44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 5:55:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, tonight I make an appeal to every Canadian. We are a nation on the brink. Our country has not been tested like this in a generation.
After two long years that have tested nearly every one of the societal systems that sustain our peace, health and prosperity, we have reached a tipping point of confluent crises. Many cannot afford food, energy and housing. Our health care system is broken. Many have lost jobs and are struggling with the burden of a loss of identity and meaning that comes from work. Many are struggling with children who have had more days out of school than in—
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:55:39 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I may have missed it because I was sidetracked, but I am wondering if the member mentioned that she was splitting her time.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:55:52 p.m.
- Watch
Yes, Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Fundy Royal.
Many are struggling with barriers, magnified over the last two years, such as racism, misogyny, bigotry and poverty. All of us, whether we admit it or not, are struggling with the trauma that comes from the loss of personal control that happens when our freedoms are restricted, when trust in government institutions and democratic systems is eroded, when we are in conflict with one another, and when there is a lack of clarity on when or if life will ever return to what it once was. Most of us are guilty of finding solace in social media algorithms, politicians and news outlets that discourage us from finding common ground with one another while rewarding us when we calcify or radicalize our beliefs.
To the convoy in front of Parliament HIll, let me be clear. Protest can be peaceful but still break the law, and the blockade occurring in downtown Ottawa is breaking the law. Trucks have never been allowed to legally be parked in the middle of a major thoroughfare, or on the Ambassador Bridge, or at the middle of border crossings.
To those who are illegally blockading public infrastructure, the law must be respected. They must move out, and not afford the federal government the opportunity to attempt to justify the use of the Emergencies Act with recalcitrance.
To those who do not believe COVID restrictions should come to an end, let me also be clear. As one of my Liberal colleagues stated last week, not everyone can work from the comfort of home. Precious few of the class of politicians and bureaucrats who have been making the decisions to extend restrictions, with no plan to do the heavy lifting of fixing the broken systems, have actually experienced the conditions of frontline workers in Canada over the last two years. If they cannot find empathy and common ground with the people who bear the burden of their restrictions, then they have lost the authority to be in their position. Be better and rise to the occasion.
To those who would inflame these frustrations and divisions with rhetoric, outright lies, diversions, borderline slander, conspiracy, uncompassionate behaviour and hate for their own political or personal gain, instead of leading us through the breach, for shame. Left or right, we will resist them with critical thinking, understanding and radical compassion.
To those who would use these frustrations and division to preach violence against leaders, frontline workers and those who do not share their brand of rigid world view, for shame. Left or right, right or left, we will resist them with the law and with courage.
To those who would use these frustrations and divisions to suggest that our democracy should be overthrown or thrown out, for shame. Left or right, right or left, we will resist them by fighting to protect our democratic system, strengthening it and cherishing it.
I turn now to the matter at hand, which is the historic and unprecedented decision by a Prime Minister of our nation to invoke the Emergencies Act. A representative democracy only survives when it can demonstrate to the people who put the trust of their liberties into it that their voices will be heard, that due process will be given, that the independence of the judiciary will be upheld, that Parliament will reign supreme and that the rule of law will be maintained.
Over the past several years, we have witnessed the federal government attempt to take the Speaker of the House of Commons to court. We have seen the firing of Canada's solicitor general over refusals to interfere in the independence of the judiciary. We have seen the suspension of Parliament, massive spending with minimal scrutiny, hiding of documents, delayed freedom of information requests, underfunded auditors and more. We have also seen federal COVID restrictions extended with no metrics or end game. Not once has the current government demonstrated that it will give back the power that it took from the people of Canada. For that reason, the Emergencies Act, in the hands of this Liberal government, should be opposed.
The federal government has not demonstrated to Canadians that existing laws and measures, which are bound by judicial oversight, are not sufficient to end the illegal blockades. That is, there is no evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act.
