SoVote

Feb/20/22 2:56:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear from the outset. New Democrats believe that this is a national emergency, that it was absolutely warranted to invoke the Emergencies Act and that at any point, when it is no longer necessary or if the government overreaches, we will withdraw our support. It is really incumbent on the Liberal government to demonstrate clearly why these powers are still necessary.

66 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Feb/20/22 3:26:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate we are having on the Emergencies Act is the most important and significant debate Parliament will have in a generation. Canadians are watching what we do. I have never received more emails and phone calls from my constituents since I have been elected. The vote on such unprecedented powers should not be taken lightly by any member of the House. This is not just another vote on another bill. It is setting a precedent in the House of Commons the people of this nation will judge for generations to come. This is not a vote that will impact a few Canadians. It is a decision that will impact the lives of every single Canadian from coast to coast to coast. I want to begin by discussing how we got here, before I tell the House why I believe the use of the Emergencies Act is not warranted in this situation. The Prime Minister is responsible for this mess. He pushed Canadians to the breaking point. He stripped them of their dignity. He deprived them of their livelihoods. He made absolutely no attempt to unite this country or heal divisions. He pitted friends against friends, neighbours against neighbours and kids against parents. While other world leaders encouraged and supported their citizens to get vaccinated, the Prime Minister pressured, insulted and demonized ours. Our Prime Minister is not a leader, and history will show that he is not fit to lead our nation. When faced with a growing crisis, he made no attempt to resolve the problem, and now the Prime Minister is trying to cover up his own inaction with a dramatic political performance. I should remind members of the House that the Prime Minister was not confined to two options in addressing the state of affairs we face today. This was not a binary choice between choosing not to do anything and choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has decided to go from zero to 100 without attempting to solve the problem. Parliamentarians have been urging the Prime Minister to resolve the situation at hand. Last week, Conservatives put forward a reasonable solution to resolve it. We introduced a motion calling on the government to present a plan on when Canadians could regain control of their lives. Canadians saw a glimmer of hope, but the government voted against the plan for them. The Liberals could have de-escalated the situation, but they chose not to for their own political gain. The government never attempted to de-escalate the situation. We should not have ever gotten to this point. The question we are debating today is not whether the blockades should come down. We should not tolerate blockades on any occasion. They are illegal and must be removed. I thank law enforcement for doing its job on that front. The question we are debating today is whether the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used before in our nation's history, is an appropriate and justified response to the situation our nation is facing. When I read the criteria for implementing the Emergencies Act, it is clear that the extreme use of this government power is not only excessive for the situation at hand, but also an infringement on some of our very basic freedoms. The House must ask itself what constitutes a national emergency to give the government such extreme and excessive powers. Section 2 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as meeting one of two criteria. Does it “seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians”, and is it “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”? Let us examine section 2(a). Does the situation we are encountering exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? The answer is no. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all publicly opposed the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act, and the illegal blockades at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba and the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario have all been resolved with the tools and resources available to those provinces. The Emergencies Act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that existing laws cannot address. The government has failed to provide any evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act. There is a stark difference between inaction and not having the ability to act. Parliament has clearly heard that the government could have used existing legislation to address the situation, but failed to do so. Now the government faces court challenges from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation for failing to meet the threshold defined in the act. Let us examine section 2(b). Does this “seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”? Does the situation we are encountering threaten the sovereignty of our nation? Again, the answer is no. Our sovereignty is not in question. Do members of the House believe that semi trucks on Parliament Hill threaten our territorial integrity? The government has provided zero evidence to support such an extreme assumption, and now there are more questions than there are answers. Suppose a grandmother donated $20 to feed local truckers four weeks ago. Will she be treated as someone who funded a terrorism activity, and be barred from using her bank account? Suppose a Canadian walks down to the main street in their local community to peacefully voice their concerns with their government. Will they be arrested and criminally charged for peacefully protesting? We have faced many crises in my lifetime: the Oka crisis, the aftermath of 9/11, the Parliament Hill shooting, deadly wildfires, historic floods, the pandemic and many blockades, just to name a few. Not once have such powers been needed to address these problems. Invoking such extreme measures without meeting the high threshold outlined in the act is setting a dangerous precedent of government overreach. Who are we as a nation if we normalize the use of emergency powers? I encourage all the members of the House not to dilute the magnitude of the decision on this vote. To my NDP colleagues, who I hear plan to support the Prime Minister in this excessive power grab, I want to remind them of the words of their former leader, Tommy Douglas, who famously took a principled stand and opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. He stood in this same democratic chamber and stated: The fact is, and this is very clear, that the government has panicked and is now putting on a dramatic performance to cover up its own ineptitude. Those words could not be truer today. This is nothing more than a dramatic performance to cover up the Liberals' own ineptitude. I also want to remind my NDP colleagues that disagreeing with the demonstrations and disagreeing with the Emergencies Act are not mutually exclusive. They can do both. We have a decision to make. Will we stand up for the freedoms of Canadians, or will we hand over the unprecedented reins of power to a Prime Minister who has shown no respect for our democratic institutions? The Prime Minister thinks he is leaving behind a legacy, when he is really leaving behind a scar that will take years to heal. I will be voting against the Emergencies Act, and I encourage every other member in the House to do the same as well.

