44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 2:01:48 p.m.
- Watch
The economic impact is more than $300 million a day.
That impact became apparent in my riding when one of our major employers phoned me and said that if this lasted four or five more days, he would have to take action and lay off more than 100 employees.
These border blockades are not reasonable. Weapons were discovered at the Coutts blockade, and that is not normal and certainly not reasonable.
I want to make it clear that there were reasonable people who came to protest. I spoke to truckers, farmers and parents who are frustrated because government told them to get vaccinated and there would be no more lockdowns. Unfortunately, there were lockdowns again in January.
I want to tell these people that I hear them and, of course, that I do not support indefinite lockdowns.
Having said that, I did not support or give any legitimacy to this protest in Ottawa because I knew who the organizers were right from the get-go. Yes, the protests did evolve, but the organizers were always the same. I know many who attended were not aware of these people's views.
In a democratic society, it is not normal for leaders of a protest to want to overthrow a government without any mandate from the people who elect us. In this chamber, opposition parties are free to present a non-confidence motion to the government if they have lost confidence in the government's ability to govern. They can do so without any fears from cabinet, the military or the police, something not all opposition parties in other countries get to cherish.
I support the motion for confirmation of a declaration of emergency. I believe the criteria have been met. Protesting to the extent of having a major economic impact at our borders is an emergency. Canada is a G7 country. An unstable border is bad for investment. Just this week, protesters again tried to occupy the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. That is not normal. Supply chains were already fragile, but were being threatened by these blockades. Foreign cryptocurrency being used to finance these types of activities is not normal and not covered under any act at the moment. In fact, early analysis demonstrated that the majority of that funding came from outside of Canada.
The rule of law must always be upheld in Canada. We cannot enjoy any of our rights and freedoms if we do not have law and order.
I want to make it clear that this public order emergency is not about calling the army on civilians in Canada. I received many phone calls at my office about this. Of course I would oppose that if it were the case. In Ottawa, the tools that were given under the act were used by the police without any military presence. It was never about that. It was always about making sure law and order is restored in Canada, but rather than condemning misinformation, some used it for their own political advantage.
I am concerned about the influence of misinformation that plays into our country and into people's lives in Canada. It is not normal for Canadians to be screaming or physically assaulting members of the media in a democratic society. The charter clearly outlines freedom of expression and guarantees freedom of the press. We must do everything to fight misinformation. It is incumbent on all of us, even when we do not like what journalists report or write about us, to support that freedom. Canada can only remain a true democratic democracy if the media is able to question and criticize governments and political leaders without fear of being assaulted by citizens.
I have had lots of conversations over the past few months with many who disagree with my view on vaccines. Many thought that the Prime Minister and political leaders are undergoing an international criminal law trial, and I worry about them as they are swimming in a bath of misinformation. I do not know how to help them. I have had many conversations with them and have tried to be rational, but they believe what they believe and I know that some in Ottawa also believe those same measures. However, at the end of the day, law and order must always be restored in Canada if we want to enjoy those freedoms.
I support this motion. As I have just said, law and order must be restored and without law and order, none of us can enjoy our rights and freedoms.
757 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:10:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the hon. member that 73 bank accounts have been frozen to this date. There were thousands of protesters on Parliament Hill and in the streets of Ottawa who never saw their bank accounts frozen.
In terms of prosecution, I will not make a comment. I will remind the hon. member that some people were charged in the Vancouver riot five years after it took place, so obviously we have to let the police do their job. I will not comment on that, as it is not my place.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:25:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a friend of mine who is a journalist and who was harassed yesterday by some of these so-called protesters. For the first time in his life, he was actually afraid to do his job.
It is incumbent upon all in the House not to feed the fake news narrative. It is incumbent upon all in the House to protect and preserve the rights of journalists to do their jobs, regardless of whether or not we like what they are saying. We need a free press in this country, and we will always defend the free press.
In respect to financing, I was very proud to bring forward a motion at the public safety and national security committee to look into the funding and the work behind ideologically motivated right wing extremism. This is something that is essential for us to do. I have been working very closely with members of the New Democratic Party do this. I look forward to continue collaborating with them to ensure that we know the sources of the funds behind these movements, so we know where the money is coming from to fund hate in this country. We will work on this together, and it is my hope that we will work on it as members of the House from all parties.
224 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:55:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I was pleasantly surprised that she did not affirmatively state that she would be supporting the governing party's use of this law and that she set out conditions for supporting it.
