44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:30:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as members are very much aware, my riding includes Parliament Hill, which has been under siege for over three weeks now. My community has been held hostage, and I can assure the House these protests have not been peaceful or lawful.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. How is the Emergencies Act going to help my constituents in Ottawa Centre?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:45:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable today.
This week, for the first time since its passage, the Emergencies Act has been invoked by the Prime Minister. This is historic, and it is extremely disappointing. The Prime Minister has invoked the act, he says, to deal with the protests that have gathered here in downtown Ottawa and blockades that were happening at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and the border at Surrey, all of which, by the way, are now open. There are no more blockades at any borders. What are left are the trucks parked outside here in Ottawa that need to move or be moved.
However, throughout the last three weeks the Prime Minister has failed to take meaningful action to de-escalate the protests here or to use any tools he may have available. Instead, he has jumped straight to the most extreme measure, and as he has invoked the act, he has failed to meet the high threshold set out by the Emergencies Act to justify it, that being when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada,” and when the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of [the country].”
Conservatives do not believe the government has shown that threshold has been met, and thus we will be voting against it. Members should keep in mind this act is already invoked and is the new law of the land. Our debate and the vote on Monday can only stop it if the NDP vote with Conservatives and the Bloc to stop it. Supporting the use of the Emergencies Act is one of the most serious decisions a parliamentarian can make. I want to remind especially the New Democrats of this, who are supporting the Liberals in this sledgehammer approach. History will not be kind to the leader of the NDP or his members on this particular question.
The Emergencies Act's predecessor, the War Measures Act, was only used three times: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis. We should keep these precedents in mind. The weight of those events should caution us against making this decision lightly. These protests have caused disruptions for many Canadians, especially local businesses and residents of Ottawa. As I have said, Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe the trucks should move or be moved, but we want to lower the temperature across the country. The Prime Minister clearly wants to raise it.
Let us be very clear how this all started. The Prime Minister decided to impose a vaccine mandate on truckers with no scientific evidence that it was the right thing to do. Many Canadians opposed it, but he went ahead anyway. Truckers and millions of Canadians felt they had no recourse with the Prime Minister, and who can blame them? After all, this was the Prime Minister who called them racist and misogynist. He said their views were unacceptable and that they were on the fringe. When truckers and their supporters arrived in Ottawa, what did the Prime Minister do first? He hid for a week and then he continued his insults, calling them and anyone who supported them or even talked with them things like Nazi supporters. We saw that name-calling and unfair and mean-spirited characterization happen just yesterday by the Prime Minister of Canada in the House. That is all he has done to rectify the problem: call names and insult.
Many of the people who are protesting and are upset are our neighbours. They are our constituents. They are Canadians. They want to be heard and given just a little respect by their Prime Minister, but he has decided that, because he disagrees with them and does not like their opinions, he will not hear them. At every turn the Prime Minister has stigmatized, wedged, divided and traumatized Canadians, and now, without even a single meeting with a trucker, without talking through one of their concerns, without apologizing for his insults, without listening to what people have to say and without using any other tool at his disposal, he has used this overreach, the Emergencies Act, and it is wrong.
The Prime Minister's leadership in this situation has, frankly, been abysmal. He said this week, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is never the first thing a government should do, nor even the second. The act is to be used sparingly and as a last resort”, but his actions have shown the opposite approach.
The so-called measure of last resort has come before taking any action to address the frustrations at the root of the protest. How did the Prime Minister go directly from ignoring the truckers to turning to the Emergencies Act? Why has the government jumped straight to this without doing anything to lower the temperature first? Conservatives put forward a reasonable approach that could help bring the temperature down and address the concerns. We asked the government to commit publicly to a specific plan and timeline to roll back federal mandates and restrictions, but the Liberals and NDP refused to support our plan. Instead, the Prime Minister reached for more power. This comes as provincial governments are announcing plans to end COVID-19 restrictions.
The Prime Minister is an exception to this trend and he refuses to come forward with a plan. Even the provinces are unhappy with the Prime Minister for doing this: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They are all opposed to the use of the Emergencies Act. This is not a good look for the Prime Minister.
We all want the trucks here in Ottawa to move. We want a peaceful and quick end to the trucks blocking the streets in Ottawa. Our message to those protesting is still this: Conservatives have heard them. We will keep standing up for them, but it is time to move the trucks.
At the same time, no government should resort to the kinds of extreme measures that we are seeing. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has a track record of serious disregard for the law and that raises a lot of red flags. This is the Prime Minister who interfered with an ongoing criminal trial in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. This is the Prime Minister who took the Speaker to court instead of fulfilling his legal obligation to provide documents to this Parliament on two separate occasions. This is the Prime Minister who has been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner.
