44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:19:19 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the other interruption. I wanted to make sure the member had correct information and did not spread misinformation. The Ambassador Bridge is open, but not in its full context. Now the barriers are in my community along the side streets to keep those 14 kilometres secure.
Not only are businesses, emergency service vehicles and regular life and jobs inconvenienced, but traffic is slower, which is affecting many other people. Today, as well as every single day since the blockade, including with the subsequent repercussions due to other barriers, children cannot get to doctor's appointments.
What would the hon. member like to say to those families who are having to delay medical appointments, which have already been delayed due to the pandemic, even further because of the new blockades? They prevent them from getting to those medical appointments. This is a fact, and I would like the hon. member to address the families right now who will not get to their appointments, not only for themselves but for their children.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:05:47 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
Again, the answer is yes. In the news, we clearly saw a trucker who was part of the blockade here in Ottawa saying that he had to leave because he had received a notice from his bank informing him that if he did not leave the illegal blockade, his assets could be seized. He added that he employs 55 people.
It has worked. It will prevent potential blockades from happening in Windsor. We also heard from the Ottawa Police Service and the Windsor Police Service that with these measures, they finally had the ability to prevent—
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:53:00 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. The ideologies associated with these extremists and the symbols we have seen waving through the blockade are dangerous. This has been well organized by leaders of extremist groups. Arrests that started yesterday continue today. We still see the extremists rooted on Wellington Street. The leaders of the extremist groups must be held accountable for their actions with the full extent of the law.
Does the member for Orléans agree that these extremists have taken extraordinary measures to endanger our democracy and that we need to do our duty to ensure these ideologies do not spread further?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:51:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite's speech, and what I find concerning, and what I have heard from the Conservative bench for the last couple of weeks, is this. They are equating the idea that, although there are some individuals who have been involved in this occupation who are being peaceful, it is somehow lawful. We can have people who are peaceful, but I would argue that the House has really highlighted points where there are individuals who have much more sinister goals, so we do not have to go down that route. It is still unlawful, what was taking place. The interim chief of the Ottawa police remarked yesterday that the measures the government introduced were extremely helpful for being able to remove the occupation that exists in Ottawa. Of course, we know that some individuals are touting the idea that they will re-establish blockades elsewhere in the country.
Does that testimony from the chief of police in Ottawa not give this member some idea that these measures were helpful in removing a blockade in a G7 country's capital city?
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:06:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to say to my hon. colleague that much of his speech could have been written by any of us on this side. We all know that law and order are the fundamental backbone of our country. That is what we all want.
However, the hon. member cannot say to me or to the rest of our colleagues that what is happening outside could simply be handled by some police officers shoving the protesters away. This is an illegal blockade that has been there for going on four weeks now. The people of Ottawa have been terrorized. They have been denied their freedom.
For someone who equally respects law and order, how can he stand by and just let another weekend go by and not recognize that this was a measure we absolutely had to take?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:26:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's significant debate.
After what we all witnessed on the streets of our capital yesterday, I feel compelled to say we each have a solemn obligation and responsibility to steer clear of excessive partisanship and rhetoric today. What we saw in our national capital should serve as a sober reminder of our solemn obligation to prove resolute in exercising our responsibilities and vigilant in safeguarding the interests of all Canadians. I firmly believe we must each endeavour to steer clear of division and resort to the principles that guide us in our decision with respect to the specific motion at hand. After all, at times such as this, Canadians are entitled to nothing less from their elected officials.
The facts before us are not in dispute. Today marks the 23rd day of the blockade and occupation in Ottawa. Apart from entrenched encampments in Ottawa, we have witnessed weeks of protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. Each of these developments has represented a deliberate and concerted effort to stifle our commercial lifelines or to impede the flow of civic life.
Our democratic right to protest or freely express our views is one thing. A blockade, an entrenched occupation and a permanent gridlock are quite another. Let me say firmly and equivocally that it does not matter what an occupation is about. That is not what the motion before us is about. A protest is generally understood to be time-limited and should never be allowed to devolve into an indeterminate occupation that completely ignores the rights of others. Our government has listened and should always listen to the concerns of all Canadians.
