44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 4:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I get to ask this NDP member from Quebec a question, because I would love to hear his insight into this.
Public opinion polling is showing that 72% of Quebeckers are in favour of the Emergencies Act being invoked, but even more astonishing, according to Abacus Data, 63% of the people who voted for the Bloc Québécois in the last election say that they would never vote for an MP that supports the protests outside.
What we are seeing here is the Bloc Québécois lining up with the Conservatives, saying they are supportive of what is going on outside right now. I wonder if the member could provide his comments, being a member of Parliament from Quebec, on why it is the Bloc is taking this approach.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:41:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today in support of emergency measures to restore order in a situation that has been steadily getting out of hand. The convoy movement has clearly come to mean many things to many people, but it matters that the stated intention of the organizers has been to disrupt and overthrow Canada's democratic institutions, as outlined in their published memorandum of understanding and their discussions in the media.
A lack of leadership by the federal government and local police in Ottawa have led us to a point of crisis. Coupled with the discovery of weapons caches, allegations by authorities of conspiracy to commit murder, reports of involvement by elite military members and the prolonged harassment of people in their homes and places of work, there can be no question that this has to stop. The status quo is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue.
The failure of the Ottawa police so far to bring an end to the occupation and the persistence of border blockades until the declaration of emergency measures show that additional measures are necessary to break the logjam. I am glad that all the border crossings have reopened in the last several days and I look forward to the end of the illegal occupation of Ottawa, an end that I hope comes swiftly and peacefully.
There have been many protests in Canada over the 34 years since the Emergencies Act was developed as an alternative to the War Measures Act. None of them have resulted in a prolonged weeks-long occupation of the nation's capital city. None of them have been characterized as this one is by the active and sustained harassment of residents in their homes, on the street and in their places of work. The fact that many Canadians are feeling legitimate fatigue because of the pandemic challenges we have all had to suffer does not excuse this behaviour. The fact that many Canadians share a desire with convoy organizers to lift public health measures does not absolve the organizers of responsibility for their undemocratic objectives.
The fact that most Canadians fed up with vaccine mandates and passports do not support white supremacy or endorse messages of hate does not make this small number of Canadians who do any less dangerous in this volatile time. I believe that many Canadians, frustrated and tired of the pandemic, have sympathy for the convoy because they want to see an end to certain public health measures, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of them do not support the extremist views and objectives of the convoy organizers. It is very important that there be space in our country for debate about the issues of the day. In our day, that includes the nature and extent of public health measures.
On my part, I believe that the discussion should be led by public health officials on the basis of the best available information. I have been consistent in that position since the outset of the pandemic and I will continue to be, even as I respect the right of others to disagree. Many Canadians want to have a discussion about public health measures, including vaccine mandates and passport systems. There is room for this discussion in a democracy and the right to engage in those conversations has to be protected. Ending the illegal occupation and stopping the extremists who have their own undemocratic political agenda is necessary to make space for that legitimate debate and protest. It may also create space for Dr. Tam to undertake the review of public health measures that she hinted at on February 4, measures that have largely been expected to come after the omicron wave, even before the convoy left for Ottawa.
Making changes to public health orders while the occupation persists is not advisable, in my opinion, because it would encourage people to think that public policy can be set by intimidation and the threat of violence. Capitulation does not work. In Winnipeg, where the Manitoba Conservatives announced a sudden change to public health orders in response to the convoy, demonstrators are still set up downtown, even though the province has said all public health measures will be lifted within the next several weeks.
In my day, I have been part of many different political demonstrations and supported many different causes. I have seen police clear out demonstrations of people protesting against free trade agreements and racism and in defence of indigenous rights far more quickly and far more brutally, despite those demonstrations being truly peaceful demonstrations. I recall not that long ago in Winnipeg, in 2020, in the aftermath of George Floyd's murder at the hands of police, a demonstration at the legislature that was attended by thousands of people. I remember organizers in the lead-up to that event publicly communicating that violent demonstrators were not welcome. I remember them working to make a plan that would make it hard for anyone who wanted to hijack the demonstration with violent or hateful acts, and it was a successful demonstration. Many people made their point, went home and continued to be involved in all sorts of continuing anti-racism activity, including protests and demonstrations, but they did not occupy downtown Winnipeg for weeks on end.
We have even seen camps of the homeless, who have nowhere else to go, get cleared out in no time by police, simply for being in some of the same spaces that are being occupied now in downtown Winnipeg. It was not a problem to clear out the homeless. I do not know why it is acceptable to allow other folks to set up in the way that they have when others who are just seeking to live in some kind of community get cleared out.
I was talking earlier about the demonstration surrounding George Floyd's death in Winnipeg. I think that is what a commitment to peaceful protests looks like in responsible political organizing. It takes work. There are people who do that work. We can tell by their public messages. I have not seen that kind of leadership from the organizers of these occupations. I have to say that if any efforts have been made, they certainly have not been effective.
