SoVote

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/19/22 2:52:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge said. I understand why he rejects this law. If this act was not the answer, what was? Was it leadership? Was it vision? Was it a law?

40 words

All Topics

Mr. Pat Kelly

Feb/19/22 2:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have had an absence of leadership in Canada under the Prime Minister all the way around. I recall the remarks from the member for Louis-Hébert, who pointed out the extent to which this government made a deliberate choice to pit Canadians against each other long before this current crisis. One really must connect these two events. There is tremendous responsibility with the Prime Minister for the discord throughout our country.

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Feb/19/22 2:53:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I represent the Ambassador Bridge area, with 40% of Canada's daily trade with the United States. I can assure the member that the Conservative Party's talking points are not correct. The Ambassador Bridge is open to a degree of normalcy, but at the same time, the barriers, like they are in Ottawa, are now throughout the community, blocking us from businesses, blocking children from getting to appointments, including medical appointments, and causing a series of different problems. Right now city of Windsor residents are on the hook for over $10 million. We will continue to pay for that because the OPP, the RCMP and the City of Windsor are still protecting 14 kilometres of the 401 system. What is the Conservative Party's position? Will it support, provincially and federally, paying this bill and continuing to pay this bill? What is it going to do in regard to convoys? A couple more convoys coming into the area have already been intercepted, and the threat there continues to exist—

173 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 2:54:09 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

