SoVote

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/21/22 3:22:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that prominent Republicans in the U.S. have voiced their support for this illegal occupation, including Donald Trump. Ottawa Police Service noted concerns over the significant amount of foreign funding supporting the convoy. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton criticized GoFundMe's decision to block the remaining funding, saying that they “failed to deliver Texans’ money”. This seems like international interference. Is my colleague is as concerned as I am about the foreign funding that has funded and fuelled this illegal occupation, which literally brought—

92 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/21/22 3:23:10 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

7 words

Mr. Ben Lobb

Feb/21/22 3:23:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the list, so I would not know, but how about the Tides Foundation and all of the different groups that have been operating for years on foreign dollars? Members of Parliament have never said a word. If there are foreign dollars, I do not think any of them were allocated, but the point is that this practice needs to be put to an end anyway. If people want to protest, they should do it with Canadian dollars and do it legally and peacefully. The bottom line here is that it is about federal mandates that do not make any sense and do not keep Canadians safe. An unvaccinated truck driver driving down the I-95 or the I-75 poses no risk to society. That is the bottom line.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Feb/21/22 3:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière. I want to begin by saying that I did not walk down the street in front of Parliament waving a Canadian flag. I did not block the street by parking my car in the middle of it. I have never agreed with the people who decided to occupy the city. However, even though I did not agree with them and I felt it was important to follow the public health guidelines, I still think that invoking the Emergencies Act is an extreme move for this government to take. I am sad today. I am sad because we are in a situation of extreme polarization. We are wondering how we got to this point. We might say that the COVID-19 pandemic played a role. We might also be wondering whether the government did anything to try to reduce this polarization. I do not think it did. It is unfortunate, because the government let a bad situation drag on without addressing it. As the saying goes, the longer we wait, the worse things will get. The government did nothing to address the situation when the protesters set up across the street. Instead of trying to ease tensions and find ways to de-escalate the situation, it decided to add fuel to the fire. I think it did this because it was politically advantageous. These people across the street were there to express their frustration. They were there to say that they are tired of the health measures. We understand. I too am tired of the health measures, but I also recognize that we need to live with and continue following these measures until they can all be lifted. The government had a different view, however. It chose to villainize the protesters, as though it were us against them. It wanted to keep adding fuel to the fire because it was politically advantageous. We saw how that played out. Instead of showing empathy, the government chose to insult these people by doing absolutely nothing and not even trying to put an end to what was happening. This worked in the beginning, because the leader of the Conservatives ended up leaving. The Conservatives were caught up with their own issues, having had their contradictions exposed. No one could really figure out if they were for or against the health measures. No one could tell whether they were for or against the convoy of protesters. Some were opposed, while others supported it. It was a tough time for the Conservatives as political foes. What did the government end up doing? More nothing. It washed its hands of the whole thing and allowed the situation to deteriorate, knowing it would throw the Conservatives into turmoil. The sad thing is that the government's role is not to just stand by and be partisan. Contrary to what we have seen, it should not be partisan at all. This government adopted a partisan approach instead of dealing with a situation and improving social cohesion so we can all get along better and more forward as a society. That is the problem. Then the government skipped a few steps. After washing its hands of the whole thing, it suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Everyone was wondering how it was possible that people could settle in for weeks with no response from the other side and why the government was just hurling insults at these people without really trying to resolve the impasse. That is what we saw. It seemed to me that, by choosing to play with fire, the government was running the risk of getting burned. Its lack of leadership was obvious. Then the pyromaniac decided to pass itself off as a firefighter. It decided to pretend it was taking action and looking for a way to end the situation. It decided to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Premier of Quebec did not want it. The National Assembly unanimously voted against it. Seven out of 10 provinces said they did not want it, and that is kind of a big deal. When all those stakeholders are telling the federal government it is going too far, it seems to me the government should be able to read the room, listen to people and find some other way to address the issues. We proposed a solution to the government. We asked it not to apply the act in Quebec or to apply it only in specific areas. The government was not interested because it wanted to play politics with the Emergencies Act. It was so urgent that the government sat on its hands for weeks and did not try to resolve the situation. Quebec had protests too. They were handled, and the situation went back to normal. A bridge was blocked, but then it was unblocked without the use of emergency measures. It seems as though Ottawa simply lacked the will. Many critics spoke of a “health dictatorship”. I obviously disagree, but, by invoking the Emergencies Act, the Liberals kind of gave them a leg to stand on. The member for Louis-Hébert recently went so far as to say that he was uncomfortable with his government's decisions and positions because it was politicizing the pandemic. Earlier today, we learned that member is not alone. Other members within the Liberal ranks feel the same way. As my colleague from Mirabel noted, the government knows it is in trouble. Members of its own caucus are challenging its actions. MPs in the House are challenging its actions. To us, it looks like things are not going well for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. The NDP is on the fence; nobody knows yet. It has been very hard to understand that party's position lately. The government said it was prepared to use strong-arm tactics to ensure success. Maybe it went too far, but it will never admit that. Maybe there are people on the inside who felt that way. The government decided to make this a confidence vote. Maybe it thinks people will be afraid of triggering an election, so they will toe the line and it can say it was right all along. My colleague from Mirabel shared a very interesting analysis. He said the government had decided to change this from a vote of conscience, which would have allowed people to do their own analysis of the situation and vote in accordance with their real, sincere thoughts and feelings about it, to a confidence vote. That is an excellent explanation of what happened every step of the way. Every time the government had an opportunity to do the right thing and make the right decisions, it opted to politicize things instead. I really do not get it. The only thing the government managed to do since the start of the protest that became an occupation was haul out the nuclear option, the Emergencies Act, a law that has not been used since 1988, the year I was born. We got through all kinds of crisis situations, but not this one. This one was impossible. The government could not handle it. A few hundred people parked in front of Parliament, and the situation was out of control. The government could not deal with it. That surprises me. I am not saying extremist elements were not present. I am not saying it was not dangerous. What I am saying is that the government let things go. The government did nothing at all. That is shameful. It tried to persuade us by forcing our hand, but the truth is it was not very persuasive. Had the government managed to persuade us, to prove that this act was indeed necessary, then why are we still debating it when it has been in effect for seven days already? Even this morning, it was not clear whether the government would be able to get a majority to adopt the motion. It has been a tough road. We can see that the government is not in control of the situation, even after dropping the nuclear option that is the Emergencies Act. I want to extend an invitation to all members of the House. When it comes time to vote later, rather than voting under threat, rather than voting with a gun to our heads—because the government is always trying to push the envelope and polarize and politicize the situation—I invite them to vote according to their conscience and to ask themselves whether it was worth it. Is invoking the Emergencies Act absolutely necessary? We do not think so.