Allow me to talk about the significance of the rule of law. We are blessed as a country and have served as a beacon to people around the world because of our unconditional adherence to the rule of law. That is exactly why I arrived here as a teenager with my family. We were fleeing hateful ideology and extremism of a revolutionary government that had no regard for individual rights or the rule of law. The rule of law is at the core and the very foundation of who we are. The rule of law stands for the proposition that every person is subject to the law and must be held accountable for their actions. That is why none of us should turn a blind eye to what has been unfolding across our country or in our nation's capital in the last several weeks.
Surely, members know that residents of Ottawa have been subjected to sonic assaults for weeks. We cannot overlook that many felt compelled to form citizen brigades against what was occurring here. We cannot remain indifferent to what we are hearing from the residents of Ottawa. Members of the House are also surely aware that hundreds of small businesses, many of which were frequented by members of the House, have felt compelled to remain closed for the past three weeks. Surely we are better than that. We know that some of the protesters were jamming 911 lines in the last several days.
Canadians rightly expect our government to demonstrate resolve in the face of what we have experienced across our country. The only responsible course of action was to invoke the Emergencies Act. We have been in contact with all levels of government and have consistently heard, whether from the chief of police of Ottawa, the mayor of Ottawa or the Premier of Ontario, that the city of Ottawa is under siege, entirely overwhelmed and lacking the resources and tools to deal with the situation at hand. Let me remind every member of the House that a state of emergency was declared by the City of Ottawa on February 6, by the Province of Ontario on February 11 and by the federal government on February 14.
The Emergencies Act spells out a clear process. Despite much of what we have heard today, the act is time-limited and targeted, and must at all times be applied in a reasonable and proportionate fashion. That does not limit anyone's freedom of expression, neither does it limit the freedom of peaceful assembly. The act is replete with specific checks and balances. The legislation, as adopted in 1988, is circumscribed with layers of built-in protection to ensure that our charter rights are fully safeguarded at all times.
The Progressive Conservative government that introduced the Emergencies Act in 1988 ensured that the invocation of the act be done in a charter-compliant fashion. We have heard a lot from members opposite that the facts do not justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act. If the backdrop of developments in Windsor, Coutts and Ottawa has not persuaded the hon. members, nor what we have heard from residents, the police chief, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario, they should consider the following: Let me assure them that the act requires not only a sober assessment of what has happened, but a consideration of possible threats on the horizon.
When Perrin Beatty, a minister of the Conservative government, was asked in committee what justification was required to invoke the Emergencies Act, back in 1988 this is what Mr. Beatty, a Conservative minister, had to say: “It depends not only on an assessment of the current facts of the situation, but even more on judgments about the direction events are in danger of moving and about how quickly the situation could deteriorate.” Mr. Beatty further added, “Judgments have to be made not just about what has happened, or is happening, but also what might happen.”
When the measures were invoked by our government, it was clearly stated that the situation across our country was concerning, volatile and unpredictable. I dare say not a single person in this chamber could possibly take issue with that assessment, so I would ask members of the House not only to refuse to turn a blind eye to what we have seen, but to not prove deaf to the assessment of the Ottawa chief of police, the mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario. As passionate as we can each be, we do not have licence to allow our judgments to substitute for what we have overwhelmingly heard from public safety officials and national security experts over the course of the last several days. It is imperative that we actually consider this thing and that we look beyond this chamber to determine whether this has been justified.
1110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:52:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to read a quote.
Freedom of expression and the right to peacefully protest do not give any Canadian the licence to break the law. I call on [the Prime Minister] to enforce the law and direct the RCMP to shut down these illegal blockades.
Members may think this was a quote having to do with the illegal blockade in Ottawa, but this is actually from a member of the Conservative Party, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, who has called for the stoppage of the blockades.
I wonder why the member feels like when it is blockades of one type, his party is very much against it, but when it is blockades of another type, they are very much for it and happy to stand in front of it, taking credit and selfies.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:08:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Etobicoke Centre.
I stand with great sadness today to talk about the Emergencies Act because it is not something that any of us in this House, especially the Prime Minister, wanted to bring forward. We would not have if it were not absolutely necessary to do so. We need to look at the blockades that were going on last weekend at the Ambassador Bridge, in Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson and what was happening with trade. As chair of the international trade committee, I know these things are very important to all of us. The blockades were preventing goods, services and people from being able to cross those borders.
