44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- 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 4:10:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I must ask how someone so irresponsible can be entrusted with such great responsibility.
Our country is more divided than ever before. Over the past two years, we have seen the government divide Canadians for political gain over and over again by pitting one region against the other, pitting east against west, pitting Canadians against each other, eroding trust in our institutions and flouting the rule of law.
The primary responsibility of the Prime Minister is to maintain peace, order and good government. What grade should the Prime Minister get? He gets an F in my book. We do not have peace. We do not have order, and I think all Canadians know the answer to the third question. That is right. It is an F.
The Prime Minister has decided to invoke the Emergencies Act for the first time since its inception 34 years ago. This legislation gives the government unprecedented power and control over the lives of Canadians, and it should only be used in the most exceptional of circumstances. It should not be used where existing laws are sufficient.
The threshold to invoke the Emergencies Act has simply not been met. It is not even close. This is a clear case of government overreach. So far, the Prime Minister and his ministers cannot even articulate a coherent reason.
The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation is such that it:
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The Emergencies Act is there to address certain types of extreme threats to Canada only when all other existing options will just not work The act is not there to allow the Prime Minister to arbitrarily, and without reason, curtail the rights of all citizens.
The Prime Minister says that the issues that have arisen over the past three weeks cannot be dealt with under existing legislation. Experts disagree, saying that existing Criminal Code provisions are sufficient, and extraordinary powers are an overreach.
Here is an example. The justice minister is justifying the Emergencies Act as needed to compel tow truck drivers to remove illegally parked vehicles, but there is a problem with that. Paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code already gives the police this power. It applies to anyone who:
omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace,
The Criminal Code also already contains other sections that address unlawful assembly, harassment, intimidation and mischief.
Our country has experienced many crises in the last 30 years that were resolved without the need for Emergencies Act overrides. It was not invoked during the 2008 financial crisis. It was not invoked during the Oka crisis in 1990. It was not invoked in the aftermath of the Ottawa shootings that tragically ended the life of Corporal Nathan Cirillo in 2014. It was not invoked during 9/11. It was not during invoked in 2020, when rail crossings were being blocked across the country for weeks on end, disrupting supply chains, the delivery of goods and livelihoods.
It has not been invoked to deal with the opioid crisis. Most recently, it was not used during the greatest crisis that this country has faced since the Second World War, which is the COVID pandemic. In fact, it was not even used last week to clear the Ambassador Bridge, the Emerson border crossing or, for that matter, any other crossing. The crossings were clearly cleared peacefully, without violence and under existing laws.
Why invoke the Emergencies Act? Why suspend the rights of all Canadians? Sadly, we do not know why. The Prime Minister will not tell us his reason for this historic and unfettered power grab.
It is clear the the Prime Minister has lost of control of this situation and is desperate to save his political skin. Yes, the sunny ways of 2015 have given way to the dark, cloudy haze of 2022. He has lost control, and we should not be surprised in the slightest.
Here is why. When a government reduces sentences for serious offences, as this government has, when a prime minister tries to cut his friends at SNC-Lavalin a special deal to avoid criminal prosecution, when a government abandons the fundamental adherence to the rule of law, when certain politicians call to defund the police and the Prime Minister does not even immediately and strongly repudiate that terrible idea, what happens? What happens is lawlessness, and that is what has happened here. That is right: lawlessness.
Parliament has been surrounded by trucks that have blockaded the streets of Ottawa, cut off the free flow of traffic, made downtown residents' lives miserable, subjected them to honking noises 24-7, shut down businesses and cost people their livelihoods, all because of the weak policies of the Prime Minister.
As we have seen in Coutts, Windsor, Surrey and even in my home province of Manitoba, law enforcement has been able to peacefully clear border protests through negotiations without resorting to any Emergencies Act provisions. In fact, Manitoba and many other provinces are telling the Prime Minister that this step simply is not necessary and may even inflame the situation.
However, the government is insisting on triggering this draconian legislation that dramatically expands the ability of the state to interfere in the private lives of Canadians, a law that includes requiring banks to freeze an individual's bank account without due process.
The fact of the matter is that the governments in the different provinces already have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests. This was confirmed last week when the Minister of Emergency Preparedness actually said that police already had all the tools and resources they needed. Why then, a few days later, invoke the Emergencies Act?
This is a prime minister who thought it was a good idea to take an all-expenses-paid trip to the Aga Khan's island, a prime minister who embarrassed Canada by dancing through India with a known terrorist, a prime minister who paid $10 million to Omar Khadr and who gave his friends at WE Charity a $500-million contract in exchange for $500,000 in speaking fees for his family.
This is a prime minister who has been cited, not once but twice, by the Ethics Commissioner for ethics violations; who tried to pressure the first indigenous Attorney General in our history to cut a special deal for his friends at SNC-Lavalin, to go easy on them because of criminal charges they faced; who pretends to be a feminist while removing strong women of colour from his caucus for simply disagreeing with him; who flew to Tofino for a vacation on the very first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, after spending years pretending to care about reconciliation; who personally mocked indigenous protesters for simply wanting clean drinking water; and who spent years dressing up in blackface, so many times he cannot recall how many times he did it.
Now, just last week, in response to a reasonable question, he shamefully said to the hon. member for Thornhill, who is Jewish, that Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas and people who wave Confederate flags. What an insult to the member, to the Jewish community, to the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust, and to the brave Canadians who served in World War II and helped defeat the Nazis.
To make matters worse, he has refused to apologize. Such comments and actions are far, far beneath the office of the Prime Minister.
Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe any illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. However, the actions of the Prime Minister, of invoking the Emergencies Act, could have the exact opposite effect.
The great American poet Maya Angelou wrote, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Canadians should heed this advice.
I ask again, how can someone so irresponsible be entrusted with such great responsibility as the invocation of the Emergencies Act? The answer is simple: They cannot.
1426 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:21:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the important things about debate is that we need to stay on point. The real point of debate today is whether or not the threshold has been met for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. That threshold is that these matters “cannot be...dealt with under any other law of Canada.” That threshold simply has not been met. In fact, international affairs professor Leah West at Carleton University said that she does not think the act applies. She said, “I have serious doubts that this definition is met.” When the leader of the NDP speaks about this, it sounds like he would rather go to the dentist than vote for this legislation.
I really think we need to stay on point, and I do not believe the threshold has been met.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:22:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said as justification for triggering this draconian legislation that it is not “the first, second or third” thing he would do, but when asked what the first, second and third things were that he actually did, he is unable to answer, as are his ministers. It is a very valid question. I do not know how we got from A to Z without reading the rest of the alphabet in between.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:24:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can only reiterate that the point we are debating today is really a binary one: Has the threshold been met or has it not? We cannot just invoke draconian legislation like the Emergencies Act without that test being met. It is clear that the government has not been able to make the case that the threshold to invoke that legislation has been met. The reality is that existing laws were used to clear the Ambassador Bridge and other checkpoints across the country.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
