44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 12:12:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in solemn but resolute support of the Emergencies Act.
The past weeks have given me time to reflect on the words and actions of those who came to protest public health measures. One of the words we heard most from the demonstrators was “patriotism”. This frequently repeated word compelled me to consider its meaning. An act of patriotism is ultimately an act of self-sacrifice. It is a selfless act on behalf of our families, friends and communities. During the past two years we have seen extraordinary acts of selflessness by Canadians who sacrificed and stood together to keep each other safe during a pandemic.
Canadians found the strength to persevere in our shared values, our determination, our dedication and our commitment to community: Canadian truckers, front-line nurses, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, grocery store staff, our law enforcement officers and every essential worker across the nation, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso just mentioned.
Although many of the demonstrators label themselves as patriots and were invoking the memory of our veterans and their sacrifices, they forgot the lessons those veterans taught. During World War II, a typhus vaccine was developed and administered to Canadian soldiers. They did it to protect each other and their units. They did it so they could protect their nation. Not only did these vaccines work, but vaccine technology also grew rapidly. In the 1950s and 1960s, vaccines for polio, influenza and tetanus all emerged, and today, polio is a thing of the past. It is gone. It is gone because of the dedication and hard work of scientists, doctors and the millions of people who placed their trust in them.
Over the past two years, Canadians pulled together and cared for one another. They wore masks, physically distanced and got vaccinated. It is because of this that federal and provincial restrictions are slowly lifting across the country now, but we still need to hold strong.
Regretfully, most demonstrators refused to heed the advice of doctors. They neglected the example set by our veterans and chose to ignore the fact that we do not live in a society racked with polio. This is their right, but having made this choice of their own free will, Canadians who refuse vaccines must also accept responsibility for their choice. Others believe that federal and provincial public health measures went too far and chose to exercise their charter right to protest. That is their right.
Unfortunately, according to the intelligence assessments prepared by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, extremist groups were using the protests as a cover. These groups' motivations extended well beyond grievances about public health measures and policy. Instead, their intent was to use the protest to advance an anti-democratic agenda.
With the intent of using trucks to blockade Ottawa's downtown core, demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. Some even demanded an immediate and unlawful change in government. These actions emboldened others to blockade the downtown Ottawa core. Demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. They blocked border points at the Ambassador Bridge, at Coutts, Alberta, at Emerson, Manitoba, and the Pacific Highway crossing in B.C. The Ottawa hospital and the Windsor mayor received bomb threats.
Not only did these blockades costs hundreds of millions of dollars due to the loss of trade, but they interrupted the very supply lines these protesters claimed to be protecting. As the Ottawa occupation dragged on and even more anti-government demonstrators arrived, the unlawful conduct of the demonstrators continued.
The citizens of downtown Ottawa were subjected to constant and excessive horn honking and fireworks, a DJ blaring loud music, causing days of sleep deprivation for many residents. The demonstrators' disregard for mask mandates forced businesses to choose between employee safety and staying open. Most closed and remain closed today. The people of Ottawa reported numerous cases of illegal parking, idling, verbal, sexual and physical assault, intimidation and, worse still, death threats, an attempted arson, parliamentary staff followed home and children being used as shields.
Protest by its nature is disruptive, which we accept in a free and democratic society, but protests cannot be used to take hostage the charter rights of other Canadians as a means to force the government to accept political or ideological demands. This conduct gave way to a state of lawlessness in downtown Ottawa and compromised every resident’s section 2 right to security of the person.
While these actions may not represent the majority of participants, it is also more than “a few bad apples”, as the official opposition would say. Weapons seized from the Coutts border blockades and bomb threats received by the mayor of Windsor escalated this crisis. These actions are not peaceful; they are not lawful and they are not the actions of Canadians who share the values that got us through the pandemic.
The financial and additional enforcement powers, as well as streamlining jurisdictional concerns, have helped police authorities to responsibly disperse or arrest the unlawful demonstrators in Ottawa. It must be remembered that these demonstrators do not represent most Canadians. Roughly 85%, or more, of Canadians got vaccinated, and most of those who did not have not engaged in these disruptive protests.
Much more unites Canadians than divides them. The senseless and harmful acts of the past days do not reflect the attitudes of most Canadians. Initiating the Emergencies Act was a difficult but necessary decision to protect the rule of law and give Canadians their freedom.
925 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:22:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Steveston—Richmond East. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
I really liked his definition of patriotism, and I think it is something we need to consider here. However, he was quick to paint patriots as the good guys, the ones who wanted to adopt the Emergencies Act, and said that the others were not patriots.
I want to know two things. First, does he therefore think that Bloc members are not patriots? Second, does he think that the Emergencies Act was the only solution, despite the problems and illegal activities that were going on?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:23:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, weapons were found and weapons were seized. There was a threat to government. A manifesto was put forward threatening the government.
In my comments, I did indicate that some people may have come peacefully to protest and patriots in Canada come in many forms. However, when there are people who are organizing to try to overthrow a government, I do not see the patriotism there.
67 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