We know it cost $400 million a day at the Ambassador Bridge, aside from all of the personal issues that my colleague from Windsor West mentioned earlier, such as people being prevented from getting to doctor appointments and nurses prevented from crossing the border to help us with the pandemic. That is a huge economic hit on all four fronts. That is aside from what we are dealing with here in Ottawa.
I would ask my Conservative colleagues that, if their communities were besieged for almost four weeks, would they have said they would like to go through another process of deputizing a whole lot of emergency police officers, which would take another five to six days? They would not have been happy to do that, and we were not able to allow this to go any further. The economic impact of this has been enormous, so it was critical that we move forward to ensure we have law and order.
The concern with what is going on is not just here, it is around the world. I guess the new thing for people do to try to disrupt governments is to bring in transport trucks, trailers and tractors, by some of these people on the extreme right, who then convince a whole lot of other people that this is about mandates. This has nothing to do with mandates or vaccines. This is all about trying to bring down a government and disrupt democracy. When we do not have democracy or law and order, what we are left with? What is happening today outside Parliament, in particular, is that law and order is being put into effect. People have been asked to please go home. The illegal blockade was not a regular protest, it was much more serious than that.
Interim chief of police Steve Bell, three other former chiefs of police in Ottawa and the former chief of police in London all said that the Emergencies Act, unfortunate as it is, absolutely had to be brought in before there was more violence than what we had seen so far. Without that act, it would be much more difficult. I know what last weekend and previous weekends were like. I can only imagine what this weekend would have been like with hundreds more people coming here every weekend to create more mayhem and disruption.
Let us talk about the children. At the foot of the steps of the gate into West Block, there is a bouncy castle and children skipping rope to try to show this as a pleasant little uprising of a protest. This was an illegal blockade that was using children as shields. I would tell anybody participating that it is not democracy when we are talking about children.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
587 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:39:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever felt more compelled to add my voice to a debate in the chamber than I do in this debate about the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I am going to start by making a number of things very clear to the people listening, including my constituents. They might want to know where I stand on a number of issues that cannot be separated from this debate.
I am proud to belong to a party that has always stood for both law and order. At no point have I condoned, encouraged or made excuses or apologies for unlawful conduct. I was appalled by the border blockades that immediately harmed the economy and brought into question Canada's core competence as a sovereign country able to control and secure its own borders. I was horrified by the violent attack on workers at the Coastal GasLink pipeline two days ago that resulted in injured police, terrorized workers, millions in property damage and barely a peep out of the federal government, or the press gallery, for that matter.
I was elected on a platform that would make it an offence to block critical infrastructure like highways, railways, ports, pipelines and border facilities. I stand by that. I believe in prudent and reasonable public health measures, especially during a pandemic, but not inflexible mandates. I stand today in the House of Commons opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the order that the government has made pursuant to the act. I oppose the invocation because it fails the tests set out in the law, because it sets a terrible precedent for future governments and because the current government in particular cannot be trusted with the powers that it would grant itself.
The first reason is simple. The present situation clearly does not meet the tests set out in the act. The government has declared a public order emergency. The act itself defines a public order emergency as follows:
an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency
This definition was always understood to mean war, widespread deadly violence, insurrection or threats to Canada's sovereignty.
What was the situation when this order was invoked last Monday? It is certainly true that there had been blockades at border crossings and partially blocked streets in and around the parliamentary precinct here in Ottawa. However, by the time the order was made, conventional policing was prevailing at the border crossings. Arrests with serious charges had been laid in Coutts, and others left peacefully of their own accord. The Ambassador Bridge was also cleared peacefully. Let me pause and commend the police, who successfully ended these blockades with no injuries, no damage to property and no violence with existing powers and solid police professionalism.
Given that the border blockades were resolved without additional powers granted under this act, and the downtown Ottawa situation was all that remained, did the situation in Ottawa really meet the test of a national emergency? Make no mistake. Laws were broken, and people who live and work in the Ottawa core were harmed by traffic disruptions, noise and reported incidents of harassment. However, was this a national emergency, a threat to the security of Canada and one that could not be solved using existing laws and conventional policing methods?