1281 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Feb/20/22 3:38:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him whether he believes the situation for which the government is taking emergency measures could be handled using the legislative tools that we already have, such as the Criminal Code or any other federal or provincial legislation in effect in Canada. Should we not consider using other acts or legislative tools to manage the blockades and protests?

71 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Feb/20/22 5:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would say that in reply to the Prime Minister's question asking whether the crisis was over, I would answer that it is over, and it was over well before he took action. I would answer that, three weeks after the start of this protest, he can now come out of hiding and take the true measure of what he thought was an emergency. He could have seen from the very beginning that there was no national crisis. What is a real emergency and a national crisis is that this government needs a leader.

104 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/20/22 5:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish to join my colleague from Manicouagan in thanking the police. I also want to take a moment today to thank the interpreters who have been providing service to us from 7 a.m. until late into the night since Thursday morning and will continue to do so until tomorrow, Monday. I want to recognize them and sincerely thank them. I am the 22nd Bloc Québécois member to speak about the ratification of the Emergencies Act. I listened carefully to the debate. This is a moment that will go down in history. It is the first time that parliamentarians have been called upon to approve the use of the Emergencies Act. So far, my Bloc Québécois colleagues have shown that law enforcement had all the tools it needed to take strong action sooner in order to put an end to the occupation in Ottawa. I hope that all members of the House are aware of the incitement to hatred, hate propaganda and defamation that we have seen from some convoy leaders. Such actions are unacceptable and already prohibited under the Criminal Code. Everyone in this House knows that it is already illegal to occupy a city; intimidate residents and local merchants; and push, intimidate and spit on reporters. Those things are already prohibited and illegal under the Criminal Code. We are already able to investigate the inflow of foreign money in order to destabilize the political order. I am proud of my colleagues and their nuanced thinking. They reminded us that we all agree that the situation in Ottawa became illegal and untenable a long time ago, that we never should have gotten to this point, and that we have been witnessing a clear and serious lack of leadership, as my colleague from Manicouagan so aptly stated. We agree that something had to be done about the occupation in Ottawa. However, what we have been debating for the past few days and will continue debating tomorrow is the ratification of the Emergencies Act, and that is where opinions differ. Essentially, do we agree to this special act being applied as ordered by the Liberal government across Canada as a whole? Were the extraordinary powers of the Emergencies Act really absolutely necessary to resolve the impasse in Ottawa? The Bloc Québécois has argued that it was dangerous to downplay invoking this act across Canada, without considering that the emergency was different in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We have shown that, in our opinion, the government did not prove beyond a doubt that all criteria were met to invoke emergency measures. We established that this improvised use of the act created a precedent that could be dangerous. Today, I would like parliamentarians to realize that the Bloc Québécois's position is rooted in the unanimous voice of the National Assembly. Quebec's elected officials, including its ministers, all rejected the invocation of the Emergencies Act by unanimously passing a motion in the National Assembly. On February 15, Quebec spoke with one voice. I will repeat that all elected Quebeckers, one by one, opposed the invocation of the Emergencies Act in Quebec. That is fundamentally how one can interpret the position of the Bloc Québécois, because it is in a way the underlying reason for our opposition to confirming the Emergencies Act, which applies to Quebec. As François Paradis, the Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, can attest, this unanimous support comes from the five different political parties and all independent members. I think that means something. The message could not be any clearer. I am proud of my caucus, which, throughout this debate, has given a loud and clear voice to the legitimate wishes of the Quebec National Assembly. I hope my speech will make the members of this House grasp the significance of a unanimous vote in a national assembly and in the legislatures of other provinces. I am proud of my caucus, which has shown some nuanced thinking in a context that leaves little room for nuance, something that has been missing in these debates and in this pandemic. I call on everyone here to be very careful about making generalizations. This motion is about ratifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act, not about the cause the protesters were defending. There is a bit of mixed messaging in some of the speeches we have heard from our colleagues in the opposition parties. We have spoken rationally, but also from the heart. I am really proud of our contribution to the debate, which made members think. In response to our questions, we have learned that even certain members on the government benches do not seem 100% convinced of the need to invoke this last-resort act. When agreeing to invoke special legislation, it seems to me we must be convinced of the necessity to do so, of the fact that using the law is essential. Personally, I am confident in my vote and I know that on Monday night, I will vote no to this extraordinary legislation. On Monday, in addition to all the political and legal arguments that my colleagues have presented, the Bloc Québécois will vote in line with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. That, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with the fundamental essence of our political commitment. With respect to the unanimous will of the National Assembly, I will add that I would have also liked to see that unanimity in the House. I would have liked to see parliamentarians from all parties discuss the proclamation on emergency measures before, not after the fact. I would have liked to see a more elevated and serious discussion. Unfortunately, we saw partisanship and insinuations of support for the far right and even racism. We have heard it. This seems to be bigger than we are. We have seen it: the petty politics, the insults, and the bad faith are far too commonplace in the House of Commons, even during an historic debate. We have the opportunity to rise above. We have a duty to rise above. I invite my esteemed colleagues to ask themselves whether they are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the only way, whether they are comfortable incorporating the Emergencies Act into the modus operandi of government crisis management and whether they truly believe that our democracy will be stronger for it. I invite them to think about it because our debate is not about what happened in the streets of Ottawa. From the beginning, this debate has essentially been about our democracy.

