44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 4:03:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my learned friend a very specific question with respect to the safeguards that exist within the Emergencies Act. I know it was invoked on February 14. We are debating it today. The order was presented two days after the invocation. There are other measures that are forthcoming.
Can the member speak to the safeguards that are in place to ensure that we protect the rights of all Canadians? These emergency measures are temporary, measured, and they ensure that they are in compliance with the charter.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:07:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I were a senior member of the NDP, such as the MP for Windsor West, I would be ashamed that my leader threw the local police under the bus, as he did in the House last Thursday. I would be doubly ashamed if my leader whipped my vote on the Emergencies Act.
Once again, the NDP are poised to prop up the Prime Minister so as to not hold the Prime Minister to account. The very fact that the standoffs at the Windsor-Detroit and Coutts borders were ended peacefully, clearly demonstrates that the Emergency Act was, quite frankly, unnecessary.
I am wondering if the member would agree that the greatest emergency in Canada today is that the NDP continues to prop up this power-hungry Liberal government and today will vote with the Liberals to allow—
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:08:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue here is a failure to uphold the rule of law that has been years in the making.
Two years ago the blockades on the CN main line and in western Canada at the pipeline were allowed to continue for weeks. People who tear down statues in front of provincial Legislatures and in other public squares in this country suffer no consequences. I think we have a failure here to uphold the rule of law, and that is what is needed, rather than the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:09:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today marks one week since the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act. This has been a long, emotional and distressing week for all Canadians, no matter one's political stripe, and it is not difficult to understand why.
The Emergencies Act has never been used in Canada. It is meant to be a measure of last resort, something to sombrely consider only if all other attempts at resolution have been exhausted and only when there are no alternatives remaining. It requires the government to legally justify why it is necessary. Unfortunately, the government has failed to give the critical justification needed for this unprecedented decision.
The onus is on the government to justify every single line of the regulations it is invoking under the Emergencies Act. The Liberals need to convince Parliament why these measures are needed, rather than the opposition to explain why they are not. The onus is on the government to specifically outline how the existing laws of our provinces and nation could not deal with the protest and the onus is on the government to lay out all its evidence on how the existing Criminal Code and intelligence gathering have failed and why it needs these sweeping new powers. The onus is on the government, and Canadians are left wanting.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation said, “The high threshold for declaring a public order emergency in the Emergencies Act has not been met.”
The BC Civil Liberties Association said, “Canada has not met the legal threshold for the Act’s invocation.”
Our entire legal system is based on the notion that even in the most trying of circumstances, there is due process. To oppose the invocation of the Emergencies Act, one does not need to condone the actions of all the protesters. What we need to do is step back and review what powers we as parliamentarians are being asked to approve. In doing so, we must determine if there is legal justification. Let me remind my colleagues that political justification does not always equate to legal justification.
If we review the government's proclamation declaring a public order emergency in the Canada Gazette, we will find that almost every one of its justifications was aimed at the border closures. It is important to note that the border closures had all ended, as my colleague just said, by the time the Prime Minister spoke in this House.
There is no disagreement that blocking critical infrastructure such as railways, bridges, highways and border crossings should never be allowed. In the spirit of the agreement on that point, I hope there will be unanimous support from all parties for eternity.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: What made the government determine these specific blockades were threats to national security when previous protests were not? Was it the size and scope of their economic impact? Was there intelligence suggesting they would prolong, or were there other considerations that made these protests different from previous ones that also had shut down large parts of our economy and put communities at risk? I do not ask these questions to be rhetorical but to determine the threshold the government is using.
The government is being taken to court by constitutional and civil liberties associations for this very reason. They too are concerned about the precedent being set by invoking the Emergencies Act. They fear that sometime down the road, using the same economic or security risk justifications, some future government will do the same.
To invoke such sweeping powers, the government must be able to articulate a much stronger and definitive rationale. While this is a place normally full of platitudes, it would be wise for all of us to focus on the details of the regulations.
After careful review of the Prime Minister's speech in the House, I see that not once did he get into the details of how the specific new powers will be used, nor did he lay out any argument whatsoever on why the current laws were not sufficient. If his intent was to persuade the members of this House, he was short on details and he failed to make a convincing argument.
I have many concerns, but I first want to push back on the Prime Minister's comment that the scope of the Emergencies Act is “targeted”.
Within the regulations, the Minister of Public Safety is given an incredible amount of latitude to designate geographic areas where the Emergencies Act will be used. In fact, the regulations give the minister absolute power to decree that the act can be used for “any other place as designated”. Forgive me in advance for not being willing to support something that gives one minister such extraordinary powers.
