44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 11:33:05 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. We know how quickly extremist behaviour and ideologies can spread. With the sheer volume of this demonstration, I am genuinely concerned that racism will grow, entrench and allow widespread violence to ensue. This extremism is dangerous and must be dealt with urgently.
I am not sure if the member heard the news last night, but the interim Ottawa police chief, Steve Bell, said, “Without the authorities provided to us through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to be doing the work we are today.”
Does the member agree that extremist ideologies from other countries must be stopped and that Canadians must return to their Canadian roots of kindness to their neighbours?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:53:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said “directly and actively”. The Prime Minister directly and actively forced this to happen in Ottawa, because he refused to listen to Canadians and he refused to sit down and listen to views that opposed his own.
We did not need to get to this point. All of this happened because Canadians were asking for a clear direction and a plan to get out of these COVID measures, but the Prime Minister sat on his hands, as he always does, for three weeks and made no plans to even listen to people.
That is why we are where are. This is all the Prime Minister's doing. We did not need to get here, so the Prime Minister needs to apologize for that. I wish the member would stand up and tell him the same.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:18:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no charter rights are being infringed upon here. It is very clear in the public order that that is the case. This is not the War Measures Act. It is a much more specific application of federal laws that are being made available to provincial and municipal authorities to be able to address the issue. Indeed, 72% of Quebeckers actually support the government's measures on this.
On Monday, the spokesperson for the Bloc called for federal government leadership. Then the Government of Canada provides tools to the provinces and municipalities to help deal with the situation, and now the Bloc is of course against it. What I think the Bloc is missing is this: It is not just about Ottawa. It is about what comes next, because some of the key organizers of this protest have said they intend to set up shop elsewhere.
Does the Bloc not agree that having discretion for its police force, the SQ, to support Lacolle, Quebec and other key junctures in its province is a good thing? The Bloc normally loves discretion to the provinces, except now.
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:35:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Province of Quebec and thank it for intervening and helping us with the illegal blockade we have outside. This is a national problem, and what is happening in Ottawa is not the only issue we are dealing with. We are dealing with issues from one part of the country to another, and that is why we need the Emergencies Act.
I would like to know if my hon. colleague is supportive of having the SQ continue to help us. It is helping us very importantly outside right now.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:35:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is absolutely extraordinary that the Sûreté du Québec is helping Ontario and British Columbia.
We stand together. The provinces will be excellent neighbours for us, and we will continue to stand together. That is clear.
According to most newspapers, there is not much going on outside of Ottawa. Basically all the protests and blockades have been cleared.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:10:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Willowdale.
I am addressing the House today in support of our government's invocation this past week of the Emergencies Act of 1988. I would normally say I am pleased to address this House, but today I am not pleased.
Today I am not pleased with the siege against Ottawa's residents, who have borne the brunt of the illegal occupation of their neighbourhoods. They have been living in fear, in fear that their apartment building may be torched by arson, in fear of being harassed, taunted or ridiculed on their walk to work or the grocery store.
I am not pleased for workers in Ottawa's downtown core, including the Rideau Centre, who have not been able to earn an income for three weeks now. I am not pleased for the business owners who had hoped to reopen after Ontario lifted its restrictions at the start of the occupation, only to have to shutter their businesses once again because of threats, intimidation and abuse by the occupiers.
I am not pleased for my staff, who are prevented from going to work out of fear and intimidation. The parliamentary precinct should be a safe place. Now it is not.
These are everyday Canadians who have been impacted by this illegal occupation. I am not happy for them. I am not pleased that these illegal occupiers are preventing our day-to-day interactions. I am not pleased that these innocent bystanders are experiencing hardships because of this illegal activity. I am sad for those who have had to undertake abuse, harassment and ridicule for following public health measures, the measures put in place to help protect our citizens and our health care system. Our doctors, nurses and health care workers are exhausted; I thank them.
