44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 4:11:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Prime Minister has already invoked the Emergencies Act. What we are debating in the House is whether or not we believe that his invocation of the act should be endorsed or revoked. In order for the House to endorse the invocation of the Emergencies Act, two very high thresholds need to be met. The government, at the time that this legislation was introduced, set a very high bar on purpose. The Emergencies Act is like a fire alarm that can only be activated when the glass has been broken, and we should only allow the glass to be broken when it is justified.
The Emergencies Act is only to be used when there are threats to the security of Canada that are so serious that they constitute a national emergency and cannot be addressed using any of the laws or tools that are currently on the books. This invocation fails on all counts. There are no threats to the security of the country. There is a noisy protest happening around Parliament Hill, but it is not impeding the ability of Parliament to function, as we can see clearly today. The House continues to sit. MPs walk through the protests every day. The Prime Minister holds press conferences mere steps from where the truckers have set up their rigs and their signs.
This protest is not even a threat to the continued security of the House of Commons, let alone the security of Canada. It is also not a national emergency. The protest stretches over a few city blocks of downtown Ottawa. Has it been disruptive? Yes, it has. Should the trucks move on or be moved at this time? Yes, they should. Does the Emergencies Act need to be invoked to allow that to happen? Absolutely not. There are more than enough powers granted to enforcement agencies to allow them to manage the situation and resolve it peacefully.
We have seen this at the border in Coutts, at the Ambassador Bridge, in Surrey and in Emerson. All of those incidents were peacefully resolved using existing police and government powers. The predecessor to this act, the War Measures Act, was only invoked during World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis. These are seminal moments in Canadian history. What we are seeing right now in Ottawa does not even come close to the level required to take this draconian response.
Conservatives will oppose this overreach. The Bloc Québécois has indicated that it will oppose this overreach. Liberal MPs will do what the Prime Minister tells them to do, as they always have and always will. Therefore, it comes down to the votes of the NDP to determine whether or not the House will endorse using the Emergencies Act to suspend the civil rights and civil liberties of whomever the Prime Minister deems to be a designated person engaging in an illegal protest.
In 1970, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau used the War Measures Act to send in the army and suspend the civil liberties of Canadians, the NDP stood in opposition to it. The vote was 190 MPs in favour and only 16 against. NDP leader Tommy Douglas, who I am quite sure I have never quoted before, said, “This is overkill on a gargantuan scale”. Calling the emergency legislation an act of panic, he went on to compare the invocation of the War Measures Act to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The exact same quotes could and should be used to describe the Prime Minister's gross overreach by using the Emergencies Act today.
Numerous former NDP MPs have weighed in in disbelief at what their party is prepared to endorse, recognizing the dangerous precedent this will set for future governments to crack down on their own citizens protesting the direction of a future government. Today's NDP is joining the Liberals in endorsing the use of legislation that takes away the rights of Canadians the government disagrees with. Today's NDP members are willing to sacrifice their own principles to provide comfort to a Liberal Prime Minister who has none.
The order attached to this invocation is far-reaching. Canadians who have been involved in completely legal and legitimate protests that have taken place over the past weeks could be retroactively caught up in this dragnet. Canadians who donated small amounts of their own money or gave home-cooked meals to truckers on their way to Ottawa could be caught up in this overreach. What does the Prime Minister say to those who have raised those concerns? “Just trust me. Give me the benefit of the doubt.” Trust is earned, and the Prime Minister deserves none.
The emergency order allows the government to freeze and seize bank accounts without legal recourse. The government is encouraging banks to never do business again with any of the protesters. It allows for the suspension of insurance products and the seizure of private property. It proposes up to five years in jail for people who are advocating for an end to government restrictions.
Let us think about that for a minute. People who are fighting for freedom, using their rights as free citizens to criticize government policy, could be thrown in jail for up to five years. They could have their ability to provide for their families taken away. They could have their mortgages revoked. They could lose their homes. This has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with punishing those who have dared to speak against government policies. We are sent here to protect the rights of Canadians, not to take them away on the flimsiest of excuses or to punish those who embarrass the Prime Minister.
