44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 7:48:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West.
I have heard the concerns he is talking about from Joyce and Mohammed, among others. I feel for my colleague who has not been able to see his daughter.
The order has been in effect since Monday, but we see that the situation in his community has not been fully resolved.
I know that my colleague will be voting in favour of the application of this legislation, but what about his community?
Was the situation in his community resolved as a result of the order that has been in effect since Monday? Can its use be justified?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:44:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very thoughtful. It is something that I have spent, and I hope everybody has spent, an awful lot of time on. I have deep concerns about using the Emergencies Act because of the precedent it might set. Like I said in my speech, there are steps that we need to take as parliamentarians to ensure that some of the things that are happening in our country will not be allowed to happen again, and that there is a transparent inquiry. We need a public, open inquiry to look at the failures in getting to this place, where we need to put this act in place.
The second question was whether or not we would consider that it has been place long enough and whether or not during the vote tomorrow we would reconsider our support for that. On my part, I will consider that non-stop. As parliamentarians, we have to look at how the act is being used. If it is supported on Monday, it would be enacted for 30 days, but it can be stopped at any time. It can be stopped sooner than that. Parliamentarians, particularly in a minority government, have the ability to stop the Emergencies Act if we need to.
212 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:35:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to be clear, Conservatives have been unequivocal in denouncing the clearly negative aspects of what happened outside this place, while at the same time clearly supporting individuals from across the country who have legitimate concerns about the approach the government is taking.
In regard to the plan the hon. member mentioned, I would point out that her party supported the plan. We appreciate that because last Monday we did have a chance to move forward. It was a simple ask of the government to put forward a plan on February 28, two weeks after that date and one week from tomorrow, that would have laid out where we plan to go with COVID. It is something that governments around the world are doing. It is something that would have definitely had an impact on many of the people who were protesting here in Ottawa and across the country.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:23:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments and his approach to the situation.
One of the concerns that I have had through this debate, because it is a very serious debate that we are facing, is that there seems to be a conflation sometimes between the issues raised by people who have been involved in blocking our border on bridges or involved in events here in Ottawa and the methods that they used to raise these issues. The impact on jobs, trade and people's lives has been very serious.
Could the member comment on whether he feels that the issues have been conflated? What is the impact?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:21:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to share a story with my colleague today.
I spoke to a few of my constituents of King—Vaughan. A lady by the name of Rose called me with concerns. She has friends who have contributed to the convoy because they believe in their efforts. Now they are afraid that they will not be able to make their mortgage payment, pay their bills or feed their families.
How can we assure our citizens that the government will not pursue that action?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:39:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is dark days for our country. I am here before members, despondent, with some serious questions about the motion before us. History will look back on the debate today as a black mark on the leadership of the Prime Minister, of the government and of all those who lend their support to this gross overreach.
All members of the House have watched the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and the key border crossings across the country with great concern. Every single member of the House has done that no matter what people hear from those who have convinced themselves otherwise. However, never has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has always been there but never used. In challenging times and in times of true crisis, it has always been there, but it was never used because it was viewed as a last resort and not a first resort. The motion before us today asks members to approve an act that gives the federal government enhanced powers.
As its questionable justification is being discussed in this House for the first time, Canadians are watching. Much of this debate has been mired in the hyperbole of members opposite tripping over one another to claim that any member of this House encouraged the lawlessness that they, themselves, stoked. The idea that any member of the House would support the vile elements of this protest is wrong and members of the House know it. There is no precedent for this. Instead, we are making a precedent. The points we make, the evidence we present and the tone we use will be judged by those who will look back on these dark days to ask, “How did we get here?”
Everyone has a right to peacefully protest any government policy. This is a fundamental freedom in our democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by the elected government of the day. While these protests are a fundamental part of Canadian democracy, so too is the rule of law. The blockades that incapacitate our critical infrastructure, including our rail lines, our pipelines, our bridges and our urban downtown areas, are illegal. We cannot and should not arbitrarily decide to apply the rule of law to some situations and not others, like we are doing today, because that is not how we build precedent.
I do not think for a moment the threshold has been met to apply the Emergencies Act. This debate has failed to make that threshold known. There is no question that some in these protests and their views are alarming. They have been categorically denounced by every member of the House.
Let us be clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is a racist, a misogynist or a woman-hating terrorist trying to overthrow a government. Hearing members of the House suggest they are is the ugliest of politics, something Canadians have come to distrust and reject.
Some of those outside are frustrated by the government’s inability to manage a pandemic two years in without relying on tired talking points and ancient solutions that fail to hear the outcry of those disproportionally hurt by the government’s addiction to lockdowns, restrictions and mandates as the only policy response.
