44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:51:19 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a situation that is completely out of control. In my province of Alberta, 13 armed insurgents have blockaded our infrastructure. We can look outside of the House of Commons. Where we are is very, very upsetting, and we never should have been in this situation.
How are we going to make sure that we have put things in place so this cannot happen again? What is the government doing to ensure that this cannot happen in the future?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:35:04 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when one wants to undermine the security of a country, of a nation, one targets its critical infrastructure. For a trading nation, the most critical infrastructure is its border points. We saw what happened at the Ambassador Bridge, what happened in Manitoba and what happened in Coutts, Alberta. However, what many people do not realize is there were 12 additional protests that directly impacted port-of-entry operations, and in two cases, the protesters breached the CBSA plaza, resulting in CBSA officers locking down the office to prevent additional protesters from gaining entry.
Do those actions at the 12 points of entry, like at the Ambassador Bridge, not constitute a threat to the sovereignty and economic security of Canada?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:42:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty evident. Clearly the member opposite and members from the NDP are a little bit uneasy when we talk about the fact that this act's predecessor was the War Measures Act, because it was the NDP under Tommy Douglas who took a courageous stand against the use of the War Measures Act in the FLQ crisis. It is a piece there. The reason I bring this up is that the weight of those events should be a caution to all parliamentarians against making a decision to invoke an act like this lightly.
We have had numerous provincial politicians state that they do not support the use of the Emergencies Act. These include provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and my home province of Alberta. Numerous times over the past few days, the Prime Minister has said that using the Emergencies Act was not the first, second or third option. However, members on this side have asked many times what the first three options were, and we have yet to be given any concrete answers. In the absence of an answer, I am left to assume that step one was wait, step two was do nothing and step three was shift blame.
This is not the leadership Canadians expect or deserve. What we saw was a refusal by the Prime Minister to provide additional support to the Ottawa Police Service when they asked for it. In fact, on February 11, the Prime Minister stated that they had enough resources. A short three days later, on February 14, the Emergencies Act was invoked. What happened in those three days that dramatically changed everything? We have not been told that as parliamentarians.
In the past few days, my office has received hundreds of phone calls, and thousands of emails, on the use of the Emergencies Act. Many constituents shared with me their fears, their anxieties, their collective trauma and the sense of PTSD they had. They shared how they saw government overreach as a very scary precedent.
One constituent, Lindsay, wrote to me and said, “I continue to try and wrap my head around the fact of how we are here and why we are here. How have things gotten so out of control? I feel very fearful, anxious and upset with how our Prime Minister has been treating the people of this country. Both his actions and language are not in alignment with true Canadian values: peace, freedom or protection. He is continuously inflaming the situation and I cannot believe that I am living in fear in Canada”.
Many of the emails and calls that I had were from parents who were tearful because they felt afraid for their children. They felt like they had been ignored and left behind by the Liberal government. Another constituent, Tyler, wrote, “I wholeheartedly disagree with the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. I firmly believe that his decision is unjustified and an abuse of power. It only serves to instill more fear and further divide the citizens of this wonderful country.”
Upon reflection, from all the correspondence and phone calls I have received, it left me wondering if perhaps the Prime Minister may have forgotten or missed the point as to why so many Canadians were protesting right now. I will help, and lay it out simply for him. Many are frustrated with what they see as government overreach. If the Prime Minister thinks that a solution to that overreach is adding more overreach, he is woefully short-sighted.
It is worth noting that the border protests in Windsor, Emerson, Coutts and Surrey have all ended peacefully. They ended through negotiation with local law enforcement and precise local police action. They all ended before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
I think this is an important point to highlight. It is incredibly important. I think those on the Liberal benches should take some time to reflect on this point. The laws of our country, and the widespread respect of the rule of law, were ultimately enough to get the protesters blocking the border to move. Police did their job by enforcing the laws currently on the books, and the protesters went home.
I am a passionate believer in the rule of law. Everyday Canadians' respect for the laws that serve the cause of peace, order and good government is something that makes me incredibly proud of my country. Yes, there are some among the protesters who probably do not share that same feeling, but I think it would be worthwhile for the Prime Minister to reflect on how his dubious leadership has contributed to some of these events.