According to the emergency preparedness minister, the government intends to continue exercising the far-reaching powers of the act for “as long as they are required”. Does that mean for the totality of the full 30 days?
If we look outside this very chamber, we will find that the trucks are gone. The obvious question is this: When can everyday Canadians return to Parliament Hill? Let me be very clear. I am not talking about on the streets or sprawled out around downtown; I am talking about on the snow-covered lawn. What information or intelligence is the government using to determine this decision? This is not a rhetorical question; it is valid and must be answered. The public cannot even come to support or oppose the very matter we are debating today. While the Prime Minister has said the government is not currently infringing on the charter rights of Canadians, such as the right to peaceful assembly on the lawn of Parliament, I beg to differ.
On the issue of the Emergencies Act prying into the personal bank accounts of people, I believe it is the most constitutionally shaky of all the government's new powers. Anyone who is downplaying the severity of the government giving financial institutions the power to freeze bank accounts has lost sight of the forest for the trees. There are reports that people who made donations before the government ever shut down the crowdfunding websites have had their bank accounts frozen. As confirmed by finance officials, the Liberal government is giving banks the absolute power to make their own decisions on whose accounts are frozen. Let me remind this House what that means: It means freezing bank accounts without a court order, without any checks and balances or any direct and immediate oversight.
I want to highlight what one law firm had to say about these regulations. Stikeman Elliott wrote:
...leaving it to financial service providers to investigate their customers or to rely on lists of names, not set out in any law, that are provided by law enforcement or other government agencies is extraordinary, particularly given the potential to be prosecuted for dealing with such persons.
I would say to my NDP colleagues that the Liberals just gave the banks the power to be both judge and jury.
Moreover, the regulations state that the banks must disclose financial information to the RCMP and CSIS if they have reason to believe an individual was involved in the protests. A “reason to believe” is a very low bar for handing over personal banking information. I fail to see how a “reason to believe” does not infringe on section 8 of the charter, which guarantees that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
Also found within these regulations is that banks are immune from civil proceedings for compliance with this order. Regardless of ill intent or error, any individual negatively impacted has zero legal recourse.
In closing, if the government had approached this House with other options before what is in front of us today, perhaps it would have found more receptive audiences. For example, if the RCMP needed parliamentary approval to operate outside its normal jurisdiction when requested to do so by a provincial government, I see no reason why that could not be done. The Prime Minister should have accepted our leader's invitation to work with other parties to see where we could have gone from there.
I simply cannot in good conscience vote for this motion for these reasons. The powers are too sweeping, the justification is too lacking and the precedent is too dangerous. I want nothing more than for the government to show compassion and leadership for all Canadians. Moreover, I do not want to see anyone blockade or stop the movement of Canadian families or businesses as they go about their day. We must remember that we are all citizens and will remain so after this. We cannot continue to just talk past each other. Let us lower the temperature and begin the essential work of bringing Canadians back together.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:19:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his comments today. I have listened to some very thoughtful speeches from members of the Conservative Party during this debate. I have also listened to some that I found quite upsetting. I appreciated his comments at the end of his speech about bringing the temperature down.
One of the member's colleagues said on Twitter that passing this Emergencies Act would take this government another step towards dictatorship. I find that kind of language quite disturbing and not helpful in engaging in very civil discourse. I am wondering if the honourable member could comment on that, please.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague rightly said, in my closing remarks I said it is time to get together to come to a solution on this.
Are we going to leave the Emergencies Act in place for 30 days, when there are no trucks left on the streets of Ottawa? My colleagues have mentioned that in the House a number of times today. I believe there is as much peace on the streets as we have seen in over a month, and more so, and I believe there is an opportunity for us to get together.
We have to remember, as well, why this started in the first place. It was because the Prime Minister decided to take a sector that was already 80% vaccinated, and force a vaccination mandate. That was fine when COVID first broke out. When he saw omicron numbers already going down for two weeks before he made the decision to ask for double vaccination for these truckers, he did it to divide Canadians. There can be very few other reasons for it.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:21:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act is the ultimate action a government can take. By making this evening's vote a confidence vote, is the Prime Minister not injecting partisanship into a vote that should reflect the conscience of each member of the House?
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:23:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a huge difference. I mentioned in my speech the low bar for this emergency measure being used. All other border crossing situations were already solved before the Prime Minister stood up in the House. Those border crossings, which I completely believe should never have been closed, were opened peacefully, albeit there might have been some altercations that were not above board. Those were cleared up without the Emergencies Act put in place, and before the Prime Minister stood up in the House.
