44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 11:11:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the work of the various police forces. So far, the clearing of the protest has been carried out in a calm and orderly manner, under the circumstances. I hope to see that continue.
I would also like to thank the House of Commons staff and security service, whose outstanding efforts have made it possible for us to sit today under these exceptional circumstances.
This is an extremely serious debate. The Emergencies Act is the nuclear option of legislative tools. It is the last resort. Governing by decree is not right. The decision of whether or not to authorize the use of this legislation lies with all of us as members of Parliament.
What we decide will go down in history. We have the power to stop it or to give the government carte blanche. The decision falls squarely on our shoulders. I urge all parliamentarians across party lines to rise to the occasion in a way that reflects the gravity of the situation.
The Emergencies Act is special legislation that should be invoked only when it is absolutely necessary. It is invoked after concluding that ordinary legislation is inadequate to deal with an urgent and dangerous situation. I really want to emphasize again that invoking this act is the nuclear option and must not be taken lightly.
Some have argued that the act was necessary to send a message to the occupiers of Ottawa. There is no need to go nuclear to send a message.
The motion before us is not just about accepting the proclamation of emergency measures. It asks us to accept three orders that contain a series of measures. Our duty, as parliamentarians, is to study these measures and ask ourselves whether each of them is truly necessary and whether there is no other way to solve the problem. If we conclude that any of them is not really critical, then we must reject the motion.
The government could present a more suitable order if it thinks it is necessary. In that case, we will see. I am a Quebecker and a separatist. My colleagues will have no trouble understanding why the declaration of emergency measures feels like a punch to the gut to me.
Some have argued that the current Emergencies Act is completely different from the infamous War Measures Act that was used to intimidate Quebeckers and tyrannize the separatists in 1970. That is true, and for good reason.
To understand the purpose of the act, let us go back nearly 34 years to when it was passed. The act was passed in 1988, after being introduced in 1987. What happened in 1987? It was another time, but it helps us understand the intention of Parliament at the time.
Brian Mulroney was in power. He was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, which no longer exists. He was elected on a platform of reconciliation with Quebec, which is something that Canada no longer talks about.
In 1987, one of his reconciliation measures included signing the Meech Lake accord. He wanted to remedy a travesty committed in 1982, when English Canada amended the Constitution and reduced the National Assembly of Quebec's powers. This was done without us and against our will. The rest is history. The Meech Lake Constitutional Accord failed, as did the Charlottetown accord that followed, and there still has not been any reconciliation.
That same year, the Mulroney government introduced the act we are discussing today. It wanted to repeal the War Measures Act, a piece of legislation that had traumatized Quebec 17 years earlier. The Mulroney government was attempting to remedy the travesty of 1970 the same year it was trying to make up for the travesty of 1982. That is why the Emergencies Act is different from the War Measures Act.
This time, no police officers or soldiers will show up in middle of the night without a warrant and arrest innocent people whose only crime was having a different opinion. That will not happen this time around. Fundamental rights have not been abolished. There are safeguards now that did not exist under the accursed War Measures Act.
In the past, the government could invoke the act at will. Now, there are safeguards. We are one of those safeguards, but safeguards are only helpful if they are used. I urge everyone to make use of these safeguards today.
The first safeguard involves consulting the provinces. The act requires that the government consult the provinces and report back to Parliament. When this act was passed as part of the reconciliation with Quebec, no one ever thought that it would be imposed on us, because our consent was needed.
There was a requirement to consult. The government gave us a summary of its consultations, as required by law. It informed us that seven of the 10 provinces were opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Two of the three that agreed that the government had to invoke the act because of the problems in the city of Ottawa said that they did not need the act enforced in their provinces.
However, the government chose to impose this act from coast to coast to coast. The government is imposing this act on Quebec, which said no. The Government of Quebec said no. Members from all parties in the Quebec National Assembly, which speaks on behalf of the people of Quebec, unanimously said no. This unanimous decision from the Quebec National Assembly is nowhere to be found in the three orders that the government is asking us to approve. Consultations are meaningless to this government.
We understood that this act would never be imposed on us without our consent, but that is what is happening here. Reconciliation with Quebec, which, I will remind the House, was one of the cornerstones of getting the Emergencies Act passed, is being thrown out the window. The first safeguard to prevent government by decree failed. The government overrode it. The second safeguard is us parliamentarians.