I would like to know her opinion as a member of Parliament. Police have now removed the blockades at the border crossings. As of yesterday, Ottawa is practically free of protesters. That being the case, does she still believe that the act is useful, necessary or essential today?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:06:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, who is a parliamentary secretary, the following question: When will the implementation of the Emergencies Act end, since the protesters in Ottawa have been dispersed and the blockades at the border were removed before the act was even invoked? When will the special powers that the government is asking for end?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:24:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.
I have listened quite intently to the debate that has been ongoing on the question of the emergency measures act. While I am sometimes disappointed in the partisan and petty level of debate coming from the opposition benches, I think there are some things we can agree on as a House.
We can agree that all Canadians are protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is our job as MPs in this House to protect those rights, including the right to expression, to peaceful assembly and to the safety and security of the person. We can agree that the majority of Canadians are frustrated and tired of this COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed the lives of over 34,000 Canadians.
We can agree that our Prime Minister did not create COVID-19 or this global pandemic. He and his government created measures to combat it, with the objective of protecting Canadians' health and safety. We can agree that a convoy of protesters drove for days, uninhibited, to Ottawa to protest various provincial and some federal regulations. For at least three weeks, they blocked major streets and were allowed to set up tents, speak their minds and express their feelings.
We can agree that the organizers of this convoy-turned occupation officially called for the fall of this democratically elected government and its replacement by people of their own choosing. We can agree that crowd-sourcing efforts raised millions of dollars for this occupation, and that over 50% of that funding came from foreign lands. We can agree that the Ambassador Bridge was blocked by these protesters for many days, causing hundreds of millions of dollars lost in trade per day, and that those losses still continue.
We can agree that lethal weapons were seized in Coutts, Alberta from protesters and over a dozen people were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. We can agree that children were used as shields in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge. We also agree that Canada is a federation, with separation of powers outlined in our Constitution, and that those powers include policing powers, where provinces take leadership, including in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and so forth.
I have received thousands of emails from across Canada, and not just from my own riding, from people who are confused and scared. Some were repeating misinformation about what is happening in our country. My job as a member of Parliament is to listen to all voices in my riding and balance the diverse ideas into a consensus that I then represent in this esteemed House. I will continue to try to clear up some of that misinformation that has been disseminated irresponsibly by some in this very place.
This convoy does not represent all truckers, and it has been condemned by all major trucking organizations across Canada. I have heard from truckers living in Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they have expressed to me their disgust with the actions we are seeing from certain participants in the convoy. They pleaded with me not to judge them for the protesters' actions, because they do not represent them or their industry.
I do not believe that every person supporting these convoys has behaved in this way. For many, this was a way to express their frustration with the pandemic. The fact is that these incidents keep happening. They keep encroaching on the rights of Canadians, and it needs to stop. When it comes to this issue, the majority of Canadians do not care about a person's politics and they do not care about what colour a person's party is. This behaviour just cannot be defended and our citizens have demanded action.
When these convoys arrived in the GTA, the greater Toronto area, we saw that appropriate police action could minimize the harm and damage to local residents. We need to understand why Ottawa had so much trouble. I appreciate that the hard-working women and men of our police services and our federal government have been responding since day one with all the support we could provide under normal circumstances. To be honest, I am disappointed that the provincial and local leadership could not handle policing these demonstrations to ensure that Ottawa citizens were treated with respect and that our supply chains were secure.
After two weeks of what we saw here, the Premier of Ontario declared a state of emergency and called for greater tools from our federal government to take action, which could be administered only through the Emergencies Act. Instead of leaving Ontario out in the cold, our government is invoking this legislation, after careful consideration and after exhausting all other measures, to provide these greater tools to local authorities to address the situation.
We are taking action to keep Canadians safe, to protect people's jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. If we look outside, we will see that the emergency orders we are debating right now are already helping local law enforcement restore safety and a sense of normality to the streets of Ottawa.
After weeks on end of working day and night, they now have the tools they need to enforce the law, thanks to the federal government. Citizens should be able to walk freely without the fear of being harassed. They have the right to safety and security. Small businesses in the downtown core should be able to open their doors to the public again without fearing for their safety and that of their staff. These organizers have had weeks to address the hate symbols and disturbing statements, weeks to root out the participants who are putting the citizens of Ottawa in danger, weeks to leave and go home. They refused at every turn, and that is what brought us to today.
The Prime Minister has said this over and over again and I will say it once more. These measures are temporary. To be clear, the Emergencies Act does not involve the military and will not be used to limit people's freedom of expression or freedom of speech.