1449 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 3:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member and his party need to pick a lane. On the one hand, he is saying we should have stepped in sooner, that we should have been proactive, that we should have gone in without any invitation from the provinces to deal with this. On the other hand, he says that Quebec does not need the federal government. Did we step in without Quebec's request to help out in long-term care homes? No, we did not. We waited until Quebec asked us. Would the hon. member not believe that is actually the way we would proceed in this circumstance, that if Quebec asked us to help with the Emergencies Act, he would recognize that and welcome it?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Feb/21/22 3:35:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the question from my colleague. I have the impression that this debate on the Emergencies Act, which is a serious, important piece of legislation with far-reaching consequences when it is invoked, is being used as an opportunity to do some Quebec bashing. That is unacceptable. I will not answer his question because, personally, I think it is below the belt.

69 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Feb/21/22 3:35:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this crisis started on January 7. The government knew about it for six weeks, but all of a sudden, it was an emergency. Is the hon. member convinced that the government is not doing this for any other reason than a power grab?

45 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Feb/21/22 3:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, for some reason, the government sat on its hands throughout the entire crisis. It did not do a single thing. It did not lift a finger. Instead, the Prime Minister insulted the protesters and hid in his basement. At some point, he woke up. Suddenly it became urgent to bring in the Emergencies Act to resolve the situation. It seems like he tried to save face instead of truly trying to resolve the situation.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/21/22 3:37:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised some important points. However, does he not recognize that despite the fact that the streets of Ottawa are calmer today, some real threats remain? There are two places near the capital where truckers are waiting. There are also truckers who have been stopped with a convoy at the Pacific Highway border crossing in British Columbia. This is not over. Does my colleague not believe that being able to freeze bank accounts that are funding these illegal occupations is a good thing for preventing money from Donald Trump supporters and the United States from flowing in and being used to organize these sieges and protests?

115 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Feb/21/22 3:37:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my response to the member is that when we look at Wellington Street and elsewhere around the country at this time, we can see that all is quiet. Do we still need the police to continue their work? Yes, certainly. Do we need to continue to be vigilant with respect to foreign influence? Yes, certainly. However, personally, I do not feel particularly threatened at this time, and I am not convinced that ordinary folks, who are at home right now, are feeling particularly threatened.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Feb/21/22 3:38:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act was a mistake from the get-go, and the government knows it. Today, now that the dust has settled in Ottawa, it is even more of a mistake. Despite all that, the Prime Minister has decided to turn tonight's motion into a vote of confidence. That makes no sense. Why decide to make it a vote of confidence? Is it to silence his own caucus, because some of its members are asking themselves serious questions, or is it to muzzle the NDP?