The public safety minister, who wants to direct and work with the provinces, gave them no direction. He allowed the protestors to stay in Ottawa. They were actually invited to be here for three days, and—
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:25:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time today with my colleague from Louis-Hébert.
It is an honour to join this important debate in the House of Commons. We meet at a time heavy with history and laden in legacy. Today I wish to share with the House what the invocation of the emergency measures act is, and also what it is not. I will also provide insights into the financial measures included in the invocation.
Our government has taken the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to restore peace and order across the country, and to hold that peace. The measures are temporary, geographically specific and proportionate. They are designed to respect people's rights, to address the crisis at hand and to comply with parliamentary oversight.
Let me be very clear. The Emergencies Act is not a blanket suspension of civil liberties. It is not a suspension of the charter, and it does not represent our government's first action in dealing with the multiple threats to peace and security taking place across the country. We got to this point due to the actions of a small group of well-organized but not well-intentioned people who could not accept the results of the 2021 election, an election where the issue of how to continue the fight against COVID-19 was front and centre, and where each of the parties put forward their platforms and Canadians made a choice.
Since that election, we have come together in this House, in person and virtually, to debate and shape, to push and pull the policies, programs and priorities of a nation. When we are not in the chamber, we continue to hear from and engage with our constituents. Every member in this place and in the other chamber, day in and day out, receives and responds to letters, emails, tweets, messages, direct messages and more on these and other substantive issues. We engage; we listen; we respond. All of these are indicators and proof of the democratic system at work, but that system was not good enough for a tiny group of people, frustrated because they did not get their way. They planned and they plotted to tear down our institutions.
While the public face of these illegal occupations was a demand to end vaccine mandates, which are regulated by provincial and territorial governments, the core of this movement was not one of bouncy castles and Friday night street parties. Its stated goal was to overthrow a duly elected national government, to weaken our democratic institutions, to spread discord and disinformation, to foster fear and, in the worst possible scenario, to foment violence. As evidenced by the discovery of the weapons cache, subsequent arrests and charges laid against individuals at Coutts, there was apparent readiness by some in this movement to murder police officers and any Canadian who would stand in their way.
These occupations were not developed to end vaccine mandates. They were designed to be an arrow aimed at the beating heart of our democracy to appropriate our freedom and our flag while robbing fellow citizens of their ability to walk to work, to open their business, to get groceries, to drive to the pharmacy and to simply sleep in peace, quiet and security.
That arrow has missed its mark. Canadians will not be fooled or divided. We are resolute in the face of this attempt to destabilize our democracy and to cause lasting harm to our economy and to our international reputation.
The illegal blockades caused serious harm to provinces, to communities and to the country. They threatened businesses, big and small, put Canadian workers at risk and robbed our economy of billions of dollars. For example, the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge affected about $390 million in trade each day; in Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade was affected, and in my province, at Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million a day in daily trade was affected by the blockades.
The illegal actions that have been taken have shaken international confidence in Canada as good place to invest. Canadian jobs and Canada's prosperity are at stake.
Protesters against vaccine mandates do not set out to make Canada poor, but people who seek to undermine our democracy do. No responsible government could, under these circumstances, let the safety of its citizens, the health of its economy or its international reputation as a reliable trading partner be harmed in such a manner and to such a degree.
Our government took action, which is how we arrived at the decision to declare this national emergency and to invoke the act. The emergency economic measures order has allowed the government to take concrete action to stop the financing of these illegal blockades. The measures have allowed the federal government to take a coordination role in what would otherwise have been beyond our normal jurisdiction. Specifically, they were aimed at crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers, as well as at Canadian financial service providers.
In response to a question consistently raised by the opposition over the course of this debate, I would note that crowdfunding platforms and some payment service providers are not ordinarily subject to the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. It therefore stands to reason that they could be used to finance unlawful activities, such as illegal blockades.
To address this, the order extended the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers. Specifically, the entities that are in possession of any funds associated with illegal blockades are now required to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, and to report suspicious and large-value transactions of persons involved in the blockades. This is mitigating the risk that these platforms could be used to receive funds from illicit sources or to finance illicit activities.
With respect to financial service providers, the order directs them to intervene when they suspect that an account belongs to someone participating in illegal blockades. This means that banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers must now temporarily cease providing financial services, including freezing their accounts, when they believe an account holder or client is engaged in illegal blockades. The order applies to all funds held in a deposit, chequing or saving account and to any other type of property. This also includes digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies.
