SoVote

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:27:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree. I think this conversation has been quite divisive. That is concerning. I understand why people are angry and frustrated. It has been a long two years for us all, but I am wondering if my hon. colleague would agree with me that some of the images we are seeing in terms of police involvement, some of the reports and some of the clips we have seen with police hugging people blocking borders, are concerning. A former RCMP officer is one of the organizers as is former military. Should that require a public inquiry?

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Tony Baldinelli

Feb/17/22 10:28:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we all believe in the rights of Canadians to peacefully protest, and I think we all agree that some of the images and actions we have seen are not to be tolerated or allowed. We said weeks ago that we believe this blockade should end and that those truckers should go home. It is time for them to go home. It is time for this protest to be over. It is time for Canadians to start working together and stop playing these divisive games, so that we can do the best for all Canadians and get back to work.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:29:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean. Being a member of Parliament is an awesome responsibility. In our system, the 338 of us have enormous power to establish the laws of this nation and oversee the activities of our government. Each and every debate we have and each and every vote we take is important, but there are still some debates and votes that are more important than others. This is one of them. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked in its 34-year history. Any time we increase police powers or limit civil liberties, we have to ensure that what we are doing is reasonable and proportionate. This is an important debate and Canadians are watching us. We are all tired and frustrated after living with an epidemic for two years. Nerves are frayed. Politicians are passionate people and we often use overheated rhetoric, especially on social media. However, we need to turn down the volume. I have been watching the House over the last two weeks and growing more and more concerned. Last year, my friend, the Conservative member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, and I wrote an op-ed and reminded Canadians we can disagree without being disagreeable. Both he and I used to be mayors. In the municipal world there is far less partisanship. We can disagree about policy and vigorously debate while still being respectful, but I have not seen much of that over the last two weeks. There have been far too many personal attacks and insults and generalizations based on party membership, instead of respect for people as individuals. Most policy decisions are not black and white. They are grey. Let us show Canadians we can listen to one another and recognize that even if we disagree, we all love our country and are advocating for what we believe is best for it. We do not want to end up like our American neighbours, who over the last couple of years seem to sometimes live in two different realities depending on what cable news network they watch. That responsibility is not one man's; it is all of ours. Members should ask themselves two questions about the Emergencies Act. First, do we believe that the requirements of the act have been met, that is, does the situation meet the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act? Second, even if it does meet that definition, is invoking the act a good idea? On the question of whether or not the definition is met, we have to look at the circumstances we have been witness to over the past few weeks. The right to peaceably assemble is a core constitutional right under section 2 of our Charter of Rights. Freedom of expression is too. People have every right to complain about the government, including here on Parliament Hill. However, as many others have said before me, a blockade is not a peaceful assembly. Over the last several weeks, we have seen bylaw after bylaw flouted in Ottawa. Blockading streets with trucks, including residential streets, is not peaceful assembly. Honking horns all night long and polluting the air by running engines 24-7 is not peaceful assembly. Harassing and assaulting residents, threatening journalists and closing small businesses is not peaceful assembly. As we have seen, the blockades have had a confused leadership, with various ideological grievances ranging from ending all public health restrictions to overthrowing the elected government. Then these blockades expanded to border crossings across the country to impede the incredibly important trade relationship between Canada and the United States. The U.S. is our most important trading partner, with approximately $2 billion in goods travelling across the border each day. Over the last 10 days, there have been blockades or attempted blockades at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, at Sarnia's Blue Water Bridge, at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, in Emerson, Manitoba, in Coutts, Alberta, and in Surrey, B.C. These blockades have led to a disruption in the flow of goods and services, the cutting of shifts at Canadian manufacturing plants and concerns being raised in the United States about whether Canada remained a reliable trading partner. In addition to the blockades at the border, protesters attempted to impede access to the Ottawa airport and threatened to blockade railway lines. They also made bomb threats to hospitals, and noxious substances were mailed to MPs. People linked to the blockades in Coutts were arrested with a large quantity of ammunition, and four of them were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. I could go on, but my time is limited. In my view, the current situation meets the definition in section 3 of the act. However, that does not yet satisfy the second question legislators must ask. We also need to determine if we believe the use of the act is a good idea at this time. We need to weigh the need for public safety against the potential limitation of civil liberties. We need to determine if there are other and better ways of ending the blockades. I want to start by noting that for weeks Ottawa police were unable to manage the situation to anyone's satisfaction. Under our Constitution, policing powers are generally provincial and then delegated to municipalities. The only federal role would be offering support when asked. However, from the beginning, there were questions in the House from all parties about what the Government of Canada was doing to manage the situation. I was one of many who said that people did not care about jurisdiction here, that they just wanted all governments to work together to fix the problem. However, the problem was not getting fixed adequately. The police clearly needed more resources and more tools in the tool box, and somebody needed to step forward and take charge. Invoking this act is a way for the federal government to give police more tools in the tool box and to step in where necessary, which is exactly the leadership that was being asked for. I want to thank former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who is otherwise known today as Mark's dad, former minister Perrin Beatty and all the members of Parliament in 1988 who replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act. If it were the War Measures Act we were debating, I would be squarely against it. Under the War Measures Act, in the days before the charter and the Bill of Rights, we had gross violations of human rights, such as the roundup of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War. The Emergencies Act is very different. This act is subject to the Charter of Rights, it is subject to the Bill of Rights and it even makes note of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yes, there may be temporary added minor limits to civil liberties, but any such limits have to remain compliant with the charter. This means that any limitation to a right still must be reasonable in a free and democratic society. It also means the courts will continue to have oversight. It is somewhat ironic to me that various members who have complained about rights being limited here have themselves supported the use of the notwithstanding clause by provincial legislatures, which truly has the effect of undermining charter rights. I oppose the use of the notwithstanding clause in all circumstances. I also note it is important that members of Parliament have continually and rightly asked for involvement and oversight regarding decisions being made related to ending these blockades. The Emergencies Act provides exactly that oversight. The invocation of the act and any extension need to be authorized by Parliament. A parliamentary review committee consisting of MPs from all recognized parties and senators needs to be established to review the exercise of the powers under the act and report to Parliament at least once every 60 days. After the emergency is over, there has to be an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken for dealing with the inquiry. The last point I want to address is that some people think the act should not apply to certain provinces. That makes no sense to me. Two orders were made. The first concerns emergency economic measures, such as allowing insurance companies to cancel or suspend insurance for a vehicle involved in the illegal blockade. It would make no sense for that not to apply to a vehicle from the other side of the river, from Gatineau, involved in the blockade in Ottawa. It also allows banks to freeze the accounts of people participating in illegal activities. Here again, it would make no sense for that to apply to bank accounts belonging to people who reside in Ontario, but not to people residing in Quebec. In conclusion, I believe that invoking the act is indeed a reasonable, wise and proportional decision to take in the current context, and I support the motion.

