SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 3:26:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Surrey Centre. I rise today with some humility. I rise to speak not on behalf of a political party, because I firmly belief this issue cannot be partisan today. I rise not as a representative of a particular community, because I do not think it is a regional issue that we are discussing today. I rise today, in all sincerity, as a member of Parliament, as a member of this chamber, the House of Commons, committed to serving the public, to serving all Canadians in a genuine effort to do what is best for our country. At this stage, I firmly believe that the only way to resolve the present threat that is facing this country is to declare a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. I want to start by talking about the charter. Let me state at the outset that the right to freedom of expression is sacrosanct in this country. It is entrenched in section 2(b) of the charter for a reason: because it is the hallmark of our democracy, and indeed of any democracy. It is the ability for citizens to voice their discontent, to challenge authority and to seek change. I do not deny any of this. To the contrary, I vigorously defend it. I also do not deny that the people gathered outside this very chamber right now, who have been on the streets of Ottawa for what is now 21 days, have legitimate grievances; criticisms of my government, of my party; perhaps even of me personally, which they have every right to air. However, in our democracy, freedom of expression, while sacrosanct, is not absolute. This charter protection under section 2(b) extends toward lawful, peaceful protest; the charter does not protect illegal, violent blockades. It is the latter, unfortunately, that this protest has devolved into. I want to reference Ottawa. How do I substantiate this assertion I just made? I substantiate it with the evidence I gathered with my own eyes and from the accounts of other parliamentarians that have been shared with me. Far from seeing people exercising their constitutional rights to disagree vigorously with the government, we have instead seen intimidation, threats and harassment. We have seen deliberate nuisances being created by truck horns blowing at all hours of the day and night, rendering the city effectively uninhabitable for local residents. We have seen open displays of hatred, such as swastikas and Confederate flags, and acts of direct hatred when windows are smashed on coffee shops that dare to fly the pride flag. We have seen the desecration of national monuments, including our national war memorial. We have seen deliberate efforts to block the movement of people and goods by people intentionally disabling large vehicles and trucks by activating their air brakes or actually removing the tires from their vehicles. We have seen death threats follow toward an Ottawa tow trucking company accused of being complicit with police efforts to remove such disabled vehicles. We have seen the shuttering of businesses in the entire downtown core, impeding residents' ability to work. It is puzzling, to say the least, to see protesters who claim to eschew lockdowns themselves causing Ottawa's downtown to enter into a lockdown for a period of now three weeks. We have seen intimidation and threats toward the media, again ironic for those who would be more ardent defenders of freedom of expression than even I am, in terms of what I have articulated. We have seen the active sabotage of 9-1-1 emergency call lines and even an attempted arson. The protest ostensibly began over vaccine mandates. It has morphed into what resembles an occupation of the city by people who have openly declared on the public record that they are seeking to overthrow the government. That constitutes a complete breakdown of public order in Ottawa. Despite efforts from the Ottawa Police Service, law and order in the nation's capital have been impossible to maintain. The evidence that I am outlining here extends beyond the nation's capital. Members have heard references to the borders. I want to address this now. What commenced as a protest targeting this city and this Parliament has emerged as a concerted effort to block our national border crossings and impede the flow of people and goods. In Texas and Florida and in other parts of the United States and indeed in other nations, foreign entities openly and publicly have declared their sympathy with the blockades and admitted to sending money and resources to help the blockades continue. Today the Anti-Defamation League showed a result of their analysis of the GiveSendGo website; it found 1,100 people in the United States who supported the January 6 insurrection last year actually donated money under GiveSendGo to these blockades. Just let that settle in for a moment, in terms of what the motivations are for such types of people. The blockades that have emerged around the country are deliberately targeting critical infrastructure. We know about what happened