Trust in the rule of law breaks down when people stop believing the law is equal and equally applied to everyone. This includes politicians ignoring their own guidelines with regard to COVID restrictions, a Prime Minister who treats ethics violations as a minor inconvenience, conflict-of-interest violations, election-law infractions and a woman fired from cabinet because she refused to break the law. We are considering enacting a law that has previously been reserved for world wars and deadly terrorism, because the protesters will not respect the law—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Laila Goodridge: —and here they are on the other side, heckling me—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Laila Goodridge: Mr. Speaker, this is so inappropriate.
917 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:55:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in northeastern Alberta and I've lived there just about my entire life. There are, unfortunately, in my community and in the region that I represent, a number of residential schools. The trauma piece is very real.
I want to thank the member for sharing her story. It is a space in our history that we acknowledge. In truth we will find reconciliation.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:54:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn for his interventions today. I have worked very closely with him on getting supports for the people of Afghanistan.
He talked about this as if it is a trucker protest in Ottawa. It is an occupation in Ottawa, but as an Albertan, surely he recognizes that an armed militia was discovered in Alberta that threatened the RCMP and displayed images of white supremacy and racism. It is not just in Ottawa; it is a national issue.
If that is not a reason for the Emergencies Act, what is?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:03:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I am just finding it wildly bizarre to be in the House of Commons, where the NDP is standing up for law and order while the Conservatives capitulate to what is going on outside. Even Jason Kenney, the premier of Alberta, is saying that we should never negotiate with people like this.
Can the member explain why she suddenly does not believe that law and order must be upheld?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:37:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, yes, I am very thankful that the peace officers at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta were able to intercept what was obviously very destructive elements that embedded themselves within the actual protest organization. Once that was discovered, the whole blockade disbanded because they did not want to be associated with that.
This is a problem wherever we are in the world, and it is not right or left. There are going to be elements that break the law no matter what. We have said all along that these blockades were illegal on their own, but when we throw in a mix of violence that is going to potentially injure our peace officers, they have raised the bar, and it has to be addressed very quickly. It does not matter what side of the spectrum it comes from. Any type of illegal activity that leads to violence will be detrimental to all of us.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:39:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard about the Coutts blockade many times in the House. The member speaking before me asked about the legal implications, the people who have been charged with attempted murder, the violence and the white racism there, but in addition to those, there is an economic impact. Those 18 days the blockade was in place cost $864 million to the Alberta economy.
What do we do when the government in place, the Alberta government, that has the legislation in Bill 1 to actually stop these blockades, does not do it? When the provincial government fails to protect the people and economy of Alberta, does the federal government not have an obligation to step it?
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:40:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I should point out that the Coutts blockade was somewhat disbanded and there was one lane open shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, there was an element there that actually was a problem. We know that. We know it was slowed down. I had not heard the number she referred to, the $864 million of commerce that was interrupted, but I did note in my speech how important it was to make sure those borders were open in Canada all the way across the country.
I will also point out to her that the Government of Alberta has not asked the Canadian government to intervene. I do not know how the Canadian government does intervene. Alberta already has a police force. Is it going to request police forces from across the country? The Government of Alberta has all kinds of police forces, and it acted, and it acted in the benefit of the people of Alberta to make sure that the flow of goods was coming across that border.
Are they asking for—
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:57:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today representing the constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and to speak in this historic debate on the motion to confirm the government's declaration of emergency.
I thank everyone participating in and listening to this important debate. It is critical for our country that we, as a Parliament, work together to ensure that this debate is robust and to address the motion at hand.
In the spirit of unity, I would like to begin by talking about those things that I believe we can all agree on.
First, I believe we are all grateful to Canadians for their efforts over the past two years: for stepping up and following public health measures to protect the health and welfare of themselves and their fellow Canadians, and for working hard on our front lines and our essential services to keep our economy moving and Canadians safe and cared for. We are also grateful to the truckers who have provided these services and, especially today, to our men and women in uniform from across our province and country, for professionally and peacefully working to end this illegal occupation.