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Feb/21/22 3:38:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. With respect to the Liberal caucus, we may find out in a few years. When people write their memoirs 10, 15 or 20 years later, we often discover things. We already know that at least three members are not very comfortable with the position of their own government. We also know that, until this morning, the NDP was not very comfortable with the government's position. Magically, after the government decided to make this a vote of confidence, the NDP bolstered its support. It was unclear previously. I have the impression that the NDP's change in position has something to do with the threat of a vote of confidence.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/21/22 3:39:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will not be sharing my time because I am selfish. How should we tackle this matter? Yesterday, I asked myself how I would start my speech, and I thought that the best way would be to examine the issue of this law's legitimacy. In my opinion, this entails establishing how a free society works. All too often, when we speak of free societies, we make the mistake of believing that a democratic society, a free society, is a society that lives consensually. That is not the case. I recommend that everyone read Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy by Jacques Rancière, who is probably one of the foremost figures in French political philosophy. In this work, Jacques Rancière says that politics exist as soon as the “sans-part“, those who are excluded, want to have a part in society. That is what we see in class conflict, the feminist movement and the movement of homosexuals who want to be recognized. They are the “sans-part” who want to have a part in society. That is the only way the democratic process functions. I was looking for a quote this week because the notion of freedom has been the focus of our debates. I was looking for a quote that would give a positive definition of freedom, and I thought of my loyal listener, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who got into a little tiff with the member for Carleton on Bill C‑8, a bill to implement certain budgetary measures. During this exchange, the member for Carleton started preaching about freedom. Since he aspires to become the leader of the Conservative Party, his motivations might be different from others'. He finished his speech talking about the protesters and said “Freedom is on the march.” Since my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is a clever guy, he quickly pointed out that the member was off topic and his speech had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C‑8. The member for Carleton replied that freedom is never pertinent to the Bloc, which I thought was a little harsh. I thought it would be appropriate to teach the member for Carleton the definition of freedom and the type of freedom he is talking about. I think this is relevant to today's debate. I am going to share a quote from Jan Patocka, a modern Socratic philosopher. Jan Patocka died in 1977 following an intense interrogation that went wrong. He was an old man, a philosopher and spiritual advisor to Vaclav Havel, the first president of the Czech Republic. In a book entitled Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, Jan Patocka wrote: “[P]olitics is always of another order than economic management or the projection of humans in work...politics is nothing other than life for the sake of freedom, not life for the sake of survival or even for well being”. What does Jan Patocka mean by “life for the sake of freedom”? For me, it is quite simple, and this goes back to Rancière. Life for the sake of freedom means that people are willing to challenge the established rules in order to be recognized. Patocka even died challenging the Iron Curtain regime to see the Czech regime recognized. These are people willing to pay a very heavy price. I am not sure if my colleague from Carleton would be willing to pay such a price, but at the very least, if we now follow this line of thought, we should distinguish between two types of freedom. There is the freedom that people seek to win, the kind that people are willing to fight for. However, there is another very basic freedom, as Isaiah Berlin presents in Liberty. It is the best illustration possible. In Liberty, Isaiah Berlin refers to two types of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. According to Isaiah Berlin, positive liberty is the freedom that allows individuals to live their lives the way they choose. It is possible for individuals in a society to feel that they are being treated unjustly. This