In Ottawa, systemic failures of local law enforcement and delayed reaction by all levels of government likely have led us to this juncture. However, the federal government has not made a compelling case that the suspending of normal democratic processes via the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve the situation. The reality is that the federal government went from doing virtually nothing about the crisis to invoking the nuclear option that is the Emergencies Act. At a time when they are asking Canadians to trust them, the members of the government are not providing briefings to parliamentarians on the situation or on what action they have or have not taken.
There are many existing laws that could be used by the federal government, but it has not explained why or how they are not sufficient, which undermines the argument of proportionality. For example, while many Liberal partisans will say they cannot direct the police, the fact is that the federal government very much can offer direction to both the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act states:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer, to be known as the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to hold office during pleasure
This section actually provides this type of direction.
In another example, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has the power to direct the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.
The federal government also has the authority under section 273.6 of the National Defence Act to issue directions authorizing the Canadian Forces to provide assistance in respect of any law enforcement matter if the Governor in Council or the minister, as the case may be, looks at several considerations.
All of this is to say that the federal government had multiple legal options when it came to showing some leadership to put an end to this crisis through law enforcement and prosecutorial means. Instead, the Liberals chose to go straight to the Emergencies Act, without justification to Parliament. In fact, blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the Coutts Crossing were resolved prior to its invocation. This lack of clarity is reason enough for opposition.
The Liberals insist that these measures are compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the Emergencies Act itself states that any temporary measures must be compliant with the charter and the Bill of Rights. However, many civil liberties advocates and experts have already expressed concerns that the OIC, the Order in Council, has many issues with respect to the right of Canadians to peacefully assemble under section 2, the right of all Canadians to life, liberty and security of person. Under section 7, for example, how can they conscript towing companies without violating their liberty? Section 8 provides protections against unreasonable search and seizure. How can they freeze assets or report transactions without violating this section?
The Liberals argue that all such violations are reasonable limits and justifiable under section 1 as proportionate to the objective of clearing the blockades. The issue with section 1 arguments is that these matters are for the courts to determine through well-established legal processes like the Oakes test. All of this could take a much longer time than the Emergencies Act could be in effect, but would have an impact on the actions taken while it was in effect.
To justify the use of the act, the Liberals should table a charter statement to further explain their reasoning as to why and how what they are proposing is charter compliant. The fact that they have not done this is reason to oppose the act.
Further, the Liberals have not engaged the Privacy Commissioner to demonstrate how Canadians' right to privacy would be maintained. Today I wrote to the commissioner to ask him to begin an inquiry into this matter.
The illegal blockades in Ottawa must end. The escalation of rhetoric and tension in our country must end. COVID restrictions must end. A path forward to empower and inspire Canadians in coming through the brokenness of the last two years is what we should be focused on at this juncture, not extending government power over the people of Canada without jurisdiction or justification.
This is an unprecedented use of power in Canada. We should be looking for every way possible to de-escalate the situation, as was done at the Ambassador Bridge and at the Coutts border crossing using existing processes. The use of the act should never be normalized. In debate today, I fear it is becoming so.
Our nation needs hope. We need to come together. Further extending the power of the federal government without scrutiny, without use of oversight by the judiciary, will not heal these divisions. For that reason, I believe the act should be opposed.
I call on every Canadian watching this debate tonight to come together in unity and move forward through the crisis of the pandemic.
1578 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:05:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to read a quote.
What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada.
That is a quote from February 14 from Peter MacKay, a previous member of Parliament, as I am sure this member knows very well.
I am curious if she could comment as to whether or not she agrees with Peter MacKay's assessment of what is going on.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:05:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, former minister MacKay was faced with many national crises and many instances when he had to use his power as a minister to help de-escalate situations in the country. That is the exact opposite of what the government has done.
At this juncture, instead of trying to seize power from Canadians, we should be trying to give it back to them. That does not mean that these blockades should not end; they should. The federal government should be assisting law enforcement in doing so. However, instead of it looking at ways to de-escalate the situation and give power back to Canadians, the Liberal government is doing the opposite. For that reason, this act should be opposed.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:06:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and the references she made to democracy. Today, my democracy is suffering. I am concerned about my democracy. It seems to me that the Emergencies Act or the War Measures Act is the final weapon in a democracy.