Additionally, I believe we agree on our basic rights and responsibilities: the right of all Canadians to free speech and the right to lawfully and peacefully protest, and the responsibility of our government to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada. On a more personal level, there is the responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament to listen to our constituents and to weigh carefully the measures we are enacting.
Likewise, the responsibility of Canadians is to refrain from hate speech and other violent and harassing behaviour toward their fellow citizens, but especially at this time toward our police officers, our frontline public servants, our medical officers and even our own staff as members of Parliament.
I think we can also agree on some facts that were established during the disruptions to public order over the past several weeks. There has been an illegal occupation of the downtown core of Ottawa for over three weeks now. It is an occupation that has not only impeded the operation of businesses and the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of Canadians, but also, and perhaps more importantly in terms of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, it has threatened to disrupt the operation of all three branches of our government, impeding their proper functioning.
The inability of the municipal, regional and provincial governments to disperse this illegal occupation of our nation's capital has further added to the situation.
Let us look at some other facts, such as the publication of a memorandum of understanding by the organizers of these blockades calling for the overthrow of the government if the demands they set out were not met. We should be outraged by the involvement of extremist, white nationalist organizations in the operation of this self-titled “freedom convoy” movement, some even demonstrating with swastikas and Confederate flags. In fact, during CBC coverage of the protest only a few hours ago, a flag of one of the far-right organizations was clearly being waved.
We should be outraged by the discovery of lethal and illegal weapons and the arrest of individuals associated with the organizing groups at the Coutts border blockade in Alberta. We should be outraged by the threats to the life of the Prime Minister, and to the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines trying to peacefully contain and quell these illegal blockades.
We should be outraged by the significant economic damage that these blockades have done at border crossings critical to vital trade between Canada and the United States. What Canadians are not outraged by the inflow of foreign money funding this political movement? It is money from the U.S. and the Cayman Islands, including money identified as coming from over a thousand donors who also donated to the illegal attempt to overthrow the government of the United States on January 6. How can the Conservatives not be equally outraged by these acts?
The question before us right now is whether the situation we are currently facing warrants the invocation of the Emergencies Act. This act has been invoked under Part II: a public order emergency. A public order emergency is described as resulting from serious threats to the Government of Canada. When defining threats to the security of Canada, the act references the definition provided in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This definition includes espionage, sabotage, detrimental foreign influences, activities that support the threat or use of violence for a political, religious or ideological objective, or those activities that threaten to undermine or otherwise destroy or overthrow the Government of Canada.
I hope that after hearing the facts I have just enumerated, and given the definition of when we are facing a public order emergency under the act, members will agree that the motion before us should be supported.
Let us remember that we are debating the declaration of an emergency under an act that was introduced, debated and amended in 1987 and 1988 by the then Conservative government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It was a Progressive Conservative government, very unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party opposite.
This is a well-written and thoughtful act that was introduced to address concerns that many Canadians had with the only act available to our government at that time: the War Measures Act. As former Prime Minister Mulroney pointed out, one of the major things that the Emergencies Act did was to require the concurrence of Parliament in the declaration of an emergency. This is an important feature of the act and the reason we are here today.
Perrin Beatty, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who was the minister of defence at the time that this act was introduced, said that the government's use of this act is an indication of how serious a threat the blockades are to public safety and the economy.
To quote a primary source, Mr. Beatty's Twitter account, he said, “When I brought in the Emergencies Act 35 years ago, I wished that it would never need to be used, but I knew there would inevitably be future crises and that it was essential to protect the basic rights of Canadians even in an emergency.”
This is what the act does. Let me once again review the measures in this act that ensure the protection of our basic rights. The act ensures that the government's actions are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. The act is time limited and targeted, and measures introduced will be reasonable and proportional. The act lapses after 30 days and may be ended prior to that.
There are many checks and balances. We are here today, and I have been here since 7 a.m., to fully debate the invocation of this act, as is required by it. A committee must be established to monitor the measures implemented, and the implementation of the act will be reviewed by the courts.
I trust that, given the many current threats to the safety and security of our country that I outlined earlier, in combination with the safeguards that were so wisely incorporated into this legislation, members will concur that this is a judicious and warranted declaration of emergency by our Prime Minister, and will support this motion.