This Prime Minister admitted his admiration for basic dictatorships. We have seen red flag after red flag after red flag. He may not like it, but in Canada civil liberties must be defended at every turn. Section 2 guarantees our freedom of association and assembly. Section 7 guarantees our right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 guarantees our protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Canadians cannot be expected to simply take the Prime Minister at his word. His plans are not consistent with fundamental freedoms. The government should not have the power to close the bank accounts of Canadians on a whim. The Prime Minister is doing this to save his own political skin, but this is not a game. It comes at a cost to Canadians' rights and freedoms. Parliament should not allow the Prime Minister to avoid responsibility in this way.
I urge all members of the House to proceed with extreme caution. Now is the time to stand up for their constituents, to show real leadership, to help heal our divisions, to listen to those we disagree with, to not shut them down, to not tell them that they are irrelevant and to not speak insults to them. That is the job of each one of us as members of Parliament, no matter who we represent. We have to represent them with integrity, with hope, with honour.
What the Prime Minister is doing, and has done for the last two years, is to disregard those Canadians, call them names and insult them. It is time for every one of us to show leadership and say no to this Emergencies Act.
1401 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:55:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question for his leader, the Prime Minister. When these protests started, the first thing the Prime Minister did was call these people names. He insulted them. I do not think anyone in that member's constituency thinks that the response of a Prime Minister is to hide and then hurl huge insults, not just saying he disagrees with them but calling them misogynist, racist, having fringe views and that they should not be tolerated.
That is a very good question, and he should ask his own Prime Minister why he did not take action, why he did not show leadership and why he did not take the high road and try to at least listen to these folks so that they felt they were respected. That is a good question for the boss.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:00:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to stand in the House today and talk about inflation. I would prefer to stand in the House today to defend the mothers, fathers and seniors who have suffered so much since the beginning of the pandemic and who are facing all sorts of really difficult situations. However, because of this Prime Minister's inaction, because he chose to protect his career rather than listen to Canadians, we are here today discussing a law that is being invoked by Parliament and the Prime Minister for the very first time since its enactment in 1988: the Emergencies Act.
This day will go down in history, but not for the right reasons. It is very disappointing. The Prime Minister says he is invoking the act to manage the blockades and protests happening in downtown Ottawa, at the border crossings in Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson, Manitoba, and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. He said it again this morning.
I would like to point out to my colleagues that we must take these precedents into account. The weight of these events calls for prudence on our part. However, only the blockades in Ottawa remain. All of the other blockades ended or were ended without the need for the Emergencies Act. For 15 days, the Prime Minister took no real action to defuse the protests. He did not listen to the discontent, fatigue and demands being expressed by the protesters and Canadians. He preferred to take extreme measures as a first resort.
In short, the Prime Minister failed to meet the high threshold provided for in the Emergencies Act to justify its invocation and application. For that reason, the Conservatives will be voting against his decision. Invoking the Emergencies Act is one of the most important decisions a member of Parliament can make. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times: World War I, World War II and the October Crisis, which Quebeckers remember all too well.
It is our prime responsibility as parliamentarians to protect our democracy. This includes Canadians' right to elect their representatives, the right to disagree with the government, and the right to express that disagreement publicly.
We know that these protests are causing problems for many Canadians, especially residents of Ottawa and local businesses. It is extremely hard for them. They are the collateral damage of a situation that extends far beyond the streets and people of Ottawa. We acknowledge that. As we have often said, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. The illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. It is time to de-escalate the situation, not only in Ottawa, but across the country. Unfortunately, as many experts and analysts have said, the Prime Minister's actions could have the complete opposite effect.
Let us start at the beginning. How did these events start?
They started when the Prime Minister decided to politicize an election, to trigger an election in the middle of a pandemic, and then decided to force truckers to get vaccinated when there is no scientific proof that it was the right thing to do. We put the question to the government. We asked the Minister of Health on what expert testimony he was basing his decision to force truckers to get vaccinated. The government consistently avoided the question. It never answered, but it did not back down. It kept the rqeuirement in place, despite all the problems it was causing for our economy and supply chains, and despite the size of the movement it created.
When the protesters arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister went into hiding for a week and, when he came out, he did not attempt to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he insulted the protesters and Canadians who did not agree with him. That is what happened.
The Prime Minister called them racists and misogynists. He even said that their point of view was unacceptable. That happens often in the House. Every time somebody says something the Prime Minister does not entirely agree with, it is instantly clear that he finds it unacceptable.