I arrived in Ottawa the day the convoy arrived. I have been here for all but one day since. I have walked through and among the trucks and the demonstrators every day to and from my apartment, this chamber and my office across the street. There was clearly and obviously a breakdown of law enforcement. That is clear and obvious to all, but I did not see a national emergency. There was a downtown Ottawa emergency, perhaps, but a national emergency is an emergency that threatens 38 million Canadians. This emergency did not even prevent MPs from working right in the middle of it. A former member of Parliament, Erin Weir, perhaps summed it quite nicely when he said, “The only element of the protest that may have been a national emergency was the blockade in Windsor”. However, the police reopened that bridge on Sunday night without the federal Emergencies Act.
The second reason I oppose the invocation of the Emergencies Act is for the terrible precedent that it would set, or has set, really. This law has been on the books since 1988 and has never been invoked until now. There have been many threats to public safety and security during that time, yet no government has ever reached for the powers under this act: not during the Oka crisis, not after September 11, 2001, not during the dangerous and paralyzing highway and railway blockades two years ago and not during the COVID crisis. However, this invocation is going to be the bar set for future governments.
We now know how the Prime Minister feels about those who disagree with his federal policy of mandatory vaccinations. We know how he lumped together all those with whom he disagreed and called them racists, misogynists, anti-science and a fringe element; talked about how they should not be tolerated; and complained about how they take up space. He did this during an election, when he cynically did everything he could to divide Canadians and weaponize the pandemic and vaccines. However, now he has invoked the Emergencies Act in response to a protest, and hardly the first protest that has taken place since this law came into effect in 1988, or even since 2015 when this government came to power or even since 2020. However, this protest is being conducted by those whose views are abhorrent to the Prime Minister. These protesters are people the Prime Minister has systematically demonized, vilified, stigmatized and scapegoated since he made the cynical self-serving decision to do so during the last election. Now this is going to be the bar set for future use of this act. Every future Prime Minister will have this precedent for using the act as a tool against citizens who hold opposing views.
This brings me to the third reason why I will oppose this motion. The tools contained in this order are so ill-defined and draconian and so utterly out of proportion to the situation at hand that they simply cannot be supported. This order, among other things, immediately orders banks to seize the accounts of anyone affiliated with the blockade and to do so without a court order. Thousands of Canadians who disagree with the government have given financial support to this protest, and many likely did so before any laws were broken. These Canadians are now left to wonder exactly what constitutes the phrase “being used to further the illegal blockades”
Is this really to be the new way that governments in Canada deal with protesters? Are we to become a country where governments say the legal system is really inconvenient and time consuming so let's just keep it simple? That is not Canada. No government present or future should deal with a breakdown of law enforcement at a local level with suspension of legal process, and certainly not over something as politically charged as dealing with a group of people who have been deliberately alienated not just from their government but by they their government itself.
Before we take any comfort from the government's assurance that its members will not misuse the powers they are granting themselves, let us remember what kind of government we are dealing with. We are dealing with a government whose members have been repeatedly sanctioned by the Ethics Commissioner for conflicts of interest, and with a Prime Minister who tried to interfere in a criminal prosecution by creating a new law to get a corrupt company off the hook and who then fired his attorney general, who refused to be complicit. This is a government that tried to give itself unlimited taxing and spending power at the beginning of the pandemic, a government that has tried to control, through regulation, what Canadians post online and a government that has defied court orders of this chamber. We are talking about a government that wanted to receive private banking information and is now seeking a partner from which to track mobility data. I would not want to give the government the extraordinary power that it seeks. Its appetite for power and control and its failure to comply with the law are simply too well established.
To conclude, there is no justification for this act. The emergency is local and does not require additional powers.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about peaceful protests, and I want to commend the law enforcement we have had over the last number of weeks here in Ottawa. They have been keeping the peace and doing a wonderful job of ending the blockade here this week. Conservatives have been calling for an end to it for a while.
Ottawa knew for days that this protest, the “freedom convoy”, was coming into Ottawa. The mayor knew, the police chief knew and security here in Ottawa knew. They knew for days before they even arrived. We have seen hundreds of thousands of people here for weeks on end without so much as a broken window.
What are the first, second and third things the government could have done before dropping the sledgehammer by invoking this legislation? We are still waiting to hear the answer, so I would like to hear the member's answer on that.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:24:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today sombrely in the House of Commons to raise my voice against the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. The first issue to address is the rule of law that we live under in this democracy. Outside, police are corralling the remainder of the protesters who have set up a blockade on Ottawa's streets.