This is a time for action. Canadians are counting on us. The world is watching us. Let us not be afraid to enact tough, bold measures to protect our country, our border, our economy and our civil society.
1299 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:11:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House asking the same question that so many of my fellow Canadians are asking: How did we end up here? Across the world, our allies are in shock. I have had friends call me from all over the world asking me, “What is going in your country?” They know that we Canadians are a quiet and polite people. Something must be very wrong for a peace-loving people to rise up, take to the streets and fight for freedom from government mandates and restrictions.
We are here because the Liberal government slowly encroached upon the freedoms of Canadians and because the Prime Minister chose to use hate, fear and division as a part of his COVID strategy. The Liberals want to create a false narrative. They want to convince you that the protesters are terrorists. They need you to believe this so that they can justify the heavy-handed approach that they have taken by invoking the emergency measures act.
Hard-working Canadians are seeking empathy and understanding and listening from the elected officials whose salaries they pay, and yet this Prime Minister clearly refuses to listen to any opinion that is not exactly like his. He has said that those who disagree with him have wrong opinions. That is not leadership. This failed leadership is responsible for the situation with which we are now faced. This protest could have been over at least a week ago without the police intervention that we see now if the Liberals had accepted our motion for them to provide a timetable outlining when Canadians could have their lives back. Even leaders around the world are condemning this Prime Minister's authoritarian move, from British MPs to U.S. senators to Brazilian lawmakers to international authors and journalists. The free world is looking at Canada in shock and using words such as “authoritarian” and “totalitarian dictatorship” to describe our government.
Let me remind the House that it was less than two years ago when the Prime Minister celebrated our truckers as heroes and mobilized a social media campaign to thank them, “Thank a Trucker”. I repeat again that this is not about who is right or who is wrong; it is about who gets to be a part of this conversation, and the only acceptable answer to that question is everybody, every Canadian.
The Emergencies Act is a declaration of a state of national emergency, a blunt-force tool that should only be used when there is a national crisis at hand, when all the legislative and legal powers have been exhausted. Canadians know very well that this Prime Minister did not exhaust all of the options before he implemented this act. Our criminal laws have provisions that will allow for the seizure of crime proceeds, the towing of vehicles, the freezing of bank accounts, and these measures should have been used first.
Conservatives do believe in the rule of law. We believe in peaceful protests and do not support protests that interfere with critical infrastructure, so when the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba were blocked, protesters were asked to leave. The authorities attended and asked them to leave, and they did. The RCMP dealt with those issues efficiently, without a declaration of a national emergency. All critical infrastructures were cleared, and what was left was a protest in front of Parliament in downtown Ottawa. To halt further protests, the Prime Minister threatened to take away drivers licences, seize trucks, freeze bank accounts and outright intimidate lawful protesters. These are the actions of a dictator, and this is exactly what happens in totalitarian regimes.
I have received thousands of emails from terrified people all over the country. One lady who bought a simple T-shirt is afraid her bank account is going to be frozen.
Invoking the Emergencies Act when conditions have not been met undermines confidence in our democracy. This is not the first large protest in this country. We have resolved many other protests without invoking the Emergencies Act, such as Oka, pipeline protests, and in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, the Caledonia protests. The Canadian legal system has laws sufficient for dealing with protests. Our FINTRAC system allows for the tracing of funds and the freezing of accounts.
The continuation of the Emergencies Act without clear evidence of a national emergency is a threat to our democracy. I remind this House that when the War Measures Act, the predecessor to this act, was first enacted, many innocent people's lives were implicated, and lives were destroyed as a result. Even defence minister Perrin Beatty, in introducing the act, expressed the generally held view that the War Measures Act was an extremely effective tool as a political device, but as a criminal device was extremely ineffective.
I am a trained lawyer and I have practised law for over 20 years. I have taught law at law school, and as such, I believe in the rule of law. Its application is very important to me. I am now a legislator, so it is also imperative that I be convinced that the laws are properly applied. If we examine the appropriate section of the Emergencies Act, we will see that the reasons for invoking this act are lacking.