I am sad for the hits to our economy, first hit hard by the pandemic itself and then again by the illegal whack-a-mole blockades spurred on by this siege in Ottawa. However, it is not only Ottawa that has been hurt. Ontario has been hurt, for example, by the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge, forcing auto plant shutdowns among others. These illegal blockades are a blow to the economies of Alberta, where I was born and raised, as well as Manitoba and my present home province of British Columbia.
I know people are tired of public health restrictions. So am I, and so is pretty much everyone I know. I know that this pandemic is exhausting. It is challenging for all Canadians. It has been and will continue to be difficult for everyone. That frustration extends to the 90% of British Columbians who have rolled up their sleeves to receive the vaccine, yet such measures continue to be essential to reduce risk to our seniors and those who are immunocompromised, as well as to bring this pandemic eventually to heel.
I support B.C.'s measured approach to removing restrictions when and where possible, based on the state of the pandemic in the region. These actions are founded on good public health advice by highly qualified and experienced medical and public health practitioners. We must continue to listen to our public health officials so that we can continue to protect Canadians against this insidious disease, and that means protecting our health care systems and following public health guidelines.
Nobody likes the so-called vaccine passports, most certainly not me, but rather than seeing them as a divisive instrument, as many have chosen to do, we should see them as an opportunity that allows businesses, the economy and indeed travel to open up and carry on in a limited way, instead of having to completely shut down from time to time, as we had to do before we had such an abundance of tested, effective and safe vaccines. Nonetheless, they are the artifacts of the pandemic and they, as for the other pandemic-related measures, will abate in due course when the pandemic itself abates, not by merely wishing them away or demanding that the pandemic be ignored.
These are trying and emotional times, and it is in these most trying and emotional times that lawful, legitimate protests and sincere concern have been overtaken and overwhelmed. It is in these most trying and emotional times, with frustrations and tempers running high, that we have seen this unfortunate siege of Ottawa unfold, as well as many sympathetic whack-a-mole protests and blockades across the land.
In these most trying and dangerous times, the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police and others elsewhere in the nation were unable to take the kinds of actions that are now under way. Now we can bring this siege to a peaceful conclusion through the Emergencies Act, with resources made available and authorities clarified.
Our government took this bold step this week to ensure that law enforcement is adequately resourced to end the illegal occupation peacefully and safely. Yesterday we finally started to see happen what most Canadians wanted to see happen for the last several weeks: removal of those involved in these illegal occupations, peace restored, and a return to having a safe city in which to live and work.
It is paramount that Canadians understand what this act does and does not do. It is critical to understand that the measures derived from the Emergencies Act are specific, focused and proportional. Crucially, they are time-limited and include adequate democratic checks and balances. A key to this is a built-in 30-day sunset clause, whereby the measures are subject to ongoing oversight by a parliamentary committee, with Parliament maintaining its right to revoke the declaration of an emergency as it sees fit. Furthermore, a public inquiry to determine the circumstances leading to and measures taken during this unprecedented emergency must ensue afterward.
Most significantly, the Emergencies Act does not involve the military, nor does it in any way suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is explicit in the act. These rights particularly include peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and the right to life, liberty and security. The preamble of the Emergencies Act is crystal clear on this. It states:
...and whereas the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency...
As a longtime active member of the Tri-Cities Chapter of Amnesty International, I fully respect and celebrate the Canadian reality that all Canadians have a right to protest, to speak their minds and to hold their elected representatives accountable. Even so, when we talk about rights, it must be clear that we do not have a right to block critical infrastructure like highways and hospitals. We do not have the right to intimidate, threaten or bully our fellow citizens, nor to deprive them of the safe enjoyment of their homes or disrupt their work or businesses.
Let must just mention that attempting to intimidate us with a manifesto demanding the removal of Canada's elected government is patently absurd, has no basis in any law anywhere and is not democratic. This is foolish anarchy, if not bluntly seditious, and it is a far cry from anything resembling the freedom that the siege purports to proclaim.
