44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 4:39:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my focus as Associate Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism and a member of this government is to ensure that we have peace, security, good government and safety for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The situation is still precarious, as the member may well have seen—
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:40:12 p.m.
- Watch
We have to move on.
Resuming debate.
The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:40:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the decision we are required to make today in this vote is without question one of the most important that a parliamentarian may be called to make. History will judge our votes and our debates in the House.
This vote is about fundamental issues in a democracy. On the one hand, it is about the duty of the government to protect our institutions and the public order, which is necessary in a free society. On the other hand, it is about the protection of citizens' civil liberties, which are just as fundamental in a free society.
First and foremost, I am not going to engage in the kind of attempts that the Bloc Québécois has made to draw tenuous connections between the Emergencies Act that we are debating today and its predecessor, the War Measures Act. They have very little in common in terms of checks and balances or accountability, or even protections guaranteed by the charter.
I will also not engage in the game being played by the Conservatives, who had to muster all their courage to finally ask the protesters to stop occupying Ottawa and who struggled to condemn all the misbehaviour we saw over the past few weeks in Ottawa.
I will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but one person's freedom ends where another's begins. In a democracy, people always have the right to be heard, but that right does not mean they can block critical infrastructure or negatively impact downtown Ottawa residents' quality of life for weeks. Those people have nothing whatsoever to do with the protesters' demands.
Anyone who knows me will not be surprised to learn that, 10 years ago, I was a part of the student strike. I wore a red square and marched for more than my fair share, as the saying went. However, I never supported the actions of those who blockaded the Port of Montreal or Jacques Cartier Bridge at rush hour. I never felt that was the best way to make our voices heard, and rather than raise public awareness of our cause, it inevitably turned many people against our movement and our ideas. The same happened with the convoy.
To those who may be tempted by illegal means, I say resist. Take the high road, because in a democracy, we value the noble path of non-violence and the ballot box.
Protesting in front of Parliament, in front of provincial legislatures and in front of my office, and organizing peaceful marches are all perfectly fine. However, an occupation that lasts for weeks and blockades that last for days are not fine. They caused serious problems that municipal and provincial governments could not or would not address. Their failures and their inaction emboldened others to set up blockades elsewhere in Canada, including in Emerson, Coutts and Windsor.
That is the problem that the federal government wanted to address by invoking the Emergencies Act. Let me be clear. I agree with the government's objective. However, I have serious questions about the means chosen. The Emergencies Act is undoubtedly the most draconian weapon in the government's legislative arsenal and, in this case, it confers enormous powers on the state, including the power to freeze bank accounts without due process. To invoke this legislation, a very high threshold must be met, and this threshold was deliberately set high.
According to section 16 of the act, a “public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”.
A threat to the security of Canada is itself defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There are four possibilities: espionage, foreign influence, activities relating to terrorism, and violent insurrection against the government. The threshold is extremely high, which is by design, given the powers this act confers.
The government based its decision on the third possibility, terrorism, which is defined in the act as follows: “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state”.
I think it is clear that the second aspect, the political objective, is not a factor here, but for the first one, the threat of serious violence must constitute a national crisis. That part of it is anything but clear to me. For the current crisis to to qualify under that criterion, the government is forced to consider economic disruption or, at this point, the threat of economic disruption, as a threat of serious violence against persons or property, as set out in the act.
Along with many eminent lawyers and various experts, such as Professor Leah West and even the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I believe that is a false equivalence. It is a slippery slope that dilutes the strict criteria under the Emergencies Act.
During the rail blockades put in place in early 2020 to support the demands of the the Wet'suwet'en, I never thought it would be appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is precisely because, even if there were some major economic disruptions, the line was never crossed, there was never any violence or threat of serious violence against property or persons. I look at the present situation in the same way.
I am aware that I do not have all the information that cabinet has. As a parliamentarian, I must make decisions based on the information that is provided to us.
Based on what is available to me, I cannot help but echo the comments of my colleague from Beaches—East York, that contorting the application of the law in order to defend the law is not a very comfortable position to be in.
Beyond the concerns I just raised about the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act, I also have questions about the fact that we are being asked this evening not to retroactively confirm the use of the act, but instead to extend its application. I wonder if it is still necessary in the circumstances, considering the occupation of Ottawa is over, the police have finally and rather easily done their job, and there are no more blockades at the border.
