44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:27:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about everyone agrees with the intention of putting an end to the siege of Ottawa. It is just about the only hostile protest still going on in Canada. Although the intention is a good one, the means being used may not be.
Quebec dealt with protests in Quebec City without the Emergencies Act. In Coutts, not only did the border reopen without the Emergencies Act, but weapons were seized without it. The Ambassador Bridge was reopened without the Emergencies Act. The situation in Manitoba was resolved without the Emergencies Act, and there are other examples.
How can the Prime Minister claim from the beginning of his speech that there was no other way to intervene? Why did he not exclude the provinces and Quebec, which do not want to be subject to or use the powers of this law?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:28:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, police forces across the country now have more tools to deal with these illegal blockades and occupations, if and when they occur.
We will continue to ensure that the measures are proportionate, reasonable and time-limited. However, it was and is important to give more tools to the police who need them.
We understand that the police were able to keep the situation under control in many parts of the country, but the Emergencies Act applies from one end of the country to the other. However, it will be used only when necessary.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:29:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for weeks this occupation has been allowed to continue. People have lost wages, citizens have been harassed and the potential for violence has grown. Instead of acting, the federal government argued over jurisdiction.
What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the inaction that has made invoking the Emergencies Act necessary?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:29:37 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reiterate that from day one of these barricades, blockages and occupations, the federal government has been supplying resources and working closely with local police officers of jurisdiction to ensure they had the tools they needed. Obviously, the situation has evolved. The situation has escalated, but every step of the way the federal government has been there to support the law enforcement of jurisdiction. Here in Ottawa it is the Ottawa Police Service and the OPP, and we will continue to be there with the RCMP as necessary.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 10:30:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to have the right to free expression and to protest peacefully, but occupying the downtown cores of our major cities, protesting and blocking border crossings, is unacceptable. That is why we have given more tools, in a proportional way, to police officers.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:31:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for commencing this important debate on the invocation of the Emergencies Act for the first time.
I want to begin with a number of expressions of gratitude, both to my colleagues on this side of the House and to the opposition for the informed debate we are about to have. Finally, I would like to thank Canadians. I know this has been a very difficult time, a period of great frustration, anxiety and uncertainty. It is not lost on me, and I hope it is not lost on any member of the chamber, that the confluence of events of the pandemic and now these illegal blockades does create for an emotionally charged atmosphere. Sometimes we let that get the better of us here in this chamber.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to have a principled debate about why it is that the government has chosen to invoke the Emergencies Act, the paramount reason being the health and safety of all Canadians.
We have heard the Prime Minister set out what the test for the invocation of the Emergencies Act is, and I know my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and other members will elaborate on that. However, I want to focus my comments on what I believe are the perceived and real risks to public safety we have seen over the last number of weeks that have emanated from the so-called “freedom convoy”.
This convoy has taken to the streets, and other critical infrastructure, right across the country, including our borders, national symbols, communities and neighbourhoods. It has had a profound impact. I would submit to members of this chamber that it has been a very negative and detrimental impact to public safety.
I want to touch on the number of ports of entry that have been significantly interrupted as a result of participation in the illegal blockades, including at Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, British Columbia; Windsor, Ontario; Sarnia, Ontario; Fort Erie, Ontario; as well as those here in Ottawa.
I hope that all members recognize that the kind of conduct we have seen at our borders puts the integrity and the security of this country into serious question. The impact at Coutts, for example, has cost the economy approximately $48 million per day. In Emerson it has been $73 million day, and in Windsor,where we conduct roughly a quarter of all of our daily trade with our most important trading partner, the United States, it has been roughly $390 million. Those are just numerical figures, but I think about the translation of those dollar figures into the impact on Canadian jobs, families and those who are just trying to get by right now.
Whatever the motivation of some individuals who have commingled with those organizers and agitators of these illegal blockades, whatever their concerns are with regard to the government's strategy to get out of the pandemic, which is of course to get vaccinated, this has become something much more concerning.
I do want to say we have made some progress at these ports of entry, and that is in large part thanks to the very important work that has been undertaken by the members of our law enforcement.
