44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 11:11:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to talk about leadership. However, his party is trying to both support and condemn the illegal blockades.
The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex suggested that the Prime Minister should show leadership and give the illegal protesters everything they want. What measures should the government have taken? Should the government simply give in to the demands of the illegal protesters?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:27:22 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois compared a public emergency order to the War Measures Act, which is not the case. His public safety critic suggested that this measure takes away the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is not the case.
This order merely gives police and provincial authorities additional powers to do their jobs, which includes tracking financial contributions to illegal activities, including in Quebec, that cause economic damage.
Normally, the Bloc likes the idea of provincial discretion. Why is it now against a reasonable and proportional measure for its province?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:02:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.
Today I rise to deliver what may be the most important speech I have given since having the privilege to serve the people of Kings—Hants in the House. Today, we as parliamentarians are debating whether the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act on Monday was justified. I submit, for my colleagues in the House and indeed all Canadians watching, that the threshold required to trigger the Emergencies Act has been objectively met and perhaps exceeded.
As the Prime Minister has said in the House, a decision of this nature is not taken lightly. However, the situation we have seen across the country is serious and warrants a response that is proportionate to the impact we have seen on all Canadians. Let me be very clear: I am in full support of legal protests in this country. It is a constitutionally protected right and, indeed, I have spoken with some of my own constituents who, in their own way, have demonstrated their displeasure with the government's protocols to date. However, we have to delineate between lawful protest and individuals who refuse to abide by the rule of law, who have occupied Ottawa and who have blockaded our key border crossings.
I believe it is incumbent on all of us to look at the facts and to try to be objective. We have seen a group of individuals in Ottawa occupy the city for three weeks now. This is despite orders from law authorities to disperse and to go home. The key organizers of the Ottawa occupation have openly espoused their goal of overthrowing the government, and of meeting with the Governor General to form a coalition.
We have had blockades across the country at key border crossings that have targeted the country's trade relationship, including at Windsor, Coutts and Emerson. At Coutts, the RCMP found weapons and body armour. How can one conclude that this was simply a peaceful protest?
The Minister of Public Safety outlined to the House this morning what impact these were having across the country economically. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars a day in economic harm. Blocking of critical infrastructure and critical trade routes hurts everyday Canadians, and impacts our food security and our supply chain. There has been a targeted impact on the Ottawa International Airport, and the organizers of the “freedom convoy” have expressed their desire to re-establish blockades and occupations elsewhere, even if they are taken down by police.
We also know that these activities are being financed by international sources. I ask this, for members of the House: Do we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to take action on internationally financed assistance to organizers of activity that is not only illegal, but represents a threat to Canadian security and the rule of law? I, for one, believe we do. I want to be crystal clear. This is being done to target activities that are illegal and threatening the economic health of the country and the rule of law and order.
For those whose intent is to raise issues about government policy, I have no issue. For those who continue to be a part of illegal blockades here in Ottawa or elsewhere, they do not have the ability to do so. These measures are being implemented because of their unwillingness to abide by the law.
What is the public emergency order being invoked under the Emergencies Act? What does it actually mean? The Conservatives would have people believe that this government is limiting all freedoms. These measures do not take away freedoms. The Bloc members would suggest that this is akin to the War Measures Act, and are seeking to drum up memories of the FLQ crisis. This is not the War Measures Act. It is not taking away the rights of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not calling in the army. This is a specific measure to give additional powers to police and provincial authorities to maintain law and order, to monitor financing, including from foreign sources, that is being used to block and undermine critical infrastructure, and to ultimately remove the blockades and occupations that exist across the country.
Let us examine the actual measures in the order. They include the regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest. I want to be clear: Lawful protest can continue. Designating and securing places for blockades are to be prohibited.
The measures also include directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. This could include such things as tow trucks that could be requisitioned, of course for compensation, by government authorities to help with removing trucks and vehicles that are blockading key infrastructure.
They include authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services that relieve the impact of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund and support the blockades that are undermining economic security in the country.
There are also measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaw and provincial offences where required, and the imposition of fines under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
I submit to the House that these measures are specific, time-limited and geographically focused. The measures will be overseen by a joint parliamentary committee and, of course, must be supported by a majority in the House to remain in force.