Of course, these service providers are required to unfreeze accounts when the account holder stops assisting or participating in illegal blockades.
With the emergency economic measures order, the government is also directing Canadian financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved in the illegal blockades. The order also gives federal, provincial and territorial government institutions new powers to share any relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if that information helps stop the funding of the illegal blockades and unlawful activities occurring here in Canada.
The vast majority of Canadians, those who are law-abiding and not involved in these illegal blockades, will see absolutely no difference. These measures are temporary. They will apply for 30 days and are aimed at individuals and businesses that are directly or indirectly involved in illegal activities that are hurting our economy.
The emergency measures we have declared were designed, as was the act itself, to respect the charter and to ensure the protection of charter rights. We treat the rights protected by the charter with utmost seriousness, as we do the safety and security of all Canadians.
Like so many others in this place and across the country, I am worn out from that persistent, nagging, daily battle against the relentless, heartless and invisible foe that is COVID-19. No one asked for this virus. We simply had to respond to it the best we could, together.
I was not a sitting member during the first two years of the pandemic, and I take this opportunity to salute and thank members of all parties, Greens, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, Conservatives, Liberals and independents alike, for their heroic handling of a once-in-a-century challenge, with $511 billion invested in the lives and livelihoods of Canadians so that we could get through the worst of the pandemic. However, while we may all be done with COVID, COVID may not yet be done with us.
As we head into a new phase of living with the virus, let us remember who we are as Canadians, what we have built here, north of the 49th parallel, who we are on the world stage, and what we can achieve when we work and pull together. There are forces at play that would love nothing more than to see us fail. We will not succumb to such elements. We will prevail. It is in our very DNA to do so. In the face of this national emergency, our government has taken specific and targeted action, and we have, by law, promptly submitted those actions to parliamentary approval, to committee oversight, and to the critical observation of the media, academics and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The debate will continue. Thoughtful commentators, thoughtful critics, the media and civil society will weigh in with concerns and observations. All of this is as it should be. In the final analysis, we have stood for the rule of law. We have been careful to limit the extent of these measures, and we acted in the defence of our economy with a solemn commitment to peace, order, good government and the health of our society. As we submit these actions for the democratic approval of this chamber, we know that brighter days lie ahead.
1630 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:37:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I recognize the member's intelligence and common sense. We now know that invoking the Emergencies Act, as the government is trying to do tonight, is no longer necessary, if it ever was.
Would the member not agree that it would be more appropriate to use this time to gather in a committee to determine which tools could prevent crises like the one we have experienced, instead of resorting to disproportionate measures after the fact?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:52:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am very impressed by his courage.
I think we now have a real emergency situation. I believe that the threats to Canada's security are real, consistent with the definition of threats to the security of Canada found in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Unfortunately, that definition has not been included in the Emergencies Act, although it does refers to that other act.
That is why foreign-influenced activities threaten Canada. Activities that are not foreign-influenced are hidden. Does my colleague think that foreign activities pose a threat to our democracy?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:05:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can only speak to the thousands of other protests that we have seen on the Hill over the time I have been a member of Parliament. I can only speak to the people I have spoken to, the law enforcement professionals, the experts who were there, as I am not expert in this, who said this was a ham-fisted overreach in power. This could have been accomplished with the very same laws that we have.
Invoking the Emergencies Act is a very serious step, and one that should be the last measure. What was the first, second, third or fourth measure? We did not see that.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:21:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that passing the Emergencies Act in its 1988 version is not abusive because it is guided by the consideration and review of the legislators we are.
However, by making this a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister is perverting the free and informed review that we should be conducting as legislators. Worse yet, he is hiding his real intentions from his members.
Does my colleague not find once again that the Prime Minister is demonstrating a shocking lack of leadership?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:22:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
It is a lack of leadership. The whole purpose of the Emergencies Act is to address a case of last resort. We should not be utilizing it without absolute concern and restraint. We need to have the oversight. In fact, that is why we have the the Emergencies Act. It morphed and evolved from the War Measures Act because there was a recognition that we needed the democratic oversight of the House. We have all these tools in place through the parliamentary review committee, which can table and review the revocation within seven days, and we can get to the bottom of all of this. I am personally disappointed that the Prime Minister made this a confidence vote.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:24:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley North.
I rise in the House today on a matter of great importance. Every opportunity to rise in this place is sacred. It is a privilege that is not to be taken lightly, especially when we are called here to talk about a difficult period for Canada and for all those who call our country home.
That is what I am doing today, and I rise to assert my conviction that declaring a public emergency under the Emergencies Act was necessary to deal with the coordinated, multifaceted threats that presently weigh on our safety and security, our democracy and our economy.