As far as I know, more than half of Canadians did not vote for him in the last election. However, they are still Canadians, and they are entitled to their opinion. They are Canadians who expressed their views and still have the right to do so. Voting against the Prime Minister is acceptable.
I have heard opinions from everywhere, in my riding, on social media, over the phone and in emails. We received a lot of emails this week. The people expressing their views are our neighbours, our constituents. They are Canadians who want to make their voices heard and who should be able to do so. However, since the Prime Minister does not agree with them and does not like their opinion, he simply decided not to listen to them.
The Prime Minister stigmatizes and divides Canadians every chance he gets. We know that he refused to meet with any of the truckers or their representatives. He did not discuss their concerns with them. He did not even apologize for the insults he hurled at all the protesters outside and right here in the House.
Apologies are not for people who do not agree with him. He ignored what people have to say and waited for the crisis to get worse and worse and worse. He could have done something. He had plenty of tools at his disposal.
The first tool is himself. As Prime Minister and head of state, he could have listened to Canadians. The first tool he could have used is himself as head of state. He chose to act like a petty politician. Instead of listening, he chose to give himself more power, to expand the government's powers. That was a bad decision. The Prime Minister's leadership in this case has been deplorable.
This week, he even said, and I quote: “Invoking the act is never the first thing a government should do, nor the second. The act is to be used sparingly and as a last resort.”
No one thinks that the Prime Minister used even the first, second, third or fourth options. He has not convinced anyone of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act when almost every expert, analyst and police chief said that they had all the tools they needed.
The provincial premiers said the same thing more than once. They said that they were able to manage the situation and asked the federal government not to throw fuel on the fire by invoking the Emergencies Act. That is what happened.
How did the Prime Minister go from totally ignoring the protesters directly to invoking the Emergencies Act?
We hope that history will tell, because the Prime Minister and his ministers will not, and, unfortunately, the current crisis was the direct result of the Prime Minister’s lack of leadership.
The Conservatives proposed an option, a reasonable approach. We asked the Prime Minister to present a plan to announce the lifting of the vaccine mandates, a plan to end the health measures. That was not unreasonable. All of the provinces, all of the other governments in Canada are doing that.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister dug in and chose to do nothing, to ignore his experts. He should not be surprised to learn today that the protesters and Canadians are fed up with his lack of leadership. That is the reality we find ourselves in today. The Prime Minister prefers to do whatever he wants and continues to refuse to present a plan.
The government should not have the power to close Canadians’ bank accounts. The government should not have to invoke the Emergencies Act when there are other tools to resolve situations like the one that exists in Ottawa right now.
The Prime Minister failed. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will be judged, not by us, but by generations of Canadians to come.
1333 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:53:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for Burnaby South on his baby.
I have seen the member engage on many occasions with protesters over the many years I have known him. This particular time he has not. The opposition has advised the Prime Minister to engage with people at the illegal blockades that are here.
What are his reflections on engagement with those who are here for the illegal protests and blockades, and what message would it send if the Prime Minister or he were to engage with these folks?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:55:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me be really clear. We are in this national crisis because of the failure to respond to how serious this crisis is. All levels of government failed to take this convoy seriously. They failed in their leadership, and that is why this crisis became so bad.
In order to fix this crisis, it has to be taken seriously now. I believe that to take it seriously, enacting limited and specific powers to deal with this crisis is appropriate. We do so reluctantly, and will closely monitor to ensure there is no overreach. We know that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply and that legitimate, peaceful protests demanding justice should continue and will be protected.
120 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 12:44:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party intend to oppose the use of the Emergencies Act, but our reasons for doing so are very different.
The Bloc is against it because both the National Assembly of Quebec and the current Government of Quebec have unanimously stated they do not want the feds to interfere in their business yet again by imposing the Emergencies Act. Lest we forget, pretty much every Quebecker has not-so-fond memories of what happened in 1970.
My colleague talked about there being no proof that the group of demonstrators, or rather, occupiers currently in Ottawa includes more radical elements who could pose a threat to people's safety or to national security. Is that what my colleague was saying? Is he saying that he really does not believe that some of the people participating in the illegal demonstrations could pose a threat to public safety? Does he believe what he sees on social media and what we have seen with weapons seizures in other places where protests are happening?
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:47:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for agreeing to share his time with me.
It is very important for Canadians to understand that the government's proposal to invoke the Emergencies Act is in no way connected to public safety, restoring order or upholding the rule of law. We know this because we know what it has done with previous protests and blockades. When the Prime Minister agrees with the aims of protesters, he does nothing. Actually, it would be unfair to say he does nothing. He does nothing to end the blockades, but he will send negotiators, who send government delegations to meet with protesters and even propose settlements and compromises when he agrees with the political aims of those protesting.
