44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 2:21:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like many people in the House, I am deeply concerned about enacting the Emergencies Act. It is why we are here. It is the debate we are participating in.
I, like many others in this room, wonder how we got to this place and about the failures, at all levels of government, that got us to this place. I would like a guarantee from the government, and this member, for a fully transparent, public and independent inquiry into what went wrong over the past three weeks.
Will she guarantee that will be a step the government will take as soon as possible?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:22:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for Humber River—Black Creek for her speech. I know she has been a big champion for many things throughout Parliament and her career, particularly the Canada-Taiwan organization, and I applaud her for that. She is now championing the issue of the Emergencies Act. The reality is, as she indicated, that this is throughout all of Canada and it is being put in place on everything.
Would the member champion the seizure of vehicles and the freezing of bank accounts of foreign-funded eco-terrorists responsible for the violence and destruction, and the millions of dollars in damage, to the Coastal GasLink? I hope she would champion that cause as well with her government, with the Emergencies Act.
126 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 2:35:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful and heartfelt speech. He shared some rather personal stories and I thank him for that.
However, there is a police operation that has been happening right before our eyes on Wellington since yesterday morning. We can watch what is going on on television, and it reminds me a lot of the images I was seeing last weekend at the Ambassador Bridge. Police officers there were able to control the situation without the Emergencies Act.
We are very reluctant to support the use of this act because we fear that it sets a dangerous precedent. The government could have used some other tools in its tool box before opting for the measure of last resort.
Does my colleague worry that this creates a dangerous precedent?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:54:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, today we are debating the Emergencies Act and the motion for confirmation of a declaration of an emergency, pursuant to section 58 of the act. There is a lot to be said and I cannot cover everything in 10 minutes.
Under section 58, the government is required to provide a motion for confirmation of the declaration of an emergency and an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, and to report on any consultation with the provinces and territories it is undertaking. Indeed, thousands of people have reached out to me in the last week regarding the temporary measures under the public order emergency, including the points on public assembly, fines and imprisonment, compelling to work on behalf of the Government of Canada and other measures, such as the freezing of one's financial assets.
The powers of Parliament in this unique situation are to protect against government overreach and bad decisions and to support the necessity of ensuring effective checks and balances are in place when a declaration of a public order emergency has been made under section 17 of the act. Upon review of the explanation pursuant to the Emergencies Act, I cannot support the reasons provided by the Governor in Council for the continued use of this act. My reasons relate to the following.
Under point two of the reasons for public emergency, “adverse effects on the Canadian economy”, numerous citations were made regarding protests at points of entry across Canada. It is my understanding that as of February 14, no major blockade was inhibiting the flow of goods between Canada and the United States to warrant this unprecedented action. The ability of law enforcement to deal with the protests was demonstrated last weekend when the protesters at points of entry were removed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
It goes on to explain that threats were made to block railways, which could result in significant economic disruptions. The report outlines that railways in Canada have operating revenues of more than $16 billion a year. A threat can be dealt with under existing laws and Parliament requires more information than the flimsy explanation provided regarding the economic significance of railways in Canada. The Railway Safety Act is a strong piece of legislation. I am sure it could be used if there was a legitimate threat.
I would say the same for point four, “the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods”. Again the reasons provided by the government are without any evidence. Parliamentarians require more than general trade statistics to confirm the application of the most severe measure the government can possibly take. I just cannot support this.
Again the same could be said for point five, “the potential for an increase in the level of unrest”. The government has not provided the House with adequate justification that the situation in which we find ourselves today could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Neither rhetoric nor emotion justifies such actions.
The report to the Houses of Parliament on the consultations regarding the Emergencies Act lack sufficient justification as well. Words like “spoke”, “met”, “regular engagement” and “discussed” are numerous throughout the document. Real and concrete steps, however, taken by the government in the context of consultations are void. For such a time as this, a government simply indicating that it spoke with the provinces and territories is not sufficient. What Parliament needs to know is what was discussed, what the government said to the provinces and territories and the actions it took to prevent national disruptions, and I would say vice versa in the context of the provinces and territories as well.