This week, we heard protesters say that they would keep going and would not stand down. That is usually a left-wing slogan, but now we are hearing it from the right. However, as the member mentioned, the left and the right are no longer relevant here.
The government's attitude is that it is going to plow ahead. However, at some point, we must talk to one another. The government did not show leadership on this. Is my colleague's democracy suffering today as well?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:07:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we should be trying to find ways to de-escalate tension and find common ground instead of using division and escalation of tension for personal or political gain. This is something that has happened far too long in this country, and it needs to stop. Our country is at a breaking point right now. We need to figure out how to make people have hope, how to feed them and how to fix our broken health care system. That is what people are looking to us for.
The use of the Emergencies Act is unprecedented and unnecessary. It does not secure our democracy; in fact, it erodes it, and for that reason, I will be opposing it.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:08:02 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, uqaqtitiji. I would like to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her statement.
Yesterday we heard from the member opposite that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis or the crisis at Caledonia, but these are not comparable to today's realities. The Emergencies Act is a drastic measure for the sole purpose of protecting our safety. For the last three weeks continuing to today, our safety continues to be threatened.
We have heard today from the member's party in a way that I interpret as trying to minimize the dangers being posed by these extremists. Can the member explain why her party has chosen to ignore the behaviour of these extremists while it continues to put Canadians' safety at risk?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:08:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we need to respect the rights of indigenous and first nations persons in Canada.
At this juncture, I believe that the illegal blockades in Ottawa must end. I said that throughout my speech. I also outlined how the federal government could be using many of the tools that are at its disposal or could have used them in the past, but instead chose the nuclear option of the Emergencies Act. This benefits no one. This power grab takes away power from everyone in Canada, including first nations and indigenous persons. We should not be supporting it. We should be trying to find ways to come together, to uphold the rule of law while resolving our differences without giving further power to the Government of Canada.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:10:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in this House this evening on what is a very important matter. Today we are debating the unprecedented measures the government is taking by invoking the never-before-used Emergencies Act.
I want to be clear that I am not arguing that there is no place in law for the Emergencies Act. What I am arguing, along with many others, is that it is a completely disproportionate tool to effectively deal with these protests and that the government's rationale for using it has way too many potholes to even begin to enumerate.
The predecessor legislation to the Emergencies Act, the War Measures Act, was used only three times: once in World War I, once in World War II and then in the FLQ crisis in the seventies. In order to even think about invoking the Emergencies Act, we have to look at the context in which its predecessor legislation was used and how rarely, in fact, it was implemented.
Number one, there has to be a national emergency. When we look at how the act itself defines a national emergency, the act describes a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. Now we all know that the protests are not an “urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature”. I am sure the Prime Minister would have jumped into action 20 days ago if that was indeed the case.
Regarding the act's requirement that a national emergency be of a temporary nature, that part I can agree with, because the situation has been so temporary. In fact, all of the blockades at the international border between Canada and the U.S. had already been cleared before the Emergencies Act was ever implemented, completely without the benefit of this legislation.
The definition goes on to say that a national emergency “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”. Let us be honest: The truckers parked outside of Parliament today do not seriously endanger the lives of Canadians. Again, when it comes to international border crossings, the provinces have both the capacity and the authority to bring that to an end, and indeed they already have.
The act goes on to describe a national emergency as one that “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” If an emergency does not fit that description, then the Emergencies Act is not to be used. If a few hundred parked trucks pose a threat to the preservation of the sovereignty and security of Canada, one of the greatest countries in the world, a G7 country, that is a sobering testament of the government's dismal and failed leadership, leaving our country so vulnerable that its very existence could be called into question by a group of protesters on Wellington Street.