1126 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/20/22 5:53:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is this member suggesting that it just happened to be a coincidence that the Emergencies Act came in on Monday and then we started to see real action on Thursday? Is that just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the emergency measures?

46 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

Feb/20/22 5:54:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. It is a sad day to be speaking here on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. When I first ran for office two and a half years ago, I never thought I would spend most of my time representing my constituents during a time of COVID-19. When I ran for re-election just six months ago, I never imagined that I would be representing them during a debate about martial law being imposed upon them. From day one of that campaign, when the Prime Minister deliberately set out to wedge, divide and stigmatize our population, the wisest among us may have foreseen this power grab. Unfortunately, I was naive enough to think that even this Prime Minister still had a modicum of love and respect for his fellow Canadians and for democracy. The truth is that his love is for power and his respect is for dictatorships. What is the Emergencies Act? I want to be absolutely clear. This is a naked power grab by the Prime Minister, and I will not be supporting it. This act allows the government, under certain strict criteria, to override all established laws, regulations and norms of Canadian democracy. It is, simply put, the imposition of martial law. The New York Times reported these measures for what they are: a “temporary suspension of civil liberties”. This legislation is a successor to the War Measures Act and has never been used in Canadian history. Its predecessor was used during times of world wars to help Canada mobilize and by the first Trudeau to go after real terrorists in Quebec during the FLQ crisis in 1970. Today his son, our current Prime Minister, is using emergency powers to clear vehicles on Ottawa streets. To be clear, I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party have called for an end to these blockades, but the vehicles at the U.S. border crossings were already gone before this Emergencies Act was even initiated. The Liberals said they needed this power to compel Ottawa tow truck operators. They did not. Existing laws already gave that power. In fact, nearly everything they are doing could have been done under the provincial emergency order. The extraordinary powers of the federal Emergencies Act have never been invoked, not even when the twin towers were toppled on 9/11, when we went to war in Afghanistan or when an actual terrorist stormed Parliament here in 2014 and tried to assassinate the prime minister at that time. The fact is that the Prime Minister mishandled this situation right from the beginning. Every parent teaches their children to use their words, not their fists. Instead, our incompetent Prime Minister chose division over leadership, chose name-calling over dialogue. As an aviation enthusiast, I am fascinated by airplane crashes. The root cause of a plane crash can always be traced back to someone not even on the plane. The reason for the crash is never the most obvious one. One must ask why. Why did the engine quit? Why was there no fuel? Why was the fuel gauge incorrect, etc., etc., until one gets to the root cause. If we apply that strategy here, what is the root cause of the unrest we see today? Is it the protesters themselves? Certainly they will be the ones held accountable for their actions, but why were they here? One root cause was the mandate for truckers to be vaccinated. Who forced that? It was the Prime Minister. Another root cause is frustration and weariness with COVID restrictions in general. When the provinces began to relax restrictions, the federal government was intent on keeping them in place. Who forced that? Again it was the Prime Minister. In fact, time and time again, the root cause of this conflict can be traced right to the feet of the Prime Minister. His own MPs have said that the Prime Minister has politicized the pandemic, using division and fear to pit Canadian against Canadian. We have neighbours snitching on their neighbours, fully encouraged by the government. The Prime Minister desires division and depends on it to retain his political power. Conservatives want to lead with dialogue and mutual respect. We know that a root cause of this conflict is the lack of a plan to move us past the COVID restrictions of the last two years, so last Monday there was a vote in the House of Commons on our Conservative motion to make a plan to end COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. The Liberals and their lackeys in the NDP voted it down. In this situation it is the cheerleading of the NDP that is perhaps the most telling of all. The NDP, going back to its CCF roots in Saskatchewan, pretends to be the hero of the little guy, the working class. These last few weeks have finally discredited that myth. We know that many of the