My constituents, and Canadians in communities all across Canada, are by this point aware of the self-titled “freedom convoy” that descended on the city of Ottawa over three weeks ago to, in their own words, “end the COVID-19 mandates now”. As someone who openly welcomes opposing views and lively debate, and who has participated in dozens of protests and demonstrations over my lifetime, I supported their right to do so. This right is, in fact, entrenched in subsection 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It protects the ability for citizens to voice their discontent, question authority and seek change. It is at the core of who we are as a people, and as an MP and a proud Canadian, I will always fight to defend it.
However, in our democracy, freedom of expression is not absolute. Subsection 2(b) extends toward lawful, peaceful protest. The charter does not protect illegal blockades and occupations. Far from seeing people exercising their constitutional rights to disagree vigorously with the government, we have instead seen intimidation, threats, harassment and an attack on our ability to produce and trade goods. We have seen a coordinated effort by outside actors to attack our country’s right to make its own decisions and chart its own path.
First, let me begin by addressing what has occurred here in Ottawa. The protest began over COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. Over the course of three weeks, it had morphed into an occupation of a city that almost one million Canadians call home. Streets were blocked, engines ran 24 hours a day, making the air difficult to breathe for neighbouring residents, and horns sounded at all hours of the night, with what many in Ottawa, the seniors, parents and students alike, have called a form of sleep deprivation torture. We saw frequent and unabated displays of hatred, including swastikas, Confederate flags and signs proudly stating “pure blood”, and acts of direct hatred when windows were smashed at local businesses because they posted signs on their windows that represented differing points of view. We have seen the desecration of our national monuments, including our National War Memorial, and an attempted arson, all of which was caught on video.
Prior to this weekend, efforts by the Ottawa police to maintain law and order in the nation's capital were unsuccessful, resulting in both the City of Ottawa and the Conservative Government of Ontario declaring a state of emergency. All of this is but one component of a much larger and more coordinated effort to undermine our institutions and our economy.
There has also been a coordinated effort to block our national border crossings, halt the flow of goods and people, and stop trade. Blockades have occurred in Surrey, Emerson and Coutts, Alberta. They have occurred at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. These are deliberate attacks targeting critical infrastructure. As the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I heard witness testimony just last Thursday, February 17, that the blockades at these ports of entry have resulted in trade disruptions costing Canada $3.9 billion, with $400 million in daily losses at the Windsor crossing alone. With automotive parts, for example, no longer able to make their way to factories, shifts at multiple auto plants were cancelled and thousands of workers were sent home. All of this was impacting businesses, workers and the confidence in Canada as a reliable trading partner and a safe place to invest.
Adding to this, in the United States and indeed in other nations, foreign citizens and bodies with their own interests have openly supported the blockades and admitted to sending money and resources to help the blockades continue. In fact, it has now come to light that over 50% of all the donations received through the convoy’s online fundraising campaign were American, with American billionaires donating upwards of $90,000 alone. I ask anyone watching who hears this whether it is acceptable for any foreign actors or foreign citizens to contribute to efforts to undermine the democratic process of another country or, for that matter, to purposefully sabotage the economic trade routes of another country through blockades. These blockades, I repeat, cost $3.9 billion in economic activity for Canadians.
I ask members of the House, particularly my hon. colleagues and friends from across the aisle, what their threshold is. Is this not enough? What is their threshold before they adopt the necessary measures to counter those who seek to undermine the decisions of the House and, more importantly, the will of Canadians at large?
Adding to this, just a few days ago, the Anti-Defamation League showed a result of their study of the online GiveSendGo fundraising campaign. It found that roughly 1,100 people in the United States who supported the January 6 insurrection last year that stormed the U.S. capital were donors of the blockades here in Canada.
I am asking all Canadians who are listening and I implore all members of the House to seriously think about these facts. As members of the House, we can at least all agree that these actions are unacceptable and that concerted action must be taken to address this affront to our democracy.
Furthermore, my hon. colleagues in the House and all Canadians watching should be alarmed by the 13 arrests at the Coutts border in Alberta last week. Law enforcement found a large cache of military firearms, ammunition and body armour, which led to charges of conspiracy to commit murder.