I was pleased last Thursday when the member for Portage—Lisgar and the interim leader of the Conservative Party finally called for the convoy to go home, but they have not gone home. The Ottawa police have shown they cannot be trusted to send them home, and so we have to have additional measures to move them along.
I agree that the Prime Minister has done a terrible job as a leader through this crisis. While it is right to call out proponents of hate and extremists in the crowd and in the ranks of the organizers, it is wrong to lump the far larger group of Canadians who are tired of public health messages into that group. It has not served our national dialogue, it has not served our country and it has not served our body politic.
I would be remiss if I did not note that the Conservatives have been engaging in their own brand of politics on these issues. The Conservative government in Manitoba was the first to implement a vaccine passport system, but federal Conservatives never showed up on the steps of the legislature to oppose that system. Leaked letters show that the interim Conservative leader has been more concerned about making this a political problem for the Prime Minister than to help the country find a way to de-escalate and get out of this situation. While there is absolutely a very serious responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister to provide that leadership, there is also a responsibility on others in this House, particularly the leader of the official opposition. Leaked letters have also shown that the Conservative premier of Manitoba has been happy to privately beg the Prime Minister to intervene while criticizing his intervention publicly.
What I am trying to say is that there are a lot of different political agendas at work in and around the convoy, but the upshot is that the people of Ottawa have been terrorized in their homes for weeks now, while the country careens toward a level of political instability we have not seen in my lifetime. That is why it really is time for the convoy to go home. That does not mean it is time for the discussion around public health measures to end, but it means that those who want to demonstrate and those who want to protest have to start doing so in a peaceful way.
I know there have been many who have done this in a peaceful way, but as with the efforts made by the organizers of the other protests that I was referring to earlier, there has to be an effort to root out the violence and the extremists and those who are intimidating people in Ottawa. That has to become far more a part of the public message of this convoy in order for the real issues that people are concerned about to be heard. They may not agree with me on those issues, and that is okay, but if they want that message to be heard, then their political organizing has to take a shape very different from the shape it has taken in the convoy.
I appeal to all those Canadians who may be frustrated and angry with me because I have not called for an end to all public health measures right now. I prefer to defer to public health officials on this point, but I call for them, in their good spirit and in their good faith, to start actively calling on the convoy organizers to promote peace, to dislodge themselves from downtown Ottawa and anywhere else where they are hanging on, and then to engage in the kinds of peaceful protests that Canada knows very well. I think that is how we get this dialogue back on track and create a path to unity in Canada.
1698 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:12:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today. I feel that we are standing at a crossroads.
I have heard so much frustration and disappointment from people in London. They are frustrated by this pandemic that will soon mark its third anniversary. People are frustrated that they have sacrificed and struggled to help one another. They have done the work that we asked them to do to keep people safe. To them, I want to give my thanks. I want to tell folks in London that I understand their frustration. I am tired of this pandemic too. I share in the wish for this to be over, but I also see the bigger picture here.
People are not just frustrated because of the pandemic. This is much bigger than that. They are frustrated that, even though people are working harder than ever, sacrificing more and more, their government has offered less and less. There is a growing sense throughout Canada that our elected leaders are not listening and do not appreciate the struggles of Canadians. The protests that we have seen in our streets and our communities are a symptom of that frustration. It is understandable why someone would feel like that, because for years now successive Liberal and Conservative governments have asked Canadians to do more with less, to pull themselves up by their boot straps when they do not even have shoes. Today, many people feel that their government has let them down, especially when they needed support the most.
These last few years have been tough on my community, like so many, but within this last year we experienced the loss of the Afzaal family to an extremist act of hatred and violence. In spite of that, I saw my community come together in incredible acts of love and kindness. That is what I hold on to tonight.
I grew up in a very political household and watching my mother at community meetings and standing up for what she believed in, fighting for a better world, truly shaped how I saw my role in the world. I knew that I benefited significantly from the systems and programs that people and governments had created for me and that I had a responsibility to pay that forward. I came to this place because I wanted to make the necessary changes for people, to pay it forward.
As people continue to struggle, I fear that we will lose that sense of community and that people will turn away from each other more and more. The more people struggle, the less they have for themselves, the less they feel they can give to others. The more they have to fight for the little that they have and the less that they have to fight for, the greater the divide between the richest in this world and the rest of us, the worse this will get. People will turn on their governments and they will turn on each other, because they believe their governments have turned on them.
Canadians are looking for answers and they are looking for solutions. The system has been rigged and they want to do something about it. Solutions offered by right-wing politicians and extremists online must be called out as entirely, completely unacceptable.
I am often in awe that Conservatives seem to provide simple solutions to the complex problems that we face. This is not unique to Canada. We saw these simple solutions offered in the U.K. on the vote for Brexit. They said that life would get better, but it did not. We saw many simple solutions offered by Donald Trump, just south of us, ones based on racism, sexism and fear. They did nothing for working Americans. Their lives did not improve under his administration. We see these so-called solutions being offered in this House as well. Lift all public health measures and let neighbours and friends fend for themselves. Simple solutions are often the most dangerous.