7 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Feb/19/22 2:54:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree. As I said right at the very beginning of my speech, I was appalled by what happened in his riding. I did note that it was de-escalating, and the crossing, as the member pointed out, had reopened using conventional police methods and without having to resort to extraordinary powers. I would agree with the member that it is a terrible problem and a terrible imposition on his community, but I do not believe that anything in this motion will change that. It is not a justification for the extraordinary powers the government is granting itself.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Feb/19/22 2:54:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, today we are debating the Emergencies Act and the motion for confirmation of a declaration of an emergency, pursuant to section 58 of the act. There is a lot to be said and I cannot cover everything in 10 minutes. Under section 58, the government is required to provide a motion for confirmation of the declaration of an emergency and an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, and to report on any consultation with the provinces and territories it is undertaking. Indeed, thousands of people have reached out to me in the last week regarding the temporary measures under the public order emergency, including the points on public assembly, fines and imprisonment, compelling to work on behalf of the Government of Canada and other measures, such as the freezing of one's financial assets. The powers of Parliament in this unique situation are to protect against government overreach and bad decisions and to support the necessity of ensuring effective checks and balances are in place when a declaration of a public order emergency has been made under section 17 of the act. Upon review of the explanation pursuant to the Emergencies Act, I cannot support the reasons provided by the Governor in Council for the continued use of this act. My reasons relate to the following. Under point two of the reasons for public emergency, “adverse effects on the Canadian economy”, numerous citations were made regarding protests at points of entry across Canada. It is my understanding that as of February 14, no major blockade was inhibiting the flow of goods between Canada and the United States to warrant this unprecedented action. The ability of law enforcement to deal with the protests was demonstrated last weekend when the protesters at points of entry were removed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act. It goes on to explain that threats were made to block railways, which could result in significant economic disruptions. The report outlines that railways in Canada have operating revenues of more than $16 billion a year. A threat can be dealt with under existing laws and Parliament requires more information than the flimsy explanation provided regarding the economic significance of railways in Canada. The Railway Safety Act is a strong piece of legislation. I am sure it could be used if there was a legitimate threat. I would say the same for point four, “the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods”. Again the reasons provided by the government are without any evidence. Parliamentarians require more than general trade statistics to confirm the application of the most severe measure the government can possibly take. I just cannot support this. Again the same could be said for point five, “the potential for an increase in the level of unrest”. The government has not provided the House with adequate justification that the situation in which we find ourselves today could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Neither rhetoric nor emotion justifies such actions. The report to the Houses of Parliament on the consultations regarding the Emergencies Act lack sufficient justification as well. Words like “spoke”, “met”, “regular engagement” and “discussed” are numerous throughout the document. Real and concrete steps, however, taken by the government in the context of consultations are void. For such a time as this, a government simply indicating that it spoke with the provinces and territories is not sufficient. What Parliament needs to know is what was discussed, what the government said to the provinces and territories and the actions it took to prevent national disruptions, and I would say vice versa in the context of the provinces and territories as well. Let me quote the Prime Minister, who said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly. This is not the first, second or third option. It is the last resort.” Nothing the Prime Minister has provided the House demonstrates what the first, second or third actions actually were. During the debate on Thursday, the member for Ottawa Centre asked, while pointing to members of the official opposition, that if this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row, how would members be acting? Arguably, many of the justifications provided relate more to the disasters, floods, wildfires and landslides British Columbians experienced last year. Lytton burned to the ground last summer and this fall every major roadway in the province of B.C. was flooded or washed away. The CP and CN rail lines were not operational. The port of metro Vancouver was cut off from Canada. In my riding, there was danger to life, lives lost, real property damage for thousands, complete social disruption through the destruction of critical infrastructure and a loss of essential goods and services. People are still without permanent shelter and critical roadways are not fully operational, including the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 8. Under section 58 of the bill, there is nothing in these documents that shows the government is meeting the threshold of this legislation. I can argue more concretely that the disasters that B.C. faced last year are a much better example of when this act could have been used under part I, “Public Welfare Emergency”. Friday morning, I was also devastated, as has been mentioned in this House, to read of the horrific acts of violence that occurred in the northern community of Houston, British Columbia. Will this fall under the radar of our Prime Minister and his Emergencies Act? There was real violence there. I am also reminded of other historical instances in Canada, such as the G20 summit, where the former Toronto chief of police and current Minister of Emergency Preparedness had hundreds of protesters arrested as police cars were burned in the streets and the Emergencies Act was not applied. The eyes of the world were on Canada at that time as well. Our reputation was also at stake in that moment. In the annex of the motion tabled in Parliament, the Prime Minister included his letter to the premiers. He mentioned that he is concerned about the undermining of the confidence in our institutions. I believe Canadians are concerned the Prime Minister allowed the situation to escalate to where it is today. That is on him. That is on cabinet. I believe his actions are what is actually undermining the confidence in our institutions. In preparation for today's debate I looked back at the Debates of 1988 when the Emergencies Act was before Parliament as a bill. I learned that parliamentarians of all political stripes were concerned about the future application of the bill and its relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. NDP MP Derek Blackburn, on April 25, 1988, referred to the horrific experiences of Canadians of Japanese descent who suffered internment under the War Measures Act, the preceding legislation. Although in support of the bill, he was concerned that the Emergencies Act could still infringe on Canadian rights and freedoms beyond what is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. I share his concern. Mr. Blackburn suggested that the Supreme Court review the bill to be more confident that we would strike the right balance and Canadians would be protected. No review ever took place and look at where we find ourselves today. In closing, I want to remind all members of the House of the thoughtful reflections of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, former MP for York Centre and Liberal member of the House of Commons, from July 11, 1988, who at the time was in the official opposition. He stated: The legislation we are passing today [the Emergencies Act] still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four...categories of emergencies provided for under this legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation. We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not...abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in...the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched. The Prime Minister needs to be watched. The government needs to be watched. It needs to be accountable. I stand here on behalf of my constituents, who expect me to hold the current government to account. I am asking all members of the House to carefully consider how they will vote on this unprecedented and unnecessary measure. Confidence in our institutions depends on it. The trust Canadians have in us collectively as parliamentarians depends on it. Our nation depends on it. I encourage all members to vote in opposition of this motion out of respect for a concern of government overreach.

1529 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:04:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a preamble I would like to say I am not sure I agree with taking events from the past and comparing them directly, because every one is different and each context is different. I would not compare a natural disaster to a conscious, coordinated movement, which is what we have seen. There has been coordination between what happened in Coutts and what has happened here. I enjoyed the member's speech. It was rigorous and analytical. My question for him is this. Abstracting from the so-called reason for the “freedom convoy”, which was trucker mandates and not really the reason, is he not concerned that there is a longer-term movement in parts of the country? For example, the same organizers were involved in the United We Roll convoy. Also, I read somewhere that the Facebook page for Canada Unity was registered in 2019.

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Feb/19/22 3:05:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raised a valid point about extremism, having confidence in our institutions and what Canadians see and read online and how that applies to our jobs as parliamentarians, but I think he missed the points raised by the Government of Canada, which largely focused on infrastructure, on the economy and on protecting our supply chains. There is no justification for using the Emergencies Act under the points raised by the government in the official documents tabled in this Parliament. That threshold simply is not met.

90 words

All Topics

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:06:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is not often that we agree with the Conservatives, but I have to admit that, this time, we feel essentially the same way about the use of the Emergencies Act. Does my colleague agree that the use of the act right now is an attempt to make up for the government's inaction and indifference over the past 20 days? Does he agree that the government is trying to portray itself as a saviour to restore its reputation, when the real saviours are the ones one the ground right now, tactfully ensuring public safety?