We know this because in 2020, anti-energy protesters, and anti-oil and gas protesters held up vital transportation links for weeks. At the time, the Prime Minister had a much different tone. Let us look at what he said when vital transportation links and rail lines were blockaded, crippling the Canadian economy for weeks at a time. He said, “Therefore, we are creating a space for peaceful, honest dialogue with willing partners.” Compare that to the rhetoric and inflammatory language that he has used over the past several weeks in 2022.
Make no mistake, the protests that are happening in Ottawa and have taken place across the country are a direct result of the Prime Minister's actions and rhetoric, and the demonization of people who are fighting to get their rights back. Canadians have had two years of incredible hardship, of politicians and government agencies telling them they were not allowed to have family members visit them inside their own homes, of governments telling business owners that they had to keep their doors shut and their employees laid off, of people not being able to use the various support systems they have had in their lives, such as relying on friends and family. Gyms were closed and activities for children were cancelled.
After two years of this, just as there is hope on the horizon, as other jurisdictions around the world and even here in Canada were lifting restrictions and easing mandates, the Prime Minister added a new one. He added a new restriction after two years of telling truck drivers that they were essential services and that they would be allowed to travel across the border to bring vital goods to our markets. After two years of deeming them an essential service, just as there was hope and reasons to lift restrictions and mandates, the Prime Minister added a new one without any data or evidence to back it up.
Then people started objecting to this. They were finally saying that enough is enough, they want their freedoms back, and it is time for the government to retreat back to the normal boundaries of government interference in their lives. When people started doing that, gathering to peacefully protest against government overreach, what did the Prime Minister do? He called them names and tried to smear them with broad brushes. He called them racists and misogynists. He asked the rhetorical question of whether or not we should tolerate these people. I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question: What does not tolerating these people look like? What he has done over the past few weeks has been shameful.
The Prime Minister has lowered the office in which he serves to unprecedented depths. In my 17 years of being a member of Parliament, I have never seen a prime minister or, for that matter, any other politician so debase the office that they hold, hurling insults at people and referring to a Jewish member of this House as standing with people waving swastikas. It is outrageous.
My hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches have often admonished their political opponents for even sharing the same postal code as someone who may be holding an offensive flag or a placard with unacceptable language on it. When Conservatives denounced that, it was not good enough for members of the Liberal Party. They say we are supposed to paint the entire group protesting with that broad brush, but they do not hold themselves to that same standard.
I see many hon. members across the way, some of whom I have served with. I know them to be honourable people. I do not assume that they are all racist because their leader has performed racist acts by putting on blackface so often in his life that he cannot remember how many times he has done it. We do not paint every single Liberal member of Parliament with that brush. They have no problem being photographed with the Prime Minister, despite his history of racist acts, neither should members of Parliament paint the entire group of people who are protesting for their freedoms with that same broad brush.
Let us look at the lengths to which the government goes, and indeed not just the government, but many of its friends in the corporate media, to paint every single person who is protesting and demanding an end to the restrictions and the mandates with that broad brush. They go to great lengths to discredit and dehumanize those people, who are just fighting for their traditional civil liberties.
We could look at this in two different groups. On the one hand, we have people who are saying that after two years of hardship, sacrifice, and being forced to comply with unprecedented government intrusion in their lives, with government telling them where to go and who they can have in their house, which is a level of government interference of the like we have not seen in recent Canadian history, after two years of that, they just do not believe they should be fired for making a health care decision.
On the other hand, there is a group of people who are saying that anybody who holds that view is a racist, a misogynist or an insurrectionist. There is a group of people who are saying that government should have the ability to tell people who they can have in their house, and whether or not their business is allowed to stay open.
Which group seems more unreasonable? I would say that after two years, those who are fighting against the government intrusion in their lives have a legitimate case to make. Whether or not we agree with them, we must respect their right to advocate for their views. The Prime Minister has not provided any legitimate justification for bringing in the Emergencies Act. He asks us to trust him. He says we should not worry, that the government is going to make sure everything is fine with the courts and that everything is compliant with the charter.
This is the same guy who fired his attorney general because she would not go along with his plans to interfere in a criminal court case. Pardon the members of the Conservative Party if we are not going to take the Prime Minister's word that he is not going to abuse the power that he is granting himself.
He points to specific instances that the Conservatives denounced. We denounced the rail blockades in 2020 and we denounced the border blockades in 2022. We do not believe that the right to peacefully protest should mean the right to infringe on the freedoms and rights of other people. We raised that point in 2020, calling on the government to do something about the rail blockades when it was the anti-energy workers. By the way, there have been a lot of radical left-wing protests across the country where we could see all kinds of placards, including anti-Semitic placards and banners advocating violence against police officers, and we do not see the government rushing to crack down on those.