current NDP are self-proclaimed socialists. Just like our PM admires Communist China’s basic dictatorship, today’s NDP looks back in time at Lenin and Stalin and yearn for a return to those days. The whole philosophy of socialism as written by Marx was to put down dissent and seize power through violence. I read with great interest the tweet of former NDP member of Parliament Svend Robinson. He was referring to the 1970 vote, when the first Trudeau invoked these emergency powers. Svend said, “The NDP Caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act. Today's @NDP under [its leader] betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. Shame. A very dangerous precedent is being set.” Traditionally, the NDP has stood on the side of civil liberties and prevented governments from being granted sweeping powers; today’s NDP, well, not so much. This will not come as a surprise to current NDP leadership, but it should be a wake-up call to all Canadians who support the NDP. The NDP is not the friend of democracy. I want to get to the heart of the matter. A leader skilled in dividing and stigmatizing is also skilled at distracting. Like a clever magician, our Prime Minister is having us look at downtown Ottawa while he works behind the scenes to carry out his true goal. What is that? As they say, follow the money. The finance minister let slip this week that the government's real desire is to make some of the emergency measures permanently available to the government. Which measures was she referring to? She was referring to financial tools. Let us take a step back. All dictators want control. In our modern society, control is exercised through money. One cannot do anything without money. Even exercising constitutional freedoms requires money. For example, freedom of speech might require a website, a pamphlet, an advertisement, etc., all of which require money. If someone takes away our money, they take away our freedoms. My parents grew up with cash. A person could accumulate a pillowcase full of cash, put all that cash into a briefcase and buy a neighbour’s house by handing that briefcase over to him. In most of human history, that is how transactions were done, using shells, gold, cattle, etc. Today, if someone shows up with a briefcase full of money, that person will likely be arrested. Governments, through their central banks, want cash to be eliminated so that they can control our money and therefore control us. This plan was going very well until GoFundMe and cryptocurrencies showed up. These new payment methods have thrown a big monkey wrench into the wheels of government control—that is, until now. What did the finance minister let slip this week? She let slip that the government would take the overreaching powers of the Emergencies Act regarding financial controls and make them permanent, particularly as they relate to crowdsourcing and cryptocurrencies. In other words, in a moment when Canadians are allowing the government to have absolute power, the government is using that opportunity to slip in some permanent changes I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am just making an observation and hoping people pick up on this discussion and really pay attention. These emergency powers are significant. What are the people of Saskatoon West saying about this? Cora in my riding said, “This language of hate and divide needs to stop. Love and kindness is the only way forward. ... I can’t help but wonder if we continue on this path how long it will take for myself to be on the receiving side of hate from our government because of policies that go against my well intended morals and values. It’s only a matter of time...and I’m scared.” I am scared too. Matthew said, “As a constituent of your riding, I just wanted to voice my extreme concern that the Federal Government of Canada has implemented this measure over a peaceful protest. I know you're part of the opposition, and I have been glad to see some of the members of your party speak plainly to the Canadian people. I don't typically take the time to get involved in politics, but it's absolutely disgusting what's going on right now. I am embarrassed to be a Canadian at this point.” We should all be embarrassed. A recent immigrant from Bangladesh told me plainly, “Things going on in Ottawa are very sad. [The Prime Minister] is becoming a dictator. Yes! People around the globe know Canada as a calm and peaceful nation. We love friendly, peaceful Canada, and that is why we moved to Canada. Please raise your united voice in the House against all kinds of violence.” The Prime Minister is embarrassing Canada on a global scale, but all is not lost. My home province of Saskatchewan shone a beacon of hope last week for Canada. It ended the vaccine passport system on February 14, the very same day the Prime Minister took his drastic step federally. I have listened to my constituents, unlike the Prime Minister, who attempts to shut down opposing voices. I have much more to say, but my time is up. In summary, the Prime Minister has created this situation. He has the power to make it worse and the power to make it better. I pray he chooses wisely.