104 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Feb/19/22 3:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her question. The government decided to use the act for several reasons. I agree with the hon. member that one reason is that the government wanted to change public opinion about its actions and about the bad decisions it has made over the last four weeks.

73 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/19/22 3:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member as somebody who has worked very hard for his constituents. I just want to tell him that I have been thinking very much about the deep pain his constituents are going through as they recover from the floods. He quoted previous members of Parliament. I wanted to quote one back to him, if I could, from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White: What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and the blockages of border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. If a national security and economic threat to Canada is not an opportunity to use the Emergencies Act, I would ask the member, what on earth could be?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis

Feb/19/22 3:08:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think she missed the quote of Peter MacKay saying that the Emergencies Act might be a push too far. The quotes I gave from previous members of Parliament related to the actual debate taking place in here. There was all-party consensus in this chamber when we decided to pass the Emergencies Act: Members of Parliament from all political parties were concerned about government overreach. They were concerned. In the legislation, it is clearly enshrined that no other law could apply. Only in specific situations did they believe that this was possible. Across our history as a great nation, there are numerous precedents indicating that this law was not required at this moment in time.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

Feb/19/22 3:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I will say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Canada has a beautiful democracy, but let me be clear: Although beauty is not always perfect or without flaws, it is beautiful nonetheless, and our democracy is under attack by those who seek to destabilize it and to harm it. The foundation for what is happening, from the illegal border blockades to the occupation of Ottawa, has been building for some time and is grounded in misinformation and hate. Back in May, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we heard from Timothy Hahlweg at CSIS that ideologically motivated violent extremist groups were working together, united by the pandemic, to push their dangerous agendas and their hate. He said that “with COVID-19, we have seen various groups that previously weren't aligned, or individuals who perhaps were not sharing the same ideology or the same motivation, come together under a common cause, whether that is anti-government activity or anti-vaccination activities.” The rise in the misinformation from the these hateful groups continues to incite hate and fear, and it appears to be at least partly fuelling the blockades at the border and the occupation of Ottawa. We know certain ringleaders of this occupation are firmly grounded in white nationalism. Swastikas, Confederate and far-right-style flags, along with signs stating misinformation about everything from the safety of wearing a mask to taking a vaccine, have been seen all over the occupied area of Ottawa. I know not everyone who has taken part in this occupation holds this in their hearts, but this is the company they are keeping, and seeing members from across the aisle go out and help fuel and support this occupation has been eye-opening for many Canadians. To be clear, the leaders of this illegal occupation posted their MOU online, specifically calling for the destruction of our democracy. It has never been hidden. In Canada, we have an important charter right to freedom of peaceful assembly. When I was first elected as a member of Parliament, one of the first things I noticed was how many people from across Canada would come to Parliament to protest and to advocate for the causes they deeply believe in. Whether they were a small group walking right up on the lawn of Centre Block or thousands of people, they would peacefully state their causes while respecting the rights and freedoms of the residents of Ottawa to live freely in their own city. We do not see this level of accessibility in many other countries, and it is so special and so worth protecting. Peaceful protests can make us uncomfortable, and in Canada that is okay. I will not state the cause, but each year there is a rally that brings thousands of people to Ottawa's Parliament Hill, and believe me, it makes me uncomfortable. I do not support the cause, but I respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. They come and they hold their rally; there is usually a robust counter-protest, and they leave. To be very clear, what is going on in Ottawa has not been a peaceful protest. What we have seen in Ottawa and at the borders is a threat to Canada's sovereignty and democracy under the guise of freedom. These occupiers have stolen the freedom of the people of Ottawa. They have kept citizens held hostage in their homes, while terrorizing them with high-decibel noise, hate and harassment. People have not been able to leave their homes or wear masks without fear of being ridiculed, harassed and made to feel unsafe in their own city. This occupation has stolen the economic livelihood of many. Due to harassment and other terrible acts, the mall and businesses in the area have not been able to stay open safely. Many people, especially those on minimum wage, are going without, while the occupiers remained for three weeks, and despite the City of Ottawa declaring a state of emergency and then the Province declaring a state of emergency, blockades and the occupation of Ottawa continued. When other orders of government call upon us, the Government of Canada, we answer that call, and we have been there to provide support for Ottawa and for the situations at our border every step of the way. We continued to work within the confines of existing measures and laws to provide resources. We know the damage caused by the illegal border blockades has harmed Canada's economy profoundly. The Ambassador Bridge alone supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and our most important trading partner, the United States. That is around $390 million per day. My heart goes out to the hard-working truckers who were harmed by the illegal blockades. They were stuck at the border and stuck on highways for hours and hours while they were simply doing their job to keep Canada's supply chains moving. The same goes for what happened in Coutts, where we know that around $48 million in daily trade was affected by the illegal blockade. A peaceful demonstration should never harm others. A peaceful demonstration should never breach the rights of others. The impacts of these illegal border blockades will be long-lasting. We know that they have threatened businesses here in Canada and the livelihood of workers. In fact, it is shameful. I have heard from so many folks from across Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who have been watching the struggles and hearing from loved ones in Ottawa about what is going on. They have been demanding stronger action from the start. Everyone from veterans to teachers and from seniors to young people has been speaking out in my riding, self-identifying as supporters from various political parties. Some say that they have never before felt so moved to reach out to their MP as now. They are frightened by the hate and the lawlessness that they were seeing at the borders and in Ottawa. They wanted to make sure that all orders of government were working together and doing everything possible to take control of the situation, preserve democracy and restore order. It has been crystal clear that there were many challenges to local law enforcement's ability to enforce the law in Ottawa. We have invoked the Emergencies Act to provide more support for the provincial and territorial authorities to address both the blockades and the occupation to keep Canadians safe, restore confidence in our institutions and protect people's jobs. There is simply no other law in Canada that would provide this level of coordination and support. My colleagues, many of whom are lawyers, have already, clearly and concisely, provided the legal case for invoking this act. It is met, and there is no question that this Emergencies Act is far from being the antiquated War Measures Act of the past. This act will not send in the military. The Emergencies Act preserves the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensuring that the individual rights of Canadians are protected, as they must be. All parliamentarians must work together for Canadians. That means working together to restore order in Canada, and it means working together to protect Canada's democracy by standing up against hate, even when it is difficult to do so. I encourage all members of this House to join us in standing up for families, for workers and for democracy.