1512 words

All Topics

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Feb/17/22 10:38:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the first part of the member's speech, I heard his concerns about heated rhetoric and things like that. I am wondering if he can comment on the Prime Minister's comments yesterday regarding one of my Jewish colleague's questions.

44 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather

Feb/17/22 10:39:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the type of question that, in my view, is part of the problem. I asked everybody on all sides to tone down the rhetoric. That is on my side and the other side. We all have that responsibility, all 338 of us. To single out one member when all of us have an equal responsibility is wrong. I personally want to say that I deeply appreciate the member for Thornhill. I enjoy working with her, and I will continue to work with her in a good way going forward.

94 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/17/22 10:39:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a planner. When I saw the 70-kilometre-long convoy headed this way, I thought there would be no problem. I thought there would be a plan in place that would involve coordination between various officials. Then I realized that that was not necessarily the case. On February 7, the federal government was asked to provide assistance, in the form of 1,800 police officers to support the city and law enforcement officials. Could that have been done earlier, on both the city side and the government side, and should 1,800 police officers have been sent, rather than 275?

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather

Feb/17/22 10:40:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is always very reasonable. As I think I said in my speech, we are all extremely disappointed by what has happened in Ottawa. For various reasons, the Ottawa police were unable to adequately address the situation. The federal government does have obligations, and it has taken action to increase resources in Ottawa. However, getting RCMP officers from all across the country to Ottawa does take time. They have to be flown or bused in, and they have to be trained on exactly what is happening on the ground here. These things take time. The federal government has now assumed its responsibilities, and that is what we are debating today.