The government is bound by the act to inform us that the provinces are opposed and that Quebec is opposed, so that we take it into consideration. The orders being imposed on us do not take it into consideration, however. The act applies to the country as a whole, regardless of whether or not there are problems, or whether or not Quebec is opposed. This is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation with Quebec that led to the passage of the act. Reconciliation with Quebec, respect for Quebec—that rings hollow now.
Let us get back to the act. Generally, two conditions must be met for the government to have the right to invoke it and for Parliament to be justified in approving it. First, there must be a dangerous and urgent situation. Second, it must be impossible to deal with the situation under existing laws, making it essential to move to governing by decree.
The Emergencies Act requires the government to justify its decision to invoke the act and to lay before Parliament “an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration”. On Wednesday evening, the government sent us a document entitled “Explanation pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act”. In this explanatory document, the government cites five reasons to justify its decision to invoke the act.
(i) The occupiers threaten to use violence for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective.
(ii) The blockades, in particular blockades of critical infrastructure, threaten Canada's economic security.
(iii) The blockades, in particular those at the border, are detrimental to Canada-U.S. relations.
(iv) The blockades threaten the supply of essential goods to Canadians.
(v) There is potential for an increase in the level of violence.
It is conceivable that the five reasons cited by the government may or may not be real. That is a matter for debate. Given that the Emergencies Act is the nuclear option, however, it sets the bar higher than that. Even if these five reasons were well founded, the fact remains that this is not enough. The government needs to meet one more criterion in order to proceed. Section 3 of the act states that it is not enough for there to be a crisis. The crisis must also be “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it” and one that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.
In other words, before it can invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that the crisis cannot be dealt with under ordinary laws and that it is absolutely necessary to resort to special legislation and government by decree. However, the government did not demonstrate this in the statement of reasons it gave to parliamentarians. Worse, it did not even attempt to do so, even though this is required under the act. It has remained completely silent on this.
By the way, I will ask again, what laws are currently insufficient?
The order states that it is prohibited to bring a child to an illegal protest. However, provincial child protection laws already prohibit exposing a child to a dangerous situation. That is already the case in both Quebec and Ontario. The Children's Aid Society, the Ontario equivalent of Quebec's Direction de la protection de la jeunesse, was already involved because Ottawa police had referred cases to it.
Exactly how are the regular laws are not effectively dealing with the situation?
1610 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:21:32 a.m.
- Watch
Order. I must interrupt the member.
It seems that there was an interpretation issue, but it has now been fixed.
The hon. member for Joliette may continue his speech.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:22:02 a.m.
- Watch
As I was saying, as far as child welfare is concerned, the file is already open.
In what way are Canada's laws inadequate for coping with this situation? Why does the government consider the Emergencies Act to be necessary? We do not know—no one knows—because the government is not saying.
The order provides for the possibility of having financial institutions freeze the accounts of those who participate in illegal demonstrations. However, the Criminal Code already prohibits the funding of illegal activities. This is already the case. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act already authorizes financial institutions to freeze the proceeds of criminal activities or funds used to finance such activities. This is already the case under Canada's existing laws. There is no legislative void.
In what way do these laws not allow us to deal with the current situation? Why does the government consider the Emergencies Act to be necessary? We do not know, no one knows, because the government is not saying.
In fact, not only has the government never said why this power was indispensable, it has also never said in what way it could be useful.
Last week, the government gave us a briefing on enforcing the act. What it told us about freezing bank accounts was disturbing. An assistant deputy minister from the Department of Finance explained how it would work. What the government told us was that it would be up to the financial institutions to freeze the accounts of those involved in the occupation in Ottawa. In other words, it would be up to the financial institutions to guess which of their members or customers are taking part in these illegal protests and then guess when they have left the protest so that their accounts can be reactivated. The government does not see itself as having any particular responsibility for this and says that it is the banks' responsibility. What a joke.
Banks are not the police. They cannot know who is blocking the streets of Ottawa. The government is washing his hands of this situation. It is utter nonsense.
Under the Emergencies Act, the government is required explain why it cannot end the occupation in Ottawa using existing laws. Not only has it failed to do so, but it has also not even told us how the act would help here.
I will give another example. Pursuant to the executive order, the measures against financing criminal activity extend to crowdfunding platforms. Now, that is a good idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that it is already possible to take such action under existing laws.
Crowdfunding platforms are already governed by the provinces. We have laws already, and they work. For example, on February 10, the Ontario Superior Court granted an injunction sought by the province to freeze funds raised by the “Freedom Convoy 2022” and “Adopt a Trucker” campaigns on the GiveSendGo crowdfunding platform. That happened under ordinary laws without the Emergencies Act and without the government's order.