Let me quote the Prime Minister, who said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly. This is not the first, second or third option. It is the last resort.” Nothing the Prime Minister has provided the House demonstrates what the first, second or third actions actually were.
During the debate on Thursday, the member for Ottawa Centre asked, while pointing to members of the official opposition, that if this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row, how would members be acting?
Arguably, many of the justifications provided relate more to the disasters, floods, wildfires and landslides British Columbians experienced last year. Lytton burned to the ground last summer and this fall every major roadway in the province of B.C. was flooded or washed away. The CP and CN rail lines were not operational. The port of metro Vancouver was cut off from Canada.
In my riding, there was danger to life, lives lost, real property damage for thousands, complete social disruption through the destruction of critical infrastructure and a loss of essential goods and services. People are still without permanent shelter and critical roadways are not fully operational, including the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 8.
Under section 58 of the bill, there is nothing in these documents that shows the government is meeting the threshold of this legislation. I can argue more concretely that the disasters that B.C. faced last year are a much better example of when this act could have been used under part I, “Public Welfare Emergency”.
Friday morning, I was also devastated, as has been mentioned in this House, to read of the horrific acts of violence that occurred in the northern community of Houston, British Columbia. Will this fall under the radar of our Prime Minister and his Emergencies Act? There was real violence there.
I am also reminded of other historical instances in Canada, such as the G20 summit, where the former Toronto chief of police and current Minister of Emergency Preparedness had hundreds of protesters arrested as police cars were burned in the streets and the Emergencies Act was not applied. The eyes of the world were on Canada at that time as well. Our reputation was also at stake in that moment.
In the annex of the motion tabled in Parliament, the Prime Minister included his letter to the premiers. He mentioned that he is concerned about the undermining of the confidence in our institutions. I believe Canadians are concerned the Prime Minister allowed the situation to escalate to where it is today. That is on him. That is on cabinet. I believe his actions are what is actually undermining the confidence in our institutions.
In preparation for today's debate I looked back at the Debates of 1988 when the Emergencies Act was before Parliament as a bill. I learned that parliamentarians of all political stripes were concerned about the future application of the bill and its relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
NDP MP Derek Blackburn, on April 25, 1988, referred to the horrific experiences of Canadians of Japanese descent who suffered internment under the War Measures Act, the preceding legislation. Although in support of the bill, he was concerned that the Emergencies Act could still infringe on Canadian rights and freedoms beyond what is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. I share his concern. Mr. Blackburn suggested that the Supreme Court review the bill to be more confident that we would strike the right balance and Canadians would be protected. No review ever took place and look at where we find ourselves today.
In closing, I want to remind all members of the House of the thoughtful reflections of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, former MP for York Centre and Liberal member of the House of Commons, from July 11, 1988, who at the time was in the official opposition. He stated:
The legislation we are passing today [the Emergencies Act] still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four...categories of emergencies provided for under this legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation.
We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not...abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in...the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched.
The Prime Minister needs to be watched. The government needs to be watched. It needs to be accountable. I stand here on behalf of my constituents, who expect me to hold the current government to account. I am asking all members of the House to carefully consider how they will vote on this unprecedented and unnecessary measure. Confidence in our institutions depends on it. The trust Canadians have in us collectively as parliamentarians depends on it. Our nation depends on it.
I encourage all members to vote in opposition of this motion out of respect for a concern of government overreach.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:05:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raised a valid point about extremism, having confidence in our institutions and what Canadians see and read online and how that applies to our jobs as parliamentarians, but I think he missed the points raised by the Government of Canada, which largely focused on infrastructure, on the economy and on protecting our supply chains. There is no justification for using the Emergencies Act under the points raised by the government in the official documents tabled in this Parliament. That threshold simply is not met.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:06:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
It is not often that we agree with the Conservatives, but I have to admit that, this time, we feel essentially the same way about the use of the Emergencies Act.