117 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:41:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing some humanity back to the chamber tonight. This pandemic is a story of sacrifice and solidarity. It is one of grief and loss. It is one of heroes. While the majority of Canadians have done all they can to get us through this pandemic, there are a sinister few who have decided to capitalize on Canadians' kindness and good nature and sabotage our social fabric. Does the member agree that there are sinister actors here whose actions are meant to hurt Canadians, significantly and negatively impact Canada's reputation and economy, and destabilize our civil peace?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather

Feb/17/22 10:42:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who always speaks so intelligently in this chamber. Yes, I think there are such people, and I think the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells gave a great description in his speech of what was happening.

45 words

All Topics

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

Feb/17/22 10:42:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to echo what the member just said about the member for Mount Royal. The tone of the member's comments was, as ever, extremely helpful. We need to lower the temperature in this place and be honest with Canadians about the difficulties we face and why it is important to distinguish between what the War Measures Act was and what the Emergencies Act is. The Mulroney government repealed the War Measures Act and put in place a far more thoughtful piece of legislation that does not in any way suspend civil liberties. However, I still have concerns about it. I ask the hon member for Mount Royal if he believes that in the course of this debate we might even see some changes from the government in terms of the regulations, to be very specific.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather

Feb/17/22 10:43:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am always inspired by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I listened to her very thoughtful speech earlier today, and I am sure many others did as well. I would be very happy to speak to her off-line about the questions she raised.

48 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:44:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the third week of occupations and illegal blockades, we need this Emergencies Act for two reasons, in my opinion. Number one is that it is time to uphold the rule of law. Number two is that it is time to take action to protect our critical economic infrastructure before this makes permanent damage to our economy. As we all know, the rule of law is a political philosophy that involves the belief that all citizens and institutions within a state, country or a community are accountable to the same laws. Canada is a wonderful country with a very diverse population. People of different ethnicities and different faiths live together to make Canada the best country in the world. Canadians have come to Canada from over 100 different countries. According to Statistics Canada, 120 languages are spoken in my riding of Nepean, although 60% to 65% of my Nepean residents speak English as their first language. Some Canadians came to this country several generations back. Some came several decades back. Some are recent arrivals. Many Canadians came to this country for the freedom it offers to all its residents. Many came fleeing persecution in the countries in which they were born. Many came to Canada for the economic opportunities that it provides. Many came to Canada to provide better lives for their children than they had. There is one common denominator to all Canadians, especially the new Canadians who came to Canada. The fundamental reason is that Canada upholds the rule of law. Upholding the rule of law is so important, and it is so built into the fabric of our country, that the current situation is unbelievable to many Canadians. Whether it is for economic opportunities or better lives for their children, the fundamental reason for the security this country provides for hard-working Canadians to generate wealth for the economic development of the country, and for their families and their children, is the rule of law. It is unbelievable for many Canadians that the rule of law is so openly flouted, and that the rule of law is made a mockery. It is possible that our law enforcement agencies built their systems and processes around the assumption that Canadians, generally speaking, uphold the rule of law. Maybe this is the reason why we see an occupation today by a foreign-funded group holding our men and women in uniform in contempt. We need to support our hard-working men and women in uniform. We need to provide them with the tools they need to restore law and order. This is the reason for the Emergencies Act, which is targeted, reasonable and proportionate. It strengthens and supports law enforcement agencies so that they have more tools to restore order and protect critical infrastructure. The second reason for the Emergencies Act, as I mentioned, is to protect our critical economic infrastructure. Canada is rich today. We enjoy a very high standard of living because of continued economic growth. This economy of ours is very much dependent on our trade. Trade accounts for 60% to 65% of our GDP. This trade is dependent on the smooth flow of good and services across the border with our biggest trading partner. This economy and this trade have given us wealth. They allow us to take care of our seniors. They allow us to provide affordable housing. They allow us to deliver quality health care to all Canadians, irrespective of their income status. For a small, foreign-funded group of Canadians to misuse the freedom of expression and the freedom to protest to damage fundamental and critical economic infrastructure is simply not acceptable. It is time for us to act before permanent damage is done to our economy and, in turn, to the Canadian way of life. This big economy, and this big trade we have, did not only come about because of hard-working Canadians. It is also made possible by investors from different parts of the world who found Canada to be a good place to invest. We have major foreign companies in the automobile sector, the aluminum sector and the steel sector making investments in Canada. They do this because Canada is always open for business, because Canada offers little disruption to conducting business, and because Canada allows the free trade and flow of goods and services. This assumption is made by international investors, and it is the guarantee that international investors have come to expect. It is being fundamentally challenged and it is time to act now. Foreign-funded groups have crossed the line and we have to act to protect the interests of all Canadians. It is time to reinforce the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free. The blockades and occupations are illegal. They are a threat to our economy and our relationship with trading partners. The foreign-funded groups are a threat to our supply chain and the availability of essential goods, such as food and medicine. The foreign-funded groups have become a threat to public safety. Let me be clear: Every Canadian has the right to express their opinion, their disagreement, or even their anger. They have that right. I will be the first person to defend those rights in our wonderful, free and democratic country. However, this right does not extend to the foreign-funded groups depriving other Canadians of the right and freedom to enjoy a peaceful life. The right to disagree does not extend to foreign-funded groups blockading our critical economic infrastructure. The right to protest does not extend to foreign-funded groups causing harm to families and small businesses, and destroying jobs and the economy. As the Prime Minister has said, under the Emergencies Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect Canadians' individual rights. We are not going to call in the military. We are not limiting people’s freedom of expression. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally. Today, I ask all members of the House to take action against the illegal blockades and occupations that are harmful to Canadians. I ask all members of the House to stand up for families and workers.