In what way do existing laws not allow for adequate management of the situation? Why does the government think the Emergencies Act is necessary? We do not know, we do not see and we do not understand.
Here is another example. The order authorizes insurers to suspend the occupiers' insurance. How are the truckers going to be able to leave if they are no longer insured? If the truckers' liability insurance is suspended and an accident happens, the victims will not receive compensation for damages. How is it necessary or useful to take that away from victims?
The government had a legal obligation to show that each of the emergency powers it was giving itself was absolutely necessary to resolve the crisis. In the case of suspending insurance, not only did the government not seek to demonstrate the absolute necessity of this measure, but it did not seek to demonstrate how it was useful.
The order sets out a series of grounds for declaring a protest to be illegal, including the paralysis of critical infrastructure, significant obstruction of traffic, and so on. All of these grounds are included in one or more of the ordinary laws that are currently in force, whether it is the Criminal Code, highway traffic acts, or municipal bylaws.
Law enforcement had all the legal tools to deal with the various border blockades. We saw that in Windsor and Coutts. There is no legal vacuum that needs to be filled by proclaiming emergency measures, as the government itself admits. It was not the absence of legislation that brought Ottawa to a standstill. In the government's statement of reasons, it does not even try to argue that there was a legal vacuum to be filled by the special legislation. That is just pathetic.
The Emergencies Act is designed to make up for the inadequacy of existing legislation. It is not designed to make up for the government's lack of leadership.
I could have understood the government needing emergency powers to requisition tow trucks and move the trucks currently being used as barricades in Ottawa. Even though the government did not make that argument, I could have understood it. A one-section order to address this shortfall in a very limited area might have been acceptable.
The orders before us are not just about requisitioning tow trucks in Ottawa.
These orders amount to a carte blanche. They cover a series of actions without any apparent justification, and they apply throughout Canada, including Quebec, where there is no state of emergency.
These extremely broad orders are what the House is being asked to approve.
In all conscience, I refuse to do so. The Bloc Québécois refuses to do so.
The Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called on the House of Commons to refuse to do this. The criteria for invoking the act have not been met. The government knows full well that the current laws are enough; otherwise, it would have told us so.
The Emergencies Act does not address a need. All it does is save face for the Prime Minister, who let the situation get out of hand from the very beginning and wants to show that he is doing something. However, as I said, you do not drop an atomic bomb in order to send a message. Quebec does not want the emergency measures to apply in its territory.
The government held consultations and was told no. It should have taken that for an answer, but it did not. Will parliamentarians do their part by hitting the brakes? Will they stand up against government by decree, or will they instead listen to the Liberal Party?
We know that the Liberals will listen to what the government tells them. Once a lapdog, always a lapdog.
Now I will turn to the NDP.
In 1970, Tommy Douglas said that invoking the War Measures Act was like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. The law changed in 1988, but the situation remains the same.
Proclaiming the Emergencies Act and imposing it on Quebec, where there is no state of emergency, is today's equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.
Of course, the Emergencies Act is different from the infamous War Measures Act. It contains safeguards, brakes on the authoritarianism of government by decree, but the key brake is us parliamentarians. We have a heavy burden on our shoulders.
Once a lapdog, always a lapdog. When it comes time to vote, we will see if the NDP should be called the New Liberal Party or remain the New Democratic Party. The NDP essentially has the burden of choosing between a democratic government and a government by decree.
I am standing up and saying no to these three outrageous orders out of respect and love for my people.
1320 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:29:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act has already demonstrated that it can be effective. Law enforcement officers are, in fact, using it and it is being effective. We are very much concerned about the blockades shutting down downtown Ottawa and the blockades that have affected hundreds of millions of dollars in international trade on our trade corridors, and about the impact they are having today and will have into the future. These are very serious. We are talking about jobs and we are talking about health conditions. There are so many reasons to do this.
Does the member believe that law enforcement officers are wrong today for using the tool we are providing them? Are our law enforcement officers offside with Parliament?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:30:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from day one the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to act, to roll up its sleeves and to prevent the situation from deteriorating.
The government allowed the situation to deteriorate and now, instead of moving in a measured way and using existing laws, it is using the nuclear option, the Emergencies Act, which is unnecessary.
Did the parliamentary secretary listen to my speech? Not a single measure that was invoked is necessary. The police forces were already able to work together. They did not need emergency legislation for that. It is nonsense.
