Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I do understand the dilemma. I hear the frustration of senators who know, because we live in a democratic country, that intelligence services and police have information that they may share, but that cannot be published or made public. As I said in an earlier answer — and I won’t repeat myself — it’s a dilemma. It’s a dilemma, not only in the case that we’re facing now, but in other respects, whether it’s the work of parliamentary committees or of our courts.

Of course, it is possible that a decision could be made to do that, though there is nothing in the act that so provides. It is not necessarily the case that, even sworn in as a member of the Privy Council, that would necessarily give you access to all information that may or may not be relevant. In this case I’m betraying my own ignorance of various levels of security, but I do recall from earlier in my life that there are levels of security clearances that are independent of secrecy obligations and independent of a being sworn in — although there is a security dimension to being sworn in as I recall, going through the Privy Council. So your question is a legitimate one, for which there is no answer in the act and, frankly, I have no knowledge of, furthermore.

I would remind honourable senators that when the parliamentary review committee is up and running, it will have the ability to define its agenda in the terms of the act and to seek the information that it wants and needs. And if it turns out that it needs information that it could not otherwise have, to be the driving force, to try to effect some changes temporary or otherwise, so they could have access to a greater range of information. But for the moment — and this is important to focus on — its role of review and oversight, which includes the possibility of responding to a motion to revoke regulations, is not the same thing as the function of, say, an NSICOP.

It remains to be seen exactly how this committee conceives of its work, and I have every confidence that parliamentarians, if they feel they don’t have the tools to do it, will make representations. I have every hope and confidence that the government, within the constraints appropriate in a free and democratic society, will be open to those entreaties from members of the committee if that’s what it comes to.

Senator Patterson: Thank you, Senator Gold, for that answer. You’re doing yeoman service today and that’s greatly appreciated. I appreciate getting some further clarity on what might be possible.

Senator Gold, you have said it’s possible a decision could be made to swear members into the Privy Council, or allow them access to sensitive, strictly confidential information. We’re debating a motion here, as I understand it today. I’m wondering, would the government be open to an amendment to that motion that would clarify my concern — and probably the concern of other members — that members of the parliamentary review committee should be given, under strict conditions, the maximum authority reasonably permitted to be fully aware of the sensitive information, that would not be otherwise available or disclosed publicly, to validate the security threat to Canada, to justify the order or justify the continuing of the order? Would the government be open to considering a reasonable amendment along those lines? Thank you.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. The government would not consider reasonable, or would oppose any attempt to amend this motion. It is not necessary for us to do the job that we’re asked to do — to confirm or reject the invocation of a state of emergency. I hope my answer to you was not taken to indicate that I thought it was necessarily a good idea. I said it is possible that members of this committee could be members of the Privy Council subject to whatever other security clearances.

I want to correct an assumption you may be making. You don’t temporarily swear someone into the Privy Council. Indeed, let me cite for your edification section 10 of the NSICOP Act, which requires:

Each member of the Committee must

It’s not something you dip in and out of. That’s not the way in which the committee would get access to additional information. I repeat, the committee, when struck, will assess what it needs and what it requires. It will make requests and will be responded to in a responsible way.

If I may bring us back, honourable senators, to the position of the government, it is the position of the government that the government has met the legal test set out in the Emergencies Act by virtue of information that is currently in the public domain. The government is not relying upon a “trust me, I know things you don’t know” approach. If I made the mistake — and I surely hope it wasn’t a mistake — to remind parliamentarians that in Canada, there is in fact an intelligence service. There are police services, there are investigations and relationships with our partners abroad that have to be protected. If I made the mistake of reminding you that this enters into the government’s calculations, not only whether to invoke an Emergencies Act but in all hosts of measures, including how we conduct ourselves on a foreign stage, and how we work with our allies, my apologies. The fact remains, there is sufficient evidence in the public domain to more than justify the decision that the government took. It had reasonable grounds, it acted on those grounds and we are seeing the fruits only one week later with a return to some measure of order and to the benefit of Canadians, our economy and our security.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Why not.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Before I answer, allow me to add a response to the previous question from Senator Patterson on the receivability of an amendment to the motion. Once again, my apologies for not remembering that, in fact, according to subsection 58(6), amendment of the motion is not receivable under the act.

Getting back to your question, it’s common knowledge that the Government Representative Office truly hoped to respond to the request made by several senators, because most of the groups in the Senate wanted to have a Committee of the Whole. We supported this request because we believe, in the context of this unprecedented and historic debate, that senators have the right to receive key ministers who could answer their questions and that they could benefit from this.

However, in the circumstances and given the tight deadlines for this process, it would require the unanimous consent of the Senate to hold such a committee.

I can’t speak about what happens in private meetings with the leaders or other people. What I can say is that we attempted to find a way to obtain unanimous consent for the three ministers to appear in this chamber before starting the debate, but that was not possible. For that reason, I’m pleased that we were able to organize something outside the chamber. It wasn’t my first choice, but it did nonetheless give senators access to the ministers. We are pleased that we were able to organize that meeting, which fulfilled a legitimate and important request made by several senators. It’s too bad Canadians couldn’t participate and attend, but we are bound by certain rules, and the rule of unanimous consent is not always accessible to the Government Representative in the Senate. That is all I can say on that matter.

Senator Gold: But I would ask, since I have the ability to ask — I have done my best to answer the questions you have asked. You may not be happy with all my answers. You’re not going to get any different answers if you ask me the question again. So I will be prepared to answer more questions, and would ask honourable colleagues to respect not me, I like standing up and being the centre of attention. I’m an old law professor and rock ’n’ roller, so hey, you know. But this is a serious debate so I don’t want to be the one to keep you from getting information that you can. But I would ask you, out of respect for other colleagues who have prepared speeches, who want to speak — and believe me, I want to hear them and I want to hear you. There is expertise in this place, whether it’s constitutional, legal, police, citizens, your expertise matters in this debate. I have taken up far too much time, so I am prepared to take more questions. I would ask for some understanding that others are waiting to speak, and this is an important debate that we want to allow to proceed. Thank you.

Senator Plett: Honourable senators, let me, first of all, say thank you, Senator Gold, for continuing with this gruelling day that you have had. I do appreciate that. If His Honour and you will give me a little indulgence, I had two questions prepared, but I believe that Senator Dupuis’ question and your answer requires me to at least address that point as well. If you will allow me to ask a question there, as well as the two questions that I have prepared, then I will not ask any more questions today. I’m hoping that you, Senator Gold, will indulge me, and I am hoping His Honour will as well.

Senator Dupuis asked about a Committee of the Whole. Many years ago, a good friend in Montreal said, “Don, your fig leaf is getting a little small.” Although you tried very hard to walk the line, I would suggest that your answer could also be characterized in that way.

I am going to let Senator Dupuis know that it is Senator Don Plett who wasn’t prepared to give leave. You didn’t want to say that, but I will say that.

I will also say that I offered — and because it was I who offered, both inside and outside of our meeting, I think I can say that — that we would be very happy if we could have both sides presented at a Committee of the Whole, which is not uncommon for committees to have. When we have committee meetings, colleagues, we ask proponents of the legislation to come forward, which is typically ministers and their people, and then we have alternative witnesses come forward who are opposed to the legislation.

This has also been done at Committee of the Whole. For all of our colleagues who are thinking that we did not want to hear the ministers — well, no, I didn’t because, quite frankly, I heard their speaking points. Be that as it may, we were prepared to listen to them, but we also wanted the contrarian opinion. We wanted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to come and tell us why they thought this was very bad legislation. I don’t think that was an unreasonable request, colleagues.