In fact, the Emergencies Act requires that any steps taken be reasonable and proportionate to the situation. There is a strict time limit of 30 days, unless the House votes to extend, and the House of Commons has the power to revoke these measures at any time. It will not prevent people from peacefully protesting. It will certainly not infringe on individual rights, which will always be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There must also be a joint review by Parliament, including the Senate, to ensure that all requirements under the act were followed and justified. Residents in Erin Mills have told me that they would expect such a review to also scrutinize the response of provincial and municipal governments and why they needed to kick this issue up to the federal government.
We must maintain the appropriate balance between Canadians' rights and their freedoms, including the right to peacefully protest. At the same time, we must protect the safety and well-being of Canadians and of our nation's supply chains. I assure my constituents that I will be the first to defend them against government erosion of their rights. I sincerely do not believe that these powers are abusive, and I sincerely do believe they will help to restore peace and order and the rule of law in our Canada.
I recognize that we are all tired of the pandemic and we are all tired of the public health measures that have separated us from our loved ones for over two years. We want life to go back to a semblance of normalcy, and that is what we are all working towards every single day.
Our government has already been loosening certain restrictions at the federal level that pertain to travel, and will continue to do so at a pace that ensures that Canadians' health and safety are protected.
If we are to live with COVID-19, then we need to make COVID-19 livable for everyone, especially vulnerable residents for whom this virus is a death sentence.
I am encouraging all of us to take a step back and start connecting with our residents on the ground rather than with spectators on social media, to take the time to clear up the misconceptions and misinformation that are beginning to fester in our grassroots. It is time we really talked about the real issues, and I am looking forward to spending time this coming week connecting with Erin Mills and celebrating Black History Month the way we should.
I look forward to hearing from constituents about our ongoing budget, which is our plan forward out of the pandemic and out of this economic downturn.
1483 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:11:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in 1988 under the Conservatives, Parliament debated for months the new Emergencies Act, and up until this week it was never used. The question on everyone's mind in the House is whether the current government should have invoked the Emergencies Act. We have asked the government for weeks what it was doing to defuse the convoy. Many MPs from the opposition side had dialogue with the protesters. In fact, I was one of them. I listened to a number of Saskatchewan drivers who made their way to the nation's capital. That is our job as members of Parliament, to listen to other views that, at times, we may not agree with. That is the tough part of this job, but we have to listen.
I found it surprising today that a number of parliamentary secretaries from the government side actually admitted that they, too, were on the street talking with their constituents. That is a shock, because the government never admitted that until today. While it is true that there were many different views being represented in this city, it is entirely unfair to categorize all protesters as fringe extremists. This was the Prime Minister's first reaction in the House. He has a pattern of saying divisive and derogatory things when he is faced with major issues that he is not equipped to handle.
We saw a prime example of this just last week when the Prime Minister hurled a very disgraceful insult at my friend and our colleague, the member for Thornhill, a granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, accusing her of supporting a profoundly immoral ideology, the same evil ideology that claimed millions of innocent Jews during the Holocaust. He still today has not apologized. That is shameful for the leader of this country.
With regard to the current debate surrounding the Emergencies Act, I do not believe the Prime Minister has met the key thresholds outlined to invoke this act, but we have seen in the last 23 days or so that it lies at the feet of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The government has totally mismanaged this situation. It could have ended, like the blockades at Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, without the need for the Emergencies Act. All four or five of those incidents I just spoke about actually did not need the Emergencies Act. A protest happened, and it was quietly done away with.
Why did the Prime Minister then go from zero to 100% without any action or even any dialogue? The key to conflict resolution is to work with people. We all know that. We try desperately on each side to work with people, but using derogatory and divisive language only fans the flames of disagreement, which we certainly saw in the last 23 days. We are all aware that there were some people protesting here in this city with abhorrent, racist views, and I will be crystal clear that I condemn this behaviour and all those views without any reservation.
Let us make no mistake. The events of the last month and the government's mishandling of them will go down in history as one of the darkest times in this country.
Lots has been said in the House about the foreign money coming into this country with the convoy. GoFundMe froze the funds and returned some to the donors, and then GiveSendGo's website was mysteriously hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests. I can tell members that many Canadians, 48%, donated to this cause. We know Canadians coast to coast to coast have donated $5, $10, $20, $50 or more. In fact, in my province of Saskatchewan, over 1,300 people contributed to the convoy. Of those donations out of my province, 72% were under $100, so we are talking about $10, $20, $50 and so on.