The measures taken under the Emergencies Act may have been useful to law enforcement, or even effective, but that does not mean they are necessary or proportionate, nor that they still are as we speak. Personally, I am not convinced.
In closing, I want to make some observations in response to what I have heard during the debate in the House over the past few days. In our debates and reflections, I think we need to avoid letting our dislike of an issue affect our ability to analyze it in a neutral and rational way, because governments change and do not always have the same views on different issues. Take, for example, environmental or indigenous issues, or even the student issues we hold dear. In the current context and for the reasons mentioned, the use of the Emergencies Act creates a serious precedent.
I also think that we must avoid ascribing too much value to opinion polls when we are debating the use of a law like this one. Public opinion is not one of the criteria set by the legislator. If I had to choose, I would far rather do the right thing than follow the trend.
In the future, I also think we will have to modernize the act to ensure that it can be used more adequately to respond to situations like the one we are facing.
To conclude, members should not interpret my comments as a repudiation of this government. I believe that in the absence of municipal and provincial leadership, the government took the steps it believed to be appropriate to address this crisis, and it did so in good faith. I agree with the government's objective of restoring order, though I disagree with its methods.
As for my vote, since 2015, the Liberal Party has had a moral contract whereby members must vote with the government on confidence votes, electoral commitments, and issues affecting Canadians' fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Under this contract, all other votes are free votes. I made this commitment as a member of the Liberal Party. If this evening's vote were not a confidence vote, I would vote against it. However, at the very least, as we prepare to vote, I would like to have a clear and unequivocal indication as to whether this is truly a confidence vote.
1468 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:48:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The hon. member took a very analytical approach in his speech and I do appreciate all that he said.
Earlier in question period, the hon. Minister of Justice was asked about releasing any legal opinions in his capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General that were provided to him as minister as to the legality of imposing the act, what is the legal opinion and has the threshold been met.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General did not provide anything in that respect. If the threshold has been met, what would the government be afraid of in releasing a legal opinion that supports its cause?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:49:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member touched on a lot of aspects in his question. To me, based on my analysis as a lawyer, when I look at section 16 and what is defined in the CSIS Act as a threat to the security of Canada, I do not think the threshold has been met.
However, I understand different lawyers and different legal experts can have different legal opinions. I also understand I am not privy to all the information that cabinet has. In such circumstances, there is usually always a great deal of deference given to the executive. However, based on the information I have and based on my reading of the law, I do not think the threshold was met.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:50:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start by commending my colleague for his political courage.
The member started his speech by talking about our individual responsibilities as legislators in this evening's vote. By making this a confidence vote, the Prime Minister is doing two things. First, he is preventing members of his own caucus, like the member himself, from voting according to their conscience. Second, he is preventing the NDP from voting according to its conscience without triggering another useless election.
I heard my colleague correctly. I respect his position, but I would like to know whether, despite their moral contract to vote the same way on emergency and special measures, the Liberals will make an exception for my colleague.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:51:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I, too, have a moral contract and that is with my constituents. They know what party I belong to, and it has always been clear that I would support the government in confidence votes.
I am simply asking for a clear and unequivocal answer as to whether this evening's vote is a confidence vote or not.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:51:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Louis-Hébert raised some very relevant points.
He touched on the issue of freezing the bank accounts of individuals or businesses involved in the organization of these illegal occupations, who often have ties to the far right. Does he not find that cutting off the funding of all those who want to destabilize our democratic institutions is an extremely effective measure?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:52:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The member for Rosemont has known me long enough to know that I do not have any sympathy for far-right groups. We saw how some of these groups latched onto this movement.
I think we need to ask ourselves how we can monitor the foreign funding of certain causes in Canada.
However, a value that is dear to me as a lawyer involved in the defence of civil rights is the existence of legal proceedings when the state uses such coercive power.
91 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 4:53:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands again.
I do not believe that that aspect meets any of the four possibilities in the definition of security threat in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, for the simple reason that foreign interference would require a state actor. That does not appear to be the case at the moment.