I want to be on the record saying that, and I am sure Senator Gold would have liked to have said that, had he believed he could do that without breaking a confidence. I will simply leave it at that. We did support a Committee of the Whole under different circumstances.

I will now ask my two questions, honourable senators. Much to the happiness of everyone here, I am sure, I will not ask any more questions. However, I will regale you all; and if you give me a hard time now, my speech will be a little bit longer. Remember, I also have unlimited time to speak and I may well take all of it, so be prepared.

Senator Gold, you may have touched on the issue of the blockade at the Canada-U.S. border in Coutts, Alberta, but you did not answer this question: The border in Coutts, Alberta, was dealt with through existing laws and resources, not through government overreach of the Emergencies Act. The Alberta Minister of Municipal Affairs said that the Alberta RCMP were supported by additional personnel transferred from the B.C. RCMP and that the Government of Alberta procured the necessary heavy equipment to remove commercial vehicles.

The resolution of the Coutts blockade came about through traditional, conventional policing. Thirteen people were arrested and serious charges were laid — among them, conspiracy to commit murder. Many others left the blockade without incident.

In Emerson, Manitoba, the RCMP negotiated with protesters at the border to open the border so that livestock trailers could come through. They then negotiated that other vehicles could go 30 minutes out of their way to a different border crossing and cross. Although it was inconvenient, it worked. No violence, no shutdown, because people talked to people and they worked their way through it.

Leader, why does the Trudeau government believe that the trucker convoy in Ottawa rises to the level of a national public order emergency when the Coutts and Emerson blockades were resolved through traditional, conventional policing?

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I’m going to answer the question on the legislation and permit myself not to engage in what every parliamentarian or citizen of Canada understood was at stake in the vote yesterday. It would be inconceivable to me that were the vote to have been lost in the House yesterday, that the members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition would say, “We still think the government deserves to stay in power.” But I digress.

To your question, the government recognizes and has recognized the need, as a prudent government would, that the instruments regulating financial transactions and the reporting of them have simply not kept pace with technological and other changes in the ways in which assets are moved around. Money — even the definition of money, to invoke cryptocurrency but also to invoke the ways in which money is raised through crowdfunding, et cetera . . .

Recognizing this and having put into place a temporary measure to deal with this crisis is responsibly saying, “You know what? We need to do this.” I have no knowledge, honourable senators — I just don’t know — what their plans are or what the times of their plans are. I sound like I’m in Question Period. When I know and it’s appropriate to share, and when the government’s intentions are known, they will be circulated.

I want to underline that the question of what we learn, what measures the government chooses to propose and what we in Parliament choose to adopt constitute a completely separate question. Just as the Government of Ontario is reconsidering some of its emergency laws — and all provinces are reconsidering them, as one must do — so, too, shall we. When the time comes and when we receive the bill in whatever form it will be, we will study it, review it, send it to committee and we will make sure it’s the best bill to serve Canadians that can be.

Thank you.

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, in sections of your speech this morning, I contend that you placed too much emphasis on the word “reasonable” in the definitions you read and too little emphasis on the word “emergency.” How do you contend that what we witnessed in Ottawa over these three weeks was properly considered an emergency?

Also, another requirement of the Emergencies Act is that the emergency “. . . cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” Yet, Senator Gold, how can that possibly be the case with the Ottawa situation? Even the ringleaders here have been charged with offences under the Criminal Code of Canada, such as mischief.

Senator Gold: It’s true that the question hasn’t been asked like that. You found a loophole in the motion that would protect me. However, I have tried to answer that question and I have answered it, so I will be brief. The existence of potential powers notwithstanding, the situation on the ground was such that it was impossible to enforce these laws. The police were not willing and did not have the resources to do so. There were so many trucks — and I am not talking about vans with air mattresses and no tires — that it was impossible for the police to deal with them. What is more, the towing companies told us they didn’t want to offer to help because the protesters were their customers, their bread and butter. The government had to issue an order so that we would have the resources needed to put an end to the blockade. That is one of the many reasons that I think justify and explain the proclamation of the public order emergency.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government. Leader, with respect to towing vehicles, were you aware that section 129 of the Criminal Code authorizes police officers to request the assistance of towing companies, and that a towing company has no choice but to comply with the request and move the vehicle? We don’t need this legislation. I did this myself when I was a police officer. Section 129 of the Criminal Code authorizes police officers to request assistance from towing companies and they have no choice on the matter.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Senator Gold has never been so happy to hear my voice, even though he doesn’t know what I have to say.

Senator Gold, I don’t want you to consider daily question periods from now on as boring or trivial. I promise to ask you questions that will really make you think during this very short period for questions.

Esteemed colleagues, the invocation of the Emergencies Act brings up some difficult and painful feelings for me and for many of my colleagues from Quebec. These difficult and painful feelings remind us of a dark period in our shared history.

I was 19 years old in October 1970. I was a student in CEGEP, just one year away from starting university. I already had a keen interest in public affairs and democracy, as Quebec society was in turmoil at the end of the Quiet Revolution, which led to numerous reforms based on the values of equality, solidarity, economic development and openness to the world.

When I think of the 1970 October crisis, I often think of the horror I felt after those terrorist acts were committed so close to home. I am referring to the kidnapping of British diplomat James Richard Cross and then the kidnapping and tragic death of deputy premier and minister of immigration, labour and manpower, Pierre Laporte. I’ll never forget that horror.

I then saw the effects of the application of the now-repealed War Measures Act. I witnessed a democratic and lawful society suspend habeas corpus and trample on human rights.

I was appalled when I saw union members, journalists, artists, including several poets, and other citizens be arbitrarily arrested, abusively detained, and denied their rights of freedom of expression and association. In total, approximately 500 people were quickly stripped of their freedom on the grounds of mere presumptions, with complete disregard for the most basic principles of justice.

I was astounded by the violence, intimidation and unforgiving harshness that the application of the War Measures Act inflicted across Quebec. This is the context in which I thought about the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and in which I am rising to speak today, knowing full well that the War Measures Act was repealed in 1988 and replaced with the Emergencies Act.

I am aware of the lessons the government and the Parliament of Canada learned from these tragic events. I am also aware that the invocation of this emergency legislation, a law that must be enacted as a last resort, is a first in our country’s history.

[English]

The situation now is very different from the one of October 1970. First and foremost, the current Emergencies Act, adopted in 1988, is not as drastic as its predecessor and includes more oversight measures to prevent serious abuse. The application of this act requires consultation with the provinces and territories, with which the government has proceeded. While concerning situations happened in other provinces related to what is now called the “Freedom Convoy,” so far only Premier Ford, of Ontario, has publicly stated support for its use in order to resolve the situation affecting the city of Ottawa and the province of Ontario. It would not be acceptable, however, that this act be enforced on the territory of other provinces, such as the province of Quebec, without consultation and consent from the provincial and territorial governments.

In this regard, the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, has been very clear in affirming the non-necessity of the application of this act in Quebec. I quote him in French:

[Translation]

We don’t think it is necessary, and we saw the proof last week, in Quebec City, where police forces and the Sûreté du Québec kept things under control. Also, I believe it’s time to unite Quebecers, not divide them.

[English]

It would be unacceptable if indeed this act were to be used on Quebec territory in spite of the will of the premier and, indeed, all the members of the National Assembly. Furthermore, and unlike the revoked War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act requires parliamentary oversight. Indeed, a parliamentary review committee, composed of parliamentarians from both chambers of Parliament, will diligently review the responsibilities arising from this crisis declaration. This parliamentary committee will lead an inquiry into the circumstances that gave rise to the declaration and the measures taken to deal with the crisis.

It is our duty as senators and parliamentarians to proceed with this review with the utmost seriousness and consideration.