1773 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Feb/20/22 6:08:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The blockades had almost all been removed before the emergency measures came into force. Could my colleague talk about the consequences of invoking the Emergencies Act when it is not required?

38 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Feb/20/22 7:10:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are here on a rare Sunday evening in the House because this is a historic moment for Canada. We are, of course, talking about the unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act, a law that was introduced by Brian Mulroney's Conservative government. It has never been used to this day, because the sponsor of the act made it clear that it was meant to be used only in the event of a threat to “the ability of the Government of Canada to [manage a situation that affects the] security and territorial integrity of Canada”. There are four types of emergencies for which the Emergencies Act may be invoked: a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, a national emergency or a war emergency. The Mulroney government adopted this new act in the 1980s because it was seeking to limit the powers not only of its own government but also of any future government, to ensure that no individual rights could be violated through the former War Measures Act. Yes, that is the act infamously invoked by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1970, in a dramatic move that is still talked about 50 years later. Clear guidelines have been established to justify invoking a public order emergency. In our opinion, the Liberal government has not met the criteria set out in the act. That is why we will be exercising our right, as parliamentarians, to vote against confirming the proclamation issued last week by the government. Of course, as one might expect, the government argued that the trucker convoy in Ottawa had forced its hand and that resorting to emergency measures was necessary to remove them. I beg to differ. The reality is that the government does not know what it is doing. On February 11, the Prime Minister himself declared that local and provincial law enforcement had all the means necessary to respond to the situation on Wellington Street and neighbouring streets in Ottawa. However, three days later, he suddenly acted as if the house was on fire and whipped out the emergency measures without offering much by way of explanation. I invite my colleagues to consult Hansard to confirm all the questions we have asked, including calling on the government to provide justification for its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. The government has had five days to explain itself. However, it has not been able to do so satisfactorily, as my colleague explained a few minutes ago. The order states that the federal government wants to stop Canadians from entering protest areas. However, the provinces had and still have this power, as we saw during the pandemic. As just one example, the Quebec government even split my riding in two in the spring of 2020, restricting movements from the Montmagny—L'Islet RCM to Kamouraska, with the help of the police. The Ontario government was similarly able to limit movements between certain regions, which it did. Whether one is for or against it, the fact remains that the provinces already had the power to restrict people's movements for various reasons. Since the municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the Ontario government could exercise its own powers without the federal government using the Emergencies Act. The House may recall that the Prime Minister pledged the emergency measures would be geographically targeted, but now we know they apply across the entire 5,000-kilometre breadth of this country. The government also pointed to the threat of foreign political interference to give itself the power, in this order, to deny access to any foreign national entering Canada with the intention of participating in the convoy's demonstrations. Here again, the government already has this power. Our borders have been closed to foreign nationals for almost two years, thereby preventing them from coming to Canada for any reason deemed non-essential. Even before the pandemic, travellers were required by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to justify the purpose of their trip, be it business or tourism. Any non-Canadian entering Canada as a tourist may be questioned by the Canada Border Services Agency to verify the accuracy of such a claim. If the authorities find that the purpose of the trip is other than stated, the traveller may