44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:31:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for commencing this important debate on the invocation of the Emergencies Act for the first time.
I want to begin with a number of expressions of gratitude, both to my colleagues on this side of the House and to the opposition for the informed debate we are about to have. Finally, I would like to thank Canadians. I know this has been a very difficult time, a period of great frustration, anxiety and uncertainty. It is not lost on me, and I hope it is not lost on any member of the chamber, that the confluence of events of the pandemic and now these illegal blockades does create for an emotionally charged atmosphere. Sometimes we let that get the better of us here in this chamber.
My sincere hope is that we will be able to have a principled debate about why it is that the government has chosen to invoke the Emergencies Act, the paramount reason being the health and safety of all Canadians.
We have heard the Prime Minister set out what the test for the invocation of the Emergencies Act is, and I know my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and other members will elaborate on that. However, I want to focus my comments on what I believe are the perceived and real risks to public safety we have seen over the last number of weeks that have emanated from the so-called “freedom convoy”.
This convoy has taken to the streets, and other critical infrastructure, right across the country, including our borders, national symbols, communities and neighbourhoods. It has had a profound impact. I would submit to members of this chamber that it has been a very negative and detrimental impact to public safety.
I want to touch on the number of ports of entry that have been significantly interrupted as a result of participation in the illegal blockades, including at Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, British Columbia; Windsor, Ontario; Sarnia, Ontario; Fort Erie, Ontario; as well as those here in Ottawa.
I hope that all members recognize that the kind of conduct we have seen at our borders puts the integrity and the security of this country into serious question. The impact at Coutts, for example, has cost the economy approximately $48 million per day. In Emerson it has been $73 million day, and in Windsor,where we conduct roughly a quarter of all of our daily trade with our most important trading partner, the United States, it has been roughly $390 million. Those are just numerical figures, but I think about the translation of those dollar figures into the impact on Canadian jobs, families and those who are just trying to get by right now.
Whatever the motivation of some individuals who have commingled with those organizers and agitators of these illegal blockades, whatever their concerns are with regard to the government's strategy to get out of the pandemic, which is of course to get vaccinated, this has become something much more concerning.
I do want to say we have made some progress at these ports of entry, and that is in large part thanks to the very important work that has been undertaken by the members of our law enforcement.
I want to thank the RCMP for its efforts and energy. I also want to thank all the police forces who are doing great work on the ground. We are seeing a lot of progress. Most of the borders are now open. That is good for the economy, good for business and good for Canadians. However, this progress is no guarantee.
It is very important that we continue to guarantee the progress that we have made. I want to speak for a moment about the situation here in Ottawa. I know that many of my colleagues in the NCR caucus have spoken very articulately and very passionately about the damage that has been caused in our communities and neighbourhoods. I have also heard some members of the opposition try to somehow cast a minimization, in an effort to generalize what is going on outside of this chamber as being legitimate. It is not. It is illegal, and it causes great harm.
We have seen people intimidated, harassed and threatened. We have seen apartment buildings chained up. We have seen fires set in corridors. Residents are being terrorized, and it is absolutely gut-wrenching to see the sense of abandonment and helplessness they have felt for weeks now. I want to assure them that since day one, the federal government has done everything it could do to provide additional resources. The RCMP has sent three sets of reinforcements to the Ottawa Police Service, and we will continue to do whatever we can to help.
However, it is also important for members of this chamber that we write the laws and we set the policies, but we trust our police, our law enforcement, to enforce them. That is why it is so important that we use every tool in our tool box, especially now, when we find ourselves in a predicament, a dilemma, a situation that has perhaps never been seen before.
I ask myself, and I hope others are reflecting as well, what this is all about. I try to step back and look at what is occurring. I am concerned. I have heard some people say, and they are still saying, that this is a protest about vaccines. It is not. They say that it is protest about mandates. It is not.
I have heard some people still say that this is a protest about freedom. What is going on outside, on the streets of Canada and at our borders, is most certainly not about freedom. It is about a very small, organized and targeted group of individuals that is trying to strip away the very freedoms that we here, and the generations of those who preceded us, have sworn to uphold.
I have seen many striking similarities in the way that these blockades have manifested across the country, including the tactics that they are using, the timing they are occurring, and the targets, whether they are national symbols, such as Parliament here, or provincial legislatures. There was also the war monument outside, where we hear members speak passionately about their forebears who made sacrifices for the freedoms that we now enjoy. The individuals outside are tearing down the barriers to attack those monuments. What does that say? Those are—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Marco Mendicino: I know members are heckling, but I am encouraging them to reflect on this and on the rhetoric. Notwithstanding the efforts of my colleagues to shout me down, I am speaking on behalf of constituents and Canadians. Yes, there is an ideologically motivated operation that we see here in the rhetoric that is meant to incite.
That is indeed one of the reasons why we have had to invoke the Emergencies Act. I want to assure members that these are very targeted measures. They are time limited, and they are protected by the charter. For those who want to ask questions as to how those powers are going to be enforced, part of the debate is going to ensure that there are sufficient guardrails and safeguards in place. There will be transparency on how those measures are implemented.