Additionally, the Emergencies Act also differs from its predecessor by the fact that it is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. As such, fundamental rights should not be limited or abridged, even in a national emergency. Any actions taken in the context of this act must be limited to these considerations as well as proportionate to the degree of urgency.

Finally, this act is subject to exhaustive debate and approbation from both chambers of Parliament, which we are doing today, as we are now demonstrating it.

The first question we must now ask ourselves is whether invoking the act was necessary to put an end to the occupation in Ottawa and blockades around the country.

Obviously, the situation had festered long enough and action was required. Even considering the recent successful police intervention, the infringement on the citizens’ fundamental rights had gone on too long. In the recent weeks, we have surrendered a part of our capital city to protesters. While these protesters have the right to oppose the decisions of the Government of Canada, they do not have the right to take hostage a population, to block bridges and roads and threaten the proper functioning of a democratic country.

Even strategic access points, such as highways and airports, were targeted in total contempt of the law and of the citizens’ freedom. The situation in Ottawa was illegal, highly disruptive and had its own set of security issues, which simply could not be ignored. In an extraordinary occurrence, the work of both chambers of Parliament had to be suspended because of the actions of protesters, resulting in delays in debating this crucial act. This is unacceptable.

What about the heavy economic consequences that emanated from the blockades and their inevitable impact on the Canadian economy, on local businesses and ordinary citizens? They had to be taken into consideration. Daily policing has cost at least $2.5 million, and this is with no mention of the still-closed businesses and trade delays caused by the blockade.

A second essential question we must ask ourselves is: Were the extraordinary powers conferred by the Emergencies Act really essential and really unavoidable to putting an end to the threat of another illegal occupation? Those powers are truly extraordinary: the prohibition of public assembly and travel, the order of evacuation of people and private property, the use of specific property, the power to direct individuals and companies to render essential services and more.

So now that an end was put to the illegal occupation of Parliament Hill in downtown Ottawa because of the application of the act, what justifies its application for the remaining 22 days provided for in the proclamation declaring a public order emergency? This has become the key question.

We must ask ourselves if the invocation of the Emergencies Act passes the Oakes test. What is the Oakes test? In 1986, the Supreme Court in R. v. Oakes created this two-step balancing test to determine whether a government can justify a law which limits a Charter right.

First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. Second, the party invoking section 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components.

To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective. In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible. Lastly, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective: The more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.

I believe we had on our hands, with blockades to strategic bridges and the occupation of our national capital, an urgent issue that needed imminent action by the government. Up to now, the act was used cautiously, with restraint, and only in specific locations. For my part, I believe the positive impacts on ordinary citizens, the economy and businesses far outweigh the limitations imposed on protesters.

We can study the implications of this act in a philosophical way, but we also need to be pragmatic and realistic. The danger facing our country was real and action was needed. Furthermore, following the three-week occupation, in a letter dated February 19 and addressed to Marco Mendicino, Minister of Public Safety, and Bill Blair, Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police stressed the ongoing necessity for those exceptional measures:

The prohibition of financial transactions to support unlawful assemblies is critical to bringing a peaceful termination of these assemblies, as well as serving as a deterrent for other pop-up illegal assemblies.

I tend to agree that while we have made tremendous progress in the last few days, we are not out of the woods yet. Extraordinary measures, such as the ability to freeze financial assets and control people travelling to strategic locations, is still very much necessary until we are confident that control is regained and that protesters have gone back to their homes.

The fact is that tensions are still running high in Ottawa. In the last few days, and particularly following the police intervention, staffers from my office, as well as, I am sure, those of many of my colleagues’ offices, have been subjected to abuse and violent threats by supporters of the so-called “Freedom Convoy.” Those threats came from domestic as well as foreign individuals, people calling for the government to be overthrown and sometimes, too often, for the Prime Minister and for members of the government to be executed.

In these times of high tension, we must remain vigilant to keep the peace that the police intervention allows us to enjoy here in Ottawa. I believe we must also have in mind the concept of the precautionary principle when deciding whether to extend this act for a period of 30 days. While we don’t know with absolute certitude if this act is necessary to retain law and order in our country, we do know that we can’t go back to illegal blockades and unlawful occupations.

That being said, I will now raise the concerns I have with further empowerment of the police with such extraordinary tools. By doing so, we need to ensure that we are not opening the door for abuses and infringement of rights. Are the checks and balances provided in the act sufficient to prevent abuses?

From what we have seen, we must congratulate our police forces for their professional and efficient way of removing children, vehicles and protesters. They have done so, for now, with tact and without serious injuries or death, despite the clear attempts at disinformation, namely false accusations of police brutality and harm to protesters.

Of course, the parliamentary review committee will be able to judge after the fact the judicious use that will have been made of these extraordinary measures allowed by the act, but this is not what we are debating today. Today we have to consider consent for the implementation of the Emergencies Act to be extended for the full 30 days, that is, an additional 22 days from today. What guarantees do we have that the intentions behind it is to ensure a return to public order and that it will not be usurped by the abuse of the extraordinary powers it once again confers on the police forces and the government?

I must also mention that although many of the protesters may have valid intentions and legitimate concerns, we cannot ignore the extremist movement being associated with the protests. We have all been shocked by the racist displays circulating freely around Parliament Hill, metres away from our highest democratic institution. It simply cannot be tolerated. This association with the extreme ends of the political spectrum is not limited to the displays we have seen. It has been well documented in the last weeks by government ministers and experts, such as David Morin, professor and co-chair of the UNESCO Chair on the Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism.

The situation we found and still find ourselves in is a failure, a failure resulting from what many independent and renowned safety experts have assessed as a lack of foresight followed by initial bad management from the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Police Service.

These questions will have to be explored by the parliamentary review committee to ensure a similar situation does not happen again. We must learn why it is that the Ottawa police authorities did not take necessary and timely precautions to prevent this illegal occupation, while other cities like Toronto, Coutts, Windsor and Québec City were able to manage in similar circumstances.

Invoking the Emergencies Act should never have been required, but I am now left with the unpleasant impression that this measure was and still is necessary. It is now far too late, and we cannot repair the damage that resulted from the initial ineptitude of local authorities. We can only continue to mitigate them and manage the enforcement of the act in a sound, balanced and professional manner as we have done in last few days.

Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that increased powers were needed to deal with this quagmire and are still needed to maintain order in our capital. Who here in this chamber can say with certitude that, without the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the situation would have been resolved peacefully?

However, this does not mean giving carte blanche to those increased powers. In the February 14 announcement of his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, the Prime Minister said that the actions taken would be, “. . . reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.” This was a strong commitment, and we could then only hope that it would prevent any form of abuse. So far it has worked, but we still can only hope, because we have no guarantees for the remaining 22 days.

This commitment still lies in the confidence and capacity of the police forces to act and to succeed without the military being called upon. The police, under the provisions of this act, are empowered to resolve the issue, and they have proven to be up to the task in the last few days. I am satisfied with the recent actions of the police. I only hope that this trend will continue and that we will not witness any kind of abuse that results in the situation worsening.

In a democracy, the right to free expression is vital if and when it is expressed peacefully. I wish for a continued and measured application of this powerful act, with respect for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as principles of justice. At this stage, when we must acknowledge the failure to maintain law and order through normal means and channels, do we have the choice to deny competent authorities the exceptional powers and measures they still deem necessary to maintain law and order? Could these measures ensure that the citizens of Ottawa maintain the freedom they have finally found after difficult weeks of occupation? Will they allow businesses and their employees to get back to business? I would not want to be guilty of having taken a risk that would deprive them once again of their precious rights and freedoms. Those people have just gotten their freedom back. We now have to act cautiously.

