44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:47:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at one point the hon. member asked how we got to this point. She then proceeded to blame everybody else, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, but failed to place any blame on her own Prime Minister for wedging, stigmatizing and dividing people, calling them racist, misogynist and extremist, and asking whether we have to tolerate these people. What we are seeing in this country, in the manifestation of protests across the country, is a logical conclusion to the identity politics the Prime Minister has played.
I want to ask a question specific to the Emergencies Act. The order in council released by the government authorized the government to impose other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known, which basically gives the Prime Minister and the executive branch of government unfettered power over their citizens. How could anyone, even on that side, logically support that?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:24:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is discomforting to stand here today. It is a sad and dark time for our country. Unfortunately, this does not overstate current events.
I have watched with concern the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and key border crossings in Ontario and other provinces. Never before has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has sat on the shelf during some quite challenging moments in our country.
Viewed as a last resort, this act gives the federal government enhanced powers in times of crisis. Its justification and intricacies of procedures are being worked through the House for the first time. There is no precedent. Instead, we are making precedent. The arguments we make, the evidence we evaluate and the tone we take will be judged by future generations.
Everyone has the right to peacefully protest any government policies. This is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by everyone. While these protests are a fundamental part of democracy, so too is the rule of law. We cannot allow prolonged blockades or barriers that paralyze trade corridors, pipelines, railways, supply routes, ports or urban cores at any time. We are not at liberty to decide which laws should apply in some situations but not others.
In a rule-of-law country, consistency matters. It is the foundation upon which legal precedent is built. People who join protests to encourage violence or the overthrow of government undermine democracy, but let us be very clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is looking to overthrow the government. Many are looking just to be heard, peacefully. To them I say that we hear them. I hear them.
Somewhere along the way, we entered a state of lawlessness, but the answer to lawlessness cannot be more lawlessness. The government is asking us to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking others. We are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see democracy itself undermined.
The threshold for invoking the act is supposed to be high, and quite rightly. This is a temporary law that will give the government awesome and extraordinary powers: powers to freeze assets with no recourse, and to compel citizens to act contrary to their own interests in favour of the state's.
In the House, just days ago, the Prime Minister presented a timeline. He held a cabinet meeting on Sunday and a caucus meeting on Monday, followed by a meeting with premiers and finally a press conference on Monday afternoon. Why did it take days for the Prime Minister to address the House, and what evidence has he presented?
It is difficult to determine whether the government is justified without adequate information. There were no briefings. No secret intelligence has been shared. Whether it is incompetence or malfeasance is truly regrettable.
Why was the committee not struck immediately? Is there evidence pointing to significantly compromised public safety or impending danger? Should that not have been made immediately available to members, or at least a subset representing all parties? If we wanted to take the politics out of this, information would have been made immediately available. Otherwise, a conclusion might be that this was politics.
Why do ministers of the Crown opt first to give details to media before the House? Ministers have held press conferences and conducted interviews implying that terrorists are at the steps of Parliament, but have offered the House no evidence. Is it then surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our public institutions? Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister and the government have shown the House and institution little respect.
After all, at the beginning of the pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without the oversight of Parliament. The same government prorogued Parliament to frustrate a committee investigation. To this day, we still have not seen the Winnipeg lab documents that members of the House have asked the government to provide. Forgive me for being skeptical that this move is justified without seeing the evidence.
We must not understate the impact of the ability for individuals to have their bank accounts frozen. This will not just be a 30-day impact. It could affect their ability to receive financial services for 30 years or more. Individuals whose relationship with the state has already been strained, if not completely severed, will be further ostracized from broader society.
This power must be used sparingly, if at all, and the government has provided very little detail on how it intends to use this power. For example, what is the process through which individuals will be identified? Will these powers be confined to protest organizers, or will they apply to anyone who has shown up to Parliament Hill or donated to the cause, no matter how large or small the amount? What recourse, if any, do individuals have against financial institutions if these powers have been mistakenly or unevenly applied?
These powers are not merely incidental. They should not be dismissed, downplayed or underestimated. I approach every decision with an open mind, but the consequences for individuals are too great, and the precedent this sets is too monumental to waive away legitimate questions or concerns. We are setting a dangerous precedent.
We should be very careful before we use the awesome power of the state. That this moment is the seminal moment upon which we would decide to invoke a never-before-used act seems disproportional, when there are other actions that the government could have taken.
We should be very careful about normalizing the use of a blunt tool in circumstances such as these. If we must consider using the Emergencies Act every time there's a protest that lasts over a certain period of time, we have much bigger problems. In many ways, that the government has resorted to invoking this act is an indictment of its overall handling of the situation.
I am therefore left with no reason but to impress upon my colleagues that the threshold has not been met, and as a matter of law, If I am wrong, the threshold has been seen to be met by a court that the government is not justified in its use of the act.
While the Emergencies Act is the question before the House today, we should reflect on what has led us here and the lessons we may draw for the future. The hallmark of any democracy is the ability to have reasonable debates with each other about how society functions, but somewhere along the way, we have lost the ability to listen to each other or to consider the perspectives of our neighbours. We are too quick to call something black or white and too quick to demand that each other pick a side. Pro or against, right or left, we leave little room for nuance, reflection or compromise anymore. It should be okay to disagree.
I am sympathetic to those who are frustrated with the pandemic and the government's response. Many of us are frustrated. We are frustrated with overly punitive travel restrictions and redundant and confusing testing requirements, and we are worried about losing livelihoods because of making a medical decision.
We have seen rules that seem more often grounded in politics than in science. This has left deep divisions in society that will take some time to heal. It has been a long two years, and there are no clean hands in this battle of rhetoric.