1257 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Feb/19/22 3:18:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My hon. colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, spoke about many lawyers in this House who have scrutinized this bill and have felt that the threshold is met. Well, I can tell him that after scrutinizing the bill, this lawyer does not feel that the threshold has been met. The member spoke about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was interesting, because part of the rule of law is that the law must be predictable and it must be transparent. In this case, when it comes to freezing assets, we do not have any predictability or any transparency about how that is going on, especially if it is delegated to a third party, such as banks. How can this hon. member say that the charter is being respected when the rule of law cannot be upheld through a third party?

160 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:18:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank the member from the opposition party for doing everything in his power to take care of the people in his constituency. I know that we are all in this for the right reasons, even though, most often, we disagree in basic ideologies in this House. I want to thank him for that work. This act protects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I said in my comments, there is no peaceful protest that can get in the way of the rights and freedoms of other Canadians. This was an occupation and an illegal protest.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/19/22 3:19:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I can only agree, for the most part, with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. People have the right to protest, but not to occupy. Harassment, economic loss and tragedy are unacceptable. As we agree on the end goal, I have a question for him. Is this the best way we could find—

57 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/19/22 3:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Order. There was a problem with the interpretation, but it is now resolved. I would ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivières to repeat his question.

28 words

Mr. René Villemure

Feb/19/22 3:20:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. The end goal is to restore order. We share that goal and agree entirely. We fully agree that the harassment, the tragedies, the disruption of people's lives and the economic losses are unacceptable. Now, if we want to restore order, is this the best way, or is it the only avenue left after so much inaction?

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Darren Fisher

Feb/19/22 3:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member agrees with this side of the House that this is an unacceptable situation. I heard the interim police chief in Ottawa almost breath a sigh of relief that finally the resources the police felt they needed for stepping in to solve this issue have been provided to them. It was wonderful to hear the interim chief speak to how the resources that come from the Emergencies Act have allowed them to move forward.

82 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/19/22 3:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. As an Inuk and indigenous person, I have inherent mistrust in law enforcement. I have seen all too often how law enforcement treats my community, indigenous people and people of colour. All too often we have been at the wrong end of the law. Law enforcement arbitrarily targets my communities. My NDP colleagues and I have weighed very heavily the measures allowed in the Emergencies Act. We are deeply aware of the risk to Canada's democracy, and without the drastic measures, we are aware of the security threats to our national security posed by foreign extremists. I have received threats from as far as New Brunswick because of the debate on the Emergencies Act. Could the member explain to Canadians why this is a national issue requiring urgent action?

132 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 34