Colleagues, had we been discussing the enforcement of the War Measures Act — the repealed law — today, I would never have voted for it. But we are not. The courts will likely also have the responsibility of judging the constitutionality of this act and its compliance with the Oakes test.

For my part, given the parliamentary responsibility that we now have to fulfill, and out of precaution, given the lack of certitude, I will vote in favour of the confirmation of the application for the remaining 20 days or so of the Emergencies Act — unless the government, which still has this option, deems it appropriate to put an end to the act earlier on the advice of the relevant authorities.

I will vote in favour of the confirmation of the application of the Emergencies Act, but I do so with deep regret. I will do so trusting that these extraordinary measures will continue to be targeted and taken with discernment. I will do so with the utmost reserve and with a precautionary principle in mind once again. By refusing to confirm the implementation of these exceptional measures, I would not want to be complicit in maintaining contempt for our democracy. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Cordy: Honourable senators, I’m honestly disappointed to be here today debating the confirmation of a public order emergency. But colleagues, if we, as senators, are not concerned by the recent events in Ottawa, Coutts, Windsor, Surrey, Toronto and indeed many places across the country, and if we do not act, we will have failed in our service to all Canadians.

Our debate on this motion is most likely to focus on what happened here in Ottawa, as it was certainly the most egregious show of lawlessness perpetuated on city residents. Could the occupation of Ottawa have been prevented? Probably. Should the province have done more before now? We all saw the trucks driving to Ottawa. But, in the absence of any meaningful action before last week, I believe that the Emergencies Act remains the only way forward.

Let’s be clear: the invocation of the Emergencies Act was the first real attempt to remedy the situation in Ottawa, and that fact does concern me. We know, for instance, that law enforcement successfully dealt with the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge without such measures and successfully deterred protesters from occupying Queen’s Park, but here in Ottawa existing laws were not enforced for more than 20 days. Residents, quite rightly, felt abandoned by their municipal government and local law enforcement. I’m certain that the reviews and inquiries to come will enlighten us all as to why that was the case.

I share the belief of many of my colleagues and of Canadians from coast to coast to coast that had these protesters been Black Canadians, Indigenous peoples or homeless peoples, law enforcement would have been swift and quite possibly brutal. So let’s think about that for a few minutes, honourable colleagues, or probably for longer than a few minutes.

There is no doubt that the emergency orders have made it easier for law enforcement to deal with the situation in Ottawa. The orders made possible a substantial increase in human resources from across the country. It allowed officers from outside the Ottawa Police Service to enforce existing municipal and provincial laws without the need to deputize. The emergency orders also allowed for the travel restrictions that finally prevented the influx of weekend demonstrators from overwhelming the downtown core. And the order stymied the efforts of the occupiers to resupply their fuel and other provisions. The financial measures also made a difference by cutting off funds to resupply the occupation efforts.

Over the course of this debate, we are going to hear about public opinion on the focus of the protest itself, as well as on the actions of the occupiers. We have heard it already in the other place as MPs engaged in vigorous debate, firmly planted along predictable lines.

It is true that the Ottawa occupation has brought together diverse groups of people with a wide variety of grievances. Not everyone involved intended to cause such significant negative impacts, nor to harm their fellow Canadians. There were, however, many in downtown Ottawa who were significantly harmed, either financially because their place of employment was closed or because they feared for their safety if they left their homes.

Mask mandates, travel restrictions and lockdowns have all been put forward as complaints, most having nothing to do with the federal government at all. In fact, if the reasons for the protest were what I just stated, they would have left when Premier Ford announced further reductions of the restrictions, because, after all, that is provincial jurisdiction.

But even if misguided, I firmly believe in the right to protest here on Parliament Hill, as so many have done over the years without incident. Before COVID, I would say there were protests every day of the week. But, honourable senators, a protest is very different than an occupation.

Make no mistake — the original purpose of this protest, though it was cloaked as a protest about trucker vaccination mandates — even though we know that 90% of truckers are vaccinated, was clearly outlined in their own memorandum of understanding. The MOU was to have the Senate of Canada and the Governor General replace the government with a committee of the occupiers’ choosing. They planned to stay here in Ottawa until their demands were met.

We all know that’s impossible. We all know it’s a preposterous suggestion that had no chance of succeeding, but that’s not the point. Intent is the point, and that should worry us all.

Honourable senators, this was not simply a protest or even civil disobedience. It was lawlessness. As Senator Saint-Germain said earlier in her speech, my staff were also harassed when they walked to the office wearing a mask or when they walked to the grocery store wearing a mask.

Much of the defence of the Ottawa occupation rests in the suggestion that it was non-violent, that it was comparable to Canada Day with inflatable hot tubs, bouncy castles and a DJ. It sounds pretty good. I’m sure that it seemed that way to some, but most Ottawa residents would heartily disagree. Just because there was no looting, smashed door fronts or widespread rioting does not mean that it was non-violent. Violence is not just physical. It can be harassment, intimidation, stalking and disturbing the peace.

I have spoken with people who live in Ottawa, and I have listened to their stories. Downtown and Centretown Ottawa are home to some 25,000 people. More than 10% of them are seniors, and in the downtown area most affected by the occupation, more than 15% of the residents are over the age of 65. They are not “Karens,” nor are they people with six-figure salaries who only work 20 hours a week. According to the 2016 census, the median household income in Centretown ranges from $49,000 to $61,000 before taxes, depending on the specific part of the community in which they live. It is a vibrant, bustling neighbourhood filled with shops, cafés and people of all ages. While downtown conjures images of government office buildings, it is also home to thousands of people.

Ottawa residents don’t think they are better than anyone else. They don’t think they are special either. But no one should have to tolerate what the people in affected Ottawa endured for 24 days: horns blowing at all hours of the day and night in front of homes, loud enough to hurt a person’s ears and certainly not allowing people to sleep; fireworks set off right next to tall residential buildings housing families and seniors; homes reeking with the smell of diesel fumes; open fires and pigs on a spit in downtown streets; residents in masks being harassed and threatened, with some even being assaulted for refusing to remove their mask; attempted arson in one residential building, and mischief at the doors of another by attempting to lock the doors from the outside; power and water cut in a number of residential buildings after break-ins to their mechanical rooms; 911 phone lines being overwhelmed by calls and attempts to thwart law enforcement. That, honourable senators, is a disgrace. Journalists were harassed, spat on and physically attacked while on air. And for those who believe that the threat is over, the Rideau Centre was evacuated today due to an incident.

Businesses were swarmed by people refusing to abide by the provincial mask mandate. Businesses that have already suffered through so much of this pandemic and were looking forward to decreased restrictions after the last lockdown, including restaurants opening for indoor dining, had to close their doors because of the occupation.

The Rideau Centre, the fourth busiest shopping centre in Canada, was closed for three weeks, losing tens of millions of dollars in revenue and putting 1,500 people temporarily out of work. Of these 1,500 people, most would have been minimum wage workers living from paycheque to paycheque.

Honourable senators, that doesn’t sound like a Canada Day celebration to me.

Rampant lawlessness made the downtown core a scary and dangerous place for many who live and work here, and especially for Black, Indigenous and people of colour. No matter the pride and feeling of ownership that Canadians may have in their capital, Ottawa remains the permanent home of a million people. It is their city. Downtown Ottawa is not just office buildings and Parliament Hill — real people live here. Centretown is a diverse and vibrant community — real people live there. The market, bustling and lively — real people live there. Entire neighbourhoods have been occupied, and residents just want peace and quiet. They do not want this to happen again here or anywhere else. Honourable senators, neither do I.