There are many who will say “good riddance” to the protesters, and many who will cheer on their financial ruin. Clearly, while there are many supporting the protests, there are many other Canadians who are disgusted by them. Indeed, many Liberal supporters are cheering on the Prime Minister's strong-arm tactics against our fellow Canadians. They will point to public opinion polls, showing that people agree with the government's decision to put the boots to those who are embarrassing them on the streets of Ottawa, to put the protesters back in their rightful place and to serve as a warning to others that there are consequences for daring to question or push back against the government.
I will remind the House that many of the darkest chapters in our history, many of the things we look back on in disbelief and shame, and many of the suspensions of freedoms and liberties that past governments have brought down upon our own people were cheered on by the majority of Canadians and the majority of MPs, and were justified in these halls. That does not mean they were right. It does not mean they were just. Indeed, I believe that if we allow this to stand there will be a time when a future prime minister rises in this place and apologizes for the actions of the current Prime Minister in this case.
The Prime Minister has made a purposeful, political choice to create the division we see in this country today. This has been confirmed by the Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert. Instead of seeking understanding and common ground, the Prime Minister sought political advantage through division. When his pollsters told him he could turn vaccinated Canadians against unvaccinated Canadians, friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour and family member against family member, he jumped at the chance.
He spent the entire election pitting Canadian against Canadian. He called those who disagreed with him racist misogynists who should not be tolerated and a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”, as if being the Prime Minister or being a Liberal gave him a monopoly on what acceptable views are. He inflamed the situation in Ottawa with his rhetoric and then went into hiding. He continues to divide for partisan advantage. Now he wants the House to simply roll over and allow him to steamroll the rights of Canadians he disagrees with, and he wants to use a tool he has no justification to use.
The use of the Emergencies Act and its order in this case are unjustified. The thresholds have not been met. Its invocation will only serve to further deepen the divisions that have been purposely sown by the current Prime Minister. Invoking the Emergencies Act will not resolve a national crisis. Indeed, it may create one.
It is time to stop using the powers of government to punish those who have made difficult, unpopular decisions about their own health. It is time to stop going down the Prime Minister's path of division and instead choose the path of healing and reconciliation. The first step on that path is the rejection of the use of the Emergencies Act against our fellow citizens. We must vote against this motion and instead work together to lower the temperature, give Canadians back their rights and work together to heal the divisions in our land.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:21:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, who I have aligned myself with are the Canadian people who have rights under our Constitution and who do not deserve to have those rights trampled upon because there is a protest taking place in a few city blocks of Ottawa. This does not meet the threshold of the Emergencies Act. As much as the Liberals want to say it does, the only emergency is a political emergency for the Prime Minister who has utterly failed this country and who has utterly failed to deliver the leadership that he is supposed to give.
There is no need for the Emergencies Act. Anything that has been described can be dealt with under existing legislation and under existing tools. The idea that we need to use this draconian act when its predecessor has only been used three times, during world wars and during times when people were being kidnapped and explosions were happening in the streets, and to compare that to what is happening outside of Parliament is ridiculous.
We need to reject the Emergencies Act provisions immediately.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:23:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon, member, being so terrified of what he sees outside, found his way into the House of Commons. It must have been very difficult for him to walk past the bouncy castles and the kids' play area to get inside.
This is a ridiculous argument. The idea that somehow a manifesto by a few people on the Internet is a threat to the national security of the country, is a clear and present danger to the national security of our country, is absolutely ridiculous. This is a protest that has gone on. We have said, quite clearly, that it is time for the individuals there to move their trucks or to have them moved. That can all be done through existing legislation.
I know that this member and his government like to control Canadians. They like to gather all the power they can. We need to reject this draconian overreach and do it today.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:25:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I said that it was the predecessor to the Emergencies Act, which is demonstrably true. I think it is quite simply ridiculous. I heard another Liberal member say just before that the government has done an impeccable job of managing this situation. I think Canadians would disagree. It has been a catastrophe. However, the government's catastrophe and the failure of the Prime Minister does not justify the use of an Emergencies Act to punish Canadians for voicing views that are outside of what the government finds acceptable.
This can all be managed under current laws, as it has been done at the Ambassador Bridge, Coutts, Emerson and Surrey. These have all been managed without the draconian overreach of the Emergencies Act. The House must oppose this action.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