Last week, blockades at Canada's borders were disassembled by police forces in five provinces. These all have serious implications for Canada regarding our economy and the jobs upon which Canadians depend; our dependability as a trading partner; our supply chain, and we have heard much about how that supply chain has been strained; our grocery shelves, as over 70% of the produce Canadians consume during the winter arrives from southern supply; and, of course, inflation, as shipments have been delayed, rerouted or cancelled.
In so many ways, Canadians will be paying the price for these illegal blockades. These short-term interruptions have long-term consequences. I need to illustrate clearly that every blockade at our international borders was addressed within Canada's existing laws. No extraordinary powers were required. Our police, in each province, rose to the challenge and dealt with the illegal blockades.
The notion that extraordinary powers were required to deal with the situation is a ruse, and the Attorney General of Canada's justification that these powers were required to compel tow truck drivers to assist them has been clearly debunked by references to Canada's Criminal Code, where those powers already reside.
There is no doubt that we are living in extraordinary times and this is testing all our democratic institutions. Canada is quickly becoming viewed in the eyes of the world as no longer a nation of laws. We rank much worse on Transparency International's corruption index. We have moved from the seventh most important economy in the world to the 10th. Our international security partners are largely ignoring us and making decisions without our input. We are on the wrong path.
How did we get here? Our Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, for the fourth time in our nation's history. Two world wars and the FLQ crisis are the only other instances. Close examination shows that this invocation is a gross overreach and is unnecessary.
I have spoken of the blockades. Individuals will face charges for actions that occurred during these illegal blockades. The beginning of the convoy formed to bring a message of hope to Canadians and gained so much support as those trucks crossed our country to arrive in Ottawa to protest against the government's sudden vaccine mandate imposed on transborder truckers. This was unnecessary and unwarranted, and has no scientific basis: a gross overstep against a group of hard-working Canadians who had kept this country supplied for two years of a pandemic. How the Prime Minister relegated these Canadian heroes to zeros overnight is a turnaround of a most divisive nature.
There is no data linking our trucking industry to the spread of the coronavirus. There is only a divisive government looking to exploit differences among Canadians. These truckers were standing up for their rights, and yes, those rights are covered in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should not be trampled upon because the government says that the situation warrants it. They took to their trucks, drove to Ottawa and protested to uphold their rights. That is also their right.
Along the way, they gathered support from so many Canadians who are tired of the government's overreach that has occurred during the pandemic. Canadians are tired of expensive government programs that show no sense and are only designed to frustrate Canadians at great cost. I am referring to the requirement for multiple tests and potential quarantines when Canadians return home from elsewhere. Government is making life more complex and expensive, with no tangible outcome to its protocols.
At the same time, Canadians are seeing the other side of the outcomes, the ones the government is not measuring, and one cannot manage what one does not measure: suicides, drug overdoses, mental health breakdowns, business failures, children falling behind in their educational and social development, our senior citizens spending their final years alone, lonely and inactive. It is little wonder these protesters gathered such a following across Canada in their challenge to a clear government overreach.
Rather than having anyone in government meet with these protesters, the Prime Minister, the divider-in-chief, ignored them and, to fuel the flame, described them as undesirables. Working Canadians, who had been our heroes shortly before, were now undesirables. This is hardly a step in resolving a dispute that arose through a gross government overreach.
Unfortunately, legal protests led to illegal blockades, and we cannot abide blockades, any blockades. The Prime Minister thinks he can decide to whom the law applies, but the rule of law needs to be clear. The blockades had to end, and the fact that they lasted as long as they did is another black eye for Canada's standing in the world.
It could have been so easily averted, but the Prime Minister never took one step toward a constructive outcome. Such is his way. The effects of the last month will have lasting impacts on Canada.
One matter that needs to be addressed is the limits of peaceful protest in this country. If this latest blockade is an example of the escalation of acceptable protest in this country, then I think we are becoming largely ungovernable. How quickly we have fallen. I often wonder if it is the aim of the Prime Minister and the cabal around him to make this country less democratic, more divided and less law-abiding or if it is just incompetence of the highest order.