at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and Detroit. The multi-day siege on Canada's busiest border crossing alone, and I am now wearing my hat as the parliamentary secretary for international trade, resulted in the suspension of nearly $400 million in daily trade between Canada and the United States, the cancellation of shifts at multiple auto plants in southern Ontario and an intervention by President Biden and the Governor of Michigan showing that confidence in Canada as a safe place to invest, do business and trade with is starting to erode. Blockades have occurred in Surrey, Emerson and Coutts, Alberta. What should be startlingly alarming for every person in this chamber and every Canadian watching right now is that when members of the RCMP went to clear the Coutts border crossing, they made 13 arrests, including laying charges for conspiracy to commit murder. They found firearms, ammunition and body armour. That bore out certainly my worst fears, and I think all of our worst fears, that blockade protesters were armed and preparing for violent confrontation with law enforcement. The violence is continuing to ratchet up. We have had bomb threats at a Vancouver hospital as well as suspicious packages and language about hanging members of Parliament being sent to colleagues of mine from Nova Scotia. I am laying this all out in such excruciating detail because there is a legal test that must be met when we are doing something that has not ever been done under this legislation or even in this country under antecedent legislation in 52 years. The test is high, as it should be, when we are considering a statute that temporarily permits the suspension of civil liberties. What is the test? It is entrenched in section 3 of the Emergencies Act, which states: a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It is my fundamental belief that this high legal threshold has been met in this case. When we have a blockade laying siege to an entire city for 21 days and counting, intimidating, harassing and threatening locals and rendering a city uninhabitable, it is endangering the safety of Canadians. When those blockades limit the ability of medical first responders to respond quickly to emergencies, they are endangering the lives of those on the other end of those 911 calls. When factions armed with weapons and ammunition are blockading borders, they are directly endangering the lives of Canadians. When groups are deliberately blocking trade corridors with our single largest trading partner, grinding our border traffic to a halt, they are threatening the ability of the federal government to preserve our sovereignty and economic security. These are important. In the last two minutes, I want to address some of the general objections we have heard, not just today but prior to this. To those who say there is an overreach here, I say there are five checks that are important. First, everything done by a government under the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter. That is entrenched in the preamble. Second, all declarations are time-limited to 30 days and no more. In fact, it may be less, and hopefully it will be less in this context. Third, the very act of declaring an emergency under the declaration must be reviewed by a committee of all members of Parliament and senators from all parties. Fourth, the exercise of powers under the declaration must be reviewed by that committee. Fifth, following the end of an emergency, a full inquiry must be held. What we are doing is not a power grab and it is not the invocation of the War Measures Act; we are simply giving the RCMP the power to enforce local laws and work quickly with local law enforcement. We are not calling in the armed forces. We are not putting the RCMP or any other police force under the control of the government. Policing operational decisions remain independent, as they must in any democracy. I am going to end with the right to protest, because people have asked about their children's rights to protest. I take this very seriously, because I myself have taken my children to protests. This law talks about the right to lawful protest. It is in entrenched in black and white. The measures we are contemplating would address or prohibit public assembly that is a threat leading to a breach of the peace; we are specifically carving out the right of lawful advocacy, protest and dissent. I would say this to those who say the threats have been addressed: Windsor had an attempted blockade yesterday, and we know the protesters are returning to the Quebec National Assembly on February 19. I will conclude with this sincere undertaking to the members of this chamber and all Canadians: I will do everything in my power to ensure that this act lasts for only as long as is absolutely necessary; I will do everything in my power to ensure that there is no overbreadth; I will do everything in my power to ensure that charter rights are always fundamentally protected. All members of Parliament should strive for nothing less.