I know that most of those who support the protest themselves, whether that includes the blockades or not, are not anarchists or extremists. Most are sincere, everyday Canadians who are frustrated with restrictions. I get that, and I sympathize. Unfortunately, harassment and threats continue, and it is also clear that these linked events right across the country have been infiltrated by groups of white supremacists, Nazi sympathizers, people who are Islamophobic, anti-Semites and other garden variety racists, bigots or extremists. They leave an ugly and indelible taint wherever they are involved.
An excellent example is the seizure in Coutts in recent days of a significant cache of weapons held by individuals tied to extremist organizations. We also see dangerous behaviours, such as the man who drove a lifted pickup truck through a police barricade at Peace Arch crossing, and there are more examples. These and other threats underscore the embedded presence of small, systematized and perilous groups willing to intimidate and commit violence to achieve their own objectives, which typically do not reflect respect for our people, rights and institutions but do require our heightened vigilance.
However, even with the Emergencies Act in effect, I must emphasize that people can still protest and can certainly still disagree with the government, but they cannot join—
1479 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's significant debate.
After what we all witnessed on the streets of our capital yesterday, I feel compelled to say we each have a solemn obligation and responsibility to steer clear of excessive partisanship and rhetoric today. What we saw in our national capital should serve as a sober reminder of our solemn obligation to prove resolute in exercising our responsibilities and vigilant in safeguarding the interests of all Canadians. I firmly believe we must each endeavour to steer clear of division and resort to the principles that guide us in our decision with respect to the specific motion at hand. After all, at times such as this, Canadians are entitled to nothing less from their elected officials.
The facts before us are not in dispute. Today marks the 23rd day of the blockade and occupation in Ottawa. Apart from entrenched encampments in Ottawa, we have witnessed weeks of protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. Each of these developments has represented a deliberate and concerted effort to stifle our commercial lifelines or to impede the flow of civic life.
Our democratic right to protest or freely express our views is one thing. A blockade, an entrenched occupation and a permanent gridlock are quite another. Let me say firmly and equivocally that it does not matter what an occupation is about. That is not what the motion before us is about. A protest is generally understood to be time-limited and should never be allowed to devolve into an indeterminate occupation that completely ignores the rights of others. Our government has listened and should always listen to the concerns of all Canadians.
Allow me to talk about the significance of the rule of law. We are blessed as a country and have served as a beacon to people around the world because of our unconditional adherence to the rule of law. That is exactly why I arrived here as a teenager with my family. We were fleeing hateful ideology and extremism of a revolutionary government that had no regard for individual rights or the rule of law. The rule of law is at the core and the very foundation of who we are. The rule of law stands for the proposition that every person is subject to the law and must be held accountable for their actions. That is why none of us should turn a blind eye to what has been unfolding across our country or in our nation's capital in the last several weeks.
Surely, members know that residents of Ottawa have been subjected to sonic assaults for weeks. We cannot overlook that many felt compelled to form citizen brigades against what was occurring here. We cannot remain indifferent to what we are hearing from the residents of Ottawa. Members of the House are also surely aware that hundreds of small businesses, many of which were frequented by members of the House, have felt compelled to remain closed for the past three weeks. Surely we are better than that. We know that some of the protesters were jamming 911 lines in the last several days.
Canadians rightly expect our government to demonstrate resolve in the face of what we have experienced across our country. The only responsible course of action was to invoke the Emergencies Act. We have been in contact with all levels of government and have consistently heard, whether from the chief of police of Ottawa, the mayor of Ottawa or the Premier of Ontario, that the city of Ottawa is under siege, entirely overwhelmed and lacking the resources and tools to deal with the situation at hand. Let me remind every member of the House that a state of emergency was declared by the City of Ottawa on February 6, by the Province of Ontario on February 11 and by the federal government on February 14.