Measures had to be taken to protect our democratic institutions, our borders and our economy, to respond to the needs of the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario and of any other province requesting assistance as a result of coordinated blockades. For these reasons, I will be supporting the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
To address misconceptions and concerns regarding overreach, I want to reaffirm that this is not the invocation of the War Measures Act. We are not calling in the military. What we are doing is giving the RCMP the power to enforce local laws and work quickly and efficiently with local law enforcement. We are not putting the RCMP or any other police force under the direct control of the government. Policing operational decisions remain independent under this act, as they should and must in any strong democracy. This act also directs financial institutions to take action to halt the funding of the illegal blockades at our ports and border crossings and levy significant penalties.
To address concerns relating to charter rights infringements, I want to share five key steps, checks and regulations built into the act and speak to the important role of the Attorney General of Canada. First, everything done by a government under the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter, full stop. It is entrenched in the preamble of the act. Second, all declarations are time-limited to 30 days. In fact, it may be less and I hope that it will be less. Third, the very act of declaring an emergency under the declaration must be reviewed by a committee of all members of Parliament and senators from all political parties. Fourth, the exercise of powers under the declaration must be reviewed by that committee. Finally, following the end of an emergency, a full inquiry must be held.
In closing, the Attorney General of Canada, a fellow Quebecker who represents the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, is a seasoned lawyer. He was vice dean of McGill University's faculty of law. This man has the respect of MPs of all political stripes, and it is his job to ensure that the rights of all Canadians under the charter are protected and that all necessary and crucial measures are taken in accordance with the law.
I have confidence in his abilities and in his character. I have confidence in the ability of all members of the House to ensure that the measures set out in this act are used in a measured fashion, and only when and where they are necessary to put an end to these attacks and blockades.
That is what my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges and all Canadians expect from us, so let us work together to make it happen.
1518 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the borders are open. Those at Coutts, Emerson, Surrey and Windsor are open. That happened before the Emergencies Act was even invoked. In Ottawa, the trucks have been removed, the streets are clear and there is no threat of violence or disharmony. Most of the charges that have been laid involve mischief or maybe trespass, not exactly terrorism.
How does the member opposite, along with his colleagues, justify the continued use of the Emergencies Act going forward?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:37:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to focus specifically on a concern of my constituents and of folks across the country. It relates to indigenous peoples' rights. I want the member to confirm, in plain, clear language, that invoking the Emergencies Act does not in any way, shape or form negate or restrict indigenous peoples' rights to access their lands and to even occupy their lands.
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:39:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my honour to participate in today's debate and to share some of my thoughts with my hon. colleagues on the current situation in Ottawa.
These past weeks have been incredibly difficult for the residents of Ottawa. They have been stressful and the residents have suffered a great deal. I would like to begin by thanking the police forces from across the country who have stepped up and returned the streets of Ottawa to its residents. Officers from Quebec, Durham, Toronto, Sudbury, Calgary and Vancouver have all demonstrated incredible professionalism and coordination while working to end an illegal occupation that choked the city of Ottawa for more than three weeks.
While work has been under way around the clock beyond these walls to clear the streets full of trucks, vehicles, debris and fences, we as MPs have been in the chamber debating this motion to confirm the declaration under the Emergencies Act. It is important to point out that we are debating and voting on the use of an Emergencies Act, because I have been hearing some of my hon. colleagues across the way directly comparing the Emergencies Act to the War Measures Act. That is not a fair comparison.
One important difference between these two acts is that the War Measures Act did not require parliamentary oversight. The Emergencies Act does, in fact, require parliamentary oversight. I want to recognize the former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government and the parliamentarians of the 33rd session for their hard work and thoughtfulness, which is reflected in this piece of legislation. A lot of thought and wisdom have gone into making it effective while protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter and the Bill of Rights. Thanks to them, the Emergencies Act requires the oversight of Parliament and asks MPs to have a fulsome debate and then vote.
I have heard repeatedly from my colleagues from the NDP that they will only support the government's use of the act if it is used in a responsible, proportionate and targeted way, and only if it is clearly necessary to restore the order and peace for Canadians most affected by these illegal blockades, especially those who live in Ottawa. I think that is a very reasonable approach. I think the majority of Canadians would expect this kind of thoughtful, deliberate approach from their representatives.
With that, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties for engaging in this wholehearted, good-faith debate. Their passion and perspectives form the basis for the democratic parliamentary oversight that is required by this legislation.
I have received many questions in recent days on how this act works, what safeguards it has and why it is necessary at this time. I believe it is important for Canadians to understand what their government is doing, and what mechanisms are in place to keep our democracy healthy. Let me speak to these questions.
The Emergencies Act, which became the law in 1988, is a federal law that can be used in response to an urgent, temporary and critical emergency that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians and that cannot be dealt with effectively by any other federal, provincial or territorial law.