be automatically sent back across the land border or, in the case of arrival by air, may be detained until they board a flight back to their country of origin. There is a lot of redundancy in the measures invoked in the government's proclamation. We think that they were adopted by a government in panic mode that was desperately trying to appear as though it was doing something after the negative media coverage of the truckers' blockade in Ottawa. Like all members of the House, we have seen that, over the past three weeks, there were a thousand and one reasons for the Ottawa police to take action and remove the blockade from the main road running east-west in front of the parliamentary precinct. Police could have taken action as of day one of the protest by enforcing the city's noise, idling control and parking bylaws, but nothing was done. The Ambassador Bridge blockade in Windsor had major economic impacts across the country. However, last weekend, the RCMP and OPP were able to get the situation under control by arresting protesters even before the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act. There were also other protests in other parts of Canada, and all of them were dealt with using laws that were in place at the time and are still in effect. The Liberal government's argument that the convoy on Wellington Street would not have been cleared if it had not invoked the Emergencies Act simply does not hold water. Practically every protester arrested in Ottawa since Friday is currently facing charges of mischief or counselling to commit mischief, two offences that have been in the Criminal Code for years. To my knowledge, among the hundreds of individuals arrested, not one was charged with an offence under the Emergencies Act. To sum up, the government used a cannon to kill a fly. I do not want to diminish the importance of what is happening in Ottawa. On the contrary, the repercussions on the residents have been awful, as we can all agree. That being said, as Conservatives, we have serious concerns about the precedent that the government is setting by adopting coercive measures that we are simply not used to seeing in a free and democratic society. One of them is the measure to direct designated persons to render essential services such as towing. To my knowledge, the only people who can be compelled to render anything are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, under penalty of being charged with desertion. In fact, some professional bodies, such as physicians' associations, might also have their own rules of conduct. However, at no time during the pandemic did we see the federal government invoke a state of emergency or emergency legislation to get people to work overtime. With the Emergencies Act, who knows if the federal government will one day see fit to order Canadians to render services against their will. The Liberals may well say that these measures are temporary, but once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is very hard to put it back in. We also have concerns about the Government of Canada giving itself discretionary powers to block or seize the bank accounts and credit cards of individuals who have supported the protest in recent weeks. Some of the convoy organizers may have broken Canadian laws, and they will have to answer for their actions in court, which is entirely appropriate. A judge could seize their assets and force them to pay fines and penalties to reimburse municipalities or other victims of their actions, such as businesses that were forced to close. However, this usually happens after the defendants have been through criminal or civil trials, not before. The burden of proof for those affected by these emergency measures will be reversed. The onus will be on them to prove their innocence, whereas under normal circumstances, it is the Crown that must prove their guilt. I did not donate to the convoy, and I obviously condemn the disruption caused to the residents of Ottawa, to all the businesses, to all the workers adversely affected by the closure of the Windsor-Detroit bridge, and to many others. I have to wonder whether crowdfunding sites are doing enough to verify the identity of donors, and whether it is too easy for people to donate in someone else's name. This has happened. One of my colleagues tweeted that a woman in his riding had donated $50, and now her account is frozen. She is a single mother. How is the government identifying these people? How will it sort out this mess if it turns out that these people have been falsely accused? Invoking this legislation was unnecessary. Clearly, the government screwed up and wanted to take an unnecessary step far too quickly.