The government and the Prime Minister are trying to save face because they have been asleep at the switch for three weeks. The government should be ashamed.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:31:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals seem almost giddy today when talking about the effectiveness of what is going on out there. There was never any question that it was going to be effective. The question is whether it is justified. That is the question.
I listened to the hon. member's speech and I appreciated his tone and what he had to say. If we are using the Emergencies Act today for this, in what other situations would this precedent allow the Emergencies Act to be justified if it is justified for this?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:32:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I completely agree with him.
Everyone is saying that something needs to be done. This situation is a problem, but nothing justifies the nuclear option. The government was obliged to prove that there was no other option before it invoked the act.
The government did not even try to prove this in the official documents it sent us, nor did it review the existing legislation. We did that, and we did not find any measures that were lacking in the existing legislation and that would justify the use of this act, other than the potential need to requisition tow trucks.
The Liberal Party is making a questionable connection between the situation that needs to be resolved and the legislative atomic bomb it is dropping.
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:33:05 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. We know how quickly extremist behaviour and ideologies can spread. With the sheer volume of this demonstration, I am genuinely concerned that racism will grow, entrench and allow widespread violence to ensue. This extremism is dangerous and must be dealt with urgently.
I am not sure if the member heard the news last night, but the interim Ottawa police chief, Steve Bell, said, “Without the authorities provided to us through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to be doing the work we are today.”
Does the member agree that extremist ideologies from other countries must be stopped and that Canadians must return to their Canadian roots of kindness to their neighbours?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:33:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question and comments.
I want to be clear. We are criticizing the possible associations between questionable political positions, the unwarranted occupations and the use of the Emergencies Act, which we do not think is justifiable.
I completely agree with what the member said about denouncing hate speech and unacceptable comments and continuing to fight this issue. That said, the government cannot claim that the Emergencies Act is required because the siege must be stopped.
I remind members that in the 1970s, Tommy Douglas's party was the only one that opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act. I urge the NDP to draw some inspiration from Tommy Douglas and the decision he made back then.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:34:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech. I have a question for him, and I hope I will be able to express myself clearly.
I do not think the definition of what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada can be found in the Emergencies Act. Rather, it is found in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which refers specifically to foreign influenced activities.
I find this deeply disturbing because I think that the misinformation about COVID‑19 and the vaccines, as well as the bizarre ideas that some protesters have are coming from two sources. Some come from Republicans in the United States but mostly they come from from Russia and Mr. Putin, who are spreading misinformation on sites like russiatoday.com. This site is accessible in Canada, which I find very surprising, since it spreads misinformation for the purpose of destroying democratic societies around the world.
We need to make a decision about the Emergencies Act, but beyond that, we must take action against sources of misinformation. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:36:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.
This is indeed very concerning. We must not let foreign powers influence domestic policy, that is for sure. That is why, in my speech, I referred to the five reasons given by the government to justify its decision to use the Emergencies Act. I also pointed out that these reasons were justifiable and worthy of debate.
However, in order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that the problem cannot be addressed by the ordinary laws and regulations already in place. It has not done so.
There are already regulations and laws in place, for example,those concerning funding platforms. The government has not even tried to demonstrate that there is a legal void. That is our position.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:37:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, something rather ironic is happening in the House right now: An NDP member is sitting on a Liberal back bench. I hope that he is at least negotiating a seat closer to the front.
Having said that, I hear members on the government side talking about a Maru poll that says all kinds of nonsense. According to this poll, 72% of Quebeckers have a favourable opinion of the Emergencies Act. However, those same members overlook the fact that the same poll found that only 17% of people across Canada think that the Prime Minister is doing the right thing. Canadians have a very low opinion of his leadership.
If we look at the numbers, the only ones that matter are that 100% of the Quebec National Assembly voted against the Emergencies Act and that seven out of 10 provinces think that it is inappropriate.
I would therefore ask my colleague a very simple question: What does he think of the opinion about the Prime Minister, and how should he act responsibly now?
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:38:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, clearly people watching the situation deteriorate in Parliament want it to stop. They want it dealt with.
If a polling firm asks questions about the Emergencies Act, most people are not going to take the time to dissect the act and understand why it was invoked and what has to be proven. Here, we study it, we analyze it, and we say the government needs to prove there is a legislative gap that needs to be filled. So far, the government has not even tried to do that. It makes no sense.