The Emergencies Act spells out a clear process. Despite much of what we have heard today, the act is time-limited and targeted, and must at all times be applied in a reasonable and proportionate fashion. That does not limit anyone's freedom of expression, neither does it limit the freedom of peaceful assembly. The act is replete with specific checks and balances. The legislation, as adopted in 1988, is circumscribed with layers of built-in protection to ensure that our charter rights are fully safeguarded at all times.
The Progressive Conservative government that introduced the Emergencies Act in 1988 ensured that the invocation of the act be done in a charter-compliant fashion. We have heard a lot from members opposite that the facts do not justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act. If the backdrop of developments in Windsor, Coutts and Ottawa has not persuaded the hon. members, nor what we have heard from residents, the police chief, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario, they should consider the following: Let me assure them that the act requires not only a sober assessment of what has happened, but a consideration of possible threats on the horizon.
When Perrin Beatty, a minister of the Conservative government, was asked in committee what justification was required to invoke the Emergencies Act, back in 1988 this is what Mr. Beatty, a Conservative minister, had to say: “It depends not only on an assessment of the current facts of the situation, but even more on judgments about the direction events are in danger of moving and about how quickly the situation could deteriorate.” Mr. Beatty further added, “Judgments have to be made not just about what has happened, or is happening, but also what might happen.”
When the measures were invoked by our government, it was clearly stated that the situation across our country was concerning, volatile and unpredictable. I dare say not a single person in this chamber could possibly take issue with that assessment, so I would ask members of the House not only to refuse to turn a blind eye to what we have seen, but to not prove deaf to the assessment of the Ottawa chief of police, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario. As passionate as we can each be, we do not have licence to allow our judgments to substitute for what we have overwhelmingly heard from public safety officials and national security experts over the course of the last several days. It is imperative that we actually consider this thing and that we look beyond this chamber to determine whether this has been justified.
1110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, those were interesting comments. I would like to compare and contrast for a second. New Zealand just announced, per today's Ottawa Citizen, that it “ruled out forcefully clearing vehicles blocking roads outside parliament in a protest against coronavirus vaccine mandates, saying that would risk ‘wider harm’”. Representatives said, “negotiations and de-escalation were the only safe ways to resolve the protest and [they] would continue to talk to the protesters”. Compare this with the current Liberal government. It had 58 consultations, and the member mentioned a few. However, not one of them was with the protesters.
Did the Liberals purposely allow this to continue so they could clamp down on Canadians they do not agree with?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:37:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's considered question.
On this particular note, it is imperative that as Canadians we thank the detachments that arrived in the city of Ottawa yesterday. They did a splendid job, several different detachments, so we are grateful for what the Province of Quebec has done.
Insofar as your question is concerned—
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:39:37 p.m.
- Watch
Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. The member can take comfort in the fact that the legislation, as it is currently drafted and as it was envisioned in 1988, requires that we do that review. In addition, the City of Ottawa has decided to do a review.
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:52:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote.
Freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest do not give any Canadian the licence to break the law. I call on [the Prime Minister] to enforce the law and direct the RCMP to shut down these illegal blockades.
Members may think this was a quote having to do with the illegal blockade in Ottawa, but this is actually from a member of the Conservative Party, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who has called for the stoppage of the blockades.
I wonder why the member feels like when it is blockades of one type, his party is very much against it, but when it is blockades of another type, they are very much for it and happy to stand in front of it, taking credit and selfies.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:34:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the point here comes down to one fundamental issue, which is that the test, or the threshold, for invoking the Emergencies Act requires that situations such as this cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law in Canada.
I heard the member comment a little about that. He said that the Ottawa police could not deal with the situation, but from all accounts and reports, that really came down to a matter of resourcing and not the actual law.
Experts have said that the Criminal Code of Canada specifically provides the powers that the police need to deal with the situation.