I previously mentioned that policing is in the domain of municipalities and the provincial government. Since day one, our government has worked, and continues to work, directly with municipal and provincial authorities and their law enforcement. We have answered calls for additional resources. We helped create integrated operations, and provided additional RCMP officers to try and deal with blockades.
Leading into Monday's decision, it was clear that the provincial and municipal authorities had been unable to address the situation. Ironically, members of the House were calling on us to show federal leadership. Some Conservatives, after openly encouraging illegal activity to continue, were asking the government to stop the blockades. These measures are designed to do exactly that.
My question to members in the House who are criticizing the government for making available time-limited tools under the Emergencies Act to support law enforcement is this. What intermediate step would they suggest the government should have undertaken? Beyond asking the Prime Minister to meet with individuals who fly flags that say, “F.U.C.K. Trudeau”, who want to overthrow a democratically elected government, and who have stated that they will not leave until their demands are met, what security measures would they have suggested this government should have undertaken? That is the key question. As my constituents have rightfully pointed out, it is easy to be an armchair critic, but I have yet to hear many constructive measures from the other side of the House on how to deal with the current situation.
I support the government's measures. They are reasonable, they are balanced and they are proportionate to the circumstances we have seen. They are focused on giving tools to police in jurisdictions across the country to resolve illegal blockades that are hurting everyday Canadians.
It is extremely important for all of us to remember that these are tools that are available. This order is in effect for 30 days. This is to make sure that we have the ability to address the circumstances that we have seen. I would hope that all members of the House believe that this is an important measure so that we can make sure that the blockades, the economic harm and, frankly, the lack of law and order that we have seen in certain elements in this country do not continue.
1317 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:12:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was anticipating the question, because I have noticed that members on the opposite side of the House are trying to create that narrative. I find that they have been inconsistent in their own way, in that they were very quick to call for government action back in 2020, but were silent for nearly two weeks with what we have seen in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country.
The difference for me as to why this situation rises to the level of the Emergencies Act is the fact that it has been an open, stated goal of those who have been involved in the protest to actually overthrow government and to cause disruption and harm to Canadians. I will go on the record and say that it is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the notion and desire of protesters, to block critical infrastructure. I support measures that do this, including in this way here today.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:14:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, “in the absence of federal government leadership, ordinary people, brave as they may be, put themselves in harm's way because of this government. Protecting the people is the cornerstone of the contract between citizens and the government. Does the government understand the consequences of its lack of leadership?”
That was from the critic from the Bloc Québécois four days ago. What does the Bloc Québécois expect federal government leadership to look like? Does it suggest that it looks like what the Conservatives are calling for: for the government to simply do as those outside on Wellington Street are asking, and eliminate any public health measures related to COVID?
What we are doing is very simple. We are giving tools to local authorities, including in Quebec, to use at their discretion and to avoid what we have seen across the country.
Would the member opposite think it is a good idea to have those tools available, such that if there was a blockade at Lacolle, we could address that situation? It is ironic, because they ask why this did not happen at the time. The reality is that it had to work its way to a federal level, which it has over the past three weeks. Had we intervened the first time, the Bloc Québécois would have been the same party saying that it was an overstep and to respect provincial jurisdictions. It is hypocrisy.
251 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:16:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member talks about leadership. What type of leadership would he have liked to see? Would he have liked to see federal overreach in the first few days, and the imposing of federal powers? Would the member suggest that leadership looks like acquiescing to what the Conservatives have said? No. What we have done is wait until the situation warranted a federal response. Here we are. We are putting tools in place to be able to address the situation. It is a bit of a nothing question, in my mind.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 7:07:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have the privilege of working together on the agriculture committee. I always find him to be balanced, reasonable and quite eloquent in his remarks. I did not catch all of his speech, but I did catch the tail end.
I have often heard members in this House, particularly Bloc Québécois members and Conservative members, say that they want to see more leadership from the Government of Canada. Of course, this member would know that policing is inherently in the municipal jurisdiction and the the provincial jurisdiction, and that really the role of the federal government would be to impose some of the measures we have seen today. Ultimately, the very last resort would be to call in the army.
Can the member at least opine on what he has heard from leadership? The Conservatives are calling for the government to acquiesce to what the protesters are calling for, while the Bloc members say that this should not apply in their jurisdiction. What does the member think, in terms of leadership from the federal government? Does he agree with this as a step to giving the tools to the provinces and municipalities to address the situation at hand?
208 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 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
