44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:25:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness have repeatedly stated that there is evidence of foreign extremist financing behind this convoy.
Last week at the public safety committee, the deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, stated that there was no evidence that this funding in Ottawa was tied to ideologically motivated extremism. Under further questioning, he stated that there had been no spike in suspicious transactions.
On what basis is the government freezing the bank accounts of Canadians? It is in violation of section 8 of the charter, which is against unreasonable search and seizure.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:40:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister today, and in a news conference yesterday, has repeatedly stated that there are ideologically motivated, violent extremists and there is a small group of extremists who are willing to use violence. He says that there are ties between extremists who were apprehended in Coutts and extremists here in Ottawa.
However, when asked repeatedly by the media to back up that assertion with evidence, the minister fails to provide any evidence. We are talking about invoking a once-in-34-year Emergencies Act. Parliamentarians deserve real evidence, not conjecture from the minister, before we could ever contemplate suspending the rights of Canadians. In what basis does the minister make the claim that there are violent extremists in Ottawa?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:54:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to see the stand that the leader of the NDP and the party have taken on an issue that deals with the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians. What has happened to the party of Tommy Douglas? What has happened to the party of Jack Layton that fought against Bill C-51 and the War Measures Act? What has changed?
The NDP is trying to split hairs. Why has it abandoned one of its fundamental principles?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:27:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I note that the deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, would disagree with the minister's suggestion that there is extremist financing of the convoy, but I will move on to my question.
Back in January through March 2020, as the minister said, those people came for the throat. What happened to the throat of our country when our railways were being blockaded and when our pipelines were being blockaded? We could not even get propane to Quebec in the middle of the winter, risking the lives of so many seniors. The port of metro Vancouver was blockaded. The government said we needed to initiate dialogue, and we needed to work with those people to come to a peaceful resolution.
What is the difference with the current situation that we are facing? Why is the Emergencies Act needed?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:32:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister and ministers across the aisle, it actually gives me no pleasure to rise to speak to the matter at hand. The invocation of the Emergencies Act earlier this week, for the first time in Canadian history, is a significant moment and it is not a moment to be pleased about. It is a solemn moment. It is a moment when we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this situation in the first place? When we examine the evidence of how we got to this situation, I do not think there is much for the government to be proud of.
The Conservatives thoughtfully considered the justifications, written in law and given by the government, for the enacting of the Emergencies Act. The government has based its justification on one provision: that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada. This claim is not supported by the evidence. Yes, we have seen border blockades in at least four provinces and we have seen a persistent protest in Ottawa that has now been declared illegal. However, before the Emergencies Act was invoked, the blockades at the borders and across Canada were lifted or were well into the process of being lifted, so the government trying to claim credit after the fact is completely absurd. The Emergencies Act is now being used solely for the purpose of addressing the situation in Ottawa, not throughout Canada as defined by the act.
A key part of the threshold for enacting these measures is that existing laws and capabilities have proven insufficient for dealing with the problem. Existing laws are well equipped to deal with these situations. They were well equipped to deal with the situation at Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge, and I submit they are well equipped to be used here in Ottawa.
The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said earlier that they were required to pass this so they could requisition essential services like tow trucks. However, it has been noted by many that under the Criminal Code, police already have the authority to requisition such services, under pain of criminal sanction. That was before the Emergencies Act was brought in, so this argument that the Emergencies is necessary is completely absurd.
I note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.
The police already had the power to compel many of these services. The police already had the power to be coordinated with the RCMP, the OPP and the various police forces and national security forces throughout Canada. They have measures existing under the Criminal Code, such as mischief and intimidation, to be used against illegal protesters and blockades.
The government has used an argument where it is citing potential acts and threats of violence against Canadians and critical infrastructure. This is not just any violence, the Liberals are saying; this is violence intended for the furtherance of an ideological and political objective. I am very concerned with the language that the government is beginning to use, because that language is very similar to the language under terrorism laws. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence to advance a political or ideological agenda. The government is using terrorism legislation against Canadian protesters.
There is very little evidence that there was a serious threat to persons and critical infrastructure from these protests. There was a short-term risk, but it was dealt with by law enforcement.
An hon. member: What about those assaults outside?
Mr. Dane Lloyd: I will address the member's heckle.
