SoVote

Feb/19/22 1:21:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am extremely disappointed. I saw a tweet by a former NDP MP, Svend Robinson, who stated, “The NDP Caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act. Today's NDP under [their leader] betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. Shame. A very dangerous precedent is being set.” Could the member please state, unequivocally, if he agrees that the new powers given to the government to seize and freeze bank accounts should be made permanent for people who have different political views from the government?

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron McKinnon

Feb/19/22 1:22:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we are facing today is a threat to our democracy, to our economy and to peace, order and good government in Canada, and this is unacceptable. The measures that have been put in place in recent days are time-limited and subject to ratification by Parliament. They will also be brought before the courts in due course. We cannot make a blanket statement of the kind that the hon. member is proposing.

75 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/19/22 1:22:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. To justify using the Emergencies Act, he mentioned the fact that several Ottawans, including some of his employees, were bullied. This past December, we passed Bill C‑3 to criminalize intimidating a health professional and people wanting to obtain health services. I would like to know what justifies the use of the Emergencies Act now, when it was not justified when we were passing Bill C‑3.

80 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron McKinnon

Feb/19/22 1:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act was brought into force at this time to deal with a very specific, focused and narrow problem, one that has come to the fore in the last several weeks and that law enforcement officials have been unable, because of conflicting jurisdictions and lack of resources, to deal with appropriately. We have seen already during the course of the last day and continuing today the ability of these law enforcement officials, who are now enabled with the appropriate resources and co-operation among forces across the country, to bring to the situation the necessary assets to put it back in the box and get us once again—

112 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 1:24:16 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Windsor West.

6 words

Windsor
West

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/19/22 1:24:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, two kilometres from here is the Ambassador Bridge. The Conservatives and the Bloc like to say that things are fine. They are not. The bridge is open but now there are jersey barriers and the blockade is in city streets and other areas. The flow of traffic amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars and around 40,000 vehicles per day. What has happened is that trucks are lined up from the bridge and are slowed down all the way to the corridor, including to the member of Essex's riding. Members opposite do not seem to care or appreciate the fragility with regard to how the just-in-time delivery system works or how many jobs are lost. Will the hon. member's government at least support municipal supports, to be paid back by the federal and provincial governments, to pay for these policing costs and to assist with the logistics of the organizations, companies and groups that will have a series of delays and problems, not just for now but for weeks to come, to make up for the lost time?

185 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron McKinnon

Feb/19/22 1:25:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, they do not let me write the cheques. However, I certainly would support the ongoing assistance of all levels of government that need help during this time, as we have been able to do during the course of the pandemic itself, to deal with emergent situations and with emergencies as they arise so that we can all get through this in good order and safely as Canadians.

70 words

All Topics

Mr. Ali Ehsassi (Willowdale, Lib.)

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

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Feb/19/22 1:34:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, those were interesting comments. I would like to compare and contrast for a second. New Zealand just announced, per today's Ottawa Citizen, that it “ruled out forcefully clearing vehicles blocking roads outside parliament in a protest against coronavirus vaccine mandates, saying that would risk ‘wider harm’”. Representatives said, “negotiations and de-escalation were the only safe ways to resolve the protest and [they] would continue to talk to the protesters”. Compare this with the current Liberal government. It had 58 consultations, and the member mentioned a few. However, not one of them was with the protesters. Did the Liberals purposely allow this to continue so they could clamp down on Canadians they do not agree with?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Ali Ehsassi

Feb/19/22 1:35:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really think it is imperative that, rather than look at developments in New Zealand, we look at developments in our own country, we listen to what experts are saying and we listen to what all three levels of government in this city and in this province are saying. It is imperative that we continue to communicate, assess the situation and do everything that is necessary.

68 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Feb/19/22 1:36:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the debate is very passionate today, and I understand that. Personally, I prefer to examine the issues in a rational manner. Let us look at this rationally. What is happening today is that we are using the Emergencies Act, which applies to all of Canada and therefore Quebec as well. My hon. colleague, whom I thank for his speech, told us that we should listen to certain Ontario politicians. I would say that he should listen to certain Quebec politicians, actually to all Quebec politicians, because the National Assembly is demanding that Quebec be excluded from the application of this act. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case. In a rational manner, I would like to pose the following question to my colleague. Ten years from now, if a right-wing party was in power as the Government of Canada and a leftist movement wanted to protest and block pipelines that had been built, that party could base its actions on the decision made today, in 2022, by the current government. That party would point out that it had already been done by the Liberal government in 2022, and it could then—

195 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 1:37:12 p.m.
Watch

Order. I must let the member for Willowdale reply. The member for Willowdale.