Ultimately, our rights, guaranteed under the Charter, come with responsibilities. Personal choices have consequences, and the rights of individuals do not supersede our communal rights. And to those who think extremist sentiment is isolated to a few occupiers in Ottawa, I would ask you to spend a few minutes on Facebook, Twitter or TikTok and examine the more extreme elements lurking there. There is no doubt that we as a nation will have to have some very serious conversations about this in the future. The very near future, I would suggest.

Honourable senators, I understand that Canadians are frustrated. I understand that their lives were upended by COVID. We all want things to return to normal. We are all tired of this pandemic. I am as tired as anyone and recognize the privilege that I do not have to worry about my job.

It has been two very long years, but even now Canadians are overwhelmingly not divided. Millions of Canadians have come together to do what needs to be done in the face of an unprecedented crisis: being vaccinated, following public health advice and looking after the most vulnerable among us. They are the silent majority, persevering through adversity and doing what they must for the benefit of their fellow Canadians.

Honourable senators, we must continue to work together, just as we have all along, and together I am certain that we will emerge on the other side. These emergency measures are temporary, subject to parliamentary oversight and I believe appropriate to the situation at hand. That is why I will be supporting the motion that stands before us. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Senator Carignan, are you aware that the Alberta Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ric McIver, made a formal request for help from the federal government because he did not have the capacity to respond to the truck blockade? He said, and I quote:

[English]

Despite our best efforts to resolve this ongoing issue, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have exhausted all local and regional options to alleviate the week-long service disruptions.

As this complex and dynamic situation continues to impede the free and safe movement of not only Albertans, but also of critical goods and services vital to both the Canadian and American economy, we are looking to the Government of Canada for assistance.

[Translation]

Do you agree that this is yet further proof that there is a lack of capacity to act effectively?

Hon. Rosemary Moodie: Honourable senators, I do not think that any of us could have imagined that we would be here discussing the historic, grim moments of the past 23 days.

I know that we all feel an exceedingly heavy burden and some sadness for the events that have today brought us here that we must acknowledge, the actions that today we are tasked to take, actions that will be remembered by future generations.

On Monday, February 14, 2022, the Governor-in-Council on the advice of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued a proclamation of a public order emergency invoked for the first time in the act’s 34-year history. The government took this step after multiple weeks of an occupation that revealed the limited capacity of municipal and provincial authorities to act under existing measures.

After the trucks began to arrive in Ottawa on January 29, multiple reports began to emerge about the disruptive and disturbing and sometimes violent events. We saw the displays of the symbols of hate. Let us not downplay these. We saw the desecration of the National War Memorial and the caricaturing and appropriation of Indigenous culture.

People of colour were intimidated and harassed. And unlike the experience of the esteemed senator who spoke earlier, there are senators within this chamber who experienced that intimidation and harassment. I’d like to say that the fact that those who perpetrated this behaviour felt comfortable to do so amongst this crowd of protesters, and that is somewhat telling.

The Parliamentary Black Caucus spoke about this in the statement issued on February 4, in which they described the events that unfolded as completely unacceptable, saying, “These displays of hatred and violence offend Canadians and have no place in our country.”

I encourage all colleagues to take the time to read the statement of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, and take this opportunity to thank the over 170 parliamentarians who signed on in support of this call to action, that was fully endorsed by the senators of the African-Canadian group.

The statement proposed three actions: first, the prohibition of the public display of the Confederate flag and swastika, symbols of hate and terror; second, strengthening FINTRAC’s ability to collect information related to donations made through public fundraising sites; and third, a call for a joint parliamentary study to review the events surrounding the so-called Freedom Convoy.

As we all know, the Emergencies Act has issued two key regulations: an economic measure, and a measure to equip police and law enforcement with additional powers.

The economic measures align with the call to action of the Parliamentary Black Caucus’s request and we applaud the government for their responsiveness.

Honourable senators, the rise in use of online fundraising platforms is a reason for significant concern, primarily because they are the perfect venue for the laundering of large sums of money that can be used to fund illicit activities. We have examples. We heard many from Senator Gold. There are also jurisdictional examples in the United Kingdom where the site JustGiving was targeted by criminals for money laundering.

With the current limited mechanisms that authorities have to gain information on those who donated these funds to the protest, and with the limited accountability placed on fundraisers currently, we know little about what this money is being used for. Millions of dollars were raised for this protest, and we don’t know where the money has gone or what it is being used for.

Through recent reporting according to The Globe and Mail who obtained information from the GiveSendGo platform site, 43% of funds donated came from the United States; 56% of the donors were American. Honourable senators, it should concern us that this could represent an unprecedented intrusion into our domestic affairs by far-right fringe elements of the United States who do not espouse Canadian values.

We must be cautious to make sure that, as Canadians, we retain sovereignty over our affairs. Importantly, the use of the emergency powers in this instance immediately allowed financial intuitions to access the tools that they need to stop the flow of money into the occupation, and to ensure that funds have not and will not be diverted for illicit purposes.

I believe the application of these economic measures was strategically effective in the short-term and, in the longer term, will inform our actions as legislators on future legislation that will ensure careful and effective oversight of public fundraising sites.

The second emergency measure that was enacted was meant to provide further authority to police to enable them to effectively break up the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere.

There has been much concern raised about whether these measures were necessary, concerns about overreach and that these measures might limit the right of public assembly. These are measures that serve to designate and to protect certain sites as critical infrastructure, and that make it unlawful for individuals to bring minors to protests.

First, let me say, unreservedly, that I support action that makes it unlawful to expose our children to risky and potentially volatile situations and to potential harm. It is their right to be protected and it is our role to protect them. Therefore, I applaud the provision in the Emergency Measures Regulations that pertains to minors and the Government of Canada’s sensitivity to this issue.

We know that children have been in the occupation, some of them in trucks, in the cold for weeks and breathing in polluted air from the idling engines. It was all the more concerning and disheartening to see children used as shields by protesters — their parents. Interim Police Chief Bell said, “. . . we’re seeing children put in harm’s way in the middle of a demonstration where a police operation is unfolding.”

He continues:

. . . we implore all the parents who have kids in there — get kids out of there, they do not need to be in the middle of this, it is not a safe place for them.

I am glad that the police made it their priority to care for children and clearly considered how these operations would impact them.

We also know that many children living in the downtown core have been affected by protesters, unable to sleep amongst the sound of horns and cut off from access to vital services. It is my hope that additional steps to analyze this and other measures using Child Rights Impact Assessment tools will be carried out to ensure that we understand the impact on children and can act in consequence.

Further, these emergency authorities have allowed police to integrate forces from multiple jurisdictions and to retake the city of Ottawa, while maintaining their safety and avoiding significant violence.

As critical resources are shifted to Ottawa, these measures also ensure that the ongoing broader protection of regions that are left with depleted resources are protected. It should also be underscored that these security resources continue to be needed to make sure that a renewed occupation does not take place in Ottawa or anywhere else in the country. We are already hearing from the authorities about renewed attempts since the protest was disassembled this past weekend.

Again, interim Police Chief Bell stated during a press conference last Friday that the use of the emergency powers by the three levels of government created the ability for police to use new and existing powers to deal with the occupation. He said, “Without the authorities provided to us . . . we wouldn’t be able to do the work we are today.”

For all of these reasons, colleagues, I believe that the government’s use of the emergency powers is both warranted and needed to bring the situation to a close and to maintain peace. I also believe the circumstances are dire enough to require significant action to supplement emergency measures taken by other orders of government. I will be voting in favour of this proclamation.

Honourable senators, the events and the discourse leading up to and during this occupation has been troubling. There has been much irresponsible rhetoric. We have seen that one’s political perspective has defined these events, has defined the perception of truth, has made it impossible for objective public discourse and has stood in the way of our appreciation of fact.

