44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:29:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for weeks this occupation has been allowed to continue. People have lost wages, citizens have been harassed and the potential for violence has grown. Instead of acting, the federal government argued over jurisdiction.
What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the inaction that has made invoking the Emergencies Act necessary?
53 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:39:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this morning, when the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, he said something that was rather interesting. He said that invoking this law was not something to be done lightly, that it was not the first, second or even the third option, but the last resort.
We really wonder what three options the government considered before invoking the Emergencies Act that we are debating today.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:57:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe we are here. I certainly did not expect this to be my experience when I was elected into the 44th Parliament, as I am sure many of my other colleagues did not either.
The starting point for this discussion is how we even got here. How did we get to a point that the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, previously known as the War Measures Act? To give context to the gravity of this action, the War Measures Act was invoked only three times: during World War I, during World War II and during the FLQ crisis. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked until now. What is it? It is “An Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof”.
Leah West, associate director of the prestigious Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and assistant professor of international affairs, national security law, counterterrorism and cyber-operations, has recently been featured in a CBC article regarding the Emergencies Act. She said, “To invoke a national emergency, the government would need to be saying that these protests threaten the security of Canada, our sovereignty or our territorial integrity. I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have.” If members take home anything of what I am speaking about tonight, it is that quote right there.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation 'seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada' and when the situation 'cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada'.” It went on to say, “Governments regularly deal with difficult situations and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”
I will go back to my original question: How did we get to this point? Let us go back 21 days and ask how we got to the point that so many Canadians got so angry that they mobilized across the country, drove thousands of miles and spent thousands of dollars just to be heard.
Protesting takes different levels of commitment. People can sign a petition, join a social media group or mobilize. Mobilizing takes another level of commitment. What happened to make people so frustrated that they mobilized across this country?
The other day I was walking to my office in the Confederation Building. For those who know Ottawa, it was a very cold day, about -25°C. It was freezing. I walked down Wellington Street and saw the trucks. I have walked this route since the day I was elected, a female, by myself, and I never felt unsafe. As I walked, I thought that they must want to go home, so I asked. I stopped and asked one of the truckers, “Do you want to be here? Don't you want to go home?” They said, “Yes, of course we do, but no one is listening to us.”
I remember walking to Parliament Hill during the first few days of the protest and speaking with police on the ground. They were polite and engaging. The police have been fantastic. I asked them how they were managing, and they said pretty well. They told me this protest was nothing like Caledonia. They said they had been working protests for decades, and force always escalates a protest. They said force never works for a peaceful resolution. They said the number one thing that works is when protesters are heard. They asked me if I knew why the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge them. I told them I wondered the exact same thing.
Just for fun, I thought I would Google crisis management tactics, just to see what Google had to say. Of course, a top seven useful tactics list popped up, and I am going to share it.
Number one, tell the truth.
Number two, own it and speak from the heart.
Number three, have a plan.
Number four, provide a respectful response.
Number five, use the moment as a learning tool.
Number six, say the same thing to everyone.
Number seven, take all stakeholders into account.
The Prime Minister has a lot more tools at his disposal than Google, yet he still jumped to invoking the Emergencies Act before using the simplest of tools. I do not know that any of those seven tactics has been used by Prime Minister.
Last Thursday, February 10, the Conservative Party put forth a motion in the House asking for a plan, communication and transparency. The Liberal government, whose members have been over-speaking my entire speech and who have no respect, clearly, for the House, voted no. Canadians want and deserve clear and transparent communication. If they do not want to listen to me, they should leave.
On Monday, during a press conference, the Prime Minister said, “Some people will say that we moved too quickly, other people will say no, we should have acted weeks ago. The reality is this, the Emergencies Act is not something to take lightly. It is not the first thing you turn to nor the second nor the third.”
I asked the Prime Minister to please tell Canadians what the first, second and third actions were that he took before invoking the Emergencies Act. I, along with the rest of Canada, am still waiting for an answer. The relationships that have been destroyed in the country may never be rebuilt. The division, segregation and stigmatization have deeply and negatively impacted Canadians.
There have been countless opportunities for the leader of the country to unite Canadians, but instead of bringing us together, our Prime Minister says things like, “They are extremists who don't believe in science. They are often misogynists, also often racists. It's a small group that muscles in and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country, do we tolerate these people?”
Those are the Prime Minister's words. This is a far cry from the Prime Minister we can quote from 2015, when he won and said, “A positive optimistic hopeful vision of public life isn't a naive dream, it can be a powerful force for change. If Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians.”
Where is that Prime Minister? Where did he go?
Our office has received thousands of emails and messages from very scared and confused constituents. Some of the messages I have received today alone are the following. People are very concerned about the serious misuse of power and the over-reach of federal government.
One constituent sobbed on the phone that she is frightened and cannot sleep because it reminds her of the October crisis. Another constituent phoned in because he feared he would be arrested if he spoke in public in our local community. People have phoned in, very concerned, that the act is already being implemented and that this debate is purely window dressing.
The general public is confused as to the extent of the powers, and that there is no check on the government's implementation. People are afraid that their bank accounts will be frozen, not because they donated but because they have supported the truckers on social media. Constituents are worried that if they donated even $50 their accounts would be frozen and forever jeopardize their credit ratings.
What are the facts that make the government believe that the blockades are associated with the threat of serious violence for an ideological purpose? What is the legal basis for this extreme action by government?
A constituent wrote to me right before I spoke tonight, and he told me that he received a scam email that his account had been frozen. Has the government acknowledged that this Emergencies Act may have opened the door for fraud and for innocent Canadians to be further traumatized?
Another constituent wrote to me and said, “I am a senior, Michelle. I cannot pay for my food. I cannot pay for my mortgage. Why is the government not dealing with this?”
To the people of Ottawa—
1417 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