I have talked with people who donated and who are now very worried that their bank accounts will be frozen. This is just a terrifying situation for many innocent people who have made modest donations to a cause they supported. The potential for this to severely damage their personal and even business finances is extremely distressing, and it should be for all Canadians. Canadians should not have to worry that their finances are in danger of ruin by the government because they supported this protest. Yes, I do understand that there are extreme cases where this becomes a factor, but in this situation, the government is being heavy-handed, punitive and trying to control by fear.
I have received dozens of emails on this matter. I am just going to give three examples, because I have received a big pile over the last three days. On Thursday, I received an email from a woman in my riding saying she donated to the convoy. She is now scared that her bank account will be frozen. The next day she went down to the bank and withdrew a sizable amount of money. Members should think about that. The next day, Friday morning, she is down at the bank saying she wants to withdraw most of her money.
A senior in my riding is most disturbed that the government is targeting individual bank accounts. There is another email saying that freezing Canadians' personal or business bank accounts without court order or consequence is totally unacceptable and should have Canadians very worried. I know I am. We all should be very concerned about this.
Another troubling aspect of invoking this act is that there are already tools at the disposal of law enforcement to deal with this unlawful protest. The Liberal justice minister claimed it was necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act in order to compel tow truck operators to remove illegally parked vehicles. However, paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code does give police the option to require anyone, “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace.”
I and my Conservative colleagues oppose invoking the Emergencies Act. This is a clear case of government overreach. The act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that cannot be addressed through existing laws. The government has failed to explain why, precisely, this act needed to be invoked at this time. In fact, the following organizations have come out publicly against this Liberal overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to the opposition of seven provincial governments. As we know, governments in the different provinces all have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests.
This is a totally dangerous precedent that cannot be easily undone. The Conservative Party has spoken again and again in favour of dialogue and discussion. However, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused. He has chosen instead to divide and insult Canadians. Canadians agree that law and order must be maintained, but the Emergencies Act, the successor of the War Measures Act, is not the way to do it.
I cannot, in good conscience, support giving unlimited and unchecked power to a Liberal Prime Minister who has repeatedly demonstrated lack of good judgment here in the House of Commons. My constituents have spoken loud and clear. They demand better leadership than we currently have in this country.
1252 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:54:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I think the member for Kingston and the Islands is running out of arguments. He has been here arguing for a long time. He is tired and is now taking things too far.
All of the police forces came together, teamed up, joined forces and worked together. They are the ones who managed to push the protesters back, with support and coordination from their command centre. It was not special legislation or an order that came in to save the day.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:55:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today as a matter of principle and with pride in my past. I began my career as a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces. All I wanted throughout my military career was to defend my country and its values. I can still say today that I am and will always be that soldier, the one who decided that law and order should be a priority for our country, for the safety of Canadians.
I served my country at home and abroad with the Canadian flag proudly on my shoulder. I served with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, soldiers who were proud, well trained and ready to support efforts to uphold the rule of law. I have personally trained and led soldiers in crowd control operations similar to what we have experienced in Ottawa over the last few days. I have been deployed to areas of Canada where the use of force was possible, without the need for the Emergencies Act.
Defending one's country and serving in the military requires unconditional dedication, but I can say that under this Prime Minister, patriotism is taking a beating.
The Prime Minister's legendary irresponsibility and arrogance did nothing to improve matters. That has been our experience for the past 23 days. A situation that should have been a protest became a siege in front of our Parliament because the Prime Minister did nothing to stop things from escalating.
I have also encountered some obstacles since the beginning of this siege. I come here to Ottawa every week to exercise my role as an MP, and I truly understand the people of Ottawa. That is why, on February 4, I personally posted a tweet asking the protesters to leave and clear the streets of Ottawa. They had made their point, and it was very clear to me that this needed to stop. I agreed with that.
Today we are here to debate the Emergencies Act. This shows that the Prime Minister has once again failed to break this impasse. He claims that the only available option to prevent trucks from blockading the streets is to invoke this legislation. However, the measures in this legislation go too far or have simply become obsolete since the day they were invoked on February 14.
I am going to dissect the order that was published on February 14 and on which members will be voting tomorrow. Many members have given speeches over the past two days, but I think we are forgetting to focus on what we will actually be voting on, which is a motion to confirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, in accordance with section 58, in connection with the order issued by the Prime Minister on February 14, 2022, one week ago tomorrow.
The first part of the order states:
Whereas the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency;
Whereas the Governor in Council has...consulted the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province...acting with consent of their respective Executive Councils...
