44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- 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 5:35:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that this is not over. She knows full well that there are still attempts to ensure that blockades across the country are funded and that they do not stop. What the government needs to be doing right now is ensuring these blockades do not continue and do not reorganize to block the free flow of goods with our neighbours to the south. We must ensure that what happened here in Ottawa does not happen again.
We will re-evaluate, as the days go by, whether or not these measures are necessary. It is in fact the job of the House to do just that, and I look forward to working with my hon. colleagues to make sure that is the case.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges, a member of the Liberal Party's Quebec caucus, for that mostly English speech.
We have been debating for three days, so we are familiar with each party's arguments. There is one thing we do not know. The member for Louis-Hébert said a few minutes ago that he does not know if this evening's vote will be a confidence vote. We do not know. We have not been told. As my hon. colleague and friend from Montcalm so eloquently put it, if this is a confidence vote, the outcome may not accurately reflect our beliefs.
My question is simple: Is this evening's vote a confidence vote, yes or no?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:36:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it does not make any difference to me whether it is a confidence vote or not.
I am sure it is the best decision we can make as a government to protect Canadians and to help the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario, which both declared a state of emergency on their territory. It is also the best decision to ensure that our borders stay open to free trade with the United States and to keep our workers employed.
83 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 5:37:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his staunch defence of his constituents.
I have full confidence in members of cabinet, most notably the Minister of Justice, and the actions they are going to take in the coming days and weeks. I know they will be working diligently to ensure that the charter rights of all Canadians will be protected as they carry out the necessary actions to bring back law and order to the city of Ottawa, as they ensure that everything that needs to be taken care of in Ontario is indeed taken care of, and as I stated before, as they ensure that we no longer have blockades blocking key points of entry into our country.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:38:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about illegal money coming into Canada. He can tell us, as he did, that 50% of the funds come from outside Canada. As a result of the tracking already embedded in platforms we know where the money comes from, yet the law he proposes to support here has us looking into Canadians' bank accounts. I would like him to square that with me.
What does this accomplish that is not already being accomplished with our current financial mechanisms?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:39:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the honourable member has been very selective in what he has mentioned. The reason we know who the donors are right now is that they were leaked. Somebody hacked the account of the GiveSendGo platform and released that publicly. That is how we know. It adds to the urgency of our taking action to ensure that these funds from outside sources are not infringing on the decisions of this House and on the will of Canadians.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:39:45 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley North.
9 words
- 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 5:49:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member has stated his reasons for voting for this motion and I take him at his word.
I will mention two other members of his caucus, the member for Louis-Hébert and the member for Beaches—East York. The member for Beaches—East York indicated that he will be voting for it because it has been made into a confidence motion. I believe the member for Louis-Hébert indicated that he is not sure whether it has been made into a matter of confidence, which is to say that any Liberal MP who votes against it will be expelled from caucus for voting against their caucus on this matter.
I wonder if I could get some clarification. Has the memorandum been sent out to Liberal MPs indicating that this is a confidence measure and that their careers will be over and they will be kicked out of caucus if they vote against it, yes or no?
165 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 5:51:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He said, among other things, that there are safeguards built into the act, and they include consultation with the provinces. Seven out of 10 provinces said that they did not want the act to be invoked. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. The Government of Quebec said that it did not want the act to be invoked. However, the motion does apply to Quebec.
I want to come back to the matter of a confidence vote. There is at least one member of the House who said that, if this is a confidence vote, then he would vote in favour of the motion, but that if it is not, then he would vote against the motion. It is very important for legislators to have a clear answer. In approximately two hours, it will be time to vote. We have had a lengthy and intense debate on this issue over the past few days.
Does my colleague agree that it is time for the Prime Minister to tell us whether this is a confidence vote? After all, we will be voting in two hours.
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:51:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for a couple of days now in this House we have been listening to debate based on different views of this act. Today, there is something new: the confidence vote. As a member of this House, I truly believe our decision should not be based on whether it is a confidence vote or not. If someone wants to support this bill, they support this bill. If someone does not want to support this bill, they do not support this bill.
I think what is important to talk about tonight is whether someone thinks it is going to restore order and peace for Canadians and for residents of Ottawa.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:52:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on this. I did listen to his speech, and the speaking notes were clearly prepared for him.
Has the member thought about the mechanics of what is happening here regarding Canadians' financial accounts? I have great experience in getting the actual crowdfunding platforms approved in Canada. Everything the government is pretending it is doing with these crowdfunding platforms is already part of our FINTRAC mechanism.
If that was the case, why would you try and disguise your intent here by pretending that does not exist already? If I prove to him that was the case, would it change his—
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:53:40 p.m.
- Watch
We have a point of order.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:53:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think that you are trying to disguise your intent here and the member is speaking to you in such a tone, and he probably should not do that.
In addition, it is probably not entirely appropriate for him to be suggesting that somebody else prepared someone's remarks in here, unless he knows that for a fact.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
The points are noted.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 5:54:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my apologies. I think the member across is exactly right.
My question stands. Will the member across answer whether he would reverse his position on this if we prove that what the government is pretending is happening here is not in fact the case?
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