In that respect, all Canadians who donate to organizations like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International for advocacy in other countries could find themselves—
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:54:27 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:54:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are at a historic moment in our nation's history. The sun will come up tomorrow, and the eyes of our nation, indeed of the world, will be looking at how we comport ourselves over the next couple of hours and how that vote goes at eight o'clock tonight.
If I am being completely truthful with those who are in the House, the last two years of my political life have been among the hardest in my career, and I think I speak for all members and colleagues in the House. Our nation has struggled with what is real and what is false, with being open and being closed.
We have become a nation divided. We have families that are divided. We have lost friends. We have lost family members. We have communities that are divided, torn apart in the wake of a disease that has separated us emotionally and physically from the ones that we love.
I have probably written this speech about 12 times. I have said it over in my head probably a dozen more times. I have ripped it up every time. In truth, I do not know what I am going to say as we move forward.
I struggle with how to describe what it has been like to be a leader in our community throughout these two years. I know my colleagues in the House, and those that are watching from home, have experienced the very same issues I am speaking of.
I have listened to heartbreaking stories from people I have known for years. I have listened to heartbreaking stories from people I have just met, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, some for mandates and some for no mandates. I have been inundated with calls and requests for help. People on both sides of the issue have come forward to give me their opinions, people who have lost their jobs or who have lost their businesses, and people who simply want things to go back the way they were. I have listened to people who have lost loved ones.
COVID has not only managed to overwhelm our health care system, it has overwhelmed our souls. People were not meant to live in isolation. We are not designed to be without human contact. The devastation of this disease goes well beyond ICUs and long-term care. The mental health aspects cannot be overstated.
We are a nation divided and we are a nation that is struggling. We are a nation on the brink, because we are not made to deal with this isolation, and because of a failure of leadership.
Two weeks ago, I received an urgent call from one of my local leaders. He is a good friend. He has been a sounding board, and he has never been afraid to tell me the truth, to give me that kick in the butt. He was almost in tears as he told me about the threats of harm. He described to me the feelings he had when he learned about his grandchildren having to hide beneath their desks because there had been an active shooter in his community. His voice shook as he told me he feared for his life. He feared for his life.
He fears for his life because of the divisions of this country. He said I needed to do something for him. He needed me to talk to my colleagues on all sides of the House. He needed me to turn down the rhetoric.
We need to stop and listen. Last week, as I walked to and from my office here on the Hill, I stopped to talk, and I stopped to listen. I listened to a young man from Langley who had stayed in his vehicle in -30°C weather just for the chance to be heard. I listened to a grandmother whose son had committed suicide in December because of the overwhelming aspects of this pandemic. I listened to a trucker whose daughter also took her life last year because of the mental health challenges brought on by this pandemic.
The toll of this disease will not be measured in weeks or years. The toll will be measured in lives lost. It will not be just lives lost from those who suffered from COVID, but lives lost from those who lived with the mental health issues this disease created, the mental health issues governments have perpetuated with lockdowns and school closures. There is an increase in domestic abuse and drug dependancies. The measure of deaths by COVID will far surpass the numbers we see on website updates. They do not even come close to the truth. The fact of the matter is, we will not know the extent of the devastation this disease has had on us for years to come.
The people I stopped to talk to were not racists. They were not extremists. They were not here for an insurrection. As a matter of fact, I struggle with something. If this had been a real threat, I have to trust that our security and our intelligence would have shut this place down long before the trucks arrived on Wellington Street. They were not Canadians hell-bent on usurping power or trying to overthrow our government. They simply came to Ottawa because they wanted to be heard.
They came with stories of tragedy. They came with stories of heartbreak. They came because they wanted a voice. They came because they wanted to be heard. There are 338 members of Parliament in this House, and we have all been elected to carry the voices of the electors, of Canadians, to this place. Our job is to listen. Our job is to act. Our job is to make this country a better place for everyone, not just those who we agree with, but also those who we disagree with.
When someone comes into my office at home or here in Ottawa, I do not ask which party they voted for. I do not ask if they are vaccinated, or if they are unvaccinated, because honestly, I do not care. I kind of hope that they had voted for me, but honestly, I do not care. I see them for the person they are in front of me. I listen. I show compassion. I ask how I can help.