This includes the governments in power and the premiers. There was already a problem on day one, since Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island said no. There was therefore no consent since four provinces were saying no.
The order continues:
Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council...directs that a proclamation be issued
(a) declaring that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency;
This is how the motion that we must vote on tomorrow describes the state of emergency:
(a) the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various locations throughout Canada and the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property...
Maybe this is referring to blockades that were set up before February 14 or that ended on the morning of February 14, because what I just read out did not happen, especially not in Ottawa.
The second point reads as follows:
(b) the adverse effects on the Canadian economy...and threats to its economic security resulting from the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings,
All of this was over and done with before the Prime Minister even published the order on February 14.
Then there are other points concerning the economic relationship with the U.S. Once again, it is the same story. The Ambassador Bridge was cleared, the supply chain disruption was resolved and so forth.
Further down, there is mention of the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence. Violence is mentioned often in the declaration. Yes, it was very inconvenient for the city of Ottawa, especially when the honking did not stop, but I did not see any broken windows or acts of violence, except for what happened to journalists. If we compare this to protests that we see regularly in Montreal or elsewhere in Canada, where property is damaged and police cars are overturned, no such incidents occurred during the events we are discussing today.
The declaration that we will be voting on tomorrow refers to measures to regulate or prohibit any public assembly: “Regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace other than lawful advocacy, protest or dissent”. This excludes basic things that most of the people who were there were asking for. I have a hard time understanding that point.
As for the so-called specified area, it was obvious that areas needed to be specified. I was awaiting a more detailed motion, but we never got any details. In the end, all of Canada is covered by the state of emergency declaration. No specific areas where it applied were ever indicated. Everyone knows it was Ottawa, because only Ottawa was left, but from a legal standpoint, we were not informed.
The next point concerns measures to authorize or direct any person to render essential services, such as removing, towing or storing vehicles. Under section 129 of the Criminal Code, the police can ask a towing company to tow a vehicle. That law already exists. This specific element was added to the emergency measures, but it already existed. It was not needed.
As for the financial aspect, the way it was handled is a bit odd. The government wanted to know where the money was coming from, and it wanted to freeze the bank accounts of those who made donations to the convoy, among others. We found out that the government got its information from a CBC news story. The government decided to take action under the Emergencies Act based on that story. There was not even a report from a national security agency or from the Department of Finance. The report was from the CBC. The government cannot just go off of that.
The Minister of Finance said that she has everyone's names. It is like a game where the government is trying to find out who made donations, who they made them to and where the money came from. Is it really trying to find out where that money came from in the interest of national security, or simply for partisan reasons? It is unclear.
There is not much we can support in everything I just talked about, but there may be one thing. Someone said that invoking the Emergencies Act would make it possible to impose stiffer fines and prison sentences. In a really urgent case, we would agree with that, but we are not at that point. The last point says, “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.” Here we are, seven days later, and those measures are still not yet known, because nothing has been added. There is no new information.
Out of these 11 paragraphs, 10 do not pass the smell test. We will vote on them tomorrow. If only one paragraph of the declaration was inadequate, we would vote against the motion, but 10 out of 11 are inadequate. How could we support this motion to activate the Emergencies Act?
In closing, the popular perception will be that the Emergencies Act allowed the streets of Ottawa to be cleared. That is what the government wants Canadians to think. However, history with a capital “H” will show that it was all a bluff and that only the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois understood that.
1483 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:07:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from the very first day, what was the truckers' intent? It was to protest against a rule change brought in on January 15 that prevented unvaccinated truckers from travelling between the United States and Canada, even though this had been allowed for two years. Quebec has 9,000 unvaccinated nurses working in the health system.
Yes, the Conservative Party did believe that it was a laudable request. It was open to discussing it, but the government and the Prime Minister wanted nothing to do with it. That was the problem. Naturally, we were prepared to welcome these people who were coming to Ottawa to say that the rule that went into effect on January 15 was a problem for them.
Four or five days later, I tweeted that the protesters' message had been heard, that they could leave and that we would do something else. I did that, and so did other colleagues. Our position is very clear: We never did anything to encourage the siege of Ottawa.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:08:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this MP on February 4, referred to what is going on in Ottawa as “the Siege of Ottawa.” In the same tweet he said it is an “occupation controlled by radicals and anarchist groups.” Those are his words in a tweet from February 4.