I hope that this protest will end shortly but the reasons for it will not go away. Look at any crisis. It takes a long time to get to that critical point, and it takes even longer to fix it.
Let me be very clear. Nothing makes the racism, the hatred or the threats of violence that we have seen in Ottawa over these past days acceptable. However, to truly address the causes that have led to so many people feeling disenfranchised, to feeling like they are not being heard or that they are abandoned by the government, resulting in their resolve to occupy the streets in Ottawa or critical infrastructure across Canada, we have to address the systemic issues at the heart of the matter.
New Democrats are offering alternatives to move forward, rather than what is offered by the right wing that has allied with them. There are concrete measures the government can make to address rising inequality in our country. We can tackle rising drug costs with a national pharmacare plan. We can tackle the housing crisis that is impacting every community in Canada, and my home city of London, by getting the Canadian government back into the business of building housing. We can take on poverty and disparity in our streets by establishing a guaranteed basic livable income.
We can address the lack of education and access to it by making post-secondary education accessible, removing those financial barriers. We can take on the growth of low-paid insecure work by updating labour codes, creating a living wage and tipping the scale back in favour of Canadian workers. We can sign trade agreements that protect Canadian jobs, instead of making it easier to ship them overseas. We can strengthen and safeguard workers' pensions, ensuring pensioners can retire with dignity and security. We can ensure the rich pay their fair share and close tax loopholes.
Many people are rightly concerned about the impact of the Emergencies Act. It should have never come to this. The use of the Emergencies Act, and even the consideration of it, is an acknowledgement of failure of leadership from all levels of government, including the Prime Minister. They have allowed things to escalate unchecked since the beginning, and I share the concern of many Canadians and people from my constituency that the government may misuse the powers in that act, so I want to be very clear. We will be watching and we will withdraw our support if at any point we feel these powers are being misused.
People in communities across our country are feeling the impacts of the convoy. Health care workers, retail and grocery store workers, truck drivers themselves, small business owners and residents have been harassed, intimidated and even assaulted during these illegal occupations. Thousands of workers have been forced to stay home from their jobs, making it harder for them to feed their families and to pay their rent. Canadians have been missing the national leadership they need during this crisis. They are tired of jurisdictional excuses, and they just want this to stop. We owe it to them to use every tool available to stop these occupations that are harming Canadian workers and their families and to work on a plan to get this to end.
I want to reassure my constituents that the NDP is taking the use of the Emergencies Act very seriously. We will not give a blank cheque to the government. We also believe the federal government, and all governments, need to take responsibility before things are allowed to escalate further. We cannot abandon Canadians to deal with this on their own.
Over the coming days we need to see action from our police in ending this occupation and returning the streets back to our communities. Over the coming weeks New Democrats will remain vigilant in watching and protecting Canadians' rights and freedoms, and holding the government to account. In the next few months we will push for more supports to remain until the pandemic is over and to call for a science-based approach to see us out of this pandemic.
Better is possible, but it will take tough and courageous choices for us to get there. It is not too late to make a better world.
1385 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:53:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my hon. colleague.
The first is around powers. Just a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to speak to a constituent who was concerned that this was a broad overreach by the government. When I explained the different measures within the public order, he understood and said that it was reasonable because it was giving tools to the police to be able to address this situation.
Could the member speak about how these powers to give those tools are restricted under the Emergencies Act, and that it is about leadership, not just here in Ottawa but in his own city of Winnipeg and in other places of the country, to make sure that law enforcement, if they choose to use this discretion, have the tools to stop blockades and protests that are truly illegal?
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will give a good example. Yesterday, or maybe it was Tuesday, when I was walking down to Parliament Hill, a police officer was meeting with some of the individual protesters and handing out a piece of paper.
As I walking by, he was referencing the Emergencies Act. This is another tool for law enforcement agencies to be able to ensure that the illegal blockades and protests come to an end. That is why we have it before us today. There are measures within it, such as a standing committee to review it on an ongoing basis. We will also have an inquiry, once all is said and done. There are all sorts of transparency and accountability mechanisms to make sure that it is not abused.
It is a wonderful tool and it can be effective.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Karl Marx said that history repeats itself at least twice. The first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce.
For Quebec, the War Measures Act is part of a tragic memory. Today, after three weeks of crisis, including one where he was completely absent, the Prime Minister needs to live out his “just watch me” moment by playing tough guy to salvage his failed leadership, which has been criticized by two of his own members.
Let us summarize. In the days leading up to the protest on the weekend of January 29, the organizers said that this would not be a simple protest but a Woodstock, and it would last until all health measures were lifted. This sent a very clear message. It was no secret that the truckers were not there to lodge their complaints in the time it took to tour the neighbourhood and then leave. They were there to stay. “Woodstock” means it will last a long time.
The Prime Minister then took some time to deal with his cold. A few days later, he broke his silence to insult and stigmatize the truckers, hurled some more epithets and went back to bed.