I am very concerned about the situation that occurred around Coutts, Alberta, where a small group of militants was arrested with firearms and with the intent to do harm. I am so thankful for law enforcement's efforts in taking down this very real threat, and I am so confident in our law enforcement because I know they had been planning this operation for weeks. They had likely infiltrated this group. They had a plan in place and had the appropriate tools and expertise to deal with this dangerous situation and defuse it before it became a very real and dangerous situation. The fact is that they did this before the imposition of the Emergencies Act.
Clearly, they have the tools. This completely undermines the government's argument that it is justified because the tools were insufficient to deal with the problems. The tools have been sufficient. The threshold has not been met.
I want to address some comments that have been made by the government. At a press conference, the Minister of Public Safety stated very clearly and definitively that there is a connection between the militant faction at Coutts and protesters here in Ottawa. He declined to provide any evidence to back up that assertion. He was asked repeatedly by the media to back up that claim and he failed. His only evidence was to cite social media posts and a general tone that has been seen in protests across Canada.
The government has been very quick to label protesters and anyone who would oppose its political agenda. In 2021, even before the protests began, the Prime Minister called people who opposed mandatory vaccinations racists and misogynists, among other epithets. Since the beginning of the protests, the government has sought to brand and label all protesters as fringe extremists with “unacceptable views”. Despite this unrelenting scrutiny and rhetoric, there has still been no evidence of violent extremists in Ottawa. If there were, I do not know how the government could believe it is being responsible in allowing us all to be here today, walking the streets of Ottawa. It undermines the whole claim.
There is no evidence of a plot to violently overthrow the Canadian government, despite constant repetition in saying so. I remember a quote by a previous Liberal minister, who said that if we tell a lie big enough and loudly enough, people will totally believe it. The government is constantly saying things that it does not have the evidence to back up. I would like to see that evidence if it is there. We deserve to see that evidence.
This act was not designed or intended to crack down on peaceful protesters, even if they are protesting illegally. We have other laws to deal with that. The government is citing a so-called terrorist threat. However, although having protesters in Ottawa is very inconvenient and terrible for the people of downtown Ottawa, honking horns does not meet the threshold of a terrorist organization. The government knows that.
Without further evidence of a violent threat, I cannot in good conscience support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Even if I were to accept that the government has met the threshold for calling on emergency powers, I would still have serious reservations about the powers the government has said it needs for dealing with this situation. If it believes there is a threat to critical infrastructure and persons, which it has said, and it shows evidence, I could support declaring Parliament Hill and certain sensitive areas as no-go zones. I could accept that we need better coordination between the RCMP and local police. However, what I cannot accept is the government's need to undermine section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees Canadians a right against unreasonable search and seizure and having their bank accounts frozen.
The Minister of Justice, while on a panel last night, said that anyone who is part of a so-called pro-Trump organization should be worried. I think all Canadians should be worried when a Minister of Justice threatens people because of their political views. That is not the Canada that any of us want to see and it is unacceptable.
Throughout this debate, which we are going to be having over the next number of days, Canadians will know that their official opposition is alive and well. We are prepared to stand up for Canadians' rights. We are prepared to hold the government accountable. We are going to keep fighting. We are not going to stop standing up for the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was at the public safety committee when the deputy director of intelligence, Barry MacKillop, answered a question from one of his colleagues: Why are we not covering these crowdfunding sources? It is obviously a big loophole. The deputy director stated that the payment processors moving the money from individuals to the crowdsourcing pages report to FINTRAC, and the Canadian banks that receive the money from the crowdsourcing efforts report to the Canadian government. He stated there is no such thing as anonymous donations because everyone must provide their name and credit card. There are no anonymous donations. FINTRAC knows exactly who is donating and exacting where the money is going, and it has the tools it needs. We do not need this further infringement on Canadians' rights and freedoms.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:45:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we could go on Twitter right now and find some of the most outrageous, offensive and criminal statements across Canada. What we do not do in this country is base the passage of laws and the invocation of emergency acts upon the possibility of a threat. We must base it on a real threat. We must base it on evidence that there is a threat to Canadians. The fact that we are allowed to walk freely through this parliamentary precinct with protesters less than 100 metres from us right now undermines the claim that there is a serious threat to Canadian democracy.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:47:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is putting words in my mouth. I am not saying this is a simple inconvenience for the people of downtown Ottawa. I am not downplaying the experiences she mentioned. I believe they are true experiences and unacceptable experiences. However, they are experiences that can be dealt with through existing laws. Harassment is a crime. Intimidation is a crime. It is up to police to enforce these measures. We do not need emergency powers to enforce existing laws.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