1771 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/17/22 3:36:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I remain unconvinced by the member's argument, and I recognize the fact that he was a lawyer by profession before he came to this place. I was not a lawyer, thankfully, in my previous life, but the member, during his speech, said that there must be a very high threshold to suspend civil liberties. I would say let us not use American language, and call them charter liberties or charter freedoms. Let us Canadianize it. He said there should be an explicitly high threshold before we suspend charter liberties, but that is the opposite of what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said that is actually not going on, and this has happened repeatedly in the last 72 hours. Cabinet ministers say one thing, and then they are contradicted by the Prime Minister. People in my riding, back in Calgary, have very little faith in the government's handling of the situation. Can the member clarify what he just said? We are not suspending charter liberties. We are not going after people without some type of recourse to the law. Is he going to ensure the Prime Minister stays on message and stops jacking up and ratcheting up the rhetoric, as people are trying to clear protesters outside this building?

214 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/17/22 3:37:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear, as the member for Calgary Shepard has read the material, as I hope everyone who is participating in this debate has read the material, that it talks about certain regulations, certain powers and certain prohibitions. One of the prohibitions is on assemblies that would lead to a breach of the peace, but what is important, and what the Prime Minister and every cabinet minister has said, is that everything that is undertaken under this emergency declaration must be done in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms talks about charter liberties. It also talks about limitations on such liberties that are saved under section 1. That is the important facet all Canadians must recognize, and that is the important facet under which we will operate as a government. That is what all parliamentarians must operate under, because the charter and those fundamental rights are sacrosanct in our democracy.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Feb/17/22 3:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, the City of Ottawa asked for help. It asked for 1,800 extra police officers. The department sent 275 police officers, most of whom are deployed around Parliament, mainly around ministers and the Prime Minister. It appears that there are only 20 extra police officers on the street right now, out of the 1,800 who were requested. My question is, if the request from the Ottawa police had been met, is it possible that we would be in a different situation?

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/17/22 3:38:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into hypothetical situations or backtrack. However, what I do want to point out is that the City of Ottawa and the Government of Ontario have declared a state of emergency. Both levels of government were unable to resolve the situation here, in Windsor or anywhere else. The third and final step is to use the Emergencies Act, if it would help, to resolve the situation. This is a serious situation, and it requires serious action.

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/17/22 3:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Parkdale—High Park was effective in talking about the impacts on people's lives from what has happened over the last few weeks. Many people, thousands of Canadians, have lost their jobs, at least temporarily. We have seen businesses closed. In Ottawa, they have been going through hell. There is no other way to put it. As members know, there are impacts of the toxic fumes; the impacts of the extraordinarily loud industrial levels of noise, which have caused permanent hearing loss; and the assaults and disrespect that so many of the residents of Ottawa have experienced first-hand. There is no doubt there is a compelling reason. The reality is that we could have well avoided all of this, if the government had acted more promptly. I would like to direct the member for Parkdale—High Park specifically to the issues around the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations that were put into place with huge loopholes, which the NDP, for years, has called upon the government to fix. Canada is known as the snow-washing capital of the world, because of money laundering and all these problems. Why did the government not move years ago to fix those loopholes, so this financing of what transpires in Ottawa could not have occurred in the first place?

227 words

All Topics

Mr. Arif Virani

Feb/17/22 3:40:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to do is address the situation that has really seized the city and seized this nation. As opposed to turning back the clock and engaging in what-ifs or hypotheticals about what could have been done previously, we are quite directly, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance addressed this in question period, addressing lacunae in financial tracking legislation right now, as that is one of the economic measures contained in this declaration. It allows us to address who is funding, including foreign sources, this particular illegal blockade and make sure it is brought to an end.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Surrey Centre, Lib.)

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

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/17/22 3:51:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at length about the negative aspects of what is occurring in Ottawa. Unfortunately, the act we are debating today is not based only on the negative aspects. It has a critical threshold. He talked about what people and businesses have experienced. We need to put all that aside and focus on what can be done about this. People can be arrested and vehicles can be seized without a warrant or incidental to arrest. Given that those tools already exist in another act and this act says it is an act of last resort that cannot be satisfied by any other legislation, how can his party support it when we can get rid of those vehicles under existing legislation and every negative impact he said would disappear?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/17/22 3:52:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, central infrastructure and our Parliament buildings were put at risk. Ontario declared a state of emergency and, despite that, was not able to clear these occupiers from the streets of Ottawa. The city was not able to do it on its own. Tow truck companies have said they have received death threats, so they will not tow. That is why there is a time, a place and a need for such legislation.

74 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/17/22 3:53:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is happening right now is complicated and a source of anxiety for many. I am talking not only about the blockade, but also about the Emergencies Act. All the hot spots, except Ottawa, have been dismantled without implementing emergency measures. Why invoke them now? Ottawa is the only one left. If someone threatens someone else, the Criminal Code applies. If someone has an unlicensed weapon, the Criminal Code applies. The Criminal Code already covers everything the government wants to accomplish with the Emergencies Act.

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/17/22 3:54:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, without this legislation there has been chaos. In fact, the day this was invoked, just before midnight the Surrey border crossing was cleared. Fortunately, this does not take away the powers and laws already in place. This supplements them. It gives extra powers and tools on top of those we already have. This is territory-specific, so when we have an issue, we can invoke it and use it on one area. It is not universal to places that do not have the disruptions.