Does my colleague agree that the use of the act right now is an attempt to make up for the government's inaction and indifference over the past 20 days? Does he agree that the government is trying to portray itself as a saviour to restore its reputation, when the real saviours are the ones one the ground right now, tactfully ensuring public safety?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:08:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member as somebody who has worked very hard for his constituents. I just want to tell him that I have been thinking very much about the deep pain his constituents are going through as they recover from the floods.
He quoted previous members of Parliament. I wanted to quote one back to him, if I could, from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White:
What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and the blockages of 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.
If a national security and economic threat to Canada is not an opportunity to use the Emergencies Act, I would ask the member, what on earth could be?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:08:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think she missed the quote of Peter MacKay saying that the Emergencies Act might be a push too far.
The quotes I gave from previous members of Parliament related to the actual debate taking place in here. There was all-party consensus in this chamber when we decided to pass the Emergencies Act: Members of Parliament from all political parties were concerned about government overreach. They were concerned. In the legislation, it is clearly enshrined that no other law could apply. Only in specific situations did they believe that this was possible. Across our history as a great nation, there are numerous precedents indicating that this law was not required at this moment in time.
118 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 3:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. As an Inuk and indigenous person, I have inherent mistrust in law enforcement. I have seen all too often how law enforcement treats my community, indigenous people and people of colour. All too often we have been at the wrong end of the law. Law enforcement arbitrarily targets my communities.
My NDP colleagues and I have weighed very heavily the measures allowed in the Emergencies Act. We are deeply aware of the risk to Canada's democracy, and without the drastic measures, we are aware of the security threats to our national security posed by foreign extremists. I have received threats from as far as New Brunswick because of the debate on the Emergencies Act.
Could the member explain to Canadians why this is a national issue requiring urgent action?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:23:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour about the interventions from the member for Nunavut.
I am still deciding how I am going to vote, but I want to ask the hon. member how much, in addition to the economic threats, using the Emergencies Act is motivated by recognizing that this is not a single threat but a vast network that seeks to undermine democracies. The member's last word in his speech was “democracy”, and as informed by Vladimir Putin and forces of the right in the U.S., we are suffering from a foreign-influenced effort to undermine our democracy.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:24:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I usually start by saying that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak here. However, it is the first time in 24 years that I needed a police escort to enter this chamber, and it is likely that all of us will need police escorts to exit this chamber. That is the state of emergency affairs in Ottawa as we speak.
Sedition, by definition, is “conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state”. Emergency, by definition, is “a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.” There is a further definition in the Emergencies Act that largely supports this notion:
threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve...sovereignty [and] security
Over the last three weeks, we have seen a ragtag convoy of truckers, apparently here to protest mandates, morph into an anarchistic challenge to legitimate authority, seriously impairing the life, economic well-being and safety of Canadians from coast to coast: from Ottawa to the Ambassador Bridge, to the Ambassador Bridge times two and times three, to Toronto protests, to Quebec protests, to the Blue Water Bridge, to the Emerson, Manitoba, closures, to the Coutts, Alberta, closure and to closures in British Columbia. There has been billions of dollars's worth of economic disruptions and broken supply chains. Citizens have been rendered hopeless and fearful. Citizen have been threatening each other and threatening to take the law into their own hands in the face of police impotence or their refusal to act.
I do not know what else we could possibly want before declaring a state of national emergency, with the possible exception of violence in the streets. Some seem to think that should be part of the debate and is a necessary precondition. It is also equally clear some insurrectionists would be pleased if that happened, if anarchy and lawlessness prevailed and legitimate authority were undermined. All the while, these “brave anarchists” are hiding behind children in bouncy castles and waving Canadians flags, sometimes right side up and sometimes not.
