not require emergency measures.

72 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

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

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Feb/20/22 8:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues often say in Parliament that they are in talks with the Government of Quebec, but there is a difference between talking and really listening and discussing. As my colleague said, seven out of 10 provinces are against using the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister says he consulted everyone and managed to get a consensus, but that is far from the case.

66 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:36:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We agree that the situation deteriorated and got way out of hand because of the Prime Minister's inaction. As for the act itself, is my colleague not reassured by the fact that its application is limited to 30 days, that fundamental freedoms are upheld and that 20 members can call for its revocation and trigger a vote in the House? The chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that these measures were necessary because they helped end the illegal occupation, including by increasing the fines, preventing people from being inside the perimeter without good reason, and forcing certain tow truck operators to remove the trucks from the streets. The chief of the Ottawa Police Service seems to think it was useful. Does my colleague not agree with him?

138 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35