It is therefore up to all of us to be part of the solution. I am left to consider whether I could have been quicker to call out abhorrent behaviour, or how I could have shown greater empathy to my neighbours. What can I do now to be a positive actor inside and outside of the House?
The tone must start from the top. The Prime Minister must be hopeful, because Canadians need to see a hopeful way ahead. Continued hyperpoliticization will only make the situation worse. It is not leadership when a prime minister discounts and dismisses the views of millions of Canadians with whom he disagrees. It stigmatizes, sows division and escalates.
We must show empathy over judgment, promote dialogue over silence and prefer persuasion over coercion. We must be looking for opportunities to de-escalate. We need to bring people closer instead of pushing them further away.
Great leaders possess the capability of self-reflection. We must acknowledge the possibility that people descended on our nation's capital, or crowded overpasses across the country, in part because of their frustration with being demeaned and marginalized for political gain. It suggests that self-reflection is required.
In 2013, the Prime Minister, as the leader of the opposition, said, “The role of the prime minister is to build a stronger country, not make it easier to break apart.” This is a time for leadership. This is the prime minister I would like to see show up for work. Canadians are depending on him.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:54:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am, with mixed emotion, rising this morning to participate in the debate currently in the House. I say that because I have had many, many constituents of mine reach out to me about the troubling situation that was occurring here in their nation's capital. They were concerned about what was happening to the people living here in Ottawa, from the far distance of Prince Edward Island. However, they were also concerned about the tone of the dialogue that was occurring around the situation. Those constituents asked me why governments, in the plural, were allowing this to occur, why government could not take action.
In standing here today and listening to a lot of the debate, I note the discussion has been around protests. I have been in public life a long time. I have been the focus of many protests. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you may have had a few as a provincial politician. Let us not gloss over what was happening here in the streets of Ottawa and call it a protest, which all politicians and parliamentarians have faced over the years. People have the right to protest. They have the right to peaceful protest. As I indicated, I have been the focus of a number of them. I fully respect the right of citizens to protest and express their displeasure with the actions of government at any time. However, we have to do it in a peaceful format. We have to do it with respect.
Let us be clear. What we have witnessed here in Ottawa is not a protest. Let us call it what it is: It is an unlawful occupation. It was meant to intimidate people and it was meant to intimidate parliamentarians.
Anybody who wants to take the time to educate and familiarize themselves with the objectives of the leadership of this group should take pause for concern and reflection. That is what has been so disheartening about watching this over the last three weeks. What was disguised as a trucker's protest was hijacked by individuals with ulterior motives. They are available for anybody to see. This cannot be tolerated by any government or any parliamentarian. No individual or group of individuals have the right to so blatantly trample the rights of other individuals, as we have witnessed here in Ottawa over the past several weeks.
It is fundamental that government protect the rights of all individuals, but to participate in an unlawful occupation chanting “freedom”, while at the same time having such a blatant disregard for the freedoms and the mental stability and well-being of our fellow citizens, is just wrong. We can look at the interviews with people here in Ottawa. People with disabilities have been traumatized, forced to stay in their own homes. They cannot get out as they are scared. That is not the peaceful protest that this country promotes and endorses. That is, as we have called it, an unlawful protest. We cannot diminish the significance of the difference between the protests that have occurred across this country and those that were intent on overthrowing a government. Anybody who wants to can take the time to look at the objectives of the organizers of this group, what they are doing, who was supporting them and who was funding them. All parliamentarians should be concerned.
The government took the action required to bring this unlawful occupation under control. I want to acknowledge and commend the men and women serving in uniform who are ensuring the laws of this country are being upheld. What we are witnessing is the removal of an unlawful occupation by a professional police force in a democratic country. That is what is occurring on the streets of Ottawa today: a professional police force operating under the rule of law in a democratic country. That is why we elect Parliament and that is why we elect government. It is to give the authorities and legal tools necessary to ensure no individuals' rights are trampled on by a few championing that they are there to protect their freedoms.
This debate will go on for a number of days, and it is interesting to listen to the various perspectives. I have been here for the last three weeks and I have watched it. In fact, I have witnessed some of the hate myself. When I was walking with my parliamentary assistant, he was told by a protester to go back to where he came from because he is brown. It was said in a very racist and harassing tone. My assistant has the same rights that I do because he is Canadian. We have to ensure that Parliament does not succumb to the hate that gets displayed by a few. We cannot champion it. Even by association, we cannot allow it to be legitimized as being right.
That is why I am speaking today. The people I represent in Egmont make up a community that embraces respect, and they support one another. It is a population that is proud of Canada and supports the unity of this country.
Something that has disturbed me over the last several weeks comes from watching one party. It was interesting. The combined failed leadership of the Conservative Party united with the interim leader of the Conservative Party, who united with the aspiring future leader of the Conservative Party, who by association was attempting to legitimize this unlawful protest. It was disturbing that the failed combined leadership of the Conservative Party, with the present leadership and the aspiring future leadership, by association, was attempting to legitimize this unlawful occupation.
As a parliamentarian, I will always stand for the rule of law. I will always support legislation that protects the rights of individuals and does not allow any individual to claim their right to participate in an unlawful occupation while trampling over the rights of other individuals.
990 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:09:34 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Centre.
I am always proud to stand in the House. I am certainly not proud of where we are today as a nation, but I am proud to be here, because when we are facing a crisis of this nature, it is incumbent upon all of us to step up and address it so people can live in safety and the rule of law in maintained.