The protest has migrated from misguided complaints about mandates to sedition. Most of the mandates are from provincial authorities and are being cautiously lifted with the guidance of public health authorities. The blockade, if it was ever about mandates in the first place, should be in provincial capitals. The sole mandate within the federal jurisdiction is at the border and can only be lifted in conjunction with the American government. They should take their protest to Washington, assuming they can get across the border.
What is this seditious blockade really about? I am sure members have heard about campaigns of misinformation and disinformation. As my hon. friend mentioned in his speech, at the public safety committee and the defence committee we heard a lot of testimony about misinformation and disinformation campaigns by state and non-state actors. I do not have any personal or direct evidence of the attempted destabilization of a G7 NATO country in opposition to Russia on the verge of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but I have to think that works to the advantage of President Putin. Any destabilization effort that erodes national consensus works to the advantage of our two major adversaries, China and Russia.
Russian TV has been promoting alternative theories of the utility of vaccines and paranoid theories about implanting chips. It also questions the effectiveness of mandates, sowing doubts in the minds of those looking to express their frustration and anger. At this point, it is directed at Parliament, the government and the Prime Minister.
The evidence of non-state actors is a bit more clear. Funding from the U.S. is blatantly obvious and is from sources in the U.S. associated with the most odious elements of American society. The Conservatives have been saying for weeks that all we need to do is talk to these people, so I started returning telephone calls and responding to emails. I cannot help but observe that I have become quite popular in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec. All of these non-constituents want to help me vote for my constituents. Just today, we received 1,300 emails, and we had 600 the day before.
To these non-constituents, I offer an insincere apology for ignoring them. My constituents, on the other hand, I do not ignore, and have not for nine elections and 24 years. There is more of a mix among those who want me to vote against the legislation, and they are more vociferous this week. However, last week others wanted me to end it. The conversations with those who want me to vote against the bill exhibit a belligerence, coupled with a substantial amount of misinformation and disinformation, that makes one despair.
When the conversation starts with, “I have never voted for you and I never will”, we know we are off to a bad start. For nine elections and 24 years, there must have been a great deal of frustration for this individual caller. When the conversation is peppered with the Prime Minister's last name in conjunction with what the Speaker would rule to be unparliamentary language, all seemingly starting with the same letter, we know the conversation is not going to go well. Also, trying to carry on a conversation with a blowing horn from an 18-wheeler in the background is indeed an impediment to civilized discourse.
What is so discouraging when we get through all of this is the dissonance of fact. Minimal understanding of civics and science must be the basis for civilized discourse, but the “alternative facts” narrative, perpetrated by that notorious Trump acolyte, has taken hold here. That is ultimately what is so discouraging. By one means or another, this insurrection will end, but the damage to political discourse will linger. It is difficult to have conversations with horns blaring, engines revving, diesel fumes in the air, a commitment to alternative facts and certain politicians giving aid and comfort to sedition.
I therefore support, wholeheartedly, this initiative as a measured, scaled, charter-consistent response to the blatant disregard for the rule of law. If revocation of licences, revocation of insurance and freezing of bank accounts will not do it, I support the police cordoning off areas and arresting those who refuse to leave, which they are doing as we speak. I have been very impressed by the measured and careful response of the police in the last couple of days.
I condemn the lawless thugs hiding behind children. I condemn violence. This legislation should serve as a warning to lawless brigands, especially to the organizers, both foreign and domestic. We are a nation where the rule of law prevails in all matters. This misinformation and disinformation campaign, whether from foreign or domestic sources, is deeply settled in the minds of these insurrectionists, who see conspiracies everywhere and seem to be incapable of adjusting deeply held preconceptions of certain basic facts. It takes us, as a nation, into a very dark place.
1182 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:34:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. I appreciate my colleague in general, because I know he is sincere, honest and passionate.
However, we have different opinions on the issue at hand today.