There will also be an inquiry to ensure that we can learn from these lessons and make sure that this is an instrument that has been used responsibly and in a manner that is consistent with the charter to uphold the health and safety of all Canadians.
At the end of the day, we are all here, I would hope, to do one thing, and that is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We find ourselves at a crossroads of the pandemic, but we have made progress. We have made progress with the pandemic, and we are making progress in restoring public order, but it is absolutely imperative that we have these debates in a principled and reasonable manner that is respectful of our constituents and respectful of Canadians. That is certainly something that I hope we will see over the next number of days.
1391 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:32:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act. He cannot tell us what tools he used and what steps he took before deciding to use this extraordinary piece of legislation.
He can hardly criticize us for seeing this as a ploy to cover up his failure to act, his lack of leadership and his negligence.
I want to give him another chance to enlighten us. What steps and measures has he taken over the past three weeks that have failed so badly that they warrant invoking the Emergencies Act?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 3:17:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the NDP rose on a point of order, and we are certainly sympathetic to the member for Yukon. However, the easiest way we can resolve the situation with interpreters is to get back to normal Parliament so that we are all here.
The debate we are having in this place, whether we agree or not with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, is probably and arguably one of the most important debates we are going to have in a generation, or at least my generation. As the eyes of the nation are upon us, I ask the government House leader what the business of the House will be.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:42:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the invocation of the Emergencies Act is something done with much thought, much diligence and much judiciousness. It is timely, proportionate and targeted. There are many safeguards put in place.
The situation outside is now in day 21. It needs to be resolved. We need to act as a country. The federal government is there working with the province and the municipality, and this is justifiable. That is what this comes down to for me: Is this justifiable? My answer is yes.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 6:57:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will splitting my time with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.
I will start by acknowledging that we have all been in the pandemic for two years, and frustrations are mounting. People certainly want to be to able to get on with their lives. To some extent, this has culminated in what we have seen over the last few weeks. However, make no mistake: We really do need, as parliamentarians and indeed as an entire country, to acknowledge the intense gravity of the situation we find ourselves in. This truly is a watershed moment in Canadian political history, because we are now, as a House, being asked by the government to confirm the declaration of a public order emergency that was proclaimed on February 14 of this week.
This is something that has never happened before. This is the first time that this act has been invoked in this way. I and, I suspect, many members of Parliament have been receiving concerns from constituents who are concerned over this drastic step. I owe it to the great constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford to talk about this extraordinary time and why we have found ourselves here.
We need to have a serious conversation about why we find ourselves in a place where the enacting of the Emergencies Act is suddenly a necessary action, because it should never have come to this. The use of the Emergencies Act, even the consideration of its use, is an acknowledgement that we have had a failure of leadership from many different levels of government. The citizens of Ottawa rightly feel abandoned by their own police. The provincial government has not been there, but more importantly, the federal government has not been there. That is what I am here to focus my remarks on.
We are now two and a half weeks into an occupation. It might have started off with many people who joined this movement thinking it was a protest. Certainly people have that cherished right in our democracy. The right of citizens to peacefully assemble, protest, make their views known and push for change is very fundamental to a well-functioning democracy,
However, what we see in Ottawa and what we saw at many of Canada's border crossings were not protests. They were not peaceful assemblies. They were occupations and they were blockades. They started having a very negative impact on residents, on small business owners and on workers. That is where the line was crossed.
People in Ottawa did not feel safe in their own homes. We saw reports of attempted arson in some of the buildings. We know that people have been suffering verbal abuse on a daily basis. Sometimes it has been physical. They have had to deal with all sorts of noise complaints and ongoing pollution from idling trucks. The city of Ottawa, our national capital, has seen some of our most precious and honoured national monuments defiled and, in some cases, completely walked over. It has been completely unacceptable.
The border blockades have impacted far more people. We know that trade between Canada and the United States numbers in the millions of dollars every day. Factories in southern Ontario had to shut down, impacting families there. Many agricultural manufacturers, processors and producers out in the Prairies and across Canada were negatively impacted by the blockades. They was having an impact on those people.
It is those people we need to keep our remarks focused on to answer the question of why we are here today, suddenly debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
The Emergencies Act, of course, was first brought in as a piece of legislation all the way back in 1988. Pursuant to section 17(1) of that act, we have had a public order emergency declared by the Liberal government. There are a few things that come about as a consequence.
Now the government has the ability to designate specific areas and declare that any assemblies in those areas will henceforth be unlawful. This would include the downtown core of Ottawa so that the main thoroughfares can be cleared of all of those trucks and so that the residents can get their lives back. It will also include some of our critical infrastructure, notably our ports of entry with the United States, the Windsor Ambassador Bridge; Coutts, Alberta; and Emerson, Manitoba being the most recent examples. However, we also saw disturbances in Vancouver and in other ports of entry, such as Sarnia.