90 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Feb/17/22 3:55:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are here because of a failure of leadership, and it is day 21 of the occupation in our nation's capital. Local leadership has failed and police inaction has been on full display, even police complicity. Shockingly, the Conservative leader and Conservative MPs have been aiding and abetting the illegal occupation. Then we have the Liberals, who have sat by for going on four weeks and have not taken the measures necessary to crack down on an illegal occupation led by a number of folks who are known to be associated with white supremacy. Why did the Liberals, once the first clear signs were out there, not crack down on this illegal occupation, particularly on the funding, including foreign funding?

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Randeep Sarai

Feb/17/22 3:55:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. When some members of Parliament on the other side, particularly the Conservatives, are aiding and abetting, as she states, by sometimes telling protesters to go away, sometimes saying, “Stay”, and sometimes saying, “We are for you”, while their aspiring leader supports the convoy, things become very difficult. The government has done an impeccable job at being controlled, complying with laws, allowing injunctions to take place and allowing the police and the city to do what they have to do. However, unfortunately, it has reached the point where we now have to invoke the Emergencies Act. There is no choice.

110 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC)

Feb/17/22 3:56:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope. My phone has not stopped ringing. Constituents and concerned Canadians are emailing me en masse. I have had hundreds of phone calls and literally thousands of emails since the news of the government's plan to invoke the Emergencies Act trickled out on Friday. Not one of those emails and not one of those phone calls has been in favour of this enactment. What they did want was to ensure that their voices were heard by the Prime Minister and the misguided Liberal and NDP MPs who plan to support this overreach. Before I begin with my own thoughts, I thought it important for the House to hear about this, and specifically the members opposite who may be tempted to remain loyal to their party lines despite a heavy heart and conflicted conscience. While these emails were sent to me specifically, they are really intended for the members across the way, who could still change their position. Lanny writes, “It's deeply disturbing to see the Prime Minister invoke the Emergencies Act under present circumstances. He failed to act with the powers that he previously held, and then asks for open-ended powers with no real motivation. I do not support this. He has failed as a leader.” Lanny knows that the Prime Minister has been disengaged, unwilling to meet and unwilling to listen, and, most importantly, that this is not what a leader does. She is right: This is failed leadership. This is a failure to use negotiation and use the authorities that already exist. It is simply a power grab by someone who is beyond his depth. Lanny is not the only one who feels this way. Here is an excerpt of an email from a lady by the name of Rena: “I feel very strongly about the Emergencies Act. Frankly, it's overkill and quite frightening for a citizen of Canada. There is no reason to invoke this. It's giving far too much control over a situation that can be negotiated.” Does that sound familiar? The Prime Minister's inability to negotiate, frightened Canadians, fear tactics and too much control are repeating themes, not today, not this week and not this year. This has been the tone of the Prime Minister his entire time in office, and Canadians are beyond frustrated with it. My constituents are in no way the only Canadians concerned. As The Canadian Press notes, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says it “does not believe the ‘high and clear’ threshold needed to invoke the act has been met” and notes specifically that the law states the Emergencies Act “can only be used when a situation cannot be dealt with using any other law in the country”. The executive director went so far as to warn that normalizing emergency legislation “threatens our democracy and our civil liberties”. Why? The Prime Minister and his misguided ministers surely have had legal opinions, like the one provided by Leah West, a former national security lawyer with the federal Department of Justice. As noted in a CBC article, “she's not convinced that the ongoing protests rise to the level of a public order ‘emergency’”. She has even gone so far as to state publicly, “As someone who studies the law very carefully, I'm kind of shocked, to be honest, that the government actually believes this meets the definition to even invoke the act.” The article goes on to elaborate: “West said that, under the existing provincial emergency order, Ontario can already do some of the things that the federal government is now contemplating.” She says, “It's not clear to me why you would need the federal authorities to do that.” The Emergencies Act is not required. We have heard that expressed by constituents, by Canadians and in legal opinions. The Emergencies Act powers become available immediately, and the government then has seven days to table legislation in Parliament. I do not want to put words in the legislative drafters' mouths on this, but surely they were thinking, back in the day, that there would never be a Prime Minister so brazen as to utilize the powers of this act without a clear and evident emergency requiring them to do so. In a situation that would properly utilize the Emergencies Act, the threat would be so inherently grave that invoking the powers within the act would jointly be called for by parliamentarians across party lines and provincial leaders and would unite all Canadians, while protecting our country and our freedoms. Our predecessors in the House would be ashamed of the audacity of the Prime Minister, the government and the NDP coalition propping it up in allowing the Emergencies Act to be used as a divisive tool and not as the unifying, nation-building and life-saving tool it was designed to be. This is not the case and this is not the time. The government does not have my support and it does not have the support of Canadians. What is required, but has been lacking, is leadership. The provinces have been able to resolve their issues with protesters, just as we saw in my riding at the Coutts border crossing. What does Coutts have that Ottawa does not? It has leadership. A peaceful resolution was achieved via dialogue and open, frank and honest conversations between protest organizers and elected officials. Alberta MPs, provincial leaders, locally elected officials and law enforcement all had a hand in the peaceful resolution by showing true leadership and genuine concern and by taking the time to listen and be heard. No one, not the Prime Minister, not one government minister and certainly not the leader of the NDP, possessed the leadership to have one meeting with protesters, even when it was offered to them. Was it their privileged perch from their ivory tower offices that made them feel superior to the working-class citizens beneath them? Was it their intolerance of opinions they disagree with? Or has this single incident exposed what the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP are really all about? At election time, we hear phrases from the Prime Minister like, “We know that Canada has succeeded—culturally, politically, economically—because of our diversity, not in spite of it.” However, in situations like the one we find ourselves in today, we know the Prime Minister instead thinks that our diversity is a national emergency, not something to be embraced. The leader of the NDP is no better. When he needs people's votes he tweets, “diversity is a strength not a weakness. We were meant to stand out, not blend in”, and uses the hashtag #makeitawkward. When his convictions are truly tested, his voice is nowhere to be heard. His silence and lack of leadership blend in well among the Liberals, and the only awkward person here is him as he continues to empower the Prime Minister to treat hard-working Canadians as second-class citizens. What do the Oka crisis, the conflict at Caledonia, the Wet'suwet'en rail blockades, the B.C. pipeline protests and 9/11 all have in common? None of them warranted the use of the Emergencies Act. This is the first time we have had a Prime Minister audacious enough to invoke the Emergencies Act since it was created in 1988, and Canadians know he is doing so as a power grab. This is an example of political gamesmanship, not political statesmanship. Constituents, Canadians and legal practitioners all agree that invoking the Emergencies Act is unwarranted and unwanted. Do the Liberal members opposite and those in the NDP whose votes would be required to pass this motion have the courage to do what Canadians are demanding of them and oppose this motion? I do. I hope they find it within themselves to rise above the political fray and do the right thing.