Does he believe that all the legislative tools available to the various levels of government were used before the Emergencies Act was invoked today? If so, can he tell me which ones were used?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:39:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley West.
It is an absolute honour for me to stand in the House of Commons today on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.
Earlier this week, on February 14, our federal government declared a public order emergency and invoked the Emergencies Act. This was the first time this act had been used since it was created in 1988. There were clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for the public order emergency to be declared. The act was invoked only after exhausting other options.
The act is time-limited to 30 days. It is geographically targeted. It proposes measures that are reasonable and proportional to the threats it is meant to address, and it does not displace or replace provincial or territorial authorities. The act was invoked after discussions with the cabinet and caucus, after consultations with the premiers from all provinces and territories, and after speaking with opposition leaders. I support this decision.
For almost three weeks now, blockades have been illegally disrupting the lives of Canadians. They have been harming our economy and endangering public safety. The “freedom convoy 2022” has created a critical, urgent, temporary situation that is national in scope and cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The blockades at the ports of entry have disrupted the transportation of crucial medicine, goods, fuel and food to Canadians. They are causing significant adverse effects on Canada's economy, on its relationship with trading partners and on supply chains. These trade disruptions, the increase in criminal activity, the occupation of downtown Ottawa, the lawlessness and the threats of violence, as well as the presence of firearms, constitute a public order emergency. It is an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.
What may have started as a protest by truck drivers against border mandates quickly morphed into a rallying point for anti-vaccination, anti-government, anti-authority and white supremacist groups with demands ranging from an end to all public health restrictions to the overthrow of an elected government.
At occupations and blockades across the country, we have seen harmful racist and violent behaviour, and attempts to minimize or discount the harm done to Canadians. It was also clear that there were serious challenges to, and gaps in, local law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law.
It is clear that extraordinary measures had to be taken to keep Canadians safe, protect people's jobs and restore confidence in our institutions. Canada, at the very core of its existence, is a country that fundamentally believes in, and is governed by, the rule of law. In our blood and in our souls, we believe in peace, order and good government.
Over the last three weeks, we did not see peace and order in specific parts of our nation, and especially here in Ottawa. There was a complete shutdown of key parts of Centretown due to the occupation. It stopped people from going to work, stopped businesses from reopening and stopped people from carrying on with their normal lives.
The first week of the occupation had an unprecedented amount of noise, which caused great distress to all those living in or near the occupied area. It seriously impacted the mental health of nearby Ottawa residents. The mental health of many was already fragile due to the unprecedented pandemic we have all had to live through over the past couple of years.
At the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario, trucker convoys blocked the crossing and stopped trade from moving between the United States and Canada. This is a border point that sees over $400 million in trade per day. Many Canadians were temporarily laid off, and the economies of both countries were impacted. What is worse is that our reputation as a place to do business with ease across our two borders was greatly impacted.
Our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said that the disruptions had shaken Canada's reputation as a place in which to invest and do business. She further said the world was watching us and that our jobs, our prosperity and our livelihoods were endangered, and we would not allow Canada's privileged trading relationship with the United States to be compromised.
Windsor was not the only border crossing that was impacted. We saw trucker blockades in Coutts, Alberta, and in Emerson, Manitoba. The impact economically was $48 million and $73 million in trade each day, respectively. The threat exists for other border crossings across our country.
There were guns found in Coutts, Alberta. Protesters have been charged with conspiracy to commit the murder of police officers, and a large cache of guns and ammunition was seized by the RCMP. All of these actions and threats demanded that our federal government take extraordinary action.
It is important to note that this act does not suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the act was created to flow from and uphold the charter. The act's preamble explicitly states that any measures taken under the act must be compliant with charter rights. The invocation of the act does not limit freedom of speech. It does not limit peaceful assembly, and it does not prevent people from exercising their right to protest legally. We are reinforcing the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free.