I want to thank the RCMP for its efforts and energy. I also want to thank all the police forces who are doing great work on the ground. We are seeing a lot of progress. Most of the borders are now open. That is good for the economy, good for business and good for Canadians. However, this progress is no guarantee.
It is very important that we continue to guarantee the progress that we have made. I want to speak for a moment about the situation here in Ottawa. I know that many of my colleagues in the NCR caucus have spoken very articulately and very passionately about the damage that has been caused in our communities and neighbourhoods. I have also heard some members of the opposition try to somehow cast a minimization, in an effort to generalize what is going on outside of this chamber as being legitimate. It is not. It is illegal, and it causes great harm.
We have seen people intimidated, harassed and threatened. We have seen apartment buildings chained up. We have seen fires set in corridors. Residents are being terrorized, and it is absolutely gut-wrenching to see the sense of abandonment and helplessness they have felt for weeks now. I want to assure them that since day one, the federal government has done everything it could do to provide additional resources. The RCMP has sent three sets of reinforcements to the Ottawa Police Service, and we will continue to do whatever we can to help.
However, it is also important for members of this chamber that we write the laws and we set the policies, but we trust our police, our law enforcement, to enforce them. That is why it is so important that we use every tool in our tool box, especially now, when we find ourselves in a predicament, a dilemma, a situation that has perhaps never been seen before.
I ask myself, and I hope others are reflecting as well, what this is all about. I try to step back and look at what is occurring. I am concerned. I have heard some people say, and they are still saying, that this is a protest about vaccines. It is not. They say that it is protest about mandates. It is not.
I have heard some people still say that this is a protest about freedom. What is going on outside, on the streets of Canada and at our borders, is most certainly not about freedom. It is about a very small, organized and targeted group of individuals that is trying to strip away the very freedoms that we here, and the generations of those who preceded us, have sworn to uphold.
I have seen many striking similarities in the way that these blockades have manifested across the country, including the tactics that they are using, the timing they are occurring, and the targets, whether they are national symbols, such as Parliament here, or provincial legislatures. There was also the war monument outside, where we hear members speak passionately about their forebears who made sacrifices for the freedoms that we now enjoy. The individuals outside are tearing down the barriers to attack those monuments. What does that say? Those are—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Marco Mendicino: I know members are heckling, but I am encouraging them to reflect on this and on the rhetoric. Notwithstanding the efforts of my colleagues to shout me down, I am speaking on behalf of constituents and Canadians. Yes, there is an ideologically motivated operation that we see here in the rhetoric that is meant to incite.
That is indeed one of the reasons why we have had to invoke the Emergencies Act. I want to assure members that these are very targeted measures. They are time limited, and they are protected by the charter. For those who want to ask questions as to how those powers are going to be enforced, part of the debate is going to ensure that there are sufficient guardrails and safeguards in place. There will be transparency on how those measures are implemented.
There will also be an inquiry to ensure that we can learn from these lessons and make sure that this is an instrument that has been used responsibly and in a manner that is consistent with the charter to uphold the health and safety of all Canadians.
At the end of the day, we are all here, I would hope, to do one thing, and that is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We find ourselves at a crossroads of the pandemic, but we have made progress. We have made progress with the pandemic, and we are making progress in restoring public order, but it is absolutely imperative that we have these debates in a principled and reasonable manner that is respectful of our constituents and respectful of Canadians. That is certainly something that I hope we will see over the next number of days.
1391 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:40:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the minister today, and in a news conference yesterday, has repeatedly stated that there are ideologically motivated, violent extremists and there is a small group of extremists who are willing to use violence. He says that there are ties between extremists who were apprehended in Coutts and extremists here in Ottawa.
However, when asked repeatedly by the media to back up that assertion with evidence, the minister fails to provide any evidence. We are talking about invoking a once-in-34-year Emergencies Act. Parliamentarians deserve real evidence, not conjecture from the minister, before we could ever contemplate suspending the rights of Canadians. In what basis does the minister make the claim that there are violent extremists in Ottawa?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:41:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my colleague operates from the false premise that the Emergencies Act is a kind of suspension of charter rights. It is not.