The government is talking about foreign funding. What about the foreign funding that is pouring into Canada by the hundreds of millions of dollars to help groups fight against energy projects and natural resource projects across the country? That did not seem to bother the government then. Now, all of a sudden, it says it has to do something about it.
It is a little like the scene in Casablanca when the inspector comes to Rick and says that he has to close the place down because there is illegal gambling going on, and then the croupier comes over and puts his winnings in his pocket. That is what the government is doing. For years, it has relied on foreign funding coming to help its allies in the political spectrum fight for its goals and fight against Canadians and their interests.
This is the exact same playbook that we have seen dictatorial governments use across the world. They dehumanize their opponents. They invoke threats of foreign influence. Let us remember, the Berlin Wall was ostensibly built to keep others out. Governments always talk about their good intentions when they take away rights and liberties. I am asking Canadians not be fooled by this.
I am asking members of the Liberal Party who actually believe in civil liberties, who actually do believe in the natural limits of government, to do—
1545 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:59:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as you know, the Conservatives and the Bloc are voting the same way, in other words against the Emergencies Act.
That being said, I would like to understand something. In 2012, 10 years ago, the student crisis took hold in Quebec. Of course, that crisis did not concern the federal government, but Conservative Party supporters said on the radio that it was time to get out the batons. They took a hard line.
During the Wet'suwet'en protests, the Conservatives said that they had gone on long enough, that it was time for forceful intervention. Once again, they took a hard line.
In 2020, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion calling on the Prime Minister to apologize to the victims of the War Measures Act in October 1970. Again, the Conservatives took a hard line and voted against our motion.
Now, we are facing the trucker crisis. As soon as the Conservative base is affected, suddenly the hard line is not so hard. It melted away as quickly as the polar ice cap is melting as a result of climate change, which, according to the Conservatives, does not exist. Why is that?
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start my remarks by thanking the member from the Bloc Québécois because we disagree on many things philosophically, but it is nice to know that, even if we disagree on policy, that there is still some common ground on our principles about using the sledgehammer the government has brought in.
The member is invoking a series of events that happened in 2012. The Conservative Party did not bring in the Emergencies Act in 2012. It is legitimate. There are going to be protests across the country, across time, where various parties are going to agree with the aims of the protests or disagree. We can all express our opinion about whether or not those protests should be happening, but the government should not be bringing in this massive sledgehammer to crack down on dissent when there are existing laws.
The Prime Minister talked about the Coutts border crossing. It was resolved with existing laws and tools that law enforcement have. There is no need for this act.
175 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 1:25:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to clarify the record. I misspoke during my questions and comments in regard to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I indicated she was the only member of the House to have been arrested for protesting illegally. I completely forgot the image of the Minister of Environment in his orange jumpsuit. He too was arrested for illegal protests and I—
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 1:41:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I agree with him on a number of points. This morning, the Prime Minister said that there were several options and that the Emergencies Act was the last resort, but we did not hear about the first, second or third options.
I have a question for my colleague. Does a government that is unable to keep the public safe in the context of these protests and the presence of truckers deserve a seat on the United Nations Security Council?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:24:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the emergency preparedness minister have repeatedly stated that foreign extremist financing is behind Canadian protests. At public safety committee last week, deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, stated that there is no evidence to back up these claims. In fact, he stated that they “have not seen a spike in suspicious transaction...related to [the protests].”
Why is the Prime Minister offside with Canada's national security experts?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:37:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the lack of action from the government has resulted in the reaction to end the protests and blockades by invoking the Emergencies Act. It is the most reactive step taken to date.
Canadians are looking for hope and for a plan. The government decided to vote against having a plan. What proactive steps did the Prime Minister actually take prior to putting in these restrictions?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:41:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am disheartened to have to give these remarks today. I am saddened by the events that continue outside the doors of this building, which have continued for the last three weeks, and by the blockades that have closed borders across the country.
Let us be clear. This is no longer a protest. It is an occupation that advocated to overthrow a democratically elected government. On Monday, the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Justice, Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Minister of Public Safety announced that our government was invoking the Emergencies Act, a decision that I support.
This is a situation I do not think any of us wanted to get to. However, the defiance of those who continue to occupy the streets of Ottawa and attempt to block our border crossings needs to end. These individuals need to go home.
There is a shocking amount of misinformation and plain lies being spread about the occupation, public health measures and the Emergencies Act, and some have been supported and echoed by members in the chamber.