has happened in history, especially to women in patriarchal societies. It has happened to ethnic minorities, and it has happened to a national minority, Quebeckers. We believe that we have suffered an offence, we want to change the course of society, we engage in a struggle, and we undertake social actions in an attempt to define ourselves. This is what Isaiah Berlin called positive liberty. But Isaiah Berlin also discussed negative liberty. Perhaps the best way to understand negative liberty is to look at a sentence by Dostoevsky in The Possessed. In this novel, Dostoevski, through the voice of Stavrogin, said, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Let us leave God aside. What Dostoevsky meant is that if there are no institutions, then everything is permitted. If there is no legitimate and well-established authority, then everything is permitted. Negative liberty therefore means that not everything is permitted. Governments are in place for that. We have principles of political associations, a Constitution that tells us that not everything is permitted. I may not do everything that I want; I may not limit the freedom of others. Therefore, this “everything” is not permitted. Ultimately, negative liberty is a bit like government action. How are men to be made free? The one who came up with the best answer was certainly Camus. He said that it was through rebellion. I will read a quote from Camus’s novel The Rebel. Afterwards, we will try to unpack it What is a rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion. A slave who has taken orders all his life suddenly decides that he cannot obey some new command. What does he mean by saying “no”? He means, for example, that “this has been going on too long,” [perhaps that was what we were seeing outside, but we will come back to that later] “up to this point yes, beyond it no,” “you are going too far,” or, again, “there is a limit beyond which you shall not go.” In other words, his no affirms the existence of a borderline. Camus goes on to say: Thus the movement of rebellion is founded simultaneously on the categorical rejection of an intrusion that is considered intolerable and on the confused conviction of an absolute right which, in the rebel's mind, is more precisely the impression that he “has the right to...” He demonstrates, with obstinacy, that there is something in him which “is worth while...” We have heard this outside, but we will get back to it. Camus says this about someone who uses that positive power on himself and the society that revolts him. I wonder if the protesters are rebelling in the sense understood by Camus. I will come back to another concept we have not yet discussed, the concept of “freedumb”; the “freedumb” the protesters were demanding. That reminds me of the platonic concept of double ignorance, that is to say, a person who does not realize that he does not know things. That goes hand in hand with the rise in far-right populist politics. In recent weeks, we heard of an American elected official who did not know the difference between the Gestapo and gazpacho. That is a good start. I hope that never happens here. We heard people talking about alternative facts. Supposedly they exist. We heard talk of 5G, a chip being injected in people. I will not get into the issue of vaccination again, but I have even heard some questionable ideas from some members. The most recent thing is the protester who was yelling “It's very not false”. According to him, the woman who was knocked down by a horse died, but the media was not telling people. When he was told that that had been proven to be false, he yelled, “It's very not false”. That is a new expression. What really bothers me is that invoking a law like the one the government is proposing to use means that perhaps, one day, the government that is in power will use the somewhat controversial principles of the growing populist far right. Right now, this government could decide to do what the NDP does not want it to, namely, put a stop to the legitimate pursuit of freedom by certain movements. Like my NDP colleagues, I see myself as a progressive. A progressive is someone who works tirelessly in an effort to support people who are seeking to free themselves from a situation they are trapped in. In 10 or 20 years, when indigenous, environmental or anti-globalist movements try to protest to get out of a situation that seems unfair to them, perhaps someone on the other side will invoke the Emergencies Act, because once we use it the first time, it sets a precedent. Unlike what happened 50 years ago, when the NPD leader at the time said no to the War Measures Act, my NDP colleagues will have to live with what happens in this moment in history.