How did we get here? Canada, with its traditional social solidarity, had among the lowest COVID deaths in the world, but when omicron hit us, and it hit us like a baseball bat, I think it threw us all. It caused us all a lot of psychological damage, yet in our region, I saw people lining up for boosters and vaccines. I saw volunteers and incredible social solidarity.
How did it fall apart so quickly? We are at a time when restaurants are reopening, when children are back in school, and when my dear mother and daughter can plan to go off to some warm climate, which is something I have never done as I am not a warm-climate guy, but they could because our country is opening back up again. We are coming through one of the hardest moments of this pandemic because of our social solidarity, yet we have seen a total fracturing.
As a New Democrat, I am willing to agree to measures to make this city safe, but New Democrats want a full public inquiry. We want an inquiry into the failure of the Ottawa police, the police board and the actions of the mayor to keep people safe, because we should never have been put in this situation. We need an inquiry to understand how it was that the Ambassador Bridge, a vital link to our nation, could be shut because people believe vaccine conspiracy theories. We also need an inquiry to look at the damage that was done to our economy. If we talk anyone in the auto sector, they will tell us that this damage will be long term. There needs to be inquiry.
Just prior to this situation, I met with six people from the Attawapiskat first nation who came to give a peace message to the government. Security was on them in a second, yet these guys out front were able to set up their bouncy castles and block all the major intersections, and there was no effort to stop them. That is why we need an inquiry. We need answers, and Canadians need answers.
In January, Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre said that there were “likely” extremists involved and that there was a “trigger point and opportunity for potential lone actor attackers to conduct a terrorism attack” out of this convey, which is not say that the people who were standing on the bridges were part of that. However, Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre recognized a danger of lone actors, so how was it that the people who came in with the trucks were invited right up onto Parliament Hill and allowed to park? Was that a security failure or was that collusion? I can tell members that there are trucks and other vehicles out there that just showed up for a protest and never thought they would ever get down here, yet they were put in a place outside of the Prime Minister's office. That needs to be assessed.
We know that the U.S. Congress is demanding Facebook to now explain the mass rise of fake overseas accounts that were promoting the convoy and Russian disinformation. We will never hear about that from the Conservatives. How is it that we can fail in our country on basic issues of security? We need to assess these things, and this is why we need an inquiry. People need to know whether this response was an overreach or not. We need to know how it was possible that so much money, foreign money, was being funnelled through a right-wing account that was used in the January 6 attack.
Any day of the week, I will say as a Canadian that I will stand up and make sure that dark money does not come into our country, and we need a law in place to make sure that accounts in the Cayman Islands are not directing political activities in the nation. That is not being partisan. That is our duty as politicians.
I know some Conservatives find that very upsetting, but there is enough blame to go around. I blame the Prime Minister and his failure to stand up to give us a vision when we needed a vision. I blame Doug Ford, who was off snowmobiling and kept missing key security briefings. There is a lot of blame to go around, but I certainly blame the Conservatives, who seem to think there is a political advantage to promoting extremists. They are telling the Prime Minister of our country to meet with the leadership, a leadership that came to this capital with an MOU calling for the overthrow of a democratically elected government. How is it possible that we are at a point where it considered okay to go out and meet with people who want to overthrow the government?
Who were those people, the people that the interim leader said we need to make this sustained and be a problem? Chris Barber, a vicious racist, likes truckers as long as they are white. He is one of those the interim leader said we were stigmatizing. Pat King singled me out for having the temerity to speak, as is my right, in the House. He is a man who talks about shooting the Prime Minister and shooting cops. Another one who the interim leader thought our Prime Minister should go out and meet is Tamara Lich, a woman dedicated to breaking up our country.
No, I will not negotiate with people like that. They belong in the crowbar hotel. We need the rule of law. What I have seen over the last three weeks has been shameful. We should never have needed these tools. These tools should have been used by the city of Ottawa to do ticketing. They should have been used in a proper manner, as the city of Quebec did, as the city of Toronto did, but we are in a situation now where this has been allowed to metastasize.
If the occupiers took over Thunder Bay or Red Deer, that would absolutely be local and provincial jurisdiction, but this is the nation's capital. We cannot be made to look like a failed state to the world, yet we cannot even manage to contain this. I talked earlier about my frustration with the failure of Ottawa police, but I look at the role the police have played over the last few days, and what we saw yesterday was policing at its best in this country.
I know police officers who have come down from the north. I know friends from the Quebec side, from the Sûreté du Québec, who are here. This is a terrible situation. It is a national embarrassment that we are here, but we have to have an assurance that people can travel in this city. That buddy who has a big truck and has decided he is going to block a major intersection for three solid weeks has more rights than someone who works at Metropolitain, a restaurant that has been shut down, or the young women I know who was harassed and insulted. They say it is all peaceful. It is all peaceful for a white guy with an upside down Canadian flag on their back, but it is not for someone who is a resident of Centretown being harassed in the grocery store for wearing a mask, or being insulted and told to go back where they came from. I have seen this.
Again, I blame the Ottawa police for not doing their job when they were supposed to, and I blame the mayor. It is our responsibility as legislators to say enough is enough. I want that inquiry. I want to know why the committee has not been struck. I want answers. I want to know that these tools will never be used against legitimate protests. We have to have answers.
I hold the government to account for that. I hold the provincial government to account. As a legislator, I am ready to do my job to say the rule of law and the right of people to be safe in their own city has to be a sacrosanct responsibility for all of us.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:35:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when one wants to undermine the security of a country, of a nation, one targets its critical infrastructure. For a trading nation, the most critical infrastructure is its border points. We saw what happened at the Ambassador Bridge, what happened in Manitoba and what happened in Coutts, Alberta. However, what many people do not realize is there were 12 additional protests that directly impacted port-of-entry operations, and in two cases, the protesters breached the CBSA plaza, resulting in CBSA officers locking down the office to prevent additional protesters from gaining entry.