To begin, I think we should start by clarifying a few important points. Let us be clear on what the Emergencies Act is, and this is for those on the other side of the aisle who are provoking fear, spreading misinformation and encouraging conspiracy theories that legitimately concern Canadians who want to understand what is going on in their country.
This is dangerous and harmful. I encourage those who have been supportive of this movement to think long and hard about the long-term consequences of their actions and words in support of the occupation.
These are temporary, proportionate and targeted measures. I will repeat that. These are temporary, proportionate and targeted.
The act was invoked to supplement provincial and territorial authorities, address the blockades and the occupation, ensure the safety of Canadians, protect people's jobs, and restore confidence in our institutions. Our government enacted this act after local and provincial efforts were unsuccessful in resolving the situation. The Emergencies Act provides law enforcement new authorities to prohibit blockades, ensure our essential corridors remain open and regulate crowds. It allows the government to mobilize essential services such as tow trucks, and it gives the RCMP the ability to act quickly to enforce local laws.
This act will also provide more power to stop the flow of money. The scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules are being broadened. They will cover crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers, as well as those using digital assets such as cryptocurrencies.
In situations where there is suspicion of an account being involved to further the occupation or illegal blockades, Canadian financial institutions now have immediate authority to temporarily seize providing financial services. Corporate accounts can and will be frozen for those participating in the blockades. They are also at risk of having their vehicle insurance revoked.
I have seen a significant amount of misinformation about the powers granted under the act. Let us clarify a few things that the Emergencies Act does not do.
The Emergencies Act is limited in scope compared to the War Measures Act of the past. The act does not involve the military. For the military to be involved, the National Defence Act would need to be invoked. This has not happened.
I think we also need to make very clear that no individual's charter rights are being violated. In fact, the Emergencies Act must be compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The specific measures provided in this act are limited. Parliament provides many checks, safeguards and transparency. This is the reason we are here today debating. We are going through this process of checks and balances.
I would like to pivot now to the impact of the occupation and the blockades on the lives of everyday Canadians. For those taking part in this illegal occupation in Ottawa, many seem to be enjoying themselves. There are pancake breakfasts, hot tubs, dance parties in the street and bouncy castles. Contrary to the narrative being driven by supporters, though, this has not been a peaceful experience for residents, businesses and employees in Ottawa.
Honking continued most of the day yesterday and early this morning, despite a 60-day extension of an injunction requiring by law that it stop. On top of that constant honking, there have been drums beating, loud fireworks and music at all hours of the night.
The health consequences of this constant bombardment of noise is not exclusive to residents. Occupiers are doing considerable damage to their own health and the health of the children they have brought with them, whether it is from the loud air horns or constant cloud of diesel fuel lingering on the streets from idling trucks.
It has been a very frustrating time for the residents of Ottawa, especially those who live and work in affected areas. Residents complain of being harassed for wearing a mask, and of being accosted with racial and anti-Semitic slurs. Employees and businesses do not feel it is safe to keep their businesses open. Real peoples' lives are being impacted by a loud minority in very real and significant ways.
The lack of empathy toward the residents and businesses in Ottawa is shocking and unacceptable. Thousands of people have been out of work in Ottawa. The Rideau Centre alone employs 1,500 individuals, and it has been closed for weeks.
A woman who lives in my building here in Ottawa has been working from home due to the pandemic. She told me that she had to leave the city to go to her parents' home in Toronto in order to work and get some rest because she does not feel safe. Not only has the constant noise disrupted her sleep, but it has also prevented her from working during the day.
Vaccine clinics, libraries and other important community resources have been shut down in the downtown core for weeks due to safety concerns. These resources are relied upon by many residents and many vulnerable residents in downtown Ottawa. The people of Ottawa are not strangers to protests. However, they know the right to protest comes with limits. Those limits stop when protesters are causing harm to the people around them.
I have heard from staffers and employees on the Hill that they have been taunted and yelled at for simply wearing a mask. Many of the occupiers show disregard for public measures by going into restaurants and places of business without masks, thereby putting those who work there at risk.
This week at the airport on my way home to B.C., I met a woman whose husband is a truck driver. He was not able to work for days because he could not cross the border due to blockades. She urged me to get the borders open so her husband could continue to work and provide food for their family.
The week before, I received dozens of calls from trucking companies and families of drivers stuck on the other side of the border in Coutts and could not get back. They are the people who are making sure that there is food on our tables and that supply chains remain open. While the borders are back open again now, the blockades have taken a serious economic toll on our communities.
These individuals blocking critical infrastructure, and their supporters, claim to want to ensure that groceries shelves stay full and our trade routes keep running smoothly. However, their actions have led to serious disruptions in our supply chains, including putting people out of work in the auto industry because of plant closure. They have caused the exact thing that they claim to want to protect our country from.