We agree with Canadians that the situation needs to be resolved, but this statutory nuclear option was not the right way to do that. I am sure we agree on that.
All parties in the National Assembly, including the Coalition Avenir Québec, the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire—I am not sure if the Conservative Party of Quebec's representative was in the legislature at the time, but I am told she was—unanimously said this made no sense. Why are the members from Quebec, including the Liberal Party members, not standing with their people?
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:40:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the last few weeks I have received phone calls from constituents asking me why it came to this. How is it that Canada, the true north strong and free, has come to declare a national emergency to handle trucks parked in downtown Ottawa?
Let me be clear: It is time that the rule of law was restored in Ottawa, but what happened is a direct result of the fear and division created by the Prime Minister. I also want to tell people who are part of the convoy that my colleagues and I have heard their valid concerns on this side of the House. We will continue to push for an end to pandemic measures, as the science indicates should happen.
People who have reached out to my office in the last few weeks are exhausted and frustrated, and they are tired of this Liberal government not listening or even trying to understand their point of view. After three weeks, law enforcement acted to resolve the situation. However, there was no attempt by the government to speak to the organizers. Instead, the Prime Minister continued to throw around divisive rhetoric and still has not provided a plan forward to end the COVID-19 measures.
This past Monday, the Liberals had an opportunity to finally show some leadership and support the thoughtful and measured motion that we Conservatives brought forward. However, as usual, they partnered with the NDP and crushed the hopes of countless Canadians desperate for a pathway out of the pandemic. They crushed the hopes of many of my constituents in industries like tourism and transportation, constituents who were just looking for a path forward. Instead of working with members in the House and with provincial governments, the Prime Minister dug in with his name-calling. The people outside the West Block who were asking to be heard are just as Canadian as any member here. They should not be put down by someone who is supposed to be leading our country.
We have now reached the point where we need to ask ourselves seriously if the use of the Emergencies Act was really necessary. The City of Ottawa had a state of emergency in effect and the Ontario provincial government also declared an emergency. Under the current powers that existed in those declarations and existing federal and provincial laws, the police had the tools they needed to handle the situation in Ottawa.
The Emergencies Act clearly states that a declaration can only be made when it meets three conditions, including one that no other federal law or provincial power can deal with the alleged emergency. On top of that, Ontario has a plan to share law enforcement resources among municipalities without using the Emergencies Act. If the police already had the powers they needed and the Emergencies Act was not necessary to acquire manpower, why invoke the act for the first time in Canada's history?
The act was not used for the Oka crisis, nor for either of the Vancouver riots in 1994 and 2011. It was not used in 2010 when protesters at the G20 in Toronto started a riot. This act has not even been used to address recent terrorist threats to Canada or the 2020 pipeline blockades. This government is setting an extremely dangerous precedent by invoking this act.
The powers to deal with the situation here in Ottawa already existed. Despite what various ministers have said, the Governor in Council can direct the RCMP. It is all laid out in the RCMP Act under section 5. This government should know, because it used in 2017.
The Liberals also claimed that they needed the Emergencies Act to direct tow trucks in clearing rigs from downtown. Well, we know that this is false too, because section 129(b) of the Criminal Code gives police the option to require anyone “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”.
What is clear now is that invoking this act is just another power grab and overreach by this Liberal government, and that is scary. What happens in the future when the government does not agree with the political position of protesters in Canada?
My constituents looked at the emergency declaration and asked, “Why?” How can this Prime Minister equate truckers parked in the middle of the road in downtown Ottawa to World War I, World War II and the October crisis, simply because he disagrees with the truckers' beliefs? He could have listened. He could have provided a plan forward out of the COVID measures. He could have handled the situation here in Ottawa without jeopardizing democracy. The RCMP and local law enforcement did it at B.C., Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge.
The Emergencies Act is not something we can throw around lightly. It is the absolute last choice after all else has fails.
The future of our country is at stake. The Liberal government and Prime Minister still cannot explain what steps were taken before invoking this act. When a national emergency is so urgent and dangerous, the government needs extraordinary powers, but where is that emergency? No matter what one's political stripe, supporting these sweeping powers is one of the most serious decisions a member of this House can make. It is serious because the use of the Emergencies Act impacts the rights and freedoms of Canadians, regardless of what the government says.
This Prime Minister loves to throw around lines like “responsible leadership”. Leadership is standing up for the rights and freedoms of this country. Real leadership is protecting the fundamental principles of Canada and uniting Canadians. Despite someone having views different from the Prime Minister's, the government should not have the power to limit people's rights. Limiting rights should never happen without due process or an urgent national emergency.