Do those actions at the 12 points of entry, like at the Ambassador Bridge, not constitute a threat to the sovereignty and economic security of Canada?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:21:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The Bloc Québécois has not changed its position. From day one of the siege, we have been calling on the government to do something, to take responsibility, to create a crisis task force and to work with law enforcement, the Mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario in a concerted and coordinated way. We asked for everyone to work together and for this government to show some leadership, because the siege was serving as inspiration for other protests in other parts of the country.
The other protests were well managed by the police without any need for the Emergencies Act. Right now, there is a siege in downtown Ottawa. However, this crisis is limited to one area. It is not a nationwide crisis and it does not justify the use of the Emergencies Act. If the government had shown some leadership, this crisis would have been over a long time ago.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:37:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when one is Prime Minister, one must listen to everyone who expresses an opinion anywhere in the country. I imagine that is part of the job. The main thing was that the Prime Minister needed to take action on day one of the protests.
I understand my hon. colleague's question, and I thank him for it, but if certain members of the Conservative caucus had not exacerbated the crisis, we might not be where we are today. The fact is, some Conservatives had photos taken with the protesters. They said that we should listen to them and encouraged them to hold the line.
Here is what happened. Lack of leadership on the Liberal side and encouragement on the Conservative side brought us to where we are now, here in the House debating an act that should not be invoked for this kind of protest.
147 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 1:26:08 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 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 4:03:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I did notice a term in my colleague's speech when he talked about far right and far left. These are divisive terms. In here, we have to look at people as they are people, and make sure that we are actually listening to Canadian voices, wherever on the spectrum they may be, and make sure that everybody gets heard in this country. Stigmatizing some of those voices is not the right approach to this. I know the member usually does not undertake that kind of behaviour.
I will ask him a question around Canada's financial system. I would pose, for the member, that Canada already has adequate laws under FINTRAC to address foreign funding coming into Canada and looking at it. Would the member reconsider the notion of stigmatizing the bank accounts of people who donated a small amount to people they supported in these protests as they came to Ottawa, when they were protests, who now have the prospect of having their bank accounts frozen as a result. Would the member reconsider that at this time?
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am, not surprisingly, both happy and sad to have the chance to speak in the debate on the confirmation of the use of the Emergencies Act to break the border blockades and lift the siege of the capital.
I am happy to speak, because I think that the situation had reached a crisis point, and the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary to counter a real threat to democracy and the rule of law in Canada. However, I am sad that it has come to this. I am sad, because the Liberals let the situation go on for so long that we reached this crisis point.
It is important to consider how we got to this point. There is enough blame to go around when it comes to the widespread failure to understand that the blockades and the siege of downtown Ottawa and the parliamentary precinct are not protests or exercises in free speech. Instead, the self-described freedom fighters who organized this came prepared to use intimidation, harassment and coercion to get the policy changes that they want. That is not how democracy works; it is not how peaceful protests work, and these tactics have nothing to do with the right to free speech.
We have a rich history of protest in this country, and at times, many of us have been participants in those protests. However, the goal of those protests has always been to change minds and thus bring about change in policy by political means. Their goals have always been to convince governments to change course by making it clear that the political price of failing to do so would be too high.
Blockades and occupations are another thing altogether. None of what has been going on outside of Parliament for three weeks is part of any rich tradition of civil disobedience. Those engaging in civil disobedience do so with a clear understanding that they are taking on any harm to themselves. They accept that it is they themselves who will face harm from the arrests and penalties that result from their law-breaking. They accept that harm to themselves in order to make a strong, moral argument. Instead, those involved in the blockades and the siege seek to inflict harm on others until we all give in to their demands.
Legitimate protests never aim to extort change by intimidation or by deliberately causing harm to others. As the judge in the case resulting in an injunction against around-the-clock sounding of high decibel air horns in Ottawa said, he was not aware that honking was an expression of any great ideas.
I am critical of the Liberals for failing to recognize the nature of the threat that these blockades in Windsor and Coutts and the siege of downtown Ottawa represented. It is hard to understand how this could have been missed, when the organizers clearly stated their intention to force change and even to replace the elected government, when they set up base camps outside downtown Ottawa to ferry supplies to the occupiers downtown or when they organized an attack on 911 services in Ottawa to deny emergency services to residents. This is intimidation. This is extortion.
It is hard to understand how it could go on so long when the evidence of harassment and intimidation of residents and local businesses went on right on the steps of Parliament. We ended up with a situation where, according to most reports, over 50% of businesses downtown were forced to close altogether, and more than 85% had to curtail their activities in order to keep their workers safe. It is bitterly ironic for those businesses that the result of the tactics adopted by those who were arguing that we should open up actually resulted in further closures and heavy losses for local businesses and local workers.
It is hard to understand how the fact was missed that blockades at border crossings in Coutts and Windsor were designed to inflict economic damage severe enough to force change. Workers in factories, including those at GM plants, at a time when we are fighting hard to keep the auto industry alive in Canada, lost shifts as the border blockade interrupted the supply chain.
The ultimate irony is that the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades cost thousands of truckers, for whom the organizers falsely claim to speak, hours and even days stuck in the resulting jams. Once removed, those organizers tried to block the bridge in Windsor once again.