However, many of his colleagues, in speech after speech, have referred to this as a protest with peaceful protesters. Will he at least acknowledge that he diverts from his colleagues who are calling this a peaceful protest? Does he still stand by his words that this was an occupation controlled by radicals and anarchist groups?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:09:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, I did tweet that on February 4. I fully acknowledge that I tweeted that, and I still very much believe in what I said. After six days of the occupation in Ottawa, I decided that enough was enough, for me and for the people of Ottawa. My colleagues then also started saying that enough was enough, that they had gotten the message and that the protesters needed to leave.
My party therefore called on the protesters to leave downtown Ottawa, telling them that we had heard their demands. Was I the first to say so? Perhaps, but my party said so as well.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:22:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like the Conservatives, we disagree with the motion. However, I must say from the outset that we do not agree with the protesters, either. Unfortunately, I heard a number of Conservatives in the House say that there was a link to be made between the vaccine mandate and the protests outside.
Does my colleague agree with some of the members of his caucus who say that everything we are seeing right now is a result of the vaccine mandate and the provincial rules that to some degree limit personal freedoms?
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:37:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear that 52 years later, we are invoking an entirely different and substantially refined piece of legislation. The Emergencies Act is not the War Measures Act. Indeed, the accountability mechanisms included in the Emergencies Act are a testament to the strength of Canada's democracy. I salute all those in this House in years gone by who worked to make it so.
We know the steps that were attempted to reach a solution. For three weeks, Ottawa as a city was held hostage and occupied, forcing businesses that were poised to move on to the next stages of reopening to stay closed, harassing and disrupting the life of communities, putting lives, homes and businesses at risk.
There has been much discussion, particularly from across the aisle, about how innocent and well behaved people attending the occupation were. Sure. I also walked around and people smiled and said good morning or good evening. I, too, saw the bouncy castle and the barbeques, the sing-songs and children playing, but I reject that these were simply innocent and peaceful protesters. They may have started with intentions to simply state their objections to the mandates, but by being present in the occupied city core, whether friendly or not, they were actively complicit in an occupation that had long seized being a simple protest.
Others, including the testimony from my colleagues today, have well documented the other elements that led this well beyond a protest to an actual threat to public order: threats from the extremist elements that have brought this from protest to siege, the funding, the foreign influence, the disruption to citizens of Ottawa, the blockades that virtually stopped our trade with the U.S. in its tracks, affecting already strained supplies that have led to shortages all the way to stores in rural Yukon.
All Canadians have the right to protest, and I will always fight for that right. That right is enshrined and protected in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our right to protest, however, should not infringe on the rights of others.
In Ottawa, the city has been occupied and, given the inability of existing levers available at the municipal and provincial authorities alone, greater federal involvement through this act was critically needed to lift the siege. I never thought that the word “freedom” could be co-opted into a threat, or that our beautiful national flag could become a symbol of occupation. The occupation of Ottawa must end, as it has, and we must move on from this. I believe the Emergencies Act was necessary to get us there.
As well as a public health physician, I am also, or at least was until recently, an emergency physician. There are two reflections I have, in closing, that I would like to share. Working in the emergency room, of course, can be very busy, as many will know from either receiving or perhaps providing or supporting the care. People can be mildly sick, critically ill or just worried. Our job is to tell the difference and to make a decision that could affect the rest of that patient's life. Sometimes, the decision can be made in seconds, sometimes hours, but decisions do need to be made, and sometimes many decisions have to be made each hour. Timely decision-making is critical.
Deciding to call a national emergency is similar. Was it necessary? If necessary, was it called too soon or too late? At some point, a decision must be made based on the best evidence available at the time. Similarly, since Ottawa's occupation is over and the blockade has ended, was invoking the act still a necessary decision? I am glad the decision was made. I am glad it was made only after many other efforts were made under normal laws and regulations. Those efforts were not working, certainly not for Ottawa and apparently not for Surrey, and the risk of further blockades has continued to be acutely present.
Thankfully, we have public scrutiny and all the checks and balances and time-limited nature to help us ensure the intervention is as minimally intrusive as necessary. Perhaps for the next crisis, we will have better mechanisms in place to avoid having to trigger the Emergencies Act. In a similar future scenario, the precedent will be set, and so will experience with implementation of the act, thresholds and interventions that could render another invocation unnecessary.
The second reflection I have is that in the emergency room, every now and then there could be a violent incident in the department, one where prevention may not have worked and where attempts at de-escalation are clearly overwhelmed. In such cases, we would call on the RCMP, and on such occasions I would never be so glad as to see our friends in uniform. I felt a little the same way yesterday, after the previous three weeks, some of which I have spent in Ottawa. I felt grateful and proud of the professional way in which our combined police forces from all around the country, empowered and reinforced under the Emergencies Act, were able to de-escalate and end the occupation without significant violence. I want to thank all those brave men and women who helped resolve this crisis.