This is a critical time in Canada’s history. As we reflect on the events that have brought us here, we must focus on the troubling fissures that have been unmasked, that threaten to weaken the union of our Confederation and that threaten our democracy. We must work together to heal these divisions that today turn Canadians against one another. We must work to ensure that Canada remains an inclusive and united country, a country based on truth, peace, order and good governance. Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: We hear a “no.”

[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: Honourable senators, I want to start by saying that, like many of my colleagues, I will be voting against the invocation of the Emergencies Act, since it clearly constitutes an unjustifiable violation of fundamental rights and a shameful appropriation of power by a Prime Minister who has once again shown that he is unable to govern democratically and transparently.

I am in no way saying that we should have let the protests in front of Parliament continue, but a protest that got out of hand because of the Prime Minister’s inaction and incompetence hardly qualifies as a threat to our national security.

Inappropriate signs and posts on social media cannot be the sole basis for invoking the Emergencies Act. Other evidence is required; otherwise, we would be living in a constant state of emergency.

For Prime Minister Trudeau, the protests became more of a threat to his public image and his image within his caucus.

There is no reason that justifies using this law for the first time in Canadian history. It was passed to deal with real threats to our national security and sets out clear criteria that must be met before it can be invoked, criteria that have never been met by the current government.

This legislation, made available to the Parliament of Canada in 1988, contains strict rules that were adopted to ensure that no government would repeat the abuses committed during the October crisis in 1970, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the father of the current Prime Minister, invoked the War Measures Act.

Among the safeguards set out in the Emergencies Act of 1988, there is the one requiring the federal government to consult the provincial governments ahead of time.

It is easy to see from the reaction of some premiers in the country, that no consultation worthy of its name was held. This lack of consultation shows us just how much the younger Prime Minister Trudeau disdains, like his father sometimes did, the rules of democracy, provincial jurisdictions and the fundamental rights of people who do not think like him.

The illegal occupation of a downtown area by truckers is not an insurrection, especially when there were no reports of violence done by those who wanted to be heard. They were just angry citizens.

The government and the Senate of Canada do not have to pass laws and use measures against them that are frankly dictatorial. If action had been taken at the right time, this siege on Parliament Hill would not have dragged on for three weeks.

Let us come back to the Emergencies Act of 1988. Colleagues, I have said it before and I will say it again, an Emergencies Act is not necessary for dismantling the barricades, arresting a few holdouts and towing away trucks. We just need a leader at the head of the country, a leader who is capable of taking responsibility at the right time to prevent the situation from deteriorating.

To invoke this special act, the government was also required to prove to us that there was no other option under the circumstances. Where was Prime Minister Trudeau during the first two weeks of the protest, and what did he do to engage with and appease the angry truckers? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Justin Trudeau chose to hide at his cottage. Even worse, he threw fuel on the fire from afar by making provocative comments about the protesters and calling them whiners.

Unfortunately, I see, and I hope you will as well, that the leadership that a true statesman must show is just not part of Justin Trudeau’s DNA. Justin Trudeau prefers to dictate rather than engage in dialogue.

Today, I am a senator, of course, but I am also a former police officer who worked on the barricades during the Oka crisis, where there was certainly more violence than on Wellington Street in Ottawa. In 1990, no one called for the use of the Emergencies Act to resolve the conflict.

It was not even needed to get the Canadian Forces to come in and support the police. The situation was de-escalated through dialogue and mediation.

In addition to the Oka crisis, in recent years, there was the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the G20 in Toronto and the G7 in Charlevoix, at which police were able to control professional international protesters — yes, I said professional international protesters — without the need for the Emergencies Act.

I repeat: A protest is not an insurrection.

It is a shameless lie to say today that the police needed the Emergencies Act to deal with the trucker protests.

A quick review of the police powers clearly shows that all the police forces tasked with policing the movements of truckers had all the authority required to respond and even to requisition tow trucks to seize and move the trucks that were parked on Wellington Street.

Why did they not do something right away? There must be, one day, a thorough review of the timeline of decisions that were made. That will come, I hope, once the dust has settled.

I will say it again: The necessary powers existed three weeks ago, two weeks ago and last week. They already existed in the current laws of the land, without the need for a draconian law like the Emergencies Act.

The reality is that even before the Trudeau government invoked this legislation, the police managed to clear the Ambassador Bridge, between Windsor and Detroit, and the Coutts, Alberta, border crossing, both without violence.

How and why? How? Simply by having the police enforce the laws in place. Why? Because the behind-the-scenes command of the operations at the Ambassador Bridge and at Coutts was assumed by the President of the United States, not the Prime Minister of Canada.

In short, Joe Biden’s leadership was all it took for Canadian police officers to take action. I would submit that the economic stakes, which were very high for the Americans, were probably a significant factor in how quickly they sought action at the border crossings.

Here in Canada, economic issues are unfortunately too often ignored so as to make room for Liberal partisan politics. On that note, how can we forget what happened just two years ago?

In February 2020, Prime Minister Trudeau demonstrated a clear lack of concern for Canada’s economy by failing to intervene when rail blockades were put in place by the Wet’suwet’en communities and their supporters in British Columbia; Belleville, Ontario; and Saint-Lambert, Quebec.

The 2020 protests had far more serious economic consequences than the Wellington Street protest. Every day, tens of thousands of citizens could not get to work, and CN had to cancel services and lay off hundreds of employees because the railways were being blocked by people protesting the construction of a pipeline.

This went on for weeks without Prime Minister Trudeau invoking the Emergencies Act, even though his Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau, told the media that this crisis would derail the country’s economy.

Let’s ask ourselves why. Let’s also ask ourselves if there are two classes of protesters in Canada. If I recall correctly, just one week after the start of the rail blockade, Prime Minister Trudeau asked Minister Marc Miller to listen to the grievances of the Indigenous communities’ representatives.

In 2020, just two years ago, the government listened, refused to use force to end the rail blockade, and instead chose to engage in dialogue with the protesters.

Did you hear anything about the government being willing to open a dialogue with the truckers who were blocking Wellington Street? I didn’t, and yet that is an essential prerequisite for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Where was Justin Trudeau after the first week of the trucker protest? Where was he after the second week? Let’s think about it. What kind of credibility should he be given today when he tells us that we absolutely have to invoke the act because this is an urgent situation?

Earlier, I spoke about a lack of leadership. Now, we can talk about political inconsistencies as we compare how he dealt with the 2020 blockades with what he did this year.

I’m inclined to think that Liberal MP Joël Lightbound was right when he said that his government was doing everything in its power to use the COVID-19 crisis as a tool to divide Canadians for partisan purposes. The number of people who share my opinion is growing rapidly.

I now want to talk about another argument the Trudeau government gave for invoking the Emergencies Act, and that is the protesters’ secret foreign funding.

According to the government, we need to allow Canada’s law enforcement agencies to crack down on the freedom convoy’s foreign funding in Canada by giving them the power to freeze the organizers’ bank accounts.

That is very disappointing to hear, because the government is basically stating publicly that CSIS and FINTRAC were not doing their job before the Emergencies Act was invoked.

Our intelligence service, which is well connected to its U.S. counterpart, received all the information it needed on a daily basis to assess the situation, but its legendary discretion with respect to its work methods means we will never know everything about the alleged financial threat that the Prime Minister exploited to invoke the Emergencies Act.

If I am wrong to say that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is very effective, then it is high time to do something to reinforce its powers. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, that is not what I have heard from the many witnesses who have appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in the 10 years I have been a member.

Now let’s talk about the seizure of firearms by the RCMP, which is one of the government’s political arguments for invoking the Emergencies Act. According to the RCMP, the weapons seized at the border were destined for truckers in Alberta. I will draw your attention to the fact that the RCMP was able to carry out this seizure without using the Emergencies Act. In fact, I would like you to note that at no time did the Trudeau government demonstrate that these weapons could be used to overthrow the government by force.