While I do hold the government responsible for letting the situation get out of hand, at the same time I reject the idea that somehow the government or vaccine mandates created division and that division explains the blockades and siege. Yes, there are some truckers involved in these disruptions, but never forget that over 90% of truckers are vaccinated. Never forget how they continued to work through the pandemic before vaccinations were available, at considerable risk to themselves and the health of their families, to protect the rest of us and our economy.
They know, like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, that masks, vaccinations and social distancing are what have brought us as close to escaping this pandemic as we have come so far. They know that social solidarity and standing united behind our health workers saved literally thousands of lives and gave a death rate from COVID less than half that of the United States. They know that only continuing to pull together as a society will get us to the other side.
Yes, people are free to reject science and the unequivocal advice of medical experts. They can choose to do so, but freedom means accepting the consequences for the choices we make. It does not mean we have the right to inflict the consequences of our choices on others. Those who reject the mandates should not be surprised to find restrictions on what they can do due to the risk they pose to others and to our ability as a nation to survive the pandemic.
No doubt as the pandemic drags on we all want to see restrictions lifted, but for the vast majority of Canadians, this should happen only when it is safe to do so. Five new deaths from COVID were recorded yesterday in British Columbia, including yet another on Vancouver Island, where we are still continuing to lose an average of more than one person per day to COVID. Those are families that lose a loved one each and every day. As of yesterday, the number in critical care in B.C. dropped below 1,000, a number that is still far too high, although thankfully it is down considerably. However, even with numbers dropping, our hospitals and health care workers are near the breaking point.
It is this tension resulting from the ongoing pandemic that the organizers of the blockades and siege have exploited for their own ends. Members should make no mistake that the organizers are extremists and anti-democratic in their goals. It is their clear intention to use force, intimidation and for some, as we have seen at the Coutts border crossing, violence to achieve their ends.
In downtown Ottawa we have seen the open display of hate symbols, racism and homophobia. We have seen the intimidation of residents demanding they remove their masks. This happened to me personally more than once, but it has been most often directed at those the occupiers perceive to be weak and vulnerable to such pressure: women, racialized Canadians and members of the 2SLGBTQI community.
Before some say that every protest has its bad apples or that it is only an extremist minority among the protesters, let me point out that the organizers never once condemned things like the display of Nazi flags, nor did they condemn intimidating local residents by demanding they remove their masks, and supporters have argued that there were only a few swastikas flying in the Ottawa occupation, although I personally counted six in three blocks in a single day. Let me repeat the obvious question: How many swastikas are okay? The obvious answer is none.
People say Confederate flags are just symbols of rebellion, and those who argue that may want to stop and think for just a moment about making that argument in this current context. Confederate flags are clearly symbols of racism and the violence associated with anti-Black racism. That is why I support my colleague the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's private member's bill to ban the public display of these ugly symbols of hate, which discourage full participation in Canadian society by some of our citizens.
We have seen invasions of businesses who are enforcing mandates to keep their employees and all of us safe, and now, with more than half the businesses in downtown Ottawa forced to close, there are literally thousands out of work because of those closures. More than 1,500 people who work at the Rideau Centre mall alone have been out of work for three weeks now.
We have seen the physical intimidation of journalists and the use of children as shields. There have been open threats of violence against the Prime Minister, cabinet and us as members of Parliament both on the streets and online. Perhaps most relevant to our debate here about the invocation of emergency powers, we have seen repeated statements from the organizers that they would not leave until the mandates are lifted.
This is why New Democrats are supporting using emergency powers to put an end to what are, in fact, organized attacks on democracy. As we have done for the past three weeks now, New Democrats continue to reject the narrative that Canadians are more divided than ever. The evidence is, frankly, just the opposite.
When I stand to vote on this motion to affirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I will be standing with health care workers, with first responders, with grocery workers, all front-line workers and yes, the vast majority of truckers, but I will also be standing to pledge vigilance to ensure these necessary but extraordinary powers are used only to remove these serious threats to democracy and never to infringe on our rights to protest and dissent.
Again, let me say I am sad it has come to this, but I am proud to stand firmly against the use of intimidation, hatred and violence to overturn our democracy.
1747 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:42:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
I rise today with a very heavy heart to speak in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act by our government and the motion in this House to affirm the government's decision. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people. I want to thank the many truckers in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, and the hundreds of thousands of truckers around the world, who have helped us throughout the pandemic.
Ever since I can remember, I have gone to protests. We have been protesting the rights of Tamils on the island of Sri Lanka from the time I was maybe four or five. After the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1983, I demonstrated for weeks on end at the India consulate in Dublin, Ireland. Later in Canada in the 1980s, I protested apartheid of South Africa. In the 1990s, I protested the cuts to education in Ontario under their then premier Bob Rae. In 1995, I organized a vigil and protest right here on Parliament Hill as Tamils were being displaced in the north and east of the island.
In the 2000s, I extended legal supports to protesters at Queen's Park. I did a number of them throughout the decade. In 2009, I was right here in Ottawa and provided legal support to those who were protesting against the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka. This has been referred to, in the last several days, as the Tamil protest. It started in early February and ended in May of 2009. This included similar protests on University Avenue in front of the U.S. consulate, and I worked with the then chief of police for the City of Toronto, now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, to ensure those protests were peaceful.
I can recall my nephew, who was 10 years old at that time, going to many of these protests with my late father-in-law. My partner and I took our four-month-old in frigid temperatures to protest on Dundas Square in the winter of 2009. During this time, I also attended protests in Washington, New York and Geneva. I am therefore an ardent believer in the right to protest as a tool of dissent and political advocacy. I believe in the right to protest, and I also believe that children should be part of protests, but not used as shields in an illegal occupation.