During the first week, one could almost imagine that the crisis was good for the government, politically speaking. It even led to the swift and unimpeded ouster of the official opposition leader. However, the immediate political gain soon gave way to disbelief that the situation was turning against the government. The longer it went on, the more it became clear that the Prime Minister had no idea what to do about this hot potato.
For two and a half weeks, the Prime Minister offloaded the problem onto the Ottawa police. To varying degrees, all political parties were calling on the Prime Minister to act, of course, and promoting very different solutions.
On February 7, the former Ottawa police chief, who was still in the position at the time, asked the federal government for 1,800 additional officers. In the end, the RCMP sent just over 275 officers, but mainly to protect the Prime Minister and Parliament Hill. According to the Ottawa police chief, only 20 officers were assigned to the protests.
The City of Ottawa reached out to the protest organizers to ask that some of the trucks be moved to make life a little easier for residents. Why did the feds not pick up the phone?
Where was the federal government in all of this? Frankly, no one was flying this plane. Even the most basic level of leadership would have been to create a crisis task force to coordinate all of the levels.
Is this any surprise, given how this government and this Prime Minister have managed previous crises? Just think of the railway crisis with the Wet'suwet'en or the early days of the COVID‑19 crisis in 2020, when almost everyone was calling for the borders to be shut down in the face of a virus about which we knew very little. Very little was known about it at the time. Nevertheless, the government decided to let things be. In the case of COVID‑19, this government let things get so bad that Valérie Plante, the mayor of Montreal, decided to go to Dorval International Airport herself. Now, in 2022, nothing has changed.
Now, all of a sudden, at the very moment when many health measures were being lifted and provincial, federal and municipal government authorities had managed to remove other occupations, the turtle now thought it was the hare. The Emergencies Act, the successor to the War Measures Act, was going to be invoked, even though the Prime Minister had proclaimed for three days that he would not use it. As soon as things were starting to get resolved without the federal government, it wanted to make sure it went on record as having done something. Talk about an admission of failure.
The Emergencies Act gives the government special powers. The government can issue an order for the regulation or prohibition of travel, the use of specified property or any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace. It can designate and secure protected places, assume the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services, and authorize or direct any person to render essential services and provide reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered.
It can also impose, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both, or, on indictment, a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.
To be clear, the Emergencies Act is not illegitimate in and of itself. A state of exception is an integral part of democracy. Any government that wishes to confront crises it hopes will be temporary by definition must have measures to deal with states of exception.
However, the state of emergency being short-lived and temporary, these measures must be time-limited. We recognize that it is not optimal and is not intended to be permanent. The situation may require the suspension of the usual democratic system to fix a problem that calls for an especially rapid response. Everyone knows that. I am sure every party in the House will agree.
The Emergencies Act is typically used for disasters, states of emergency and international crises or when the country is at war. It can be applied justly—that is important, it absolutely can, that is not even debatable—but only as a last resort. In this case, there are other measures available.
The Emergencies Act is an extreme decision that came after two weeks of initially treating this as a minor problem. The government allowed the situation to fester. They let things go off the rails and deteriorate, and then suddenly they cried wolf. It was an about-face.
Why not use regular legal recourse and regular legal institutions? If the occupation of downtown Ottawa is illegal, then why do we need an exceptional law instead of just enforcing the regular laws?
Let us look at some examples. Protests were held on February 4, 5 and 6 in Quebec City. There was no siege, no occupation. The city was prepared. Law enforcement made their arrangements. The Quebec City police service allowed trucks to drive within a certain perimeter, which had been planned, but it made sure to enforce municipal bylaws. The fundamental right to peaceful protest was fully respected, but it was also clear that protection and security would be provided to all, both protesters and residents alike. Did we need the Emergencies Act in Quebec City that day? The answer is no.
On February 13, 13 people were arrested at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. They had weapons, including military-style semi-automatic firearms, body armour, and large capacity magazines. One of the leaders of the group had even made videos calling for people to take up arms against the government, but the blockade was taken down and the border crossing is open today. Did we need the Emergencies Act to do this? The answer is no.
As far as I know, threats and calls for insurrection are already illegal and were illegal before the Emergencies Act.
On February 14, the Ambassador Bridge blockade, one of the biggest flashpoints in this crisis, came down. Was the Emergencies Act needed for that? The answer is no.
There is always a way, using the conventional legal tools available. As far as I know, blocking a street and inciting violence are always illegal. Do we need special emergency legislation to remind us of the obvious? The answer is obviously no.
The provinces and municipalities already have the means to act. The federal government does too, if it could be bothered to do so, but that is another story.
The worst part is that the government order will have serious consequences, the most important of which is that it will divide the population. Much as the Prime Minister did when he insulted the protesters at the beginning of the crisis, he is putting a heavy partisan spin on the events, thinking that he will probably come out on top of this unhealthy polarization.