The Liberals cite three reasons. We were told, first, that it is necessary to deal with continuing blockades. This is factually incorrect, since all blockades at the border crossings were removed peacefully with the existing laws in place. There is nothing in the Emergencies Act that gives law enforcement powers that they did not have when they removed the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge, at Coutts and at the Manitoba border. With all bridges cleared and the protest been relegated to downtown Ottawa, primarily on Wellington Street in front of Parliament, that situation certainly does not constitute a national emergency.
Second, Liberals used the act to prevent the protests from having adverse effects on the Canadian economy. Again, this is factually incorrect. Canada was experiencing economic insecurity as a result of the adverse effects of the lockdowns and mandates. This occurred long before the protests and the blockades.
The third reason was to reduce the impacts of blockades on Canada's relationship with trading partners. It is unbelievable and not credible that this Prime Minister needed to invoke the Emergencies Act to secure our relationship with our trading partners. Frankly, the United States is our biggest trading partner, and many U.S. governors as well as countries around the world have condemned the Prime Minister's heavy-handed approach.
It is very likely that his actions alone will negatively affect our relationship with our trading partners. It is clear that the Prime Minister is using the Emergencies Act as a political tool to terrorize and punish dissenters by ruining the lives of people who disagree with him. The preponderance of the evidence clearly does not support invoking the Emergencies Act.
Canadians are desperate for hope and are calling for unity. People on all sides of the debate need compassion and understanding. Like it or not, the Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for his failed leadership. Guarding our freedoms and upholding our democracy means that we need to have compassionate hearts and listening ears.
The Prime Minister's actions likely will bring the government and our democracy into disrepute. Thankfully, there is a simple solution to this problem. Let us entertain a non-partisan resolution to end mandates, just like many countries around the world, including Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Tanzania, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Together, we could begin to restore our democracy—
1293 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:38:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting. All day long, I have been hearing Conservatives talk about the need for the Prime Minister to engage in dialogue and discussion with the occupiers outside, yet I find it interesting that Jason Kenney, the premier of Alberta, did not engage with the protesters at Coutts. Premier Doug Ford did not engage with the protesters or those who were blocking the bridge in Windsor. Premier Stefanson of Manitoba did not engage with those who were blocking in Manitoba.
Does the hon. member think that all leadership should engage with the protesters or that just Liberal leadership should engage with protesters?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:08:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked whether anybody had realized that the trucks had been cleared since the emergency measures were invoked.
Did she realize that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared without the emergency measures? Did she not notice that the border in Alberta was cleared without the emergency measures and that weapons were actually seized there? Did she not realize that this means that the emergency measures are not needed to clear this up?
Finally, as the parliamentary secretary for intergovernmental affairs, did she realize that Quebec and seven out of ten provinces did not want this legislation?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member finds this question entertaining.
There are places in Canada that did not need the Emergencies Act. Coutts, Alberta, was one, because after the police found some pretty awful elements with huge stashes of weapons, charging some of them with conspiracy to commit murder, what did the blockade do? Those good people in the blockade said, “This does not represent us. Let us go home,” and they did.
Would the hon. member put the same advice to the people who overstayed their welcome by at least two weeks on Wellington Street in downtown Ottawa?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:18:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, judges are currently engaged in looking at those who have been arrested and are actually speaking out and saying what must be done. They have been speaking out loudly about it and saying that certain things must be done. That is going on right now.
The point is that Alberta wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, saying that it could not cope and did not have the resources within its municipalities and province to cope with what was going on at its borders. It was asking for help. The federal government then needed to have the tools. It needed to be able to look at jurisdictional issues and say—
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government could have avoided this whole circumstance had it helped Canadians through this difficult time. Instead, it let inaction and partisanship guide it, and let those who sought to hurt our economy and our international reputation as Canadians by not acting sooner. All of this was done by the government, while Conservatives emboldened the occupiers, meeting with them as they stood shoulder to shoulder displaying Nazi and Confederate flags. The emergency we are facing was not a surprise.
