SoVote

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

Mr. Glen Motz

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

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Feb/17/22 4:11:02 p.m.
Watch

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

1538 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Feb/17/22 4:20:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the member's intervention today, I was reflecting on a joint statement from Canada's unions on the Ottawa occupation from February 9, 2022. It states: Canada’s unions have fought for generations for the right to protest. This is a cornerstone of our democratic system. But what we have witnessed on the streets of Canada’s capital…is something different altogether. Instead, they refer to what is happening outside this chamber as “an occupation by an angry mob trying to disguise itself as a peaceful protest.” This joint statement calls on the federal government to quickly deliver urgently needed supports to workers and businesses affected. Can the member please share how aligning himself with an occupation that has shut down workers and businesses is in the best interests of Canadians?

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Feb/17/22 4:21:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, who I have aligned myself with are the Canadian people who have rights under our Constitution and who do not deserve to have those rights trampled upon because there is a protest taking place in a few city blocks of Ottawa. This does not meet the threshold of the Emergencies Act. As much as the Liberals want to say it does, the only emergency is a political emergency for the Prime Minister who has utterly failed this country and who has utterly failed to deliver the leadership that he is supposed to give. There is no need for the Emergencies Act. Anything that has been described can be dealt with under existing legislation and under existing tools. The idea that we need to use this draconian act when its predecessor has only been used three times, during world wars and during times when people were being kidnapped and explosions were happening in the streets, and to compare that to what is happening outside of Parliament is ridiculous. We need to reject the Emergencies Act provisions immediately.

178 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/17/22 4:22:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is incorrect. This piece of legislation has never been enacted before. He is trying to suggest that the Emergencies Act is the same thing as the War Measures Act, and he could not be further from the truth. They are completely different and call on different measures. What I find most alarming is that this member wants to align himself with a group outside, a group whose first objective in their calls to action is, if we can believe this, to have the Governor General of Canada and the Senate get together to overthrow a democratically elected Parliament and set up a citizen advisory committee of Canadians that will then govern the country. That is what this member is aligning himself with when he supports the people outside.

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Feb/17/22 4:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon, member, being so terrified of what he sees outside, found his way into the House of Commons. It must have been very difficult for him to walk past the bouncy castles and the kids' play area to get inside. This is a ridiculous argument. The idea that somehow a manifesto by a few people on the Internet is a threat to the national security of the country, is a clear and present danger to the national security of our country, is absolutely ridiculous. This is a protest that has gone on. We have said, quite clearly, that it is time for the individuals there to move their trucks or to have them moved. That can all be done through existing legislation. I know that this member and his government like to control Canadians. They like to gather all the power they can. We need to reject this draconian overreach and do it today.

160 words

All Topics

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Feb/17/22 4:24:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. My question is about something the government said to him just now about how the Emergencies Act and the War Measures Act are completely different. I think they are brushing off concerns and being a little too simplistic in their attempts to dissociate the two. Could my colleague comment on that? After all, there are a few little similarities between these two acts. Moreover, neither of these two pieces of legislation, the current one or the former one, is called for right now.

92 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Strahl

Feb/17/22 4:25:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I said that it was the predecessor to the Emergencies Act, which is demonstrably true. I think it is quite simply ridiculous. I heard another Liberal member say just before that the government has done an impeccable job of managing this situation. I think Canadians would disagree. It has been a catastrophe. However, the government's catastrophe and the failure of the Prime Minister does not justify the use of an Emergencies Act to punish Canadians for voicing views that are outside of what the government finds acceptable. This can all be managed under current laws, as it has been done at the Ambassador Bridge, Coutts, Emerson and Surrey. These have all been managed without the draconian overreach of the Emergencies Act. The House must oppose this action.

130 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33