We hear the other side talking about the economic activity jeopardized by these blockades as the primary reason for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. While I will never disagree that our economy is fundamental to the function of our nation, I will remind these very members that for two years few of them raised questions about the economic activity in this country lost due to the heavy-handed COVID restrictions and mandates that have come to be the cornerstone of the Canadian policy response.
There have been terrorist attacks, economic collapses, national protest movements and a pandemic. Every single one of these situations were dealt with using existing laws and existing democratic processes, and at times, when absolutely necessary, municipal and provincial emergency powers.
Let me remind Canadians that there have also been national protest movements that have occupied city streets and parks for months and blockaded critical infrastructure like railways where essential democratic activity, economic activity, had been disrupted or stopped entirely. These have all been responded to within the context of existing laws, every single one of them.
Not only is it not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act to address them, but it is frustrating to watch members of the government take credit for things that were resolved outside of the powers of this act. Two of the most serious incidents, the blockading of the Ambassador Bridge and the RCMP arrests in Alberta, were both accomplished without the need to invoke the legislation. A national emergency has a high bar for the very reason that it must actually be a national emergency. The answer to lawlessness cannot and should not be a greater level of lawlessness.
The government is asking members of the House to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking other laws, and we are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see our very democracy undermined. These powers allow the government to freeze Canadians' assets with no recourse. The 76 bank accounts so far is 76 bank accounts too many. We have seen some very troubling scenes outside of this place over the last couple of days and hearing few mention it shows Canadians that this is still an insular talking club of those who show little regard for the people who do not share their views.
Less than one week ago, the Prime Minister, after 18 days of doing absolutely nothing about the situation in Ottawa, convened the cabinet on Sunday, told his caucus, informed premiers on Monday and, by press conference, later that day informed Canadians that the Emergencies Act was needed to do the very thing by last resort he failed to do by first resort.
It took days for the Prime Minister to address the House. There were no briefings, no intelligence, no committees struck and if there were evidence pointing to some serious issue of public safety, should members not have been told? If we were all under siege by terrorists waiting to breach the gate of Parliament Hill, would it not be the government's responsibility to tell members of the House not to cross the street right through the protests every day?
The story has changed more times than Canadians can keep up with today and the government's justification in the House was a calculated solution to its own political peril. The Prime Minister's vague claims that whatever he does with these currently unchecked powers will be targeted and time-limited simply is not backed up by the formal text or members of his own caucus. Nor did the text contain any detail on what he planned to do. All he was saying was “trust me”. Forgive me, he has given Canadians absolutely no reason to trust him.
At the beginning of this pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without oversight of Parliament. They said “trust me”. The government has given itself the power to freeze the assets and finances of people involved in political protests, people who disagree with the government's COVID policy, without the courts' oversight and with no recourse available to those targeted. We cannot treat this as a foregone conclusion because we have an NDP that cannot and will not stand up for protests, for scrutiny or have any courage on this one.
If we wanted to pretend that this was not about politics, the information would have been shared immediately. Otherwise, the only conclusion of any of this is that this is all politics.
The House must approach every decision with caution. The consequences for individuals are too great if we decide to approve the use of this act, and the precedent that will be set is too great to shrug off the legitimate questions and concerns that I think are valid in this discussion. We are setting a very dangerous precedent and it would be a shame if members of the House decide to invoke a never before used disproportional act, when there are very clearly other actions the government could have taken.
We should be cautious about normalizing the use of a blunt instrument in this circumstance. If we consider using the Emergencies Act every time there is a protest that lasts a certain number of days, we have much bigger problems in our democracy. The threshold has not been met and we cannot leave the decision to politics over the real scrutiny that is required. It will be a dark chapter in our history when members of the House choose political expediency over the rights of individuals.
I implore my colleagues, those with a voice, to vote against this motion, because I certainly will.
1510 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:49:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her dedication to many issues and concerns that we share in common.
I do believe, again, referring back to the fact that this will be scaled, focused and responsive, that the act was appropriate. I believe it was effective in bringing an end to the blockade, and it should be effective in maintaining order until such a time as, under expert advice, it is no longer deemed necessary.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:49:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from the hon. member about common sense and doing what is best for Canadians, and I would love her comment on whether it was common sense for the interim leader of the Conservative Party to be photographed wearing MAGA hats, to talk about making the convoy the Prime Minister's problem and to say we should not be asking them go home. I wonder if she thinks that is common sense.
Speaking of common sense, I will ask the same question I asked earlier. Given that she does not trust the government, would she trust the national security adviser to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said that it was not only appropriate but necessary for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it relates to the very concerns around financing of this convoy that she seems to want us not to consider?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