1591 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Feb/21/22 3:49:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's comments. I found that his speech was supported by several arguments. That said, I have a question for him about what he said at the end of his presentation. Is that a good enough excuse to do nothing about what he too described as the far right that exists here, that has the money and the tools to do damage? In 50 years' time, we may regret it if we decided to do nothing today.

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/21/22 3:50:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the best tool we have against populism is education. It is not about trying to shut these people up; it is about giving them relevant and accurate information. I respectfully submit that an additional tool we could have had was the following. If our health care system was not in such bad shape, the lockdowns might have been shorter. The federal government had a role to play in this. If it had paid its fair share of funding for the health care system, perhaps the pandemic would not have stirred up this grumbling and this passion motivated by rancour in some individuals. My colleagues have a responsibility in that regard.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Feb/21/22 3:50:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has called Canadians names. He has called them misogynists and racists, and asked if we are actually going to tolerate these people. I am just wondering what the member's comments would be around the Prime Minister's actions in this. We saw, with the rail blockades in 2020, half of cabinet running around the country talking to everybody to try to resolve the situation when Quebec was running out of propane. Could there not have been something similar, instead of calling Canadians names?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/21/22 3:51:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech earlier this week, my colleague illustrated exactly what I am criticizing. He drew a parallel with one of his friends, who was supposedly unvaccinated and could not go to restaurants. That is crass populism that must be condemned. A pandemic is a complicated situation that will not be resolved by reopening restaurants. Now, for a public policy-maker to make a speech that allows him to side with people who express their anger and hatred in an unacceptable way is something I would never go along with. The position of the Liberal Party, which is trying to limit individual freedoms, and the position of certain members of the Conservative Party, who are trying to rally useful idiots to their cause, are both unacceptable to me.

130 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/21/22 3:52:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to many of the points the member laid out. I find that we actually agree on many of these points, but one point I would like the member to elaborate more on is the connection between populism and extremism. It is true that there is an element of both of these things within this movement? We have seen it from folks such as Pat King and organizers at Canada Unity. Would the member please elaborate on the dangers of populism and extremism?

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/21/22 3:53:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, all rebellious movements that are driven by anger and resentment are dangerous. The populism that we are seeing today is very clear for the left. It is easy to identify. We hear a lot about it, especially south of the border. I am especially worried about my colleagues in the west. Perhaps it affects us less in Quebec, but there is also left-wing populism on identity issues, where people are ready to label anyone who tries to give weight to their collective identity and who presents themselves as a Quebecker. There are now attempts to present that as spontaneously racist. That is also a type of populism that must be condemned.