Organizers such as Pat King, who was first listed as the Alberta organizer for Canada Unity, has a known history of white supremacy and has previously been seen on videos saying white people have the strongest bloodlines. When talking about COVID restrictions in December, just one month before the protest, he said, “The only way that this is going to be solved is with bullets.” As much as I disagree, and as much as I condemn the statements of Mr. King and believe them to be hate-motivated, I respect every group's right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, but what we have witnessed here and across the country is certainly not that.
As a matter of fact, I have been in many protests over the past decade, and I am a proud indigenous land defender myself. I am a true believer in public demonstration and community solidarity. It is absolutely fundamental and necessary to ensuring democracy, accountability and diversity of opinion in Canada.
That being said, it is clear that the situation across the country, in particular in my home province of Alberta, at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, and in Ottawa, should have never gotten to this point. There is a combination of ill forces that have contributed to this current crisis, such as the lack of proper leadership to combat disinformation in our country. Hate, racism and terrorism funding are undeniable facts of the situation and are some things anti-racism groups across our country have warned us against for years.
When we saw how fragile democracy was in the United States when the Capitol was attacked, we all thought it could not happen here. Here we are, three weeks into this, with hopes of finally restoring public order, which should have taken place a long time ago. We knew this was coming.
I am sure those who have engaged in peaceful assembly, such as myself, have noticed the extreme difference in the standard of policing for indigenous land defenders and for organizations such as the ones we are seeing right now. It has never taken the use of the Emergencies Act to have police forcefully remove land defenders, often with violence. It is an unfortunate precedent that already exists in our country. I mean to say that regardless of the Emergencies Act, indigenous people have been subject to state violence since the inception of Canada and its laws, and we need to tackle that issue. From the evidence today and yesterday, I am pleased to see that police can, in fact, enforce public order without the use of bullets, tear gas, chainsaws or axes. To the police, I know many others will be watching.
Over the past three weeks, Canadians have witnessed local and municipal police fail to uphold the most basic of bylaws and ordinances made to protect our economy, residents and transport corridors. Just last week, some members of the southern Alberta Coutts blockade were charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers after a weapons cache was found. It should never have gotten to that point. Armed violence and intimidation are not conducive to a free democracy, and instances such as this are likely in other parts of our country. I have heard from many Black, indigenous and other people-of-colour communities who are feeling scared right now. They are feeling intimidated for their immediate safety.
I have spoken to health care professionals in Edmonton Griesbach. Nurses, doctors and health care aides are feeling the same way. Hate toward frontline health care workers over the past few weeks has resulted in hospitals telling their own employees not to wear any identifiable health care clothes due to the rise in attacks. This is Canada, my friends. This is right now. This is today. A truly free democracy is one that does not allow discourse to take a back seat to intimidation and violence. This is not freedom. This is not Canada. It is clearly hate.
Lastly, without getting into the nuanced and complicated differences between Canadian civil rights guarantees and the rights of sovereign indigenous nations, please know that the use of the Emergencies Act does not in any way negate or dismiss indigenous people's rights and/or laws to access and occupy their own lands.
The reasons I have outlined here are why my NDP colleagues and I have decided to support these very limited measures under the Emergencies Act. They largely include the coordination of local enforcement, as noted by the interim Ottawa police chief, and powers to investigate foreign and domestic financial influences that are fuelling this hate-motivated occupation. My entire caucus and I believe in reasonable limits, which include the barring of any use of the Canadian Armed Forces, and the upholding and non-suspension of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is with the utmost reluctance we do this for the betterment of our safety, for our country and for the survival of our democracy. We will be steadfast in monitoring these powers and have a clear path to revoke or, at any time, not support these powers that infringe on our civil rights and our democracy. The tool can never become the problem. Kinana'skomitina'wa'w.
956 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:00:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is a man of logic, so I am going to put to him some logical issues that are troubling some of us on this side of the House. One is that the protesters have talked about the importance of freedom of expression, yet assault a journalist. Second is the importance of being antilockdown, yet this resulted in the lockdown of downtown Ottawa. Third is this idea that robust supply chains are critical and then supply chains are blocked in his own province of Alberta.
Does he understand the reticence on this side of the House to dialogue with people who are engaging in such illegal activities?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