Perhaps the fire is slowly burning out, but there is nothing like adding some fuel to rekindle it. I hope the government is ready for the renewed populist anger and frustration that lies ahead. The government has not only shifted the problem, it has made it worse. Seven out of ten provinces are openly opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
The Quebec National Assembly unanimously voted to express its opposition to and rejection of the application of the Emergencies Act on Quebec soil. All parties backed the motion: Coalition Avenir Québec, the party in power; the Parti Libéral du Québec, which I would like to point out is not a sovereignist party; Québec Solidaire, which is not considered to be sympathetic to truckers' positions and claims; the Parti Québécois; and the Parti Conservateur du Québec member. The entire Quebec legislature stated with one voice that it would not go where the government wants to lead us. This is the message we are repeating in the House.
In Quebec, the trauma is real. As we know, in 1970, 500 people were detained without due process. They were workers, mechanics, booksellers, activists, poets, artists, free spirits whose only crime was to want Quebec's independence. This was all made possible by the proclamation of the War Measures Act by a so-called champion of rights and freedoms, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Ottawa never published the official list of the people arrested under that law.
The invocation of the War Measures Act resulted in 32,000 warrantless searches. Of the 500 people arrested, 90% were released without charges, and 95% of those charged were eventually acquitted or had their charges dropped. Today we even know that the list of innocent people who were arrested was drawn up by Ottawa. The police had asked Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, who were known as the “three wise men”, to fiddle with the list, removing some names and adding others. That is the kind of thing that happens in a banana republic. René Lévesque stated that the Trudeau government of the day had behaved like a totalitarian government in peacetime. He was quite right.
These are different times, and every context is unique. The old War Measures Act was not inherently illegitimate either. It was used twice, for the two largest, most tragic global conflicts of the 20th century. The use of the War Measures Act was not warranted in October 1970, however. We now know that the RCMP commissioner at the time had confirmed that the investigations were going well, that the police forces were co-operating and that measures like those in the War Measures Act, in particular the mass arrests, would slow the investigation into the events that October.
The report on the events of October 1970, written by Jean-François Duchaîne and released in 1980, confirmed that the idea of calling in the Canadian army came from the law enforcement community, but that the idea of using the powers set out in the War Measures Act did not come from the RCMP. In other words, according to the RCMP, which is hardly a separatist think tank, the problems could have been fully managed under ordinary laws, without suspending the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.
Does the use of special legislation for partisan purposes remind anyone of anything? In 2022 as in 1970, in both cases, its use could have been avoided by simply turning to the conventional institutional rules of the rule of law.
Any parallel has its limits, of course. I am aware that the Emergencies Act differs significantly from the War Measures Act, which it replaced in 1988. We know that, so there is no point using it as an argument.
The preamble to the new act refers to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is largely symbolic, because the old War Measures Act also had to comply with these documents even though it did not symbolically include references in its preamble.
One other big difference is that Parliament must now decide whether to invoke the new act within the next seven days. That is why we are debating here and why we will be voting on this subject soon.
I do not want anyone to misconstrue what I am saying and suggest that I think the situations are identical, because that is not the case. However, despite the major differences between these two laws, as well as the different time periods and contexts, one truth remains. The government is irresponsibly trivializing an extraordinary piece of legislation that has radical provisions, which may be justified, but are radical nonetheless, by using it when there is nothing to indicate beyond all doubt that we had to make use of this last resort. It is as simple as that.
If there is any evidence to suggest that all legal avenues and current statutes, whether federal, municipal or provincial, are no longer sufficient, we would like to see it. It must be tabled and the government needs to convince us. We will be the first to reconsider and study this legislation, if that is the case, but we need to be convinced. So far, we have seen no such evidence. This is an inappropriate use of the legislation.
One thing I know for sure is that the current government's chaotic handling of this crisis will likely be taught in history books for years to come as a monumental mess. It will also undoubtedly be studied in leadership schools as a perfect example of what not to do.
Great captains are made in rough waters. The Prime Minister is certainly no great captain, but we will not let him or this government sink the ship.
We in the Bloc Québécois clearly oppose this unnecessary, unfair and unjustified proclamation of the Emergencies Act.
2404 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:50:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was quite gobsmacked while listening to the member's speech, particularly because the member started by saying that the Government of Canada should have acted sooner. The Bloc Québécois normally has a lot of respect for jurisdictions. We were there to support municipalities. We were there to support the provincial governments that asked for our assistance, with additional forces and creating an integrated command. We were there right from the start. Had we done something sooner, they would have been screaming that we were overreaching as a federal government.
His own critic for public safety, on Monday, said that the federal government needed to show leadership. Does he not think the federal government is showing leadership by creating tools that allow the provincial governments to use their discretion to stop protests across the country, including the ones at Lacolle that are being contemplated by provincial police in Quebec?
It is great that the member mentions the National Assembly of Quebec, because 72% of Quebeckers agree with this measure. What does the member have to say to them?