Under the Emergencies Act, police are given more tools to restore order in places where public assemblies constitute illegal and dangerous activities, such as blockades and occupations, as we have seen in Ottawa and at critical border crossings across the country. These tools include the ability to designate and secure places where blockades are to be prohibited, such as borders and other critical infrastructure. The Emergencies Act also allows the government to make sure essential services are rendered, for example, in order to tow trucks blocking roads. In addition, financial institutions will be authorized or directed to render essential services to help address the situation, including by regulating and prohibiting the use of funds to support illegal blockades.
Let me speak to the safeguards that are built into the Emergencies Act.
Before it can be invoked, all provinces and territories must be consulted, and they were.
Both the House of Commons and the Senate must vote on the declaration. If either chamber of Parliament does not vote in favour of the declaration, then it is immediately revoked. This is what we will be voting on tonight. A special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate must be established to review the government’s actions under the act on an ongoing basis.
The declaration expires within 30 days unless there is an extension, which both the House of Commons and the Senate would have to approve. After the emergency has ended, the Emergencies Act requires the government to hold an inquiry and table a report to each House of Parliament within 360 days after the expiration of the declaration of emergency.
I also want to be clear about what this act does not do. The Emergencies Act cannot be used to call in the military. It cannot be used to limit people’s freedom of speech. It cannot be used to suspend fundamental rights or override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it does not prevent people from exercising their right to protest legally.
Recently, I had the pleasure of joining expert panellists while in discussion with the ethnic media about the use of the Emergencies Act. Despite our different political views, everyone on the panel overwhelmingly agreed that the act is justified and necessary. That is because the rule of law is fundamental to Canadian democracy and Canadian society. Our country was built on laws written to maintain the collective safety and prosperity of Canadians. That is why people from every corner of the globe come to Canada to build their life and family.
The proportionate, geographically targeted and time-limited measures in the Emergencies Act are necessary to protect residents, businesses and public institutions in the nation's capital and in border towns across the country.
My constituents are pleased with the work of the men and women in uniform and are happy that peace and order has been restored for the people of Ottawa after weeks of torment.
For weeks, Canadians have seen illegal blockades occupy their streets, disrupt their daily lives, harass people in their neighbourhoods, harm small businesses and threaten the ability of hard-working Canadians to put food on the table. For weeks, billions of dollars in cross-border trade has been disrupted, putting thousands of people’s jobs and livelihoods on the line. For weeks, millions of dollars of foreign funding has flowed in from around the world to destabilize our democracy, while evidence of increased ideologically motivated violent extremism activity has mounted.
The Emergencies Act is necessary to keep our communities safe, to protect people’s jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. That is why I will be supporting the motion for the confirmation of the declaration this evening.
Finally, Canadians have suffered significantly over the past two years. They are frustrated. They are tired. They have carried the weight of a global pandemic on their backs for two years now. As we near the end of this terrible public health crisis, exhausted Canadians are looking for hope, hope that we must deliver as leaders of our communities and honourable members of Parliament.
I still remember in the very early days of the pandemic when we all gathered to pass emergency financial legislation, which went a long way to support Canadians who were facing some of the darkest days of their lives. I hope we can set aside our differences and try to work together like that again to ensure transparency and accountability during this emergency and, more than anything, to give hope to Canadians again and restore confidence in their public institutions
1315 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:50:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can only speak for myself. I said very clearly in my statement. It does not matter if it is a confidence vote or not a confidence vote. I am supporting this motion for what it is and what it does for the people of Ottawa and for the people of Canada. I think it is the right thing for the government to step in and invoke the Emergencies Act. It ensures accountability and allows us to get through this.
That is my reason for supporting it. It is not because it is a vote of confidence. To me, it would not make a difference.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:57:54 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
The blockades had been cleared. The Liberals did not need the emergency powers for that.
When it comes to Ottawa, the police have also cleared that out. However, we consistently hear ministers and members from the other side say that they need these emergency powers to end the unlawful blockades in Ottawa. That is what we keep hearing and yet, when we look at the RCMP list that was published on its website, which was retweeted by the Minister of Public Safety just a few days ago, with respect to the laws of the Emergencies Act that the police used, none of them were to clear the unlawful protest. It was the banking power that the RCMP claimed it needed. That is the only power the RCMP has cited.
That makes sense because we know police do not need the emergency powers to clear an unlawful protest. They do not need them to suppress a riot. They do not need them to clear a bridge or a piece of critical infrastructure. All of those powers were readily available to the RCMP and other police forces and to governments, yet they were not used. We are not sure why that is. We have yet to receive a clear answer on that. All we have heard is they needed these emergency powers, these unprecedented powers. As I said, the RCMP only quoted the financial measures.