When the trucks descended upon Ottawa the first weekend, they came because they wanted the border mandates lifted. They came because they had had enough. They came because they wanted to be heard. Instead, their voices fell upon deaf ears. What that weekend did was solidify their need to end the mandates. That weekend solidified their need to be heard.
That first weekend opened up old wounds, deep wounds that have not had a chance to heal because of the last two years. It opened up a flood gate of the pent-up emotions we have all experienced to one degree or other. We have the raw nerve of a seemingly unending pandemic and two years of mental and emotional turmoil left unchecked. They wanted their voices to be heard. Instead, they were shunned.
They were called extremists. They were labelled. The question was put to others if we should even tolerate these people. They were told their views were unacceptable. They were called misogynists. They were disavowed as people with unacceptable views, and the man who should have been listening, was not. Instead of doing his job, instead of hearing what Canadians had to say, the Prime Minister of Canada disenfranchised thousands of Canadians.
The Prime Minister motivated thousands of Canadians to come here to have their voices heard. This is arrogance and self-righteousness. It only served to inflame the situation. Leadership is about being front and centre. Leadership is about doing what is right. Leadership is about listening. Leadership is about caring, not just for those who agree with someone, but also for those who do not.
Leadership is about tolerance. It is about dialogue. A lot has been said about dialogue being needed. I have a lot of friends who are in law enforcement, and I asked them if this was needed. They said the first point of ending any conflict is dialogue and negotiation. Do we not teach our kids to use their words, to talk, listen and understand each other's sides? However, when it mattered most, the senior leader in our country chose intolerance over listening.
That is a failure of leadership when it mattered most, and we will be judged for it.
1433 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:04:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank all the law enforcement officials from around the country, including the OPS, who have done such an incredible job in terms of what has ended outside of this very building.
I listened intently to the member opposite, and I think we have a very different perspective on the threat. He basically indicated that the threat of insurrection was not real. I would simply point him to the fact that we have documented evidence calling for the overthrow of the government. We have instances of weapons being found from other blockaders, including at the Alberta border, and we are investigating links between the hate group called Diagolon and what is happening here. When the arrests were actually being effected by those brave law enforcement officials whom I know this member supports, there were attempts made to dislodge their weapons. That, to me, is proof positive that this kind of legislation is required.
Would the member agree with me and with the interim chief, Steve Bell, who said that this legislation is exactly what was needed in order to effectuate the cleanup of the occupation that was occurring outside?
193 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 5:06:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem here.
All day, it has been said that it would be preferable if members voted their conscience.
The member for Louis-Hébert just told us the orders do not respect the invocation criteria for the act. That is what he just told us. If it were not a confidence motion, he would vote against it, but he does not know whether it is a confidence vote or not.
What does the member think of this situation where the Prime Minister has not even been clear with his members and does not have the courage to tell them whether, yes or no, this is a confidence vote?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:07:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague has a very good question.
That speaks loudly to me and says that the Prime Minister continues to be afraid that his leadership is threatened. He knows he overstepped his boundaries and his grounds, and he knows his leadership is fragile, so much so that he has to put that veiled threat out there so that his colleagues and his MPs, whether here or in his coalition with the NDP, know that if this vote fails, it could mean another unnecessary election.
It is just shameful that the Prime Minister would actually take that step. Let us not make any bones about it. He knows exactly what he is doing when he puts that out in a press conference. It is a threat, a shot that he is sending across the bow at any MP who is considering voting against him.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:08:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We all understand that after two years, people are fed up, tired and frustrated. I also understand the right to be heard. I have attended enough protests to be heard a few times.
However, the right to be heard is not the right to honk horns day and night for 10 days in downtown Ottawa; it is not the right to harass and terrorize the public.
I do not agree with the member when he says that there was no intention to overthrow the government. That was written on their Facebook page. Far right organizers said they were prepared to work with the Senate and the Governor General to take the place of a democratically elected government.
Members of the Conservative Party, the party of law and order, support this movement and will bring coffee and pizza to these people and get their pictures taken with them. What is happening in that party?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:09:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it will be no surprise that I disagree with the member 100%.
Where I will agree is that we have had thousands of protests here in our nation's capital since I was elected. I get that the 10 days of honking and all manner of noise were not appropriate, but all Canadians wanted was to be heard—
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:09:41 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