Let’s think about this for a moment. The government can’t allege a serious insurrection solely based on a weapons seizure at the border of a Canadian province. I suggest that the government ask law enforcement to patrol around the Akwesasne Mohawk community, where they could easily intercept trucks coming into Canada every week with illegal weapons.

None of this seems to bother Prime Minister Trudeau, even though organized criminal gangs are using these guns to murder teenagers in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Where does the Prime Minister go to hide when the police ask him to pass laws on handguns, something that would at least save lives?

As a final point, let’s talk about an essential aspect of implementing the Emergencies Act of 1988. Under this act, the government is required to form an independent committee of inquiry into the use of the act 60 days after its enactment. The committee must report to Parliament within 360 days. That’s all well and good, but how can we trust Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when it comes to an independent and comprehensive review of decisions and actions?

Remember that it was this same Prime Minister who prorogued Parliament, in August 2020, halting the work of three House of Commons committees that were looking into the WE Charity funding controversy. That alone raises doubts in my mind.

Transparency is not a value cherished by the Liberal Party of Canada or its leader. They care so little about transparency that not one member of the government was willing to participate in a Committee of the Whole of the Senate to answer our questions. That is nothing less than a display of disrespect for this democratic exercise.

We are here to debate the utility of the Emergencies Act, an act that actually is no longer required, now that Wellington Street has been cleared. This act that we are debating symbolizes the weakness of the current Prime Minister, who is doing everything he can to save his image, as he is seen to have dragged his feet on this matter and on other important files that land on his desk.

In case anyone thinks that I am exaggerating, here are several examples of the government’s inaction: the rail blockades by members of the Wet’suwet’en community in 2020; the policy on Huawei’s potential interference in national security; the creation of a tax on Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, the web giants also known as GAFA; the appointment of an ambassador to France; the replacement of the Canadian Armed Forces’ obsolete equipment; and, finally, access to drinking water in Indigenous communities. I will stop there.

Is it any surprise that the Prime Minister is trying to shove an act reserved for exceptional situations down our throats because he once again dragged his feet? The trucker protest was certainly not an exceptional situation, since the occupation could have been shut down after just a few days without the use of any special measures.

Senators, we have a duty not to give in to the political and legislative transgressions of a Prime Minister who did not deal appropriately with a situation that required leadership, openness to discussion, and a backbone. Canada deserves better than a Prime Minister who governs the country from the comfort of his cottage.

As a senator, I do not want to go down in history for approving this act, as the NDP members in the other place did yesterday evening while holding their noses. Bear in mind that, without the repugnant complicity of the NDP, this act would not be before the Senate today. Thank you.

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: Honourable senators, it is ironic that we are debating the imposition of emergency measures at what appears to be the tail end of a COVID crisis that we have been living through the last two years.

You may recall that there was much talk about invoking the public welfare criteria for emergency measures in the early days of COVID, but nothing came of it. Fast-forward 24 months and we suddenly find ourselves under the Emergencies Act, not for public welfare, which would have been appropriate for a health emergency, but for public order. This is more than a curious bookmark in our COVID saga, and I will return to it at the end of my speech.

The crux of today’s debate, however, is not the criteria for the invocation of the Emergencies Act, even though I know many senators will want to focus on that important legal test. The more important underlying issue, I believe, is whether you consider the so-called “Freedom Convoy” protests — three weeks in, on the day the act was invoked, with no end in sight — to be an acceptable exercise of the protesters’ rights and freedoms and, hence, be allowed to continue unabated.

I am less interested in the source or sources of the protesters’ discontent than I am in the cumulative effect of their actions, since my point would apply regardless of the type of freedom espoused by the protesting group. If you believe that the Ottawa protests should have been allowed to continue for reasons to do with constitutional protections, legitimate civil disobedience or a belief that the disruptions caused by the protesters are an acceptable price to be paid in a democratic society, then your position on this motion should be very simple: You should vote against it. But if you believe that the protests — again, not protests in the abstract, but these particular protests that have been going on for three weeks and which, until a few days ago, had no end in sight — if you believe that these protests had to be stopped, then the only question remaining is how to make that happen.

I have not heard too many parliamentarians argue that the disruption caused by the Ottawa protesters is acceptable and that we should have let them continue to protest, so I am proceeding on the assumption that there is broad agreement that the protests had to end. If I am wrong in my assumption, I hope you will stand up and say very clearly that you support the right of the Ottawa protesters to continue. That will, in turn, clarify the basis on which you presumably oppose the motion. I would disagree with you, but at least we can understand each other’s position and how we came to different conclusions.

Let me turn now to arguments that, on one hand, accept that it was necessary for the protests to end but, at the same time, are against the use of the Emergencies Act. One may, for example, hold the view that the federal government could have negotiated an end to the protests and thus avoided invoking emergency powers. Bear in mind, however, that the protesters were demanding, among other things, the end to all COVID mandates and the overthrow of the government, with the help of the Senate, no less; and they were insistent on not removing their trucks, trailers and trampolines until the Government of Canada revoked the entirety of COVID-related restrictions.

On what basis would a duly elected government even contemplate negotiating with a mob to, first, overturn public health measures that most Canadians support and, second, defrock itself via the decree of a self-appointed group of noisy protesters? It is one thing to acknowledge pandemic fatigue, which all of us are experiencing; it is quite another to succumb to mob rule.

For all the huffing and puffing about how the Emergencies Act subverts democracy, let’s be very clear: What the protesters were calling for is the very definition of democratic subversion. To leave their demands unchallenged or, worse, to validate those demands by negotiating with them is to aid and abet the subversion and would amount to an abdication of governmental responsibilities.

A more compelling argument against the invocation of special powers is that there was no need for them in the first place. This would be the case if there are existing authorities on the part of the provincial or federal governments to effectively bring the protests to an end. But if those powers existed — for example, through the states of emergency declared by both the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario — why were the protests not curtailed after emergencies were declared? There are two possibilities: The first is that the powers of the province and municipality were insufficient to disperse the protesters; the second is that the leadership of those jurisdictions were unable or unwilling to exercise those powers.

The first reason amounts to a justification for the Emergencies Act. On the second point, some might argue that the unwillingness of a provincial or municipal government to exercise their powers does not justify the federal government invoking the Emergencies Act. However, the decision on whether to invoke the act is based not only on whether local authorities have the powers to respond to emergencies, but also on whether those authorities are capable of doing so and whether those capabilities are likely to be effective.

It seems reasonable to me that the federal government concluded that, after three weeks of disruption, their subnational counterparts did not have the capability to exercise whatever powers they had at their disposal. The fact that the Government of Ontario supports the Emergencies Act lends further credence to the appropriateness of its use.

One can, of course, speculate about the reasons for insufficient action on the part of the municipal and especially the provincial government, but that is beyond the scope of this motion and is ultimately a matter for the electorate to contemplate.

A third line of argument against the Emergencies Act is that even if the protests are intolerable and existing authorities are insufficient, the thresholds set out in the act have not been met, in particular, the definition of a national emergency. Under this view, the best one can hope for is the application of any existing laws against individual protesters and the use of general policing efforts to contain the protests until they, in the fullness of time, petered out. I would call this the “suck it up” school of thought, and it is, of course, exactly what Ottawa residents were asked to do for the last four weeks — suck it up.

And so, it boils down to whether the thresholds have been met. But who decides and how is the decision made? Here is Perrin Beatty, then Minister of Defence in the government of Brian Mulroney, testifying before Parliament 34 years ago to the day:

When the country is threatened by a serious and dangerous situation, the decision whether to invoke emergency powers is necessarily a judgement call — or more accurately — a series of judgement calls. It depends not only on an assessment of the current facts of the situation, but even more on judgements about the direction events are in danger of moving and about how quickly the situation could deteriorate. . . .