Since January 29, 2022, Canada has been gripped by what started off with protesting, and has turned into illegal blockades and occupiers. Many colleagues across the aisle have talked about their interactions with the illegal blockaders. I have a great deal of respect for many of my colleagues across the aisle. They have spoken about their interactions with some truckers and other protesters, and their ability to walk through the illegal blockades and understand and empathize.
Sadly, I do not have that privilege. Many in this House do not have that privilege. Even though, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to enjoy the same level of privilege, I do not share that privilege.
They have called for the overthrow of a government and, de facto, all of us serving in this House. They brought symbols of hate, like the confederate flag, Nazi symbols and others, to the protest. They have destroyed the pride flag. They have threatened media. They have taken food from a homeless shelter. I ask my colleagues opposite to please forgive me if I do not feel the same level of confidence engaging with these so-called protesters.
I would never cast dispersions over a group based on the acts of a few, but after 23 days, many who may feel strongly about the type of hate and vitriol we see on the streets should distance themselves and condemn them, including the Conservative Party of Canada.
The impacts of these illegal blockades on Ottawa, Coutts, Emerson, Surrey and Windsor are profound. These illegal blockades are different in form and substance to the hundreds of protests we see here in Ottawa annually. That is why, after considerable consultation and engagement, our government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022. We did so after the City of Ottawa, Windsor and others invoked emergencies in their municipalities, and after the Province of Ontario did so as well.
Ultimately, Canada is a rule of law country. In declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law and are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for a public order emergency to be declared. Our government believes those conditions have been met.
I want to highlight the preamble of the Emergencies Act, which reads:
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;
Any and all action our government takes will be subject to the charter, and it is the solemn responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure this. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in specific serious circumstances that amount to a national emergency.
In order to meet the threshold for a national emergency, three conditions must be met. First, we must be in a situation that either seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and exceeds the capacity of authority of a province to deal with it, or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
Second, the capacity of the provinces and territories to handle the situation must be considered insufficient or show gaps. Third, we must conclude the situation cannot be handled adequately under any other Canadian law, including provincial and territorial laws.
Our government believes these conditions were met, and we have tabled an explanation of the reasons for issuing this declaration, as required by this act. We also tabled, as required, a report on any consultation with the provinces with respect to the declaration. I would especially like to highlight and thank for their support the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as noted in the document of invoking the act to respond to this national emergency.
As members have seen, our government introduced targeted orders under the act. While the act technically applies to all of Canada, we have been very careful to tailor orders to be as focused as possible and only those places affected by blockades and illegal occupations will see any change at all.
We introduced the following six temporary measures to bring the situation under control. One, regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of peace and go beyond lawful protests. Two, designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. Three, directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. Four, authorizing direct financial institutions to render essential services to relieve impact of blockades. Five, enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal laws and provincial offences. Finally, imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of any order or regulation made under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
There are a number of safeguards built into this act. As required by the act, the Prime Minister met with the cabinet, as well as premiers, prior to invoking the act. After having declared the act, we tabled the declaration within two days, and Parliament has been able to debate it within seven days. In the coming days, the parliamentary committee will be struck and an inquiry will be called. The declaration lasts for 30 days and can be revoked at any time at the will of Parliament.
The situation is urgent. As interim chief of the Ottawa Police Steve Bell said yesterday that the police would not have been able to undertake the enormous operation currently taking in place in Ottawa without the temporary measures extended to it by the Emergencies Act.
We are invoking the Emergencies Act to end illegal blockades and occupations. We are invoking it to restore the rights of those who cannot safely walk the streets of downtown Ottawa and other places.
1424 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:09:10 p.m.
- Watch
Yes, Madam Speaker, I am concerned. The inability of the police to bring this under control earlier was part of the reason why it was necessary to enact this legislation. There is a marked difference between the way these different protests are being treated, so I would fully support an inquiry.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:32:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, lots of words come to mind about that negative interruption. The way the member put the words of his interruption into the record is disturbing.
It is interesting how the Liberal colleagues often talk about how dangerous or scary the protest is, yet I do not think any of them even walked into the protest. When I was at the health committee one day, it ended early because my colleagues were scared to go out in the dark.
Further failures of leadership are clear. Documents have been made available to us in which the Prime Minister convened a first ministers' meeting. Its proposed agenda was to consult premiers on whether to declare this a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. The documents reveal that the opinions of the premiers were given in confidence. However, since then their positions have been made clear. The Premier of Quebec did not think it was beneficial. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were opposed. I could find no comments for the Yukon, Northwest Territories or Nunavut. If in that consultation the opinions of seven of the 10 premiers were ignored, why bother having it?
As has been pointed out repeatedly, there never has been nor will there be any consultation by the Prime Minister or any of his government officials with the protesters. I will repeat that for the House and all Canadians. The Prime Minister has never spoken to any of the protesters who were there previously and now he has decided to employ and access the Emergencies Act.
Besides the Prime Minister's dismal approval rating, what is the emergency? What steps could have been taken before the government enacted the Emergencies Act that would have made this right, so that Canadians could believe that some suspension of their rights and freedoms would be appropriate?
A public order emergency is described as a “threat” to Canada's security, including acts of espionage and sabotage; “foreign influenced activities” that are detrimental to Canadian interests; terrorist activities; and efforts to covertly or by violence overthrow the constitutional structure of the country. Lawful advocacy, protests, demonstrations and similar activities are not included.
I think I made it clear that walking through the protests I did not feel unsafe.