The Emergencies Act also provides additional powers to stop the flow of money that has been funding these trucker blockades and occupations. Leaked data has shown that the majority of the donations, over 50%, have been coming from outside of the country, primarily the United States. When police notified GoFundMe that the funds it was collecting were being used for unlawful purposes, the campaign was shut down. Protesters then turned to the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo, which raised almost $11 million.
In order to stop the flow of funds for these illegal blockades and occupations, the Emergencies Act includes four key financial measures. From a press release and announcement that our Deputy Prime Minister made earlier this week, we learned a lot about the details.
The first of those measures is that the act extends the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment processors they use. This change covers all forms of transactions, including digital assets such as cryptocurrencies.
Second, the order directs Canadian banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers to temporarily cease providing financial services when the institution suspects that an account, either personal or corporate, is being used to further the blockades.
Third, the act also enables and directs Canadian financial institutions to review their relationship with anyone involved in the illegal blockades, and to report the assets and related transactions of those involved to the RCMP or to CSIS.
The fourth measure provides federal, provincial and territorial government institutions with new authority to share relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if the information will help put a stop to the funding of illegal blockades and illegal activities. Canadian financial service providers will be able to immediately freeze or suspend the account of an individual or business affiliated with the blockades without a court order.
All of these new requirements and authorities will help mitigate the risks for Canadian financial institutions and crowdfunding platforms to transact illicit funds, increasing the quality and quantity of the intelligence received by FINTRAC in allowing us to stop the flow of funding to these illegal blockades.
It is important to highlight the safeguards, and the parliamentary oversight and accountability measures, that are contained within the act. As was required, the government tabled the declaration of emergency so that the House could debate and decide upon the declaration. The government also tabled the orders, as required, before the House. The oversight this legislation gives us as parliamentarians is important to ensure that it is acting with the law, and I take that responsibility incredibly seriously.
We have seen support from a number of provinces for this action, including from British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario. Our federal government is conscious of the need for transparency and parliamentary oversight as we undertake this action. In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while the emergency measure is in effect. As well, an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency must be initiated once the state of emergency is over.
To conclude, I thank the residents in my riding of Davenport who have called and written to me all this week. I appreciated hearing their thoughts and having them reach out. It is an extraordinary moment in the history of our nation, and this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is absolutely the responsibility of our government and myself as a parliamentarian to make sure that we explain why we need to invoke this public order emergency, and why this Emergencies Act needed to be introduced.
1558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:49:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is an important one for me to respond to.
Our government, on numerous occasions, offered additional resources, every step of the way, not once, not twice, not three times. We also helped to enable a table of all three levels of policing and found as we moved forward that there were a number of gaps in the ability of the police to be able to act. That is why we introduced the Emergencies Act.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:50:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Davenport, whom I like very much.
From what I understand, she agrees with the principle of using the Emergencies Act, because she agrees with how it is being applied and the rules for enforcing it. However, this is special legislation that is supposed to protect us from arbitrary government. It is to be used only in emergency situations when nothing else can be done.
Does she not think it sets a precedent if she focuses only on the use of the act and not on the criteria for invoking it?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question. The first is if I am satisfied with how it is being used. The truth is that I probably do not know all the ways it is being used right now, but I have a lot of confidence there is going to be an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency. That inquiry has to be initiated once the state of emergency is over.
With respect to setting a precedent, for me what is important is that I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of how we declared this Emergencies Act. I appreciated that it is time and geographically limited, as well as proportional and reasonable to—
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:05:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
When it comes to using special legislation like the Emergencies Act, I think we need to be 100% sure that it is the right decision, unlike what my colleague from Hull—Aylmer believes. Earlier today, he told us that he was not 100% sure that this is the right decision, but he wanted to make it anyway.
What does the act itself say? It says that all the other regular legislative tools have to be used before the Emergencies Act can be invoked.
Does my hon. colleague believe that is the case? Does he believe that we have already used all the legislative tools at our disposal? If so, can he name those tools?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