He goes on:

. . . the decision to declare an emergency is an exercise of political judgement and the Parliament of Canada is obviously an appropriate forum for questioning that judgement.

Which is where we are today, and why I believe the key question in coming to your judgment, my judgment and the judgment of this entire chamber is the question I posed at the opening of my speech: Was the “Freedom Convoy” protest and its crippling effect on residents, small enterprises, municipal services and our very system of government — three weeks in and with no end in sight — something that had to be stopped in relatively short order?

I believe the answer is yes. Here is the Oxford English Dictionary on the definition of “emergency”: It is, inter alia, “. . . a state of things unexpectedly arising, and urgently demanding immediate action . . .”

I think we can agree that it is an “emergency” when hundreds of vehicles descend on the nation’s capital and entrench themselves on major streets in Ottawa, resulting in massive disruption and economic loss to residents of the city. But was it a “national” emergency? Well, the object of the truckers’ protest was the national — i.e. federal — government, and the epicentre of the disruption was Parliament Hill, which is the seat of the national government. Even setting aside protests in other parts of the country and the real risk of further proliferation of protests, the fact that the mother of protests was in the nation’s capital makes it, I believe, a national emergency.

I disagree with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which believes that the invocation of emergency measures was unwarranted because, to quote their Executive Director, “Disruptive protest while often unlawful . . . can be the most effective way of raising awareness.”

The CCLA opposed the Emergencies Act when it was introduced in 1988, so it is not surprising that they would oppose the first use of this bill more than 30 years later. Having reviewed their submission on what was known as Bill C-77 in 1988, I am sympathetic to some of their reservations. I appreciate the CCLA’s concern that the use of the Emergencies Act in this instance should not result in what they call the “normalization” of emergency powers.

But I put to it you, colleagues, that the greater risk today is the normalization of a style of protest that paralyzes critical infrastructure; holds siege to the nation’s capital; punishes businesses, workers and residents who live around the areas of protests; and seeks to overturn government policies by ransom.

That is what we seek to not normalize. This kind of unlawful and disruptive protest, regardless of the cause behind it, can indeed be the most effective way of “raising awareness,” as the CCLA casually asserts, but it is a dangerous road to go down.

Even if we can agree that the invocation of the act was necessary, no one should be celebrating the curtailment of civil liberties, and we should all seek to find the earliest possible time to end the emergency powers. That is the ongoing job of Parliament and one which we should turn our minds to immediately after confirmation of this motion with the formation of the parliamentary review committee.

It is also important to stress that supporting the use of the Emergencies Act in this instance does not amount to supporting the law in its entirety. In the same way that there was a vigorous public debate at the time of Bill C-77’s introduction, the invocation of this act three decades later should prompt another spirited examination of its provisions.

After all, the world in 2022 is much different from that of 1988. Think of the World Wide Web, social media, GoFundMe and its equivalents, crypto-currency as well as state and non-state foreign interference, all of which are relevant factors in the current case. Personally, I think the definition of “threats to the security of Canada,” which is taken from the CSIS Act, is too broad, but that is the subject of a different debate for a different time.

Honourable senators, I too am weary of COVID restrictions. The good news is that we seem to be coming out of the coronavirus tunnel, which means that the mandates will be progressively relaxed, perhaps to the point where the only public health mandate remaining is the one which you apply to yourself, according to your risk tolerance. But we cannot and should not lift the mandates because a noisy mob says it is time to do so.

In our yearning and haste for normalcy, we must remember that coronaviruses do not share our priorities. We do not know if another variant of COVID-19, perhaps one more virulent than Omicron and Delta, is just around the corner. And if that variant does show up with ferocity, we cannot let our impatience with restrictions get in the way of sound public health directives, including the possibility of further lockdowns.

That is why the truckers’ protest should be seen not just in terms of public order, which was the basis of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, but also public welfare. Now, the government does not appeal to the “public welfare” criteria for its justification of emergency powers, but it is important to not lose sight of the link between public order and public welfare. The loss of one has an adverse effect on the other.

This is not the time to be cavalier about public order, especially when it is so closely connected to an issue of public welfare. Giving in to demands to disregard public health directives may be relatively benign at the tail end of the current pandemic, but it will be disastrous for the next one.

Honourable colleagues, I will vote in favour of this confirmation motion and hope that you will support it as well.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to oppose the recent use of the Emergencies Act. I believe that this act is a clear case of the government’s overreach, serving only to divide Canadians at a time when unity is what we need most.

The question I have for you today is: What kind of country are we becoming when we allow draconian measures, like this one, to deal with lawful protests by frustrated Canadians?

This is a difficult question. It forces us to reflect about who we are as a nation, what we can expect from our elected officials and how we protect Canadians’ values.

When I chose to immigrate here, Canada’s respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law were what drew me in. These are some of the most important values, but at this moment, I believe our country is crossing a dangerous line in history. For the first time, the Emergencies Act is being used not to confront a terrorist attack on Canada but instead to address a peaceful protest, a protest made up of Canadians who are exhausted and angry at being told what to put into their bodies.

Colleagues, we may disagree with this protest. Most of us will disagree with the illegal action used to communicate their message. But we must ask ourselves, is the Emergencies Act a justifiable response to what are essentially peaceful, non-violent protests?

Since the Emergencies Act was first passed over 34 years ago, there have been many blockades in Canada. Yet we have never used the Emergencies Act. I ask you, senators, why is the Emergencies Act all of a sudden required when past policing powers seemed sufficient for blockades?

It should be noted that the blockades of the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario and at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta were resolved by police. Yet the Emergencies Act was still invoked.

So I ask what is different about the protests here in Ottawa. It seems that this action is difficult to justify elsewhere in Canada, but in Ottawa, when politicians are directly affected, they are quick to use the Emergencies Act. This makes the government look self-interested and authoritarian.

We must be under no illusion that this action will weaken Canada’s credibility to advocate for human rights around the world. How can our statements not be seen as hypocritical when we refuse to protect the rights of our citizens? It is no surprise that other countries have fixated on our recent actions, which clearly contradict the image of the rights and law that Canada has so carefully cultivated.

The truth being broadcast is that of a government that has given its security services extraordinary powers to freeze bank accounts without a warrant, the power to cancel an insurance policy without a warrant and the power to ban peaceful assembly anywhere. We must ask ourselves this: Do these actions reflect our Canadian values? We must also ask this: What is the justification for continuing the Emergencies Act now that the blockades have been lifted?

The government argues that the act is now needed to prevent future blockades and to prevent future funding for protests that are now prohibited. Senators, what we have now is a pre-emptive law in force. I feel that the current government has set a terrible precedent. There is a real risk that Canadians may lose trust in their government when it is clearly willing to extend its power over those who disagree with their policies.

When I came to Canada, I came to a united country. I’m sad to see today how much has changed. I believe this is the most divisive government that we have had.

Colleagues, there is clearly no emergency today and there is absolutely no justification in continuing with these measures. We should repeal them so we can begin to rebuild our unity.

We need a Prime Minister who is willing to talk to all Canadians. We deserve a Prime Minister who is willing to listen. He should not kneel with those he favours and scoff at those he deems unworthy. Imagine if the Prime Minister had responded this way to Black Lives Matter or Indigenous protesters; imagine how divided and violent our country would be today.

In this chamber, we should not be voting for motions that will compound divisions. I feel that is what we’ll be doing by supporting this motion. I hope all senators will join me in voting against this motion.

Thank you.