This public order emergency has given the federal government significant overreach with respect to potentially accessing the bank accounts of not only those involved in the civil disobedience but of those who may have donated to the cause. As we have heard before, does that mean if one were to donate $5 or $10, that person's assets would be frozen? If relatives of a leader of a party in this House had donated to the cause would their assets be frozen? I wonder.
Bloomberg News described it that “banks would be required to report relationships with people involved in blockades and would be given the authority to freeze accounts without a court order, among other measures.” I spoke to Daniel the other day, who is now afraid to donate to any charity and he is now afraid his bank account may be frozen and he will not be able to pay his mortgage. He wonders if these new powers will continue to be used for other causes that raise funds if the government does not agree with their values. He is a proud Canadian with three Canadian flags in his yard.
From the current government we have seen travel restricted, cellphone data collected, military propaganda used domestically, bank accounts frozen and now the Emergencies Act invoked. If those are not multiple infringements upon the civil liberties and the Charter of Rights of Freedoms of Canadians, what is? Canada is now at a crossroads with its democracy. We have a Prime Minister who chooses to vilify, stigmatize and traumatize Canadians with different opinions.
The government has declared a public order emergency with the disagreement of seven of 10 premiers and indeed the vast majority of our country outside of Ottawa has no evidence of a public order emergency. We have seen law enforcement agencies successfully deal with the frustrations that have boiled over at the Ambassador Bridge and a multitude of other border crossings without the Emergencies Act. We also heard about the massive disruptions these blockades at border crossings have caused and the damage that has done to our economy.
However, I cannot fathom that the finance minister tells us how great the economy is at the current time, despite our 5.1% inflation rate and Canadians being priced out of their own lives, all of which was in existence before the last three weeks.
There is absolutely no reason the Emergencies Act cannot be rescinded post-haste and the madness stopped. It is sad that an ideological coalition has the potential to allow the act to continue for up to another 30 days. The left wing thinks that its position is perfectly fine, and there is no issue with that.
These people, who wanted to protest, were ignored. That is the sad reality of how we ended up here.
858 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:58:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am going to go in a different direction because I think it is important. There is one thing we have heard very little about in relation to this crisis.
We have heard a lot about extremist groups that infiltrated the protests. This is true and has been documented. These extremist groups exist, and we must combat them. However, there are other ways to do so. We did not need the Emergencies Act.
We have heard a lot about children being used as human shields. The media has really sensationalized this.
There are people outside who simply wanted to express their frustrations over what they have been living with for the past two years. I share that frustration. Everyone is fed up and tired. The health restrictions have been hard on people.
We, as members of Parliament, are relatively privileged. We probably have homes that are big enough to live in. Many of the people who are outside right now live with eight people in a one-bedroom apartment, and it is not easy going through this pandemic with all of these restrictions.
If, instead of tarring everyone with the same brush—this is Canadians we are talking about after all—the Prime Minister had listened to people all along, we might have been able to resolve this crisis in another way.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:30:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I rise in the House today, I feel sad and disappointed. This week, for the first time since it was enacted, the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Prime Minister. This is a historic event.
Over the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has taken no significant steps to de-escalate the protests across the country or to use every other tool available to him. Instead, he went straight to extreme measures.
For more than three weeks, the government just sat there while blockades shut our borders and other important infrastructure down. The government remained silent, demonizing peaceful protesters by tarring them all with the same brush, while Canadians came out in droves just to make themselves heard. The Prime Minister lacks the compassion to even listen to people he disagrees with. Such conduct is not befitting the leader of a country.
Many of these people are our neighbours, our fellow citizens, Canadians who want to be heard and be granted a modicum of respect from their Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decided that, because he did not agree with them and did not like their opinions, he would not listen to them. At every opportunity, the Prime Minister stigmatized, marginalized and divided Canadians.
Why did the government jump straight to this extreme measure without first doing something to take the pressure off? No government should resort to the kinds of extreme measures set out in the Emergencies Act without exhausting all other options.
We asked the government to publicly commit to a clear plan and timetable for lifting federal government mandates and restrictions. The Liberals and NDP refused to support our motion, and instead, the Prime Minister sought to gain even more power.
This comes at a time when nearly all provincial governments have announced plans to lift COVID-19 restrictions. Many provinces have expressed their frustration with the Prime Minister's actions. They do not want the federal government to impose the Emergencies Act in their areas of responsibility.
Just as the trucking industry made it clear that it was never consulted about the government-imposed mandates, the provinces and territories do not appear to have been consulted in this case either.
Our country seems to be turning more and more into a dictatorship. Unfortunately, to no one's great surprise, the NDP is once again supporting the current government by forming a coalition that is dividing our country.
My office has been inundated with messages from citizens who are very worried about the government's ongoing extreme policies. My staff is having a great deal of difficulty responding to the huge volume of calls and emails about this issue.
The fact is that Canadians simply want to see a light at the end of the tunnel. We are all tired, as several colleagues mentioned earlier, yet this government and its NDP ally do not seem to want to set goals for reopening, which I think is deplorable.
As we know, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. We believe that the illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully.
However, the Prime Minister's actions could have the opposite effect. Almost all the protesters have been dispersed, but the Prime Minister believes that this is the time to fan the flames and further divide this country.
We must come together, despite our differences, for the good of our country. I would like the Prime Minister to recognize this.
The measure we are debating today is an excellent example of this Prime Minister's lack of leadership. It is his way of covering up his mistakes and those of his ministers. Rest assured that Canadians and the rest of the world are watching us.
I spent many years working as a representative in my community. I have served the people of Beauce for more than 20 years. The greatest skill I have learned over the years, and the most important quality for a politician, is the ability to listen. I have always taken the time to listen to people's concerns and to have meaningful debates over coffee at a restaurant or at the corner store.