When we look at this situation through the vantage point that we have of being here in Ottawa, I think it is very clear to all members in this House that the threshold for a national emergency simply has not been met, but, for argument's sake, let us say that the Prime Minister and his entire Liberal caucus truly and sincerely believe that the trucks parked on the street just outside these doors are a real emergency requiring unprecedented action from the federal government. To that I would just have to say, what a sad state of affairs. If this is what an emergency looks like to the Liberal government, what incredibly privileged lives they must lead, compared to the experiences that my own constituents in Fundy Royal have had over the past two years in facing the dire ramifications and consequences of lockdowns. Back home, an emergency looks like the gym owner who has lost their business after two years of personal sacrifices in the hope of keeping their business afloat; an emergency can look like the single mom who lost her job because of the government's vaccine mandate and then had that same government tell her, cruelly, that she could not collect employment insurance.
Ultimately, Liberals are trying to use unprecedented emergency powers to respond to an event that does not even meet the threshold of a national emergency as described in the act itself. While the emergency that the Liberals say they are trying to address is not an actual emergency, the consequences and infringements on the civil liberties and rights that we so dearly hold as Canadians are very real.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated yesterday that the government “has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act”. It also warns of a threat facing our democracy and civil liberties if the Emergencies Act is inappropriately applied, as it clearly is in this case. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association just today called on Liberal members and all members of the House to vote against this and for the Prime Minister to revoke the Emergencies Act.
Crises we faced as a nation without invoking the Emergencies Act include, in 1990, the Oka crisis, a 78-day standoff between Mohawk protestors, law enforcement and the Canadian Armed Forces; in 2006, a group of extremists now known as the Toronto 18 plotting to carry out violent attacks here on Parliament Hill; and in 2010, the G20 protests, which turned to riots in Canada's largest city, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damages. Toronto's chief of police at the time was none other than the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness. It was also not invoked on October 22, 2014, when, as many members of the House will remember, there was a terrorist attack on Parliament Hill and the War Memorial, which killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo before Centre Block itself was stormed.
These were serious and at times fatal incidents that were entirely more dangerous and destructive than the truckers parked outside. The government invoking the Emergencies Act at this time just does not add up. Invoking the Emergencies Act bypasses the democratic process. We cannot become complacent and allow these unprecedented powers to become a tool of government to shut down dissent that it does not like. Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are never guaranteed. These principles require constant vigilance to defend. Canada was built on the foundation of these principles, and we cannot allow cracks to form.
Two days ago, I met with a man who immigrated to Canada from Romania. He had tears in his eyes and said that it was a sad day for him. He lost his father to the Romanian regime under a brutal dictator and came to Canada in hopes of finding freedom. Coming from a totalitarian regime where one is persecuted for one's political beliefs, he recognizes what he sees here. It is hard to imagine what it must feel like to live in a country where a person is not allowed to think or speak freely without being under the threat of persecution, but this gentleman I spoke with knows it all too well. The division being sowed by the Prime Minister and the great lengths he is going to stomp out dissenting opinions are much too familiar.
That is what this is. The Prime Minister is trying to eradicate any opinions that do not match his. This is a political crisis for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's instinct, unfortunately, and we have all seen it in the House over and over, as recently as yesterday, is to divide. We know that not everyone who disagrees with the government is a racist, misogynist or white supremacist, but it is a lot better for him if everybody thinks that. Just yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister accused a young Jewish member of Parliament of standing with swastikas. We might be wondering what triggered him to make such a disgusting statement. The member for Thornhill dared to ask the Prime Minister when he lost his way, since he stated in 2015 that if Canadians were going to trust their government, their government needed to trust Canadians. It speaks volumes that pointing out his own hypocrisy sent the Prime Minister into this rage.
The Prime Minister has no problem joining in protests that are promoting the ideology he agrees with. We all know this in the House. When he agrees with it and it is a good look for his brand, he is there. Now that the protests do not align with his views, he is going for the nuclear option of invoking the Emergencies Act. The thing about being the leader of a free and fair democracy like Canada is that we do not get to pick and choose who gets to speak out and on what issues. The Prime Minister does not get to unilaterally suppress the civil liberties of people he does not like. That is what dictators do.