I know that many have expressed concern about the way policing failed in the initial weeks of this occupation, and how the response to this particular, mostly white-person, siege differed from police responses to recent indigenous and racialized protests. I want members to know that I share those concerns, and other concerns about how this crisis was initially handled and perhaps even enabled by local police. However, I also appreciate the professionalism and the successful end to this siege without violence, a testament, again, to the ability to act with sufficient numbers and coordination made possible under the provisions of the Emergencies Act.
I also want to thank all of our essential workers: our truckers, who have hauled goods all over the continent throughout this pandemic; our health care workers in both public health and health care who, even while I see another light in the tunnel, are preparing for whatever lies ahead; and indeed, all citizens who have stepped up and contributed to our collective journey through this pandemic. I thank them all.
I look forward to working with all members in this House in standing up for peace, order and good government. We have more than enough ahead of us to accomplish together.
1092 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must profoundly disagree with many of the premises of my colleague from Edmonton West's statement.
I want to probe into one issue that has come forth, which is the financing of these protests. One report says that 1,100 of the donors to this protest were also donors to the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. Of course, there has been a lot written about them and the motivations there. We also see the protesters here with very hateful flags and symbols, reports of shelters being overtaken, and so on.
Can my colleague opposite talk about the funding and, if he is worried about the impact of the funding on Canada's political system, what kind of impact—
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:03:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question. He said that the point of all the protesters was to overthrow the government. I have been closely following the Ottawa Police Service and they are now laying out charges against people they detained and arrested. I have noticed that nobody has been charged with treason, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious intentions or rioting.
I wonder if the member can please explain to me how the government can claim something rhetorically and amp up the language in this chamber, as we talk about civil debate, when the charges being laid by police services and prosecutors do not match what the government is claiming these protests were about.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:09:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when historians write this chapter of the Canadian story, what will they say about the protest? I do not question that for some it was about vaccine requirements for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border, nor do I question that others came here earnestly to protest pandemic restrictions and the disruption these public health measures brought on all of us. Although I do not share their views, vigorous debate and peaceful protest make Canada's democracy stronger. However, for more than a few and for many of those making up the core of organizers themselves, who sat atop a chain of command throughout this three-week occupation, the purpose was something far more sinister and one that betrayed the earnest initial intent of the others. These individuals came to upend the democracy upon which our country is found. They had their demands and soon resorted to intimidation, lawlessness, force and even sedition to see them met, regardless of whether those demands were wise or even fell within the jurisdiction of the federal government at all. Thwarted by the incoherence of their own demands and frustrated by our resolve, they laid siege to our capital with the stated intent to overthrow the democratically elected government and install themselves in our place.
Today, it is evident that they have failed. With the powers of the Emergencies Act, law and order have returned to the streets of Ottawa. Our democratic system, as well as the rights and freedoms that it provides, carries on. Members of Parliament, duly elected, continue debate on the Emergencies Act, invoked in the spirit of peace, order and good government.
Today, it is evident that this measure was necessary, so let me speak to why I will be voting in support of invoking the Emergencies Act. I have the benefit of addressing the chamber following this week's police operation that finally brought the occupation to an end. What we saw was a methodical, orderly and restrained operation by professional police from across the country working as one.
We know now just how integral the powers of the Emergencies Act were to the success of that operation. When asked if the Emergencies Act was necessary, the interim chief of the Ottawa police, Steve Bell, could not have been more clear: Police could not have done the job they did the way they did it without the powers provided by the act. That comes from the senior commanding officer for the operation.
He is not alone. Many more academic, legal and security professionals have come to the same conclusion, including a Harper-appointed senator, Vernon White, a former Ottawa police chief himself, and security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, whom I know to be a respected voice by many in the chamber, including my Conservative colleagues. It is, of course, worth noting that a recent poll indicated that two-thirds of Canadians support this measure as well.
Specifically, the Emergencies Act provided these key powers that were absolutely critical. One, it allowed police to establish a secure perimeter around the downtown core, preventing additional trucks or groups from joining the occupations. Two, it allowed Canadian financial service providers to immediately freeze or suspend accounts of an individual or a business affiliated with these illegal blockades until such time as that illegal activity was ceased. Three, it compelled private companies to provide towing services, fully compensated, to remove trucks and other vehicles from the occupation zone. It also allowed for the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, among other important measures.