The act is going to allow the federal government to direct essential services, such as mobilizing tow trucks to help with clearing those streets. It is going to give FINTRAC the ability to cover crowdfunding. Also, the federal government is going to have the extraordinary power of freezing the commercial bank accounts and personal bank accounts of people who are funding these illegal occupations. It is a very real and extraordinary attempt to cut off the funding that is supporting the occupation of Ottawa and all of this misery. As well, it is going to give the RCMP the power to act as provincial police officers and municipal police officers and enforce their respective laws.
I certainly have personally wrestled with the invoking of the act, wondering if I am doing the right thing in supporting it, but what gives me some level of comfort, and I want to be very clear to the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, is that this is not a blank cheque. The powers we are granting to the government will be carefully reviewed on an ongoing basis. I will not hesitate to withdraw my support if I feel the government is overstepping its confines. By that I mean that the application of these powers has to be specific and it must be in relation to the disturbances that we are seeing from the blockades and the occupation. These powers must be used only in relation to that situation, and they must be quickly withdrawn once public order has been restored.
It has taken a long time to get to the point where we find ourselves now. I am very proud that my caucus colleagues in the NDP and I have been trying to push the government to take this crisis seriously, because the warning signs were there from the beginning. As the public safety critic, I was able to initiate a study at the Standing Committee on Public Safety into crowdfunding platforms and their possible involvement in funding movements like this. I was also able to move a successful motion to call upon the RCMP, the CBSA, the Ontario Provincial Police, Ottawa police and the minister for public safety to eventually come before our committee to explain how we got to this point. Why did we have such an intelligence failure and lack of coordination over the last two and a half weeks, bringing us to the point where we now have to use the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act?
Of course, I have to recognize my colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, and his private member's bill to basically ban symbols of hate, which we unfortunately have seen evidence of in this occupation. Also, our leader was able to initiate an emergency debate in the House of Commons so that we could give parliamentarians their first opportunity to focus on this situation.
In conclusion, Parliament is where we make the laws of this country. It is the pinnacle of our democracy, and every single one of the 338 members who serve in the House of Commons was duly elected to this place to make laws and to hold the government to account on behalf of the citizens in their ridings. To try to subvert that is an affront to the people who participate in our democracy, and we must uphold that cherished right.
I will end by saying that it is with great reluctance that we are going to be giving our support to these emergency powers, but I can assure people that we will not take our eye off the ball and we will not hesitate to withdraw our support should any powers be used past their intended purpose.
1376 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:59:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to stand in this chamber and address the issues that are impacting Canadians. However, I stand in this chamber tonight to speak to an issue that should make every one of the 338 members of the House take a moment to pause: the invocation of the Emergencies Act, an act passed in 1988, which was the successor to the War Measures Act.
If I could, I want to talk a bit about the history and why it is so important to understand that, in the context of where we are this evening. The War Measures Act was invoked three times in the history of this country: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis, under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I find it incredibly troubling that this is the context in which we find ourselves today. Wars and murdered politicians is the context for the debate that we find ourselves in here today.
The invocation of the War Measures Act was an extreme measure to deal with significant issues. I do not think there would be a member of this House who would not agree with the need for a mechanism like this to exist, because the reality is that there are instances where significant action needs to be taken. We see this Liberal Prime Minister invoking this Emergencies Act, taking and granting himself and his government unprecedented authority that includes significant things that suspend, for example, due process.
The members opposite do not necessarily like to consider the precedent of the decisions that they make. The precedent is being set by the invocation of this act that it is okay to suspend due process, a fundamental aspect of a modern democracy to ensure there are not things like unreasonable search and seizure. Although the members of the government talk about the Emergencies Act being subject to the charter, there are aspects of it that are allowed to be overridden because of what the Emergencies Act allows. It is important to acknowledge those things as we enter into this debate.
We see there is this seemingly flippant approach to such a serious issue, which is setting a precedent, that I would simply ask this question of the members opposite and members of the NDP who have indicated that they are going to support this: If this were former prime minister Stephen Harper who had invoked this act, would they be celebrating it? Would they be laughing in their seats? Would they be poking fun and seemingly enjoying the fact that they are taking away the right to due process and that they are suspending certain aspects of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is an important question that I hope every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the NDP considers carefully.
An unprecedented step was taken three weeks after the Prime Minister did nothing but inflame tensions in what is a time that Canada, I would submit, has never been more divided. The context for this is the fact that there are and continue to be protests taking place in the streets of Ottawa. The members opposite do not like to listen to this because it is inconvenient to their narrative, but I, along with my Conservative colleagues, have condemned the blockades, illegal activities and hateful imagery associated with it. The members opposite do not like that because it disrupts the divisive narrative that their leader continues to forward.
We have done that while also being the only party in this country that has been willing to actually acknowledge the fact that over the course of the last number of months there has been an unprecedented level of division that has alienated Canadians.
Now that is funny. The member opposite just said that we have somehow stoked these tensions. That member, I expect, when he goes to a Liberal caucus meeting next time around, would be quick to accuse—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
670 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