All Canadians should be concerned by the actions of the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. All Canadians should be concerned when a group is targeted by the federal government for its political beliefs. Indeed, all Canadians should be concerned by the precedent being set by the government. I will be proud to vote in opposition to this government overreach.
1602 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:20:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In accordance with Standing Order 43(2)(a), I would like to indicate that the remaining Conservative Party of Canada caucus speaking slots are hereby divided by two.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:20:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have heard the words of my colleague on the other side of the House. As a Jewish member of Parliament and a descendant of survivors of the Holocaust as well, I, like many Canadians, was shocked to see Nazi and Confederate flags. I was dismayed, angry and horribly hurt.
How many Nazi flags does it take? How many donors from the U.S. Capitol riots does it take? It is 1,100 people and counting who have donated to these illegal blockades. How many guns need to be seized? How much vitriol like “honk honk”, which is a term for “Heil Hitler”, do we need to see by these protesters on social media? How many times do we have to see clear indicators that what is out there is not about the hard two years that every Canadian has suffered? This is about something much deeper, darker and uglier that is threatening the stability of the House, the work that we do as legislators each and every day for our constituents and the democracy that we have to uphold.
When will it be an emergency for you and your colleagues across the floor—
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:22:20 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member knows full well that she needs to address her questions and comments through the Chair. I have been trying to signal the member because there are other people who would like to ask questions as well.
The hon. member for Fundy Royal.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:22:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly all members of the House denounce anti-Semitism of all kinds. The Conservatives have been saying that it is time to move on; it is time for the trucks to go. We have been saying that, but what is very clear is that the Emergencies Act is an absolutely inappropriate tool. Seizing the bank accounts of individuals who we disagree with because of their political beliefs is unprecedented and it is wrong.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:23:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fundy Royal for his speech and for rising to oppose the Emergencies Act. I am doing so as well. I remember that, in question period either last week or the week before, because this situation has been going on for three weeks, the government was asked why it was not taking action, why it was not moving, why it was not doing anything about the protesters. The answer was that it was up to Ottawa police to handle the situation. Three weeks later, the government invoked the Emergencies Act. It makes no sense. How did we get to this point?
The Ottawa police chief announced that they are finally going to take action. What is the member expecting to happen this weekend?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:24:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister at one point said that measures like this should be a last resort, but in this case it was his first resort. He did nothing to de-escalate it. In fact, as many people have said, he has thrown gasoline on embers. All the border crossings are open. I walk among the protesters every night on my way to my apartment from this place and they have been peaceful. Everyone in the House knows they have been peaceful. This is an inappropriate tool to use on a peaceful protest.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:24:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to the member's final comment, it is clear that Ottawa residents would disagree completely. Some residents have been the target of racist, misogynistic and homophobic attacks by people involved in this illegal occupation.
Let us be clear. This has lasted as long as it has in part because of the way in which the Conservatives, including the Conservative leader, have aided and abetted the illegal occupation. Just today we heard from news media that a Conservative MP was giving a thumbs-up to members of the illegal occupation.
What will it take for the Conservatives to condemn the illegal occupation and take a stand against those who want to overthrow democracy and against movements led by white supremacists?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:25:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of members in the House seem to be confused. If something is an emergency or an inconvenience or if there is something we want to change or disagree with, it is a matter of debate. The fact of the matter is, to enact the Emergencies Act, the territorial integrity, security and sovereignty of Canada have to be at risk. No one can seriously claim that the protest on Wellington Street is impacting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of our country. If it is, we have bigger problems than we think.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind members that if they do not stand, I cannot acknowledge them because I do not know they want to speak.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:26:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize for not rising. I am still working on my new knees.
I am honoured to rise tonight in one of the most important debates we have had in this place in the time I have been a member of Parliament, and I am on the horns of a dilemma.
I want to acknowledge that I am standing on the traditional territory of the people of the Algonquin nation. Their patience and tolerance with us is indeed generous, and I say meegwetch.