1522 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 7:25:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I speak today from the traditional territory of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council and Kwanlin Dun First Nation, recognizing with honour the trust that the people of Yukon have bestowed on me to represent them in this House and lend my voice to this important debate. I recognize also what a great privilege we have here to carry out this debate on some of the most fundamental tenets of our democracy in one of the most respected and successful democracies in the world. As members of Parliament, we all have a responsibility to put partisan ideology aside, look at the best evidence we can find and set the way forward to preserve our democracy from any cracks in its integrity or threats to its survival. Today we are debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act, legislation that was passed in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act to ensure that in moments of crisis when existing measures are insufficient, special time-limited measures could be introduced federally to deal with the crisis. As many have stated, this is the first time these measures have been enacted. I add my voice to those who agree that this action is necessary to put an end to the occupation of Ottawa, address the blockades or threats of blockades by these groups and address the threats to critical infrastructure. Let me be clear: This is no longer a mandates protest. This is a siege, an occupation and a credible threat to our democracy. I will come back to that, but first I would like to offer some reflections on the pandemic and the many measures that have been put in place to respond to this public health crisis. Fatigue and pandemic exhaustion simply from the length of this pandemic have fuelled much of the current unrest, unrest due not only to the two-year duration but also the many false endings we have seen. How many lights at the end of the tunnel will be seen before it really is not another train? Almost a full two years ago, as chief medical officer of health for Yukon, I was involved in the first few weeks as we watched and prepared for the pandemic coming closer to Yukon. I remember fully the tears that were in the eyes of deputy CMOH Dr. Elliott when she had to announce the cancellation of the Arctic Winter Games, the first of many joyous events that fell in the path of COVID. No long later, even before our first case, we declared a public health emergency, knowing that extraordinary measures would be required to fight this pandemic. When I announced Yukon's first cases and later Yukon's first death from COVID-19, those days are marked with searing clarity in my memory. When we decided early on and quickly that the only way to protect ourselves from COVID would be to temporarily limit non-essential travel into Yukon and establish a quarantine requirement, we realized how drastic and serious a move that was. There were Yukoners who opposed that move, some vociferously, and we were acutely aware of the hardship and loss that those restrictions imposed. However, most people supported the move. It gave us protection and allowed us more freedom within our territory. We united as a community and we managed to contain the impact of COVID to a minimum until the arrival of vaccines enabled us to gradually replace border controls with a vaccine strategy, well before most other jurisdictions with similar approaches. Even before vaccines arrived, we opened borders when we could, even removing quarantine requirements for our B.C. bubble in the summer of 2020 to allow travel back-and-forth between B.C. and Yukon, providing a release valve for people to travel in both directions and for families and friends to reunite. Largely, our strategy of containment worked. Were there costs? Absolutely there were. We shared the pain of elders in long-term care not having visitors, but we avoided outbreaks of COVID in long-term care and protected many lives. We saw families separated, families grieving the loss of loved ones in solitude, celebrations of all kinds cancelled or severely cut, workplaces struggling to keep up and tourism devastated, but because we had measures in place that were tied to the risk of COVID, we kept our society open as much as possible. We had compensation, including substantial federal benefits that were supplemented by territorial government supports and allowed people and businesses to stay afloat despite incredible challenges. I am telling this story because I wanted to help members understand that painful compromises and infringements on individual freedom had to be made in order to achieve a greater public benefit. We knew there was a cost and we did not hide that. We started early to measure and document the effects not just of the virus but of the consequences of restrictions. There were mental health effects, including depression and anxiety, addictions and toxic drug deaths. A backlog of surgical health care services and screening was unattended to. There were children suffering from lack of socialization and physical activity. As CMOH, it had always been my perspective to understand and address resistance and hesitancy. When vaccines arrived, through conversation and consultation, we could help determine what stood between anyone's beliefs and vaccines, work with that person or community and strive for ever higher vaccination rates. When we removed vaccine quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated people, the move was received with joy and relief. Of course, not everyone agreed or was pleased, but in allowing fully vaccinated people to have that extra freedom, we were able to achieve more people being able to travel, more families reuniting and more people getting vaccinated to enable our small population to weather oncoming waves of the pandemic. Do vaccine requirements and mandates restrict individual freedom? To some extent, they do, but so do seat belts, drinking and driving laws, and other vaccine policies. In fact, many everyday laws and