If we do not have a critical national emergency, then the only way to limit Canadians' rights should be through due process, yet the government is now using the act to shut down people's bank accounts. The deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, said that there is no evidence that this funding in Ottawa is tied to ideologically motivated extremism, so why are people's judicial rights being shut down? Is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty just something the government would ignore? Bank accounts are tied to people's lives and livelihoods. A person's support of a political process should never be a reason to interfere with Canadians' rights.
Howard Anglin, former deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, wrote:
[T]he bottom line is that civil liberties in Canada are more vulnerable today than they were yesterday, and they will remain so as long as the declaration of emergency remains in place.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has even taken legal action against the government, saying that the Prime Minister's action in invoking the act is “extraordinary” and “unconstitutional”. The association has said that legal requirements put in place to safeguard democratic processes have not been met.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation has also said, “Emergency legislation should not be normalized. The threshold for using the Emergencies Act is extremely high and has not been met.”
The World Sikh Organization of Canada is also opposed to this act; so is the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The provincial governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have also opposed the Prime Minister's overreach.
The situation here in Ottawa never met the level of crisis that is needed to use the Emergencies Act. Invoking this act sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message to all Canadians, now and in the future, that they cannot have dissenting opinions or views. In this time of fear and division, people are crying out not to trample on the traditions and beliefs that make Canada great.
The Prime Minister has had many opportunities to de-escalate the situation and take a measured approach. Conservatives have been calling on the government to lay out a clear plan following science. Again, the Liberal government has completely shut out Canadians, even though two-thirds of Canadians want to see these mandates gone. This is all about mandates. It is a time for leadership in this country to unite Canadians, no matter what their views are.
As members in this place, our first duty is to listen to our constituents and protect their rights and freedoms. When the people in power overstep and overreact, we risk the rights, freedoms and democracy that this place represents. This is why I cannot, in good conscience, support the use of the Emergencies Act. Now is the time for us in this House to stand up and find a way to return to a government that is not divisive and find a way to unite Canadians. We need to work together to have a Canada that is united, strong and free.
1530 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:50:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member on his excellent speech in this difficult time.
I would like to ask him a question about the order in council that the government passed that led to the invocation of the act that we're debating today. One of the clauses in the act gives the government the power to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known”. It is a pretty open-ended power that the government is asking for.
We know that the Prime Minister has limited respect for the House. He disregarded the request for the production of documents with regard to the Winnipeg lab. He tried to interfere in the legal system with the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
Why should we trust him? He has not called a meeting of the privy councillors sworn in in this House to brief them on any security issues. Why should we trust that this power should be granted to the government, which is—
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:51:16 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:51:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, trust has been completely broken by the Prime Minister, because he has not only repeatedly violated ethics but has also gone back on his word multiple times. Trust is the issue here. How can any Canadian continue to trust the Prime Minister?
In his last question, my hon. colleague from the Bloc pointed out that a recent poll shows that a small percentage of Canadians trust the Prime Minister now. This is the same prime minister who said that he would not call a pandemic election. He went against his word then. He said that he would uphold rights and freedoms in this country. We can clearly see that this is the last thing the Prime Minister is doing.
Trust has been broken. The Prime Minister needs to stand up and apologize to Canadians and prove that he is serious—
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:52:17 a.m.
- Watch
I have to ask for other questions.
The hon. deputy House leader.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:52:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech.
We are hearing today that some members feel it is not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. I want to read a quote directly from Steve Bell, the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service. He said:
All of those legislative pieces of legislation and supports we’ve got from different levels of government have directly and actively contributed to our ability to ultimately say we are in a position to move forward and look to end this demonstration.
A 31-year veteran of the police force, he has said clearly that this legislation has helped to stop what is happening outside.
Can the member comment?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:53:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said “directly and actively”. The Prime Minister directly and actively forced this to happen in Ottawa, because he refused to listen to Canadians and he refused to sit down and listen to views that opposed his own.
We did not need to get to this point. All of this happened because Canadians were asking for a clear direction and a plan to get out of these COVID measures, but the Prime Minister sat on his hands, as he always does, for three weeks and made no plans to even listen to people.
That is why we are where are. This is all the Prime Minister's doing. We did not need to get here, so the Prime Minister needs to apologize for that. I wish the member would stand up and tell him the same.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