I want to talk quite a bit about the financial measures because to me this is the most critical piece of the Emergencies Act. We are talking about providing the federal government the power to freeze people's bank accounts if the government does not agree with their political opinion. We heard that first-hand from the Minister of Justice on national television last week. He said that if someone supports a political position he does not like, they should be very concerned. He said that. People can look it up.
Is that really what we are going to do in this country? If there is a protest or some sort of demonstration that the government does not agree with, it can freeze their bank account, or, sorry, it can order the RCMP, who orders the bank who orders them. That is what the Liberals have been saying. It is not them; it is the hands-off.
We are voting on the power to freeze bank accounts of political dissidents today. This is why it is so shocking to me that the NDP, the party of protests, is looking to support the Emergencies Act today. It shocks me. In any social media feed of NDP members of Parliament, we see they have gone to countless protests, yet we see that the New Democrats are supporting the government's ability to freeze bank accounts.
I want to talk about the human impact of freezing someone's bank account. What does that really mean? It means that when they go to the grocery store to buy food, their debit card does not work. When they go to the gas station to fill up their car to get to work, their credit card does not work. When they go to an ATM to pull out some cash to take their spouse out for dinner, no money comes out. When their mortgage payment comes out, when their gas payment comes out, when their MTS bill, if they are in Manitoba, comes out, there is no money in the account. It is frozen. The government can freeze all of someone's assets. That is how significant this authority is, which may be given to the Liberal government today.
It is very unclear. I have received so many emails about this. We know this began as a peaceful protest, one of the largest, if not the largest, pan-Canadian demonstrations we have ever seen as it rolled across the country. Thousands of people turned out to show their support. Estimates say there were 15,000 people on Parliament Hill that first Saturday. Thousands of Canadian families donated small sums of money to voice their support for a political movement that was fighting for their right to bodily autonomy, to make their own medical choices and to hold a job regardless of their health choices. There were thousands of people.
When this was announced one week ago today, the finance minister explained how the government can freeze bank accounts. Do members want to know the terror and the anxiety felt by those thousands of people who participated in a lawful protest that very first day and people who gave $50 three weeks ago to a convoy? Do members want to know what kind of terror that brings to someone?
I have constituents saying they are pulling out tens of thousands of dollars from their bank accounts. I have a veteran, a very dear friend of mine, possibly the sweetest older man people will ever meet, who served our country valiantly for 28 years. Although he is very pro-vaccine, he supports the right for others to choose, so he gave the convoy $50 two weeks ago. He cancelled his credit cards because he is so terrified the government is coming for his money. I have constituents who are hiding cash under their beds. That is how terrifying this power is.
The lack of clarity has been astounding. It was just today, seven days after that initial announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister about freezing bank accounts, that she finally clarified that if it was before Tuesday, February 15, there was nothing to worry about, as it was not retroactive. It was just from that Tuesday.
Why did it take her seven days to make that public declaration? What kind of sadistic pain were the Liberals looking to inflict on people who innocently supported something that they believed in and has given them more hope than anything else in the past two years? It is shameful.
What is really shocking is that there is no due process in this. There is no court order. It is only if someone has been suspected. The CBC reported that today. If someone is suspected of supporting the convoy, they can come for that person's bank account. This is unbelievable.
It is interesting, because the Liberal government is in power now, but there are going to be other parties in power. Do we really want the federal government to have the power to say, “We don't agree with your protest. You can't go buy groceries. We're going to freeze your bank account.”
How many demonstrations are from environmental groups or social justice groups? Let us really think about this. Peaceful protest is one of our rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I stand by every peaceful protest. I stand against illegal blockades, and we have been very clear about that all along. Those have to end, but people have every right to peacefully protest, and thousands of Canadians supported this protest across the country when it was perfectly legal, lawful and peaceful.
The Liberals are asking us just to trust them. “Just trust us, there's parliamentary oversight”, as if that means anything. This Parliament asked four times for those lab documents from the Winnipeg lab with all those shenanigans going on with the Chinese Communist Party. We never got them. He prorogued Parliament. He called a snap election both times to get out of scandals of his own making and he thinks that we are going to trust that parliamentary oversight is going to be enough to keep his government in check? I do not think so.
I will end with this. Our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, will be voting with the fullest power of our ability against giving this Liberal government the power to freeze political dissidents' bank accounts. Absolutely, without question, we will be voting against that. Absolutely.
1330 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