1049 words

All Topics

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Feb/17/22 10:54:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made numerous references to the reason to impose this act now. It was to protect critical infrastructure. I lost track of how many times he mentioned critical infrastructure, so I would ask two things. Could he identify which critical infrastructure this act is to protect today? Is the intent to keep this legislation in place to prevent future critical infrastructure attacks that I am not aware of?

71 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/17/22 10:54:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the occupations and blockades are not legal. These are done by foreign-funded groups. I am surprised to note that some of our hon. colleagues stand in solidarity with these foreign-funded groups who are taking action, occupying our cities and blocking the trade flow between Canada and the U.S.

56 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/17/22 10:55:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage seems to be a bit agitated this evening. He has been called to order a few times now. Had he been asked to leave, I would have found that to be disproportionate, and I would have defended him because I like him. It would have been disproportionate. Now, I have a question for my colleague. Is it possible that the Emergencies Act is disproportionate? I have been saying all evening that this is the equivalent of killing a fly with a bazooka. There are many other options available to us. We are setting a precedent and that is what scares me. Governments will be able to reuse this legislation later, and possibly for more dubious purposes. I am not suggesting that the government has bad intentions, but there may be future governments that use these measures for purposes that are less palatable than what we are seeing today. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/17/22 10:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this act is necessary. It is proportionate. As we have made very clear, this act does not affect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are not bringing in the military. This act, as my hon. colleague knows, is not the War Measures Act. This is a new act, which is quite mellow, I can say, compared with the previous act.

64 words

All Topics

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:56:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I speak to people here in my riding of Victoria, they want action to be taken. The use of the Emergencies Act, while some have concerns about it, makes it clear we are at an emergency state. It is an acknowledgement of the failure of leadership at all levels of government, but really of the federal government, which allowed things to escalate unchecked. One thing I have heard asked time and again is why it took weeks to deal with this issue, when there are clear links to white supremacy. There were clear concerns from the beginning. When it comes to how the RCMP and the government deal with land defenders, indigenous rights activists and environmental activists, there is a very different approach. I am curious whether the member is committed to changing this in the future. What is his government going to do to address these inequities?

151 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/17/22 10:57:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is right for people to have some concerns. This act is being applied for the first time, so there are some legitimate concerns. The issue of whether we should have brought this act in five days ago or two days later can be debated, but the time came when it was critical to our economic infrastructure to end this occupation by mostly foreign-funded groups. I think the government took these steps at the right time and in coordination with all other levels of government.

88 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:59:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Tonight, a lot of references have been made that we need to listen to Canadians and to our constituents, so I would like to ask the member for Nepean this. What do his constituents think of this occupation in Ottawa?

51 words

All Topics

Mr. Chandra Arya

Feb/17/22 10:59:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the people of Nepean are so concerned. For them, it is unbelievable that a few groups of people can so blatantly flout the rule of law and misuse their freedom to the right to protest. They occupy parts of Ottawa and bring misery to families and business owners.

50 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33