Some have asked, which is responsible, whether the Emergencies Act is an overreach. In fact, that is the essential question before Parliament today. It is a minority Parliament that will make a determination on the matter and revoke the measure if it not agreed to by the House. It is an excellent example of the oversight built into the legislation written by the Mulroney government. With due credit to the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, other accountability measures include a special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate to review the government's actions under the act on an ongoing basis, a 30-day sunset clause to make sure that these powers do not extend longer than necessary and an inquiry after one year.
Importantly, the Emergencies Act does not limit charter rights; rather, it is subordinate to those rights. Still, a common refrain from the occupiers is that the Emergencies Act and the police operation to end the lawlessness in our capital trampled on their charter rights to peaceful assembly. That is simply false. The charter protections extend only to assembly that is peaceful. The charter does not protect one's right to seriously disturb the peace, as the occupation of Ottawa has done over the past three weeks. It also does not provide cover for illegal activities carried out during a protest, like the flagrant disregard for the law that has been well documented in the streets of our capital throughout the occupation, with hate crimes, misogyny, arson, vandalism and intimidation. The list is long.
Importantly, the Emergencies Act is democratic. It is an act of Parliament already debated and passed by both Houses, given royal assent, proclaimed and gazetted some 30 years ago. Its application is now being democratically debated in the House of Commons.
Did the time-limited, targeted and proportionate powers of the act work? For the first time in 23 days, quiet has descended upon Ottawa. The streets of the city have finally been returned to its residents, law and order have been restored and the Emergencies Act has performed its function as intended by the Progressive Conservative government that enacted it in 1988.
Three decades later, we find ourselves in the unexpected situation in which the party of Mulroney opposed invoking the measure, while the Liberals and the NDP support it. Our parliamentary system requires Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is an essential part of the checks and balances that keep our country on a stable footing and ensures that the diverse voices of Canadians are heard in this place. However, when crisis strikes, as leaders we are called to rise above our political divides, for we all take an oath as members of Parliament to act in the best interests of our country.
Sadly, that is not what we have seen from the Conservatives throughout this occupation. Through their actions in the last three weeks, it is all too clear that the Conservative Party has strayed from its origins as a party of principle and accountability. Its proud tradition as the party of law and order lies shattered in the dirty snow on Wellington Street. The Conservatives have put their own political gain ahead of the country's security, prosperity and democracy. As their party clamours for an ever-smaller and more extreme faction of the far right, they abandon the hard-working conservatives who look to them for a credible potential government. Instead, the Canadians they have left behind watch in horror as our police and media are spat on and assaulted in the throes of a lawless occupation that today's Conservative Party has chosen to defend.
With the help of the powers of the Emergencies Act, the occupation has come to an end. The trucks and the protesters have gone home, the people of Ottawa are breathing a sigh of relief and Parliament has resumed its important democratic function. However, something has changed in Canada or has perhaps been uncovered these past three weeks. Some will say the divide has grown wider. As political columnist John Ivison wrote yesterday, “It feels like Canada is splintering into two tribes—the intolerant, authoritarian woke lunatics on the left and the spittle-flecked, hateful lunatics on the far-right.” The optimist in me wants to deny it, but I cannot. At times, that is how it feels. Perhaps that is how it feels to a growing number of Canadians as well after these last two years or after these last 23 days.
We need to log out of social media, put down our phones, stop doom-scrolling and ask why it is that, despite a pretty strong consensus on the effectiveness of the broad pandemic response from all parties and all orders of government, it still feels at times like we are more divided than ever. The answer may lie in the palm of our hands in the devices we carry with us day and night. Our political beliefs and grievances are being fed to us by opaque algorithms that serve a singular function: profit for the massive tech giants that dominate our online realm. These platforms prey on our psyche, weaponizing our emotions to keep us all online all the time and garnering untold fortunes in ad revenue. Disinformation, a tool of foreign influence in the cyber-era, goes unchecked. Division, it turns out, is a money-maker. The scene was set as the pandemic locked us inside, and the very same screens they told us would keep us together served instead to push us further apart.
It is my hope that the joint committee and inquiry required in the Emergencies Act will take a hard look at the fundamental role that online platforms played in stoking the flames of division, anger and disinformation, making it harder for any of us to see the other side, as though we live in two entirely different and separate universes, unrecognizable to one another, with incompatible ideas of truth, media and science. Until we address this, I fear we risk repeating the crisis, and who knows in what terrifying form next time. We must act before a generation of children, our children, online as they are, grow up never knowing that there was a better way to be.
1653 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