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:05:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member's remarks, I felt like we were living in two different worlds. It is not lost on me that he kept talking about these peaceful protests that ended quietly and through dialogue. I saw the news, and in Coutts, Alberta, they ended because there was a huge cache of weapons. That is something that is quite concerning to all Canadians. He was talking about the premiers who could do this without emergency powers. In Ontario, they actually enacted—
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:07:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the minister and the government watch CBC to get all their news. In our world, we actually go and talk to people. We go to the protests at the borders, where the people are, to find out what they are saying to try to represent them in Parliament. We do not just sit in West Block talking to each other in those ineffective meetings, which always happen on the government's side and that produce absolutely nothing. The government went from zero initiatives to the most draconian piece of legislation that exists in this country, and—
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:41:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has always been a pleasure working with the hon. member on many committees.
I totally agree that peaceful protests are an important part of our democracy and that everyone should have the right to peacefully protest, but these are illegal blockades blocking our trade corridors and our borders. As I mentioned in my speech, the closure of the Ambassador Bridge cost $390 million per day in lost trade with our most important trading partner, the U.S.
These are not peaceful protests. These are illegal blockades. We need to finally end these illegal blockades so that the people of Ottawa can have their lives back.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:13:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today, and I take no pleasure in having to be in this place this evening to debate the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I will say from the outset that I strongly oppose this measure, and I will be voting against it.
In its current version, the Emergencies Act has never been used before. It was invoked this week. It was passed in 1988 to add parliamentary supervision and to make changes to its predecessor, the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was only used on three occasions: during the First World War, World War II and the FLQ crisis in Quebec.
Let us be clear. The protests that are happening outside of these walls are a political emergency for the Liberal government. It is not a national emergency facing Canada. Furthermore, it is a political emergency for the Prime Minister, and it is one of his own making. He has no one to blame other than himself, his cabinet and his Liberal backbenchers for allowing this situation to arise and to get to the point we are facing today. This week, the Prime Minister admitted that the Emergencies Act was not something to take lightly. In fact, he indicated it is not the first thing to turn to, nor the second.
Canada's Conservatives continue to press the Liberal government on what those first and second options were. We continue to wait. Instead of dialogue with a recovery plan and a path forward, the Liberal government is so devoid of leadership that it has decided to double down and continue to revel in the practice of the politics of disunity and disharmony. It is concerned more with capitalizing on the divisions caused by wedge issues, rather than working to bring all Canadians together.
The Prime Minister has made no effort to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he has insulted and disrespected Canadians. When this issue grew into a national movement, instead of listening to what concerned people have had to say, his government opted to implement the most extreme measure in response to deal with these protesters in downtown Ottawa.
Let us also be clear. The Emergencies Act was not needed before the border blockades were cleared up. Police in law enforcement agencies in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia were able to use their existing powers to end those blockades without incident. What is different with policing in downtown Ottawa?
In my riding, a protest was planned for the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie this past weekend. Due to the work of the local police authorities of the Niagara Regional Police, OPP and the Niagara Parks Police, they were able to address the issue, allow the protest to remain peaceful and have their views heard before the protests came to a natural end. Effective planning and policing was responsible for this, not the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Imposing the power of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent. The Government of Canada should not have the power to close the bank accounts of hard-working Canadians, simply on the suspicion of supporting political causes of which the government does not approve or support.
This is a slippery slope, and it is not how any government should operate in a free and democratic society. In fact, the Canadian Liberties Association is now planning to sue the federal government over the Emergencies Act, news which only broke a few hours ago. About the government's decision, it said, “Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”
The protest in Ottawa is entering its fourth weekend. If this was such a pressing public order emergency, as the Liberals want it to appear, then why did it take so long for them to act?
Two weeks ago, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency because of these protests, so seized with the matter that on that same day, the Prime Minister needed to take a personal day off, despite being in the same city. Let us not be deceived. This again is not a national emergency. This is a political emergency for the Liberal government, and it is one of its own making.
Ultimately, the job of government, of all elected representatives, is to work together for the greater good to bridge differences, find accommodations and propose solutions for the benefit of all. That is why I chose to stand for public office. It is to help people. I am sure all elected members here in the House feel the same way.
Canada's Conservatives proposed such a solution. In fact, it was a way out of this mess, which the Liberal government with the NDP foolishly chose to ignore. Our motion called on the government to put forward a plan that would outline the steps and dates when federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions could be rolled back. This approach would have reduced the temperature across the country on this pressing issue, and it could have addressed the concerns of many Canadians, not just those who were protesting. Conservatives offered the Liberals this olive branch. Instead, they turned it down and unnecessarily invoked the Emergencies Act.
We are more than two years into this pandemic, and Canadians simply want a return to their normal lives. When will we get there? Perhaps it will be when the current federal government displays the needed leadership in getting Canadians the health care tools they need and are looking for, for themselves, their families and their loved ones.