Let us recall the slide away from the rule of law regarding protests. Over the past six and a half years, the government sat on its hands while protests largely shut down huge swaths of the Canadian economy. Indeed, the government has delivered funding to organizations whose only intent was to protest and hold back Canadian economic development. Foreign funding blockades have been a part of Canada's protest industry since this government arrived. It is this government's motto and and this government's agenda to have its policies bolstered by opaque foreign funding.
Here are the results: People have been hurt, property has been destroyed, projects have been delayed and cancelled, indigenous economic reconciliation has stalled, foreign investment capital has fled Canada and Canadian investment capital looks for opportunities elsewhere.
Let me take this moment to offer my gratitude to Canada's law enforcement officials who intervened in the latest illegal action on Thursday night at the site where the Coastal GasLink pipeline is under construction. I understand that one officer was injured and that workers were threatened with serious harm. This cannot continue, and I hope the assailants are pursued to the full extent of the law.
Do we now understand why Canadians are unclear about the laws around protests? The government has made them intentionally unclear in order to ensure that those supporting its post-nation state agenda are able to thrive with public money and foreign funding.
This brings me to the most egregious portion of the orders associated with the Emergencies Act, which is to require any financial service provider to determine whether it has in its possession or control property that belongs to a person who participated in the blockade. I do not think the Minister of Finance has any notion of the financial implications of what this is proposing. She is asking Canadian banks to freeze, without judicial order, accounts of Canadians who have committed no crime.
As an example, a retiree who may have donated $50 to help her son's appeal to support his right to protest will have her account frozen. She will have no way to pay for food or her retirement residence. There are human implications, but there are also huge implications for Canada's financial system. When Canadians lose trust in Canadian banks, when our retirement savings are no longer considered safe for withdrawal and government can unilaterally freeze our bank accounts, Canada's financial system will encounter a crisis. I ask the government to look ahead and consider these implications.
I also presented a motion at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance that would address this matter, and the committee will start meeting urgently to address this motion beginning Tuesday. I thank my colleagues in the other parties who helped this motion to pass on Thursday.
These implications cannot be addressed through the rear-view mirror, as has been the government's practices. I take heart that there is at least one Liberal, the member for Louis-Hébert, who voted for our motion to get the government on a path to lessening mandates in this country. There is hope.
The motion we put forward last week was defeated in Parliament, but I was very pleased that the Bloc Québécois supported the motion.
I recall the member for Louis-Hébert clearly enunciating that the Prime Minister and his team had chosen to divide and stigmatize Canadians around the pandemic. This is not leadership. It is divisiveness and it is no way to govern.
I say to the Prime Minister that you reap what you sow. There is much division in this country, largely due to your choice to divide Canadians.
The world is watching Canada like never before, and not in a good way. I implore my colleagues and friends in both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to defy your party leadership. There is more at stake here than politics. Canadian democracy is at risk. Vote against this bill, I implore you.
1649 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:36:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Centre for his remarks. By way of a brief rebuttal, I would simply say that the powers used under the Emergencies Act declaration were used most recently as February 16 in Windsor to thwart an attempted resurrection of a blockade. If the member's concern is with investment in this country, I would say the blockades actually threaten the investment climate in this country.
My point is in response to something he raised to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said we should not be stigmatizing, and I agree with him. However, when far-right elements, including a group called Diagolon, are actively involved with arming themselves and carrying ammunition and body armour to blockade the border at Coutts, and when that results in four arrests for conspiracy to commit murder and ongoing investigations as to whether that group has links to groups raising swastikas and Confederate flags here in Ottawa and the blockade in Ottawa continues, I think we do have an ongoing threat that needs to be resolved.
Can the member comment on that response?
189 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 5:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am, not surprisingly, both happy and sad to have the chance to speak in the debate on the confirmation of the use of the Emergencies Act to break the border blockades and lift the siege of the capital.
I am happy to speak, because I think that the situation had reached a crisis point, and the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary to counter a real threat to democracy and the rule of law in Canada. However, I am sad that it has come to this. I am sad, because the Liberals let the situation go on for so long that we reached this crisis point.
It is important to consider how we got to this point. There is enough blame to go around when it comes to the widespread failure to understand that the blockades and the siege of downtown Ottawa and the parliamentary precinct are not protests or exercises in free speech. Instead, the self-described freedom fighters who organized this came prepared to use intimidation, harassment and coercion to get the policy changes that they want. That is not how democracy works; it is not how peaceful protests work, and these tactics have nothing to do with the right to free speech.