13 words

Mr. Ali Ehsassi

Feb/19/22 1:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's considered question. On this particular note, it is imperative that as Canadians we thank the detachments that arrived in the city of Ottawa yesterday. They did a splendid job, several different detachments, so we are grateful for what the Province of Quebec has done. Insofar as your question is concerned—

58 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 1:37:54 p.m.
Watch

I remind the member that I am not asking questions.

10 words

Mr. Ali Ehsassi

Feb/19/22 1:37:58 p.m.
Watch

My apologies, Madam Speaker. Allow me to assure the member that I truly believe that we are not supposed to look at the substance of what is going on when there is an occupation or a lengthy protest. It is imperative that we continue to stand up for all Canadians.

50 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/19/22 1:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned turning a blind eye, and I would agree. As a result of the current government's turning a blind eye, as well as the mayor of Ottawa and the police service, now we find ourselves in a crisis. We saw this coming. We had all sorts of signs. I feel quite hesitant to have to support this, and I absolutely support the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for wanting oversight. The fact that we are using this emergency measure absolutely requires oversight. However, there is a reason why we arrived here, and I wonder if the member agrees with me that we need a public inquiry in terms of governance issues that led us down this security hole. Does the hon. member agree that we need a public inquiry into policing and governance issues that led us to where we are right now?

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Ali Ehsassi

Feb/19/22 1:39:37 p.m.
Watch

Absolutely, Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly. The member can take comfort in the fact that the legislation, as it is currently drafted and as it was envisioned in 1988, requires that we do that review. In addition, the City of Ottawa has decided to do a review.