This is a very difficult debate, and it is difficult for many reasons. One reason for me is that I have not yet decided how I will vote, neither has my parliamentary colleague for Kitchener Centre. We are looking deeply at the Emergencies Act and its implications, including the downsides, which are evident, and the need for it, which remains a question.
This speech will be more legalistic than usual. I am essentially going to go through an exercise of statutory interpretation, compare it with the facts and see where we are. I am actually grappling with two questions tonight: How do we vote, and how do we analyze the legal questions?
In this debate today, and from 7 a.m. until midnight tomorrow, as well as the day after, the day after, and part of Monday too, we are going to hear debate not grounded in statutory interpretation, but filled with a lot of emotion. A lot of charges and countercharges will be heard. Both sides have already generously festooned this debate with wedge issues and red herrings. However, I certainly think Canadians, the citizens of this country, need to know what we are talking about, and I will do my best to bring it home.
The first question is this: What is the Emergencies Act?
It is very important to say it is not the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act, as used by the current Prime Minister's father, Pierre Trudeau, in the FLQ crisis, was an egregious violation of rights and freedoms right across the country. It was a suspension of civil liberties everywhere all at once. It was directed against people of Quebec, and even people with no connection whatsoever to anything radical, who were merely political opponents of the government of the day, were rounded up.
There was an official apology in the last session of Parliament. By the way, when the War Measures Act was invoked in the 1970s, police in Vancouver rode into peace camps and started beating people up, because civil liberties were gone right across Canada, and they did not need to have a reason. This is not that.
The Emergencies Act is the work, which I have to say impresses me, of reflective parliamentarians who gathered in the 1980s, when they had no imminent emergency to which they had to respond. They looked at public welfare, such as a pandemic, and how we would respond to that. Would we need the Emergencies Act, and what kind of emergencies would it be for? They looked at war. They looked at natural disasters, and they looked at the situation the government has now invoked, the declaration we are debating tonight, which is of the public order emergency category.
However, when they did that work, those parliamentarians made it clear that this act, by its very language, meant the military could not be called in. By its very language, it says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be honoured, and unlike the War Measures Act, it created parliamentary oversight, part of which we are doing here tonight. For any government using this declaration for an emergency, Parliament must debate the matter and vote within seven sitting days. As well, Parliament will have a committee to continue to oversee what takes place under the Emergencies Act to make sure it conforms to the law. As well, 20 members of Parliament and 10 senators, at any time during the 30-day life of this emergency declaration, can gather and request that we debate it again and vote again.
So, in a minority Parliament, this does suggest that the executive, in others words the cabinet and the Prime Minister, do not have the power to call the Emergencies Act. Obviously, they have done the declaration and it is in effect right now, but there is parliamentary oversight, something that was not present under the War Measures Act.
This is described as a public order emergency. Under the Emergencies Act, that is “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”.
In analyzing this definition, it turns out that the words “threats to the security of Canada” might not mean what one might take as a plain meaning when we think to ourselves what a threat to security is. No, it is specifically described as being the meaning that we would find in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. We go to another act to find the definition for threats to the security of Canada.
This is fascinating. I think I may be the first one to mention it. Threats to the security of Canada in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act is defined with four points to describe it. I will read only (b) because that is the one that most applies in this circumstance. According to the act, threats to the security of Canada include:
(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
The second part of that definition that we get from the Emergencies Act itself says that not only must it be a threat to the security of Canada, such as the one I just read out in definitions from the Security Intelligence Service Act, it must also be so serious as to be a national emergency.
For the national emergency definition, as others have referenced in the House, we go back to the Emergency Act:
3. For the purposes of this Act, 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
I question whether that test been met, whether that threshold been met. That takes further interpretation based on the facts. I personally, and I found this in the declaration itself, so the government is also troubled by this, am troubled by the foreign influence aspect of what we are seeing across Canada.