As I have said throughout the course of the debate, and as the act itself says, all of the powers that need to be exercised in the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter. That means ensuring that section 8 is respected, which guarantees people the right to be protected from any unreasonable search and seizure, and the same for section 7 as well.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:42:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the minister said that he was proud to move this motion, that he was proud to be the first Minister of Public Safety to invoke the Emergencies Act since it came into force in 1988. I am wondering how he can be proud to enforce a law that limits the fundamental rights of Quebeckers and Canadians.
We heard the Prime Minister say that this was the last resort. Unfortunately, I do not think he used all of the tools at his disposal before we got to this point. I would like to know what other approaches he could have taken before invoking the Emergencies Act.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:43:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. The Emergencies Act is a last resort. This was not the first option and is certainly not the option we prefer.
In response to this convoy and illegal blockade, we had to add a lot of resources to help the police restore public order on the ground. However, we have gotten to a very difficult point right now with a lot of challenges, which is why we invoked this measure.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:43:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member spoke of the people who are being impacted by the blockades. He spoke about the harassment and the assaults. I know I have spoken to a lot of workers in this downtown about that as well. It is truly heartbreaking. I think of the workers and businesses who have been impacted negatively. I think about the people at the Rideau Centre. I think about people within my own region in southwestern Ontario and those businesses who have been impacted.
What is the government's plan to help those workers and those business owners after this debate is done, after we have seen the protesters go home? We have been asking for the government to come up with a plan. What is the plan for those people?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:44:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about public safety. Certainly, the impact of these illegal blockades across the country has undermined not only public safety but also families' and individuals' ability to provide for themselves. I want to assure my colleague that we will work with her and all members, so once we clean up these illegal blockades and we have public safety restored on the streets here in Ottawa, the Government of Canada will continue to be there to support Canadians, as we have been throughout the pandemic.
91 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 10:54:32 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, now I will speak on behalf of my constituents, which all of us are sworn to do.
I ask the members opposite: If this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:55:00 a.m.
- Watch
Order.
The longer I stand here, the fewer options people will have to actually present their feelings and represent their constituents later.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:55:17 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been four weeks in a row. The members opposite talk about listening to the protesters but they will not even listen to a member of this House to understand what my constituents, the members of my community, are going through.
When did the line cross between this being a lawful protest, which we welcome in my riding and happen all the time, to an illegal protest? Members opposite were out there taking photos, encouraging those protesters to keep honking in the middle of the night.
Would the member now denounce those actions?
96 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 10:56:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the problems in Coutts, Alberta, were resolved without the Emergencies Act. The same goes for Emerson, where things were resolved without the Emergencies Act. With the Ambassador Bridge, once the Americans called the situation unacceptable, it was resolved without the Emergencies Act. There were protests in Quebec City, and it was all resolved without the Emergencies Act.
Here, in the federal capital, in the Prime Minister's backyard, there is an occupation. What did the Prime Minister do? First, he called them whiners, then he blamed the police, and then he brought out the atomic bomb, also known as the Emergencies Act.
My question is simple. Between playing Pontius Pilate and dropping the atomic bomb, there was a point at which the government could have shown some leadership and made use of tools.
What does the leader of the official opposition think about that?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:57:34 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member may recall that I sent a letter very early on to the Prime Minister asking that he meet with the opposition leaders to talk about solutions like the ones he just spoke about.
It is clear that the borders were cleared by police action, and that is a good thing. We believe that these protestors here in Ottawa, these blockades could have been moved quickly had the Prime Minister shown some leadership and said, “Hey, I'm hearing you. I disagree with you, but I hear your concerns. We're going to look at removing these mandates. We're going to do it because it's actually scientific to remove them.”
I would guarantee that these folks would have moved on had the Prime Minister decided he wanted to actually listen. What I promise is that we would not be here today invoking an Emergencies Act, which is a sledgehammer on all Canadians.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