regulations keep us safe and allow us to thrive. A greater public good should always be the aim. In the case of COVID vaccine policies, the public good is found in allowing sectors to reopen or reinvigorate, in allowing people's livelihoods to continue or in advising people to get vaccinated. As the pandemic once again recedes, we should be well placed to reduce and rescind many of these requirements, especially as our tool box to tackle COVID is growing. These tools include better masks, better knowledge of how masks work, more understanding of the role of ventilation, an increasing panoply of vaccines, the arrival of effective treatments and even increased population immunity with the recent omicron wave. However, let me be clear: We should not be in a rush to end our restrictions and policies. If we have learned anything, it is that public health responses should be swift in response to a threat and lifted slowly, in accordance with expert analysis of viral activity, including international surveillance and monitoring. Unfortunately, the pandemic will not be gone overnight. There is a rush toward thinking that we are in an endemic phase, without even fully knowing what “endemic” means. Let us note, for example, that in Denmark, where restrictions were rapidly dropped in a highly vaccinated population, a country often cited in the House as one whose policies we should adopt, we are already seeing concerning trends in increasing ICU and death rates. There is a cost, and that cost will be borne disproportionately by people at greater risk and susceptibility. They are people with disabilities, people who are immunocompromised and people who, for whatever reason, are not vaccinated. I am concerned for other parts of the globe or a country where restrictions have precipitately been removed. We need a gradual and thoughtful way out of this phase of the pandemic, and we need to take considerable caution with what might be next. Let us revisit the Emergencies Act and whether it was called for. As I said, I believe it was necessary, for all of the reasons that we have already heard on this side of the House. I, like anyone, have received emails and correspondence saying “support the convoy”. I have even received some from people in Yukon. However, I have received concerned emails and calls from many others. One call from a Yukon resident representing many like-minded friends said to me, “You have to do something. This occupation and these blockades are unacceptable in a democracy. You have to do more.” Our capital city is being occupied. As anguished as Ottawa citizens have been, this call came from citizens of Canada 5,400 kilometres away. Ottawa being occupied is more than a city being under siege. People, including my own family members, are being subjected to fear. The downtown core is shut down like a war zone. This is about a disruptive occupation with a violent underbelly bringing our capital city to its knees. It has been said many times, but please remember that the Emergencies Act is scalable, so that the response is proportionate to the threat. It is limited in time. It is limited in scope. It offers extensive parliamentary oversight, part of which we are engaging in presently, to ensure the measures introduced are not abused. Perhaps most importantly, it must be charter compliant—that is, it must operate within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The act is designed to support provinces and territories that require additional authorities, but imposes no infringement upon the rights of citizens anywhere. Some of my colleagues opposite have compared the Emergencies Act, even today, to the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970. Not to age myself, but I will. It is a day that, as a 12-year-old child, I remember well. I was not far from the age of my own son, who is 13 years old, and my grandniece Audrey, who celebrates her 12th birthday today in Ottawa. I wish Audrey happy birthday on this singular Sunday. Back to 1970, when I was 12, I do remember the shock and pall with which the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, and later the murder of Mr. Laporte, rocked the country. That was a tense time and many of us are reflecting on Canada's experience and response in that time of fear, violence and threat.

1751 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Feb/20/22 8:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that the Emergencies Act was useful. However, as constitutional expert Patrick Taillon said, the act must not only be useful, it must be essential. I think that everything we saw could have been done differently. For the past two weeks, we constantly asked the Prime Minister to meet with all stakeholders, to set up an all-party committee with all stakeholders in order take effective action on the ground. I think we could very well have done that without the emergency measures. The government must not make a habit of resorting to these extreme measures for situations that can be resolved by other means.

114 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Feb/20/22 9:06:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think that it would take to revoke the emergency measures?

16 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Feb/20/22 9:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for operations that call for multiple police forces to intervene, emergency measures are not needed. Why were such operations not carried out sooner?

25 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Rob Morrison

Feb/20/22 9:49:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question really is why the Prime Minister or members of the government did not go talk to the individuals who were here and organizing those events to see what they wanted and what they were going to do, rather than sit in here and do nothing. I said that is an option the Prime Minister had. He also could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. He could have just opened the dialogue and that is what is missing here. There was no dialogue.

91 words

All Topics