The declaration which we are debating tonight includes the point that the protests “have become a rallying point for anti-government and anti-authority, anti-vaccination, conspiracy theory and white supremacist groups throughout Canada and other Western countries.” It says, “The protesters have varying ideological grievances, with demands ranging from an end to all public health restrictions to the overthrow of the elected government”.
That does seem very consistent with our first question about whether this is a threat to the security of Canada, under the meaning in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, when foreign influenced activities within or related to Canada are detrimental to the interests of Canada, such as blocking access to trade, blocking communities and shutting down communities. Also, are they clandestine or deceptive? Yes they are, if the money is coming from overseas, people are using anonymous email addresses and they are sending money into Canada for the purpose of disrupting our nation.
What is that purpose? Where do we find further evidence of what foreign influence might be attempting to visit on Canada, but also on other political regimes? This is from yesterday's Associated Press: “How American cash for Canada protests could sway US politics”. In this article, a series of journalists working for Associated Press makes the case that this convoy and the various protests across Canada under the banner of “freedom convoy” is “really aimed at energizing conservative politics in the U.S. [and elsewhere].Republicans think standing with protesters up north will galvanize fundraising and voter turnout”.
No wonder we have luminaries of the far right south of the border such as Texan Republican Ted Cruz and Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene calling the protesters in Canada heroes and patriots. They are the darlings of Fox News right now. Senator Rand Paul said that he hopes the truckers come to the United States and “clog up cities”. In other words, one aspect of what raises this to the level of national emergency is that it also has tentacles. The longer it goes on here, the more it is intended to inspire disruptions in other economies, including our number one trading partner. Does it rise to the level of a national emergency?
This is a harder one for me. Does it rise to the level of a national emergency? We have seen blockades being removed. They were geographically easier. There were fewer people. The logistics of the Ambassador Bridge is not the same as what is going on right now outside this place, and I disagree with colleagues in this place who have said that, if we are here in Parliament, it means it is safe. That is not the case.
Friends of mine in this place and members of their staff have had feces thrown at them as they go back and forth to work. We have had people yell at us and abuse us, as we try to go through the streets. Be that at the moment I am someone with a disability, I cannot get here at all without Parliamentary Protective Service protection and assistance. No, it is not our usual Parliament Hill. We do not feel safe here.
Going to the next point of evidence that I want to bring before us, I am very concerned about the nature of our safety and security here. We are not just any city in Canada. We are the national capital. We have attracted a certain type, and I am not going to put a broad brush on everybody who showed up in Ottawa to support the convey. Clearly there are people there thinking it is sort of like a street party. There are people there who are not politically radicalized, but the thread that runs through all of this is a radicalization with an inherent threat of violence.
That came forward more clearly than anything in the Guardian today, in a very chilling article by a Canadian reporter, who I must say I have known for years. My goodness, Justin Ling is distinguishing himself in this crisis as someone who actually goes out, does reporting and digs up information. Today, in the Guardian, the headline was, “Canada was warned before protests that violent extremists infiltrated convoy”.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner made a point earlier today to excuse the protest. He said, it is not their fault, they were infiltrated. Exactly. According to the article in the Guardian today by Canadian journalist Justin Ling, assessments from Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, known as ITAC, which is part of Security Intelligence Service Canada, or CSIS, reported before the convoy got near Ottawa that the convoy organizers “advocated civil war”.
Convoy organizers hold up the U.S. January 6 insurrection against a fair democratic election promoting the lie that the election was Trump's and it was stolen from him. They hold that up as their model. According to Justin Ling, CSIS and ITAC warned the City of Ottawa police that this was the nature of what was coming to Ottawa.
It was not a secret. They left with great fanfare to drive across the country. When this is all over, we will have to find out what happened within the chain of command in the Ottawa police to ignore these warnings. Some officers, not all necessarily, all but welcomed the convoy. There are reports from local Ottawa journalists that when they interviewed truck drivers, they said that they only planned to stay a little while but then the police told them they could go park on Wellington, and they would not have to leave for a very long time.