We have a rich history of protest in this country, and at times, many of us have been participants in those protests. However, the goal of those protests has always been to change minds and thus bring about change in policy by political means. Their goals have always been to convince governments to change course by making it clear that the political price of failing to do so would be too high.
Blockades and occupations are another thing altogether. None of what has been going on outside of Parliament for three weeks is part of any rich tradition of civil disobedience. Those engaging in civil disobedience do so with a clear understanding that they are taking on any harm to themselves. They accept that it is they themselves who will face harm from the arrests and penalties that result from their law-breaking. They accept that harm to themselves in order to make a strong, moral argument. Instead, those involved in the blockades and the siege seek to inflict harm on others until we all give in to their demands.
Legitimate protests never aim to extort change by intimidation or by deliberately causing harm to others. As the judge in the case resulting in an injunction against around-the-clock sounding of high decibel air horns in Ottawa said, he was not aware that honking was an expression of any great ideas.
I am critical of the Liberals for failing to recognize the nature of the threat that these blockades in Windsor and Coutts and the siege of downtown Ottawa represented. It is hard to understand how this could have been missed, when the organizers clearly stated their intention to force change and even to replace the elected government, when they set up base camps outside downtown Ottawa to ferry supplies to the occupiers downtown or when they organized an attack on 911 services in Ottawa to deny emergency services to residents. This is intimidation. This is extortion.
It is hard to understand how it could go on so long when the evidence of harassment and intimidation of residents and local businesses went on right on the steps of Parliament. We ended up with a situation where, according to most reports, over 50% of businesses downtown were forced to close altogether, and more than 85% had to curtail their activities in order to keep their workers safe. It is bitterly ironic for those businesses that the result of the tactics adopted by those who were arguing that we should open up actually resulted in further closures and heavy losses for local businesses and local workers.
It is hard to understand how the fact was missed that blockades at border crossings in Coutts and Windsor were designed to inflict economic damage severe enough to force change. Workers in factories, including those at GM plants, at a time when we are fighting hard to keep the auto industry alive in Canada, lost shifts as the border blockade interrupted the supply chain.
The ultimate irony is that the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades cost thousands of truckers, for whom the organizers falsely claim to speak, hours and even days stuck in the resulting jams. Once removed, those organizers tried to block the bridge in Windsor once again.
While I do hold the government responsible for letting the situation get out of hand, at the same time I reject the idea that somehow the government or vaccine mandates created division and that division explains the blockades and siege. Yes, there are some truckers involved in these disruptions, but never forget that over 90% of truckers are vaccinated. Never forget how they continued to work through the pandemic before vaccinations were available, at considerable risk to themselves and the health of their families, to protect the rest of us and our economy.
They know, like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, that masks, vaccinations and social distancing are what have brought us as close to escaping this pandemic as we have come so far. They know that social solidarity and standing united behind our health workers saved literally thousands of lives and gave a death rate from COVID less than half that of the United States. They know that only continuing to pull together as a society will get us to the other side.
Yes, people are free to reject science and the unequivocal advice of medical experts. They can choose to do so, but freedom means accepting the consequences for the choices we make. It does not mean we have the right to inflict the consequences of our choices on others. Those who reject the mandates should not be surprised to find restrictions on what they can do due to the risk they pose to others and to our ability as a nation to survive the pandemic.
No doubt as the pandemic drags on we all want to see restrictions lifted, but for the vast majority of Canadians, this should happen only when it is safe to do so. Five new deaths from COVID were recorded yesterday in British Columbia, including yet another on Vancouver Island, where we are still continuing to lose an average of more than one person per day to COVID. Those are families that lose a loved one each and every day. As of yesterday, the number in critical care in B.C. dropped below 1,000, a number that is still far too high, although thankfully it is down considerably. However, even with numbers dropping, our hospitals and health care workers are near the breaking point.
It is this tension resulting from the ongoing pandemic that the organizers of the blockades and siege have exploited for their own ends. Members should make no mistake that the organizers are extremists and anti-democratic in their goals. It is their clear intention to use force, intimidation and for some, as we have seen at the Coutts border crossing, violence to achieve their ends.