1359 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

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

Mr. Glen Motz

Feb/17/22 4:06:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my answer will not be as long as the member's question. However, I will say that in some of those circumstances, the situation was as serious or more serious than what we face today. The Emergencies Act was not invoked then and it should not be invoked now.

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/17/22 4:07:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague was speaking, we got a notification about a perimeter being erected around Ottawa's downtown just a few metres from here. Apparently the police are preparing to intervene. Things are getting more and more serious now. All of this could have been avoided. Here is my question for my colleague. What happens next? Is there any way to avoid chaos, physical confrontation and injury? Are we headed straight for a bloodbath?

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Glen Motz

Feb/17/22 4:07:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, absolutely and unequivocally, there is an opportunity to prevent any sort of injury, property damage, loss of life or violence, and it starts by the government actually, as our leader said the other day, extending an olive branch and meeting with the occupiers. I have met with the organizers here in Ottawa, and all they wanted to do was meet with a minister, even via Zoom, to feel listened to. They do not feel listened to. They do not feel heard. They feel that they have been pushed aside by an ideology that they do not adhere to, and therefore they are second-class citizens. We still can avoid this issue if the government swallows its pride and does what should have been done right away: meet with somebody and then listen to their concerns.

137 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Feb/17/22 4:08:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member, who speaks so highly of how peaceful it was here in Alberta and how peaceful what was happening in Coutts was, that Albertans lost almost $50 million a day. On February 14, the RCMP arrested 11 people who were charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and that was against our own police. If that is not violence, and if that is not urgent and an emergency, I do not know what is. There were 14 firearms found there, as well as body armour, a machete and huge quantities of ammunition. These are serious issues that are in our country and in our province, and we have lost hugely. Would the member explain why he, and even members from our province, would stand with these folks who were terrorizing many people across our province, including the ones in Ottawa?

147 words

All Topics