47 words

All Topics

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Feb/19/22 1:40:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this place and speak. Today, I am going to lay out my case as to why I am voting against continuing the Emergencies Act. In the past 34 years, since the inception of the Emergencies Act, there have been four times when a national crisis was faced by a prime minister, and they each refused to implement the act. Brian Mulroney did not do it during the two-month Oka standoff outside of Montreal in 1990. Jean Chrétien did not need to invoke it after the terrorist attack of 9/11. Stephen Harper did not during the 2008 banking crisis. The Prime Minister did not use it during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw 35,000 deaths and the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression. For the first time in Canadian history, a prime minister will use the Emergencies Act when authorities already have every legal tool at their disposal to deal with the situation before us today. For me, there are many concerning parts of the act now being used, including instructing financial institutions to seize assets and freeze bank accounts without due process. As of this moment, the Minister of Public Safety has said that 76 bank accounts, worth a combined $3.2 million, have been frozen. There are serious consequences of invoking this act, and ones that all parliamentarians need to reconcile with themselves before the vote on Monday. After 21 days of refusing to deal with the protest through a more civil and peaceful process, the government chose an act, the most heavy-handed, using the Emergencies Act. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. I do not support hate, nor do I find any legitimate rationale for the existence of groups that perpetuate discrimination, violence or hatred. I once again call on these blockades to end peacefully and quickly. My constituency staff, who with unparalleled dedication and commitment have acted professionally and admirably during these trying times, have fielded hundreds of calls and emails from concerned and sometimes angry citizens. For example, Kenneth and Lois from Bobcaygeon write, “There is no reason for this act to be used except fear from the Prime Minister. This could have all been avoided if the PM would have been willing to listen.” Another Kawartha Lakes constituent writes, “I implore you not to support the Prime Minister in his attempt to enact the Emergencies Act. Not only is this a complete overreaction to the situation, one which in my opinion was brought about by the Prime Minister's refusal to listen to the convoy and also serves no one's best interests.” That was from Vanessa. “We believe the government has overstepped their authority and are taking away our rights and freedoms”, write Peter and Lois. This is just a small sample and cross-section of hundreds of similar messages that I am sure all of us in the House are receiving. These are the words of ordinary Canadians who fear the government has overreacted because of the failed leadership of the Prime Minister. The act is clear on when it should be implemented. It should only be invoked when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada” and when the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.” The first question before us is whether the blockades seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty or territorial integrity, and whether there were no laws to deal with the protesters. The onus is on the federal government to demonstrate that the act was the only option left on the table. National security experts have been expressing their concerns. For example, Leah West, a professor and national security expert at Carleton University, told the CBC that Canada was not facing the kind of public emergency that the act was designed to respond to, stating, “I'm kind of shocked, to be honest, that the government of Canada still actually believes that this meets the definition to even invoke the act”, adding, “I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have.” Surely, if there were a serious threat to our nation, provinces would be clamouring to the government for help, yet provinces have told the Prime Minister that they do not need the act and that they have already dealt with their protesters through listening and talking. It is here that I believe the entire debate hinges: Does the perceived threat that the government felt needed to be addressed, now that the provinces have their own capacity resolved, still exist and therefore justify the invoking of this act? Furthermore, the second condition, that the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, has been disproven by the leadership displayed by many of Canada's premiers right across this country. The provinces and their police services did not need the extraordinary powers granted by the Emergencies Act, because they already had the authority to deal with this. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister refused to follow the good governance practised by those premiers. It is no wonder that Canadians who have been writing and calling, not just me but every member in the House, view the implementation of this act not under the auspices of protecting Canada, but rather of protecting the Prime Minister's political failure. We have heard that part of the justification for invoking the act was deliberate foreign extremist interference in our democracy, yet I have not seen any evidence from the government to indicate foreign powers or organizations behind the protests here in Canada. In fact, in committee last week, the deputy director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the national financial intelligence agency, said that there was no “spike in suspicious transaction[s]” and no sign of extremist groups issuing transactions to the protesters. Part of the government's intention with the use of this act is also to track and reveal information regarding private individual financial transactions. This information is going to go to the RCMP, CSIS and FINTRAC, and will suspend accounts without judicial process. I led off my speech talking about that. It is quite concerning that the government will not tell Parliament whether it consulted with the Privacy Commissioner regarding the use of this information. Kim Manchester, managing director of the financial intelligence training company ManchesterCF, warned in an interview with CTV that flagging accounts could financially ruin those targeted and make it difficult for them to get any financial services in the future. He said, “It's very tough on people when the activities of the Canadian government can lead to the financial meltdown of individuals associated with the protests who are guilty by association, by directive, and not by judicial process.” In the same interview, Vanessa Iafolla, a crime consultant, said that use of the measure was a “serious [deviation] from the normal democratic processes that we generally expect to see in Canadian society.” This legislation was created to deal with terrorist organizations and transnational organized crime syndicates, not Canadian truckers. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's Noa Mendelsohn Aviv is concerned that “the act allows the government to...create new laws, bypassing democracy under what they have called a national emergency [and] they haven't presented any evidence that satisfies us that is in fact a national emergency as required”. The CCLA is suing the government for seriously infringing upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Paul Wells, in Maclean's on February 14, surmised: I think the real explanation for today’s announcement came from [the deputy prime minister], who said it’s basically about the blocked Ambassador Bridge at Windsor. Inconveniently no longer blocked.... “We fought tooth and nail to protect Canada’s privileged relationship with the United States during the NAFTA negotiations,” the deputy prime minister said, “and we stood up to the 232 tariffs that were illegal and unjustified. We won’t let these hard-won victories be tarnished. The world is watching us. Our jobs, prosperity and livelihoods are at stake. That’s why the government is acting.” The Emergencies Act is there to address extreme threats to Canada, not to protect the economy. In 1978, approximately 30 countries were in some form of state of emergency. It had risen to 70 by 1986. By 1996, 147 countries had mechanisms to declare a state of emergency, a disturbing global trend that Canada now has the dubious honour of joining. It is probably no coincidence that this historic announcement came only an hour after the government narrowly defeated the Conservative motion proposing that the government present a plan by the end of the month to lift federal mandates. The Prime Minister could see the writing on the wall, as his own caucus had started to revolt against him. Rather than taking the diplomatic route, talking with the protesters, using the same media methods that he used to call them names, lowering the temperature, letting those with concerns know that they have been heard and laying out a plan to end the mandates and restrictions, like many provinces across the country and many countries around the world, he dug in his heels and brought out the sledgehammer. He is imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Most concerning of all is that young Canadians who have no direct connection to the historic struggles against fascism, socialism and communism are losing faith and interest in freedom and democracy. Those noble ideals have been tarnished, and this is contributing to what we are seeing today. I will leave members with a quote: “there will be time later to reflect on all the lessons that can be learned from this situation.” This is what the Prime Minister told reporters last Monday afternoon. I would argue that these lessons already exist. We do not have to go that far in history to look back and find them.

1728 words

All Topics

Mr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 1:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member says the Emergencies Act is not necessary and that there are other legal options that we could have used. I would like to ask what options. How, without the Emergencies Act, are you going to get tow trucks to help the police pull away trucks? How, without the Emergencies Act, are you going to legally prevent people from going downtown and joining the mob?

68 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/19/22 1:50:43 p.m.
Watch

As a slight reminder to the hon. member, I was not going to do anything, even with the Emergencies Act. Please redirect the questions through the chair.

27 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 34