Since the early days of this pandemic, Canada's Conservatives have been strong proponents of both vaccines and rapid testing. Why is it only this week that we were debating allocating $2.5 billion toward the acquisition of rapid tests? We should have been debating that a year and a half ago. That would have been the federal leadership Canadians were looking for and desperately wanted and needed. This is the type of federal leadership that is sorely missing from the government sitting across from me. Leadership means bringing people together. Instead, the Prime Minister is polarizing Canadians, wedging Canadians against one another and constantly working to divide us. It is a political strategy that only serves to benefit the Liberals at the cost of our national unity, economic stability and the well-being of our beloved country and citizens.
It also disappoints me greatly that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are delaying access to critical health care tools that can give all Canadians greater freedoms and choices, especially as they pertain to managing their personal health care and family well-being. Where are the additional resources our provinces have been asking for, in terms of federal health transfers to address the lack of surge capacity in our health care system? For two years, the provinces have been asking for this. Rather than live with the existing very limited capacity, which is constantly at risk, why not invest in our health care infrastructure now to increase this capacity and create relief?
This past January, many of my constituents in Fort Erie, Stevensville and Crystal Beach were angered when the Niagara Health System was forced to close the Fort Erie urgent care centre because of staffing shortages elsewhere in Niagara. This is evidence that our province and our local health authorities require additional resources and the support that the federal government needs to enable. What is the Liberal response to this? The Prime Minister says the government will look at health care transfers once this pandemic is over. That is simply unacceptable.
It has been two long and difficult years. All Canadians deserve a federal government that is here to serve them and protect our national best interests. That means it does not matter what their political party is, where they live in this country, what faith they follow or what their vaccine status is. This is the team Canada approach that we all need. All Canadians deserve so much better from their federal government than we are getting now.
From the very beginning of COVID, the Liberal government was grossly unprepared for this pandemic, just as it was unprepared to deal with the protest when it arrived in Ottawa four weekends ago. The weight of responsibility for this pandemic and Canada's response to it is on the federal government's shoulders, yet instead of working collaboratively to solve the issues facing Canadians, this Prime Minister's attempt to turn the page is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Throughout the country, provinces are reducing their public health restrictions, and have put forward plans to reopen their economies, yet the federal government continues to remain silent on its plans to fully reopen areas of federal jurisdiction, especially in time for our all-too-important summer season in areas that are dependent on tourism, such as in my riding of Niagara Falls.
The Emergencies Act is not justifiable to deal with the protesters in downtown Ottawa. Let the police and local law enforcement officials do their jobs, just as they have done at the international border crossings that were blocked in multiple provinces. While the police do their important work, Canada needs its Prime Minister to start doing his by producing a plan to end all federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions so all Canadians can get on with their lives, peacefully and together.
1592 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:31:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.
As elected officials, our most important responsibility is to protect our citizens and keep them safe. In the past three weeks in Ottawa, I have heard first-hand the many unacceptable, dangerous and threatening situations that the people of Ottawa have faced as a result of illegal blockades and occupation in our city. This includes threatening public safety through intimidation, harassment, racial and homophobic slurs, physical assault, sexual harassment, vandalism, openly displaying symbols of hate, such as the Confederate flag that I saw with my own eyes, and incessant noise, which is impacting particularly the most vulnerable. Imagine children with autism or seniors with dementia having to hear the honking constantly, all night.
There is also the blocking of ambulances, preventing people from being able to go to medical appointments or pick up prescriptions, forcing the children's hospital to take on extra security, and desecrating our national monuments, including the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Businesses, schools, and vaccine clinics are closed. People are losing paycheques. People are driving trucks around elementary schools and in neighbourhoods, while swearing at and terrorizing little children. They are blocking the road to the airport. Trucks with large containers of fuel and other flammable materials are near open campfires and fireworks, not to mention what is happening at our borders and elsewhere in the country, including the cache of weapons that was found at Coutts.
I have heard from constituents who have expressed their frustration about a lack of enforcement of the rule of law. Many are leaving Centretown to stay with family and friends elsewhere, or even leaving the city. The people of Ottawa have been appealing to the federal government to step in and restore order. That is why I am very relieved that we are invoking the Emergencies Act. I have constituents who are writing to me, such as Judy, who is a senior. She wrote, “I am so glad the government enacted the Emergency Measures Act. It is the right thing to do, and I will sleep better tonight.”
This is not something that is done lightly. The Prime Minister was clear that this is a temporary, proportionate, geographically specific and scalable measure to restore law and order. It does not in any way limit the Charter of Rights, and it is subject to parliamentary oversight as evidenced by this very debate.
It is about providing certain tools that will put an end to the abusive, hateful and illegal occupation of our city and other critical infrastructure, while guaranteeing that freedom of expression and political dialogue can occur in a respectful and peaceful way.
These tools include the following measures: freezing the accounts and suspending the insurance of trucks used in these blockades; compelling tow truck drivers to comply with requests from law enforcement; requiring all crowdfunding platforms to register with FINTRAC; seizing bank accounts and prohibiting foreign funding of blockades; authorizing the CBSA to stop foreigners who plan to cross the border to join an illegal protest; increasing the powers of police to enforce the law, impose fines and jail offenders; designating, securing and protecting critical sites and infrastructure to ensure the provision of essential services; and prohibiting the use of property to support illegal blockades.