In downtown Ottawa we have seen the open display of hate symbols, racism and homophobia. We have seen the intimidation of residents demanding they remove their masks. This happened to me personally more than once, but it has been most often directed at those the occupiers perceive to be weak and vulnerable to such pressure: women, racialized Canadians and members of the 2SLGBTQI community.
Before some say that every protest has its bad apples or that it is only an extremist minority among the protesters, let me point out that the organizers never once condemned things like the display of Nazi flags, nor did they condemn intimidating local residents by demanding they remove their masks, and supporters have argued that there were only a few swastikas flying in the Ottawa occupation, although I personally counted six in three blocks in a single day. Let me repeat the obvious question: How many swastikas are okay? The obvious answer is none.
People say Confederate flags are just symbols of rebellion, and those who argue that may want to stop and think for just a moment about making that argument in this current context. Confederate flags are clearly symbols of racism and the violence associated with anti-Black racism. That is why I support my colleague the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's private member's bill to ban the public display of these ugly symbols of hate, which discourage full participation in Canadian society by some of our citizens.
We have seen invasions of businesses who are enforcing mandates to keep their employees and all of us safe, and now, with more than half the businesses in downtown Ottawa forced to close, there are literally thousands out of work because of those closures. More than 1,500 people who work at the Rideau Centre mall alone have been out of work for three weeks now.
We have seen the physical intimidation of journalists and the use of children as shields. There have been open threats of violence against the Prime Minister, cabinet and us as members of Parliament both on the streets and online. Perhaps most relevant to our debate here about the invocation of emergency powers, we have seen repeated statements from the organizers that they would not leave until the mandates are lifted.
This is why New Democrats are supporting using emergency powers to put an end to what are, in fact, organized attacks on democracy. As we have done for the past three weeks now, New Democrats continue to reject the narrative that Canadians are more divided than ever. The evidence is, frankly, just the opposite.
When I stand to vote on this motion to affirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I will be standing with health care workers, with first responders, with grocery workers, all front-line workers and yes, the vast majority of truckers, but I will also be standing to pledge vigilance to ensure these necessary but extraordinary powers are used only to remove these serious threats to democracy and never to infringe on our rights to protest and dissent.
Again, let me say I am sad it has come to this, but I am proud to stand firmly against the use of intimidation, hatred and violence to overturn our democracy.
1747 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:10:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I respect the member opposite, but I am going to take strong disagreement with one point that she and her party have made repeatedly in today's debate, which is that there is no crisis.
I think we are in agreement that the blockades still exist outside the chamber, so in Ottawa there clearly is a problem. We know that on February 14, the declaration was put into force. On February 16, we know that in Windsor, there was an attempted resurrection of the blockade, which was thwarted successfully, which was great, but reports are showing that even today the Surrey border is again being closed on account of blockades. Clearly, the protest continues and the problem has not been resolved.
Does the member opposite agree that indeed these tools are required in order to address what is clearly a national problem that must be regulated in order to ensure that the economic security, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of our borders are not compromised by unlawful and illegal blockades?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that all the Prime Minister needed to do was to engage in dialogue and we could have come to a peaceful resolution with the occupiers outside while his premier, Jason Kenney, did not engage in dialogue at the Coutts crossing. The premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, did not engage in dialogue. The premier of Manitoba did not engage in dialogue at the blockade there.
I am curious. Can the member comment on whether it is just Liberal leaders who need to engage in dialogue, or does the member not see the hypocrisy in his statements?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:28:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague says he has difficulty seeing what basis there might be for the Emergencies Act, so I want to put some of the facts to him: a serious border closure at the Ambassador Bridge, jeopardizing $330 million in trade a day and a threat to Canada-U.S. trade; interruptions to Canada's auto industry and our manufacturing sector in the Golden Horseshoe; a cache of weapons and murder conspiracy charges in Coutts, Alberta; a blockade of streets in Ottawa for three weeks, shutting down many businesses in our nation's capital; harassed and threatened citizens; undercover intelligence revealing plans to expand the blockade to ports and airports; an openly published manifesto calling for government change; foreign interference and funding in our domestic affairs; far-right involvement; threats to towing companies and drivers; and the use of trucks and tractors as blockade weapons.
Does my hon. colleague really think none of those facts are relevant to an honest assessment of whether the Emergencies Act is triggered? Does he think there are no facts present in Canada that might warrant such an examination?
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