This Prime Minister is so out of touch with reality that he does not take the time to speak with ordinary Canadians. He is not interested if there are no cameras around.
Our country must reassess its true values and question whether this Prime Minister is the right person to lead it. After calling an unnecessary election to get more power, this government formed another minority government. The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canadians made a clear choice by re-electing him. However, he seems to forget that for the second consecutive election, it was the Conservatives who won the popular vote.
Of course, the Prime Minister will never acknowledge the fact that he received fewer votes than the official opposition. The reality is that the Liberals have the NDP in the palm of their hand. I think it is shameful that the NDP continues to add fuel to the fire along with the Prime Minister.
As I rise to speak today, I wonder why we cannot allow the police and the powers already in place to do their job, while we do ours in the House by passing and debating bills to improve the lives of Canadians. People in my riding cannot even get adequate cellular coverage. They cannot reach Service Canada by phone when their employment insurance or guaranteed income supplement is cut, or when they are victims of fraud. They cannot bring the temporary foreign workers into Canada they so desperately need to fill important jobs and run their businesses.
While we in the House debate the failures of this Prime Minister and his cabinet, my constituents continue to pay the price for this incompetence.
In conclusion, I will vote against this motion, as will all of my Conservative Party colleagues, since I do not think that what our country is experiencing right now warrants the use of such powerful measures. We have been through more than two years of a global pandemic and many protests have subsided. Now is not the time to lose our country's trust by taking such drastic measures against our own people.
I urge all of my colleagues here to think long and hard about how they will vote on this motion. I remind them that their constituents are watching.
I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues.
1082 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:45:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
I took the time to look out the window. Like my colleague, I see that there is nothing much left to do any overthrowing. We are here to debate the situation, and we will be debating it until early Monday evening. I wonder why we are doing this, because most of the work to dismantle the protests that have taken place across Canada was done before the act—
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:54:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thought I had indicated that at the beginning, but if not, my apologies. I am sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.
I want to highlight what has been happening with so many small businesses. They have seen illegal obstructions right in their own neighbourhoods. They have had patrons who have had to endure harassment. Many of them have had to shut down their businesses. So many Canadians have had to endure radical comments, rhetoric that has been very toxic, hateful, dangerous. This really has no place in our society, in any town or city in this country. It has no place in Canada. I cannot stress that enough.
My heart sank in the early days of this protest when I saw swastikas and other deplorable signs of white supremacy and anti-Semitism displayed in this country, in front of Canada's Parliament, the freest country in the world. It was a blatant disregard of civil liberties of our country's neighbours.
On Monday when the federal government declared a public emergency order, it was simply because the situation in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country had exceeded beyond the breaking point. My own riding of Labrador and many other communities like it across Canada are so far removed from downtown Ottawa, but MPs were receiving many messages. I received so many messages from people across my riding because they were worried and scared. They were scared for our country and they wrote to me.
One person said, “As a Canadian citizen, I hate the way our country looks right now, how we are made to feel unsafe by radical protesters. Please, please, can government do something to end this protest that is going on?”
This is just one of many messages that I received from Labradorians. It was obvious not only in my riding, but in many other ridings that they were concerned as well. They were concerned about border crossings. They were concerned about what was happening to so many other residents in downtown Ottawa. It was clear that there were serious concerns being expressed, but it was also very clear to our government that there were serious challenges in law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law.
They were not moving with the urgency that Canadians reasonably expected and there was, and remains, a serious threat to the security of Canada and all Canadians. It is for these reasons the federal government has stepped in and has used the tools at its disposal to address this very unique and unprecedented situation in the country. When we deal with unprecedented situations that risk the safety and security of the country, it requires unprecedented measures and unprecedented action. The resources are now available to bring a safe conclusion to this illegal occupation.
As the Minister of Justice said a few days ago, Canada is a rule of law country, so by declaring a public order of emergency under the Emergencies Act, our government is following the law and is acting within it. Many of my colleagues already spoke to this part of the legislation, but under this act the federal government is now able to temporarily regulate and prohibit public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protests, because these are not lawful protests.
It allows the government to temporarily designate and secure places where blockades are to be prohibited, which includes borders and other critical infrastructure to the country. It allows temporarily for government to direct persons to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades on Canada's economy, which we have seen already being the case. It includes allowing them to access tow trucks and drivers to ensure the job can be done safely and strategically. It also allows government to temporarily authorize or direct financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impacts of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund or support the blockades.
It gives temporary abilities to the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial defences where required and to temporarily impose fines or imprisonment on those who do not follow the law.
These special measures are necessary, despite what others may say, and they are temporary. Moreover, these measures, like all other government actions, are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights, which many of my colleagues have already spoken of. They give very clear, definitive definitions of those acts and what they mean. We are operating within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights.
That brings me to what this “freedom convoy”, as it has been known, really is. My idea of freedom in this country is having the freedom to express myself in a peaceful manner, having the freedom to walk outside my door and feel safe, having the freedom to go to bed at night unimpeded by honking horns, street parties and fireworks waking me up at all hours in the middle of the night. My idea of freedom in Canada is to be able to go to work—
866 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:02:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, realistically, when looking at the facts of what is happening here, this is not about a peaceful protest. This is about upholding the rule of law.
I have been involved in many protests in my day and I have seen many hard-working men and women who were convicted in their thinking, who walked protest lines for days and nights to bring their points to the government and to the ears of people who were listening, but they never brought harm to anyone around them and they certainly never confronted those in a violent and aggressive manner. What we are dealing with in Canada today is the complete neglect of the law, of Canadian—
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
