SoVote

Feb/19/22 11:22:02 a.m.
Watch

As I was saying, as far as child welfare is concerned, the file is already open. In what way are Canada's laws inadequate for coping with this situation? Why does the government consider the Emergencies Act to be necessary? We do not know—no one knows—because the government is not saying. The order provides for the possibility of having financial institutions freeze the accounts of those who participate in illegal demonstrations. However, the Criminal Code already prohibits the funding of illegal activities. This is already the case. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act already authorizes financial institutions to freeze the proceeds of criminal activities or funds used to finance such activities. This is already the case under Canada's existing laws. There is no legislative void. In what way do these laws not allow us to deal with the current situation? Why does the government consider the Emergencies Act to be necessary? We do not know, no one knows, because the government is not saying. In fact, not only has the government never said why this power was indispensable, it has also never said in what way it could be useful. Last week, the government gave us a briefing on enforcing the act. What it told us about freezing bank accounts was disturbing. An assistant deputy minister from the Department of Finance explained how it would work. What the government told us was that it would be up to the financial institutions to freeze the accounts of those involved in the occupation in Ottawa. In other words, it would be up to the financial institutions to guess which of their members or customers are taking part in these illegal protests and then guess when they have left the protest so that their accounts can be reactivated. The government does not see itself as having any particular responsibility for this and says that it is the banks' responsibility. What a joke. Banks are not the police. They cannot know who is blocking the streets of Ottawa. The government is washing his hands of this situation. It is utter nonsense. Under the Emergencies Act, the government is required explain why it cannot end the occupation in Ottawa using existing laws. Not only has it failed to do so, but it has also not even told us how the act would help here. I will give another example. Pursuant to the executive order, the measures against financing criminal activity extend to crowdfunding platforms. Now, that is a good idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that it is already possible to take such action under existing laws. Crowdfunding platforms are already governed by the provinces. We have laws already, and they work. For example, on February 10, the Ontario Superior Court granted an injunction sought by the province to freeze funds raised by the “Freedom Convoy 2022” and “Adopt a Trucker” campaigns on the GiveSendGo crowdfunding platform. That happened under ordinary laws without the Emergencies Act and without the government's order. In what way do existing laws not allow for adequate management of the situation? Why does the government think the Emergencies Act is necessary? We do not know, we do not see and we do not understand. Here is another example. The order authorizes insurers to suspend the occupiers' insurance. How are the truckers going to be able to leave if they are no longer insured? If the truckers' liability insurance is suspended and an accident happens, the victims will not receive compensation for damages. How is it necessary or useful to take that away from victims? The government had a legal obligation to show that each of the emergency powers it was giving itself was absolutely necessary to resolve the crisis. In the case of suspending insurance, not only did the government not seek to demonstrate the absolute necessity of this measure, but it did not seek to demonstrate how it was useful. The order sets out a series of grounds for declaring a protest to be illegal, including the paralysis of critical infrastructure, significant obstruction of traffic, and so on. All of these grounds are included in one or more of the ordinary laws that are currently in force, whether it is the Criminal Code, highway traffic acts, or municipal bylaws. Law enforcement had all the legal tools to deal with the various border blockades. We saw that in Windsor and Coutts. There is no legal vacuum that needs to be filled by proclaiming emergency measures, as the government itself admits. It was not the absence of legislation that brought Ottawa to a standstill. In the government's statement of reasons, it does not even try to argue that there was a legal vacuum to be filled by the special legislation. That is just pathetic. The Emergencies Act is designed to make up for the inadequacy of existing legislation. It is not designed to make up for the government's lack of leadership. I could have understood the government needing emergency powers to requisition tow trucks and move the trucks currently being used as barricades in Ottawa. Even though the government did not make that argument, I could have understood it. A one-section order to address this shortfall in a very limited area might have been acceptable. The orders before us are not just about requisitioning tow trucks in Ottawa. These orders amount to a carte blanche. They cover a series of actions without any apparent justification, and they apply throughout Canada, including Quebec, where there is no state of emergency. These extremely broad orders are what the House is being asked to approve. In all conscience, I refuse to do so. The Bloc Québécois refuses to do so. The Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called on the House of Commons to refuse to do this. The criteria for invoking the act have not been met. The government knows full well that the current laws are enough; otherwise, it would have told us so. The Emergencies Act does not address a need. All it does is save face for the Prime Minister, who let the situation get out of hand from the very beginning and wants to show that he is doing something. However, as I said, you do not drop an atomic bomb in order to send a message. Quebec does not want the emergency measures to apply in its territory. The government held consultations and was told no. It should have taken that for an answer, but it did not. Will parliamentarians do their part by hitting the brakes? Will they stand up against government by decree, or will they instead listen to the Liberal Party? We know that the Liberals will listen to what the government tells them. Once a lapdog, always a lapdog. Now I will turn to the NDP. In 1970, Tommy Douglas said that invoking the War Measures Act was like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. The law changed in 1988, but the situation remains the same. Proclaiming the Emergencies Act and imposing it on Quebec, where there is no state of emergency, is today's equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. Of course, the Emergencies Act is different from the infamous War Measures Act. It contains safeguards, brakes on the authoritarianism of government by decree, but the key brake is us parliamentarians. We have a heavy burden on our shoulders. Once a lapdog, always a lapdog. When it comes time to vote, we will see if the NDP should be called the New Liberal Party or remain the New Democratic Party. The NDP essentially has the burden of choosing between a democratic government and a government by decree. I am standing up and saying no to these three outrageous orders out of respect and love for my people.

1320 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34