In light of that, why does the hon. member think that the threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has been met?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act has been critical in supporting what is happening in Ottawa today and, frankly, in clearing blockades at the border crossings over the last number of days. I say that because there are a number of measures in the Emergencies Act that give the police powers they did not have before, such as cutting off funding for the blockades, ensuring that people who are blockading a border crossing or in Ottawa know that their accounts can be frozen, and making sure that the RCMP can enforce local laws. We could not have otherwise provided the resources the member is talking about in the time needed and the amounts needed to clear these blockades. The Emergencies Act is helping in Ottawa and it has helped at the border crossings.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:49:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member reference some quotes from parliamentarians, so I will reference quotes from a couple of parliamentarians too. The member might remember Peter MacKay, a Conservative minister, and Vernon White, a senator. They said, “But 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.” Vernon White later went on to say on CBC, “I support [the Emergencies Act]. I felt we were at a point of no return.”
Why does the member disagree with these Conservatives? Is it because what we have across the way is really the Reform Party?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:53:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I represent the Ambassador Bridge area, with 40% of Canada's daily trade with the United States.
I can assure the member that the Conservative Party's talking points are not correct. The Ambassador Bridge is open to a degree of normalcy, but at the same time, the barriers, like they are in Ottawa, are now throughout the community, blocking us from businesses, blocking children from getting to appointments, including medical appointments, and causing a series of different problems.
Right now city of Windsor residents are on the hook for over $10 million. We will continue to pay for that because the OPP, the RCMP and the City of Windsor are still protecting 14 kilometres of the 401 system. What is the Conservative Party's position? Will it support, provincially and federally, paying this bill and continuing to pay this bill?
What is it going to do in regard to convoys? A couple more convoys coming into the area have already been intercepted, and the threat there continues to exist—
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member agrees with this side of the House that this is an unacceptable situation. I heard the interim police chief in Ottawa almost breath a sigh of relief that finally the resources the police felt they needed for stepping in to solve this issue have been provided to them. It was wonderful to hear the interim chief speak to how the resources that come from the Emergencies Act have allowed them to move forward.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about peaceful protests, and I want to commend the law enforcement we have had over the last number of weeks here in Ottawa. They have been keeping the peace and doing a wonderful job of ending the blockade here this week. Conservatives have been calling for an end to it for a while.
Ottawa knew for days that this protest, the “freedom convoy”, was coming into Ottawa. The mayor knew, the police chief knew and security here in Ottawa knew. They knew for days before they even arrived. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people here for weeks on end without so much as a broken window.
What are the first, second and third things the government could have done before dropping the sledgehammer by invoking this legislation? We are still waiting to hear the answer, so I would like to hear the member's answer on that.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:34:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the first thing is provision of intelligence. We had open-source intelligence that this convoy was coming and that this was their intention. The second was the application of resources. Resources were made freely available to police services in Ottawa. The third thing was the immense resources of the Government of Canada, all of which were made available to this municipality. For whatever reason, that did not seem to be sufficient to deal with this seditious enterprise by these lawless brigands.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:35:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am quite fond of my hon. friend, even when he is wrong.
The Criminal Code of Canada should have been sufficient for the purpose. However, it is clear that, over the course of the two or three weeks of insurrection across the country, for whatever reason, it was not. As I said earlier, if stopping insurance, revoking licences, freezing bank accounts, cordoning off areas or requisitioning tow trucks will do it, then that is what has to happen.
I also want to applaud the work of the Sûreté du Québec, which has fortunately ignored the Government of Quebec and has provided aid and assistance to the policing effort here in Ottawa.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:36:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention today. I always find his interventions witty, as well as informative.
When we think about what is happening here, and we look at what is happening on the streets of Ottawa, across the country and in Alberta, what I am thinking about is how we come out of this. How do we go forward?
I have called for an independent, transparent, public investigation and inquiry. Will his government be prepared to also do a review of policing across the country, and to bring forward legislation on online hate? There is a need for increased online hate legislation. Will his government look at ways in which we can better protect our media in this country?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