The rule of law is a fundamental precondition to living in a free and democratic society. What we have been seeing in our city, and across the country, includes some very organized groups with significant foreign funding whose stated aim is the overthrow of our government. It calls for harm to come to elected officials. Groups with links to far-right extremists, who are unleashing hatred with violent rhetoric and conspiracy theories, are actually deputizing themselves to be able to arrest other citizens. This is an attack on our democracy and institutions of governance. I fully support the use of the Emergencies Act under these circumstances.
I want to be clear that I come to this conclusion very reluctantly. I was on the board of the Alberta civil liberties association in grad school. I did my doctoral studies in Canadian constitutional history, and I have spent most of my career on human rights and democracy promotion. I have lived and worked in parts of the world where I have put my own safety at risk to fight for the rights to free speech, democratic accountability and rule of law.
I would do no less for our same rights as Canadians. I just never thought that I would actually have to. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to drown out other people's voices. It does not give people the right to break the law. The convoy and occupation of our downtown forced many other people to cancel their events because of security, including the vigil for the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque attack.
Freedom of speech does not include throwing excrement at a young woman on her way to work or threatening others with sexual assault or bodily harm just because they are wearing a mask. It does not include making obscene gestures at six-year-olds on a school trip, throwing objects at journalists or flooding 911 lines. It does not include blocking health care workers so they cannot get to the hospitals where they can save lives. It certainly does not include arson or pushing into a residential apartment building and barricading the exits with handcuffs.
Freedom of speech does not mean taking away the rights of others to live in safety. I have worked in countries where force determined whose voices were heard, where the law was flouted with impunity, where might made right. That is not freedom and that is not democracy.
What the Emergencies Act is doing is making sure that this lawlessness does not take hold or grow roots in our country. It is giving powers to law enforcement to make sure nobody is above the law. It is legal. It is constitutional. It is temporary and it does not override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is only being used in proportion to the existing threat, and it is subject to parliamentary oversight as well as an inquiry after the fact.
I would like to quote from Alex Neve, the former head of Amnesty International Canada:
This is not a matter of giving up on human rights by shutting down a protest. Quite the contrary, this is a matter of upholding human rights by ending an occupation that is a source of fear, menace, hardship and harm.
Another issue that I would like to discuss this evening is the taking away of people's livelihoods.
I also know that many of my constituents have had to close their businesses or have lost work hours and paycheques because of the blockades. The Minister of Finance has announced that there will be compensation for businesses and employees who lost income because of this.
I have also heard from many constituents who have sympathy toward the stated aim of the protests regarding ending vaccine mandates. I encouraged them to continue to share their concerns with me in that regard. However, the decision to lift public health measures or to strengthen them must be one taken by elected officials based on advice from public health experts, not based on pressure and threats by people in the streets.
I know that the past two years have been very hard. Some of us have lost loved ones to or because of COVID. Many of us have family members who struggle with mental health or addictions aggravated by isolation and the closing of schools and workplaces. Many of us have parents or grandparents we have not been able to see in order to keep them safe, but we have done our part and we know that it will not last forever. Vaccines have saved tens of thousands of Canadian lives and already we are seeing optimistic signs.
I would also like to emphasize that I understand that not everyone participating in protests was in agreement with the harassment, threats, hatred and extreme language and objectives expressed by many of the leaders and participants. If so, it is well past time to leave the protest and go home. It is no longer peaceful nor legal in its tactics and aims. There are other forums to express views responsibly.
I also think that Canadians need to start talking to each other again. This is already causing rifts within families and friendships. We need to start being decent to each other again, to really hear each other, but we must also make sure that we do that respectfully and without violence. Going into the streets and causing harm to others is not the way the be heard. Threatening people and taking away their safety and livelihoods is not democratic dialogue. Breaking the law is not okay.
I wish that the Emergencies Act were not necessary, but in a democratic society we must stand up against illiberal forces that would deny other people's rights to safety, security and free expression.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:44:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it should never have come to this. In a speech before this one, a Conservative member brought up the Coastal GasLink pipeline and implied that somehow the destruction of property there was equal or worse than what we have been witnessing: firearms, arrests for conspiracy to murder, attempted arson of a residential building and convoy members deputizing themselves and claiming they have the authority to detain and arrest others. Some are even saying they have guns. In expressing sympathy with the convoy participants, the Conservative member denounced indigenous land defenders, and this is all too common. Canadians have witnessed the huge difference in the way indigenous and racialized protesters are treated compared with the way the convoy has been treated over the past few weeks by the RCMP and governments.
I would like the member to tell Canadians how her government is going to address the disproportionate treatment of racialized and indigenous people who engage in peaceful protests and who defend their own land, compared with these groups.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