Had those truckers not been truckers, but indigenous people coming to assert rights on indigenous territory, they would not have been allowed to get a single stick into the ground to construct a single thing before being arrested quite quickly, or had they been people of colour, or environmentalists. My goodness, look at how we treat camps of homeless people, moving in brutally. The Emergencies Act has not been needed to knock over lots of homeless people in lots of brutal police takedowns.
We know right now that there is an intention on the part of many of these convoy participants to not leave. I do not want to worry about every social media crank that puts things up on Twitter, but I know that freedom convoy social media is saying to get downtown to Victoria to take the Legislature, and they are not going to leave until all the mandates are gone. Forget public health advice. They are going to demand that the government goes, that the mandates goes. Who knows?
It was also reported in this article about warnings from ITAC that it thought the use of vehicles, trucks and fuel could present a real significant threat of violence.
All too often, those of us here in Parliament have wondered and asked security forces whether anyone knows what is in all those trucks. We do not know, so I think we have, clearly, a situation that has been allowed to become intolerable and dangerous, but I am still not comfortable voting for the motion, and I will tell members why.
The emergency measures regulations, as described, are overly broad. When the Prime Minister said this was coming forward, he said it would be geographically circumscribed to the specific areas where we see that normal lines of authority and protections for public life and health are missing. We have an emergency. That is clear. This was promised to be very limited and specific, but the emergency measures regulations define infrastructure as basically everything and then say it applies right across Canada. The designation of protected places under section 6 of the regulations is far too broad and applies to all of Canada.
That is a concern I have. I also know I have heard many people ask for clarity. At what level of financial donation, or financial support of illegal activities, does one's bank account get seized? I highly doubt the Government of Canada plans to seize the bank account of anyone who made a $20 donation on GoFundMe to the “freedom convoy”. I doubt it. I think we are looking for proximate connection: the kind that will exert the pressure that makes the convoy go away.
Where are the pressure points? They are insurance, finances, registration and the chance to make a living as a trucker when this is all over. I do not think the Liberals intend to go after a $20 bank account donation, but I have not heard them say that. I am not comfortable voting until I see more clarity that circumscribes the overly broad reach of the regulations.
I will also say I hear from many people, virtually all the time, asking how we know this will not establish a precedent that allows a crackdown on civil liberties. I want to read one more section into the record very specifically. This is from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, in the definition that has been transplanted into the motion we are debating tonight. It addresses what is a threat to the security of Canada, and it says, at the bottom of the paragraph of which I have only read subsection (b), it “does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to above.”
I feel quite secure. I do not plan to get arrested again. It was not fun. It was way outside of my comfort zone and the judge hated me, so I got a much more significant fine than my friend, who is now the mayor of Vancouver. I do not plan to go out and get arrested again, but I believe that non-violent civil disobedience is a vital part of our democracy. It traces its roots all the way back to Henry David Thoreau in the 1800s. It was then picked up by the exemplar of non-violent civil disobedience, Mahatma Gandhi, and then taken up by Martin Luther King, Jr.
There are reasons why in a democracy we must have peaceful protest and the right and ability to break the law, if we believe that law to be unjust, but that does not include the right to destroy other people's lives and livelihoods in the process. That does not include a right to refuse to take the consequences of one's own actions or to say, “I will go quietly with you, officer.” That is the essence of what I did when I performed non-violent civil disobedience and what my colleague, the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change, did before he was in office. He also believed that something as important as the survival of life on earth and the climate crisis was worth giving up his own sense of safety for, by submitting himself to arrest.
These are complicated matters and complicated questions, and I would beg of all of us that we must listen to each other. I am so concerned that so many of my constituents believe it is actually a peaceful protest out there. They think it is. There is nothing peaceful about hunks of metal taking over a city. Trucks do not have charter rights. Honking a horn, as the judge said in granting the injunction, is not an expression of free speech. These trucks should have been stopped before they got anywhere near the centre of our national capital. They were not. That is what constitutes the emergency, but I need the government to show me that the regulations will be tightened up before I can vote for this.
3123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