This blockade has damaged trade relations with our most important trading partner, the United States of America. Around 73% of our exports go to the United States and billions of dollars in imports come from our neighbours to the south annually. Truckers were stuck on the other side of the Coutts border crossing for days and were forced to drive for hours to get through a different crossing.
The blockade at the Coutts border cut off a vital trade route for agriculture and other goods, and cost our economy hundreds of millions of dollars. Jobs in Manitoba were at stake, because of the Emerson, Manitoba, crossing. Here, too, traffic was forced to divert to other crossings increasing travel time, creating chaos for truckers and other travellers.
Windsor also experienced days of blockades at one of Canada's most important routes over the Ambassador Bridge. This bridge alone is responsible for 30% of trade going back and forth between Canada and the U.S. That is $390 million in trade per day. Around 40,000 commuters, truckers and others cross that bridge daily.
In my own community, truckers and others trying to cross the Surrey border crossing were harassed by individuals blocking the border. There were reports of demonstrators driving on the wrong side of the road, a dangerous and reckless behaviour that endangers the lives of others.
The Surrey crossing is home to hundreds of millions of dollars in trade back and forth. Organizations are speaking out, like the Surrey Board of Trade. The impact of these blockades is choking us and has already impacted supply chains, businesses and jobs. This is unacceptable sabotage to the economy.
To be clear, everyone has a right to peaceful protest, but these type of demonstrations are impacting businesses and livelihoods. This is not a movement for the people. These are not peaceful demonstrations. Those who remain are unlawful, destructive and are looking to defy the law and abuse their fellow citizens. It has done a great deal of harm and it must end now.
The pandemic has been a challenging time for everyone, and if people are still in Ottawa, I encourage them to leave now and allow residents to get back to their lives.
1677 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:05:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that have constituted global emergencies. By the way, I should say to the hon. member, because I do not think I have put it on the record yet, that I am still trying to decide how to vote on this. There are pros and cons to the act's use. We had a collapse of police here in Ottawa. The chain of command broke somewhere, and we are in a very different situation now than if we had acted based on the information that, it now appears, we should have had about the security threat that was implicit in the convoy.
The examples the hon. member used of when we did not use the Emergencies Act were exterior to Canada. Goodness knows that Canadians, and particularly those in Halifax and Newfoundland, reacted so brilliantly and generously when 9/11 happened in taking care of people who were completely stranded. However, that does not rise to an emergency in Canada; I do not even think it is plausible. In the Wet'suwet'en protests, I was arrested in a non-violent civil disobedience protest, and on many similar occasions, Kinder Morgan never even called the police. Those are not emergencies that would rise to the level that is anything like this.
I ask the hon. member to reflect on the differences in each of the examples he put forward.
236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:09:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was hoping someone would bring that up.
Let us clear the air here. It has been very clear that a criminal organization, weeks after the Coutts border crossing protests began, joined the group and infiltrated the group. It was not part of the group. It had ulterior motives. It was not part of the protest. It was tied to organized criminal organizations from here in the nation's capital and across this country. We should be very concerned that there is violence and that those extremists exist in our society, but they exist, and it is not because of this protest. They attach themselves to every sort of movement.
What is important to realize here is that the situation in Coutts was resolved using the legislation that already exists. With authorities from the RCMP and the elected officials, it was resolved. Those individuals who were planning to commit criminal offences were dealt with appropriately without enacting the Emergencies Act. That is a prime example that shows we can do this and settle this without this nonsense from the government.
182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my distinguished colleague from Elmwood—Transcona.
This is an exceptional, unprecedented and extremely concerning situation that has ramifications for the health of our democracy and the future of political debate and vitality in Canada and at the federal level.
The first thing I would like to point out is what and who we are dealing with. We are not dealing with ordinary protesters. I can say this from experience, because it is no secret that I have participated in many protests for various causes in the past as a student, union representative and MP.
There are surely many people of good faith among these protesters. They are tired and exasperated and cannot stand any more health and vaccine mandates. We understand that because after two years, we are all fed up.
However, the convoy has been infiltrated by members of the far right. What is more, most of the convoy organizers use extreme right-wing rhetoric and are openly affiliated with the far right. It is not a rumour or hearsay, since they wrote in black and white that if they do not get what they want, they will overthrow the government and replace it with a provisional government in collaboration with the Senate and the Governor General. These people are anti‑Parliament, anti‑public health and anti‑democracy, and they are threatening to overthrow an elected government by force.