114 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Feb/21/22 3:54:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government has proclaimed a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. The question before us today in the House is whether the proclamation is consistent with the law. For a public order emergency to be proclaimed to deal with the blockades here in Ottawa and across the country, three criteria must be satisfied. First, there must be an urgent, critical and temporary situation where there is serious violence or the threat of serious violence against people or property for the purpose of achieving an ideological, religious or political objective. Arguably, the government has met this first criterion. The RCMP raid in Coutts, Alberta, resulted in the seizure of high-powered guns with scopes, handguns, ammunition, high-capacity magazines and body armour decorated with patches associated with white supremacist and other extremist groups. Thirteen people have been charged in connection with the seizure, including four with plotting to murder police officers. The RCMP says that these individuals were organized, highly armed and dangerous. In addition, some of the organizers of the blockade here in Ottawa used language that suggested they were ideologically motivated and willing to use force to achieve their ends. The second criterion that must be met is that either the situation endangers the lives, health and safety of Canadians, and is of such proportion or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or the situation seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. The government can make the case that either or both of these elements have been satisfied. It is clear the blockades endangered the lives, health and safety of Canadians in downtown Ottawa. The diesel fumes, the constant and ear-shattering noise, the fireworks and so many other things hurt the 12,000 Canadians living around the Ottawa blockade. The Province of Ontario supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act, implying that the blockade exceeded the province's capacity to deal with the situation. The government can also argue that the situation seriously threatened its ability to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. The control of an international border is the hallmark of a sovereign state. At one point, four Canadian border crossings were blockaded: Windsor, Emerson, Coutts and Surrey. The blockade in downtown Ottawa, the seat of our government and our national legislature, was also arguably a threat to the sovereignty and security of Canada, as was the call by some convoy organizers for the overthrow of government. The third criterion that must be satisfied is that the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It is important to note that the act uses the word “effectively” rather than “ideally”. The government made an announcement about the public order emergency on the afternoon of February 14, but the promulgation of the three orders in council effecting the powers took several days. The blockades ended in Windsor on February 13, in Surrey on February 14, in Coutts on February 15 and in Emerson on February 16. It is clear that the border blockades were effectively dealt with under the existing laws of Canada and not under Emergencies Act powers. Here in Ottawa, while Emergencies Act powers were used, they were not needed. Chris Lewis said exactly that yesterday. He said that there was a lack of law enforcement and a lack of police officers, but not a lack of laws to enforce. He said that making arrests, seizing trucks, towing, cordoning off the city, putting up checkpoints and getting thousands of additional officers to assist the Ottawa police could all have been done under the existing laws of Canada. He is a former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police: the largest police force in the province of Ontario. Furthermore, it is clear the Emergencies Act powers allowing the government to seize financial accounts could have been done under existing law. Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey did exactly that on February 10, when he obtained an order under section 490.8 of the Criminal Code to freeze access to millions of dollars donated through the platform GiveSendGo. Lawyer Paul Champ also did exactly that on February 17, when he obtained a Mareva injunction under existing common law that froze millions of dollars, including cryptocurrency, raised for the convoy protests. These actions by the Ontario Attorney General and Paul Champ were done under existing laws, and were also done with court approval, unlike the Emergencies Act powers to freeze accounts without court approval that the government has now claimed for itself. These emergency powers may not pass the Oakes test with respect to proportionality or the requirement to minimally impair rights and freedoms. The government has not met the requirement of the act that the situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Therefore, I cannot support the motion. I would add that if the House supports the motion, it would be giving the government powers it likely does not lawfully have under the act. While I cannot support the motion, it is clear that the blockades in Ottawa and at the border were unlawful, illegal and, in many aspects, criminal. It is also clear that the existing laws of Canada did deal, and could have effectively dealt, with the situation. A lack of timeliness in law enforcement, and a lack of federal-provincial co-operation and other operational deficiencies, cannot be dealt with under the Emergencies Act, nor under the emergency doctrine of peace, order and good government. The failure to uphold the rule of law is the issue here, not a lack of law to effectively deal with the situation. In a free and democratic society, the rule of law is essential. Without the rule of law there can be no freedom, because liberty without lawful limits, taken to its logical conclusion, is anarchy. Without the rule of law, there can be no democracy, because democracy without our most basic law, our Constitution, is nothing less than majoritarian mob rule. It is clear we, as a country, have not been serious about the rule of law, and because we have not been serious about the rule of law, thousands of Canadians thought it appropriate to unlawfully and illegally blockade four international border crossings and our national capital for more than three weeks. We have not been serious about the rule of law when a person’s race, religion or creed determines whether or how the law is enforced, such as when the CN mainline in Ontario and pipelines in Western Canada were blockaded for weeks on end two years ago, and when the lawlessness continued last week. We see this when a mob violently tears down statues in the public square with no consequence, when dozens of Canadian churches were vandalized or torched in the past year, and when, in this place, the Prime Minister violated the Shawcross doctrine of the Constitution by pressuring the Attorney General to drop the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, something for which he was never censured or held in contempt. We saw this last year when the government defied four orders of the House and its committee for the production of the Winnipeg lab documents. If flagrant disregard for the rule of law is tolerated, things will fall apart. The centre cannot hold and anarchy is loosed. What is needed now is not the use of the Emergencies Act, but rather ensuring that the rule of law in this country is upheld.

1273 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 36