I would remind the House that these people have received public support from the interim leader of the Conservative Party and her finance critic, who is now a leadership candidate for that same party. I think that one day, the Conservative Party will have to answer to Canadians for its actions and its place in history.
These protests are largely being funded by foreign sources, including the United States and Donald Trump supporters. Let us not forget that Donald Trump provoked and continues to defend the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Some protesters here actually said they wanted this to be Canada's January 6.
Some of these protesters openly identify themselves as white supremacists, make racist comments and unabashedly wave Nazi or Confederate flags. Let us not forget that the Confederates are the Americans who fought to preserve the right to own slaves. These are the symbols some people have been waving throughout this long illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa.
Protesters are traumatizing and verbally abusing local residents. Some minorities and racialized people, including people of Asian origin, have been spat on and had insults shouted at them. Journalists are being targeted by protesters, who are behaving like bullies rather than legitimate protesters.
While we may not have all the relevant information on the Ottawa protesters yet, there is no doubt that this is the same movement, with the same intentions, supporting the same cause. People are organizing in the same manner. Let us not forget the arsenal of weapons seized in Coutts, Alberta, including assault rifles, bulletproof vests and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
The current situation is not the same as when people protest to protect our public health care system, for example. The situation we have been experiencing in Ottawa for the last three weeks is altogether different, and it is becoming unbearable for local residents. Some locals even took it upon themselves to block roadways to prevent additional trucks and big rigs from getting downtown.
This clearly illustrates the Liberal government's inaction. If the situation has deteriorated to the point where the Emergencies Act needs to be invoked, it is because the Liberal government did nothing. The government's lack of leadership is clearly to blame for the dangerous and awful situation we are in.
If we are responsible parliamentarians, we will analyze the bill before us. I initially had reservations, and, as the leader of the NDP said today, we will support it reluctantly; we are not happy about it, and we do not like it. However, there are some important safeguards.
First, the act maintains fundamental freedoms. The right to legally and peacefully protest is not affected. Rights and freedoms are maintained. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still in force. I will get back to that later. This is quite different from the analogies and conflated comparisons being raised by other political parties in the House. It is not the same thing at all.
The act comes with a time limit. There is a sunset clause. It has to be renewed after 30 days. It is therefore not indefinite. Not only are arbitrary and random arrests not possible, but fundamental freedoms are protected, the act is in force for a limited period of 30 days, and most of all, and this is important, the act can be revoked at any time by a majority vote of the members of the House. All it would take is for 20 of our colleagues to ask the Speaker to hold a vote in three days.
Since the three opposition parties have a majority, if there were any abuses committed by the police, the federal government, or the Liberal government, we could pull the plug, just like that. These safeguards are extremely reassuring and should reassure all Canadians.
This is very interesting legislation, and I would point out to my Conservative Party colleagues that what they are saying is absolutely ironic, because the Emergencies Act was brought in by the Conservative Party. It was Brian Mulroney’s government that passed this legislation in 1988. Before they get all worked up about it, perhaps they should open a history book, because this is their law. They are the ones who passed it.
Speaking of history, it makes me very uncomfortable to hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois imply that this is the War Measures Act redux. He is conflating the two acts to appeal to his base in a very unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest and flawed way. This brings back a very painful memory for all Quebeckers, the memory of the 1970 October crisis. During that period, hundreds of police officers took to the streets of Montreal to randomly arrest nearly 500 people, without cause, without any charges. This was not an attempt to restore peace, but an attempt to intimidate the public, a national emancipation movement and a civil society movement.
That is what happened in 1970, and the Bloc Québécois needs to stop conflating the two situations and comparing apples to oranges. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is very confused. These situations are nothing alike. Being arrested in the middle of the night and thrown in prison by the police is nothing like someone having their bank account frozen because they chose to participate in an illegal occupation that is infringing on the rights of the people of Ottawa. These situations are nothing alike.
Friends of my parents were arrested during the October crisis. I think it is an insult to the victims of the October crisis to compare them to the proto-fascists who have been occupying Ottawa for the past three weeks. The two cannot be lumped in together. That is just wrong. The laws are different, the circumstances are different, the demonstrators and the illegal occupation are completely different.
We agree that the law should not apply in Quebec. It will not because there are no blockades or illegal occupations in Quebec. There is no siege, so there should be no problem. The NDP supported the Bloc Québécois motion on that yesterday, but unfortunately the Conservatives blocked it.
Let me be very clear: We are not giving the Liberal government a blank cheque. We are keeping a close eye on it, we will be very vigilant, and we will use the provisions in the act that enable us to shut this down if it is abused in any way, but the people of Ottawa deserve to have their city and their peace and quiet back.
1356 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
