44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:16:53 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg North for his question.
I was very clear in my speech: There are no grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act. The government has not proven there are any grounds.
How is it that the blockades at Fort Erie and the Ambassador Bridge were removed without the Emergencies Act?
Why does Ottawa currently need the Emergencies Act? What is the legal void?
If someone on the government side could answer these questions today, they might be able to convince me.
The police had all the means and tools they needed. Even the Prime Minister said so.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 7:20:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about correct information, and I love information, but what I love most are laws.
There are laws already in place that provide for blockades to be removed. The Emergencies Act will not magically allow for all blockades to be removed. Police forces already have the tools and skills to do so.
The Bloc Québécois understands that a piece of legislation can be insufficient. This legislation can then be amended by order in council. However, the Emergencies Act does not give authorities a magic wand to fix everything.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:44:17 a.m.
- Watch
When these MPs took photos with protesters who were holding flags emblazoned with racist and hate-fuelled symbols, they claimed they had done it inadvertently or, even worse, that there were no such flags there. These members deliberately and egregiously denied and minimized their actions, all while tweeting support for the protest and lending credibility to the organizers and their dangerous plans.
I could give many more examples of all of the deception being used to sow division. We are well aware that some members in this House are masters of partisan tactics. Their strategy is to divide Canadians in hopes of profiting off of that division. These members should be ashamed of themselves. They are prepared to put our security, our economy and our democracy at risk to further their own partisan ends and advance their political careers, or even simply to get an interview on Fox News.
Again, I agree with our government that the blockades by both persons and vehicles at various locations throughout Canada represent a state of emergency. These blockades have a direct connection to activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada.
I agree that these blockades are having adverse effects on the Canadian economy. Canada's economic security is threatened by the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings. These blockades have broken down distribution chains and are hurting Canada's relationship with its trading partners, in particular the United States.
In response to this state of emergency, our government, with the utmost caution, invoked the Emergencies Act. Canadians across the country can have confidence in the fundamental principles of our beautiful country of Canada: “peace, order and good government”.
314 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 8:24:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is discomforting to stand here today. It is a sad and dark time for our country. Unfortunately, this does not overstate current events.
I have watched with concern the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and key border crossings in Ontario and other provinces. Never before has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has sat on the shelf during some quite challenging moments in our country.
Viewed as a last resort, this act gives the federal government enhanced powers in times of crisis. Its justification and intricacies of procedures are being worked through the House for the first time. There is no precedent. Instead, we are making precedent. The arguments we make, the evidence we evaluate and the tone we take will be judged by future generations.
Everyone has the right to peacefully protest any government policies. This is a fundamental freedom in a democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by everyone. While these protests are a fundamental part of democracy, so too is the rule of law. We cannot allow prolonged blockades or barriers that paralyze trade corridors, pipelines, railways, supply routes, ports or urban cores at any time. We are not at liberty to decide which laws should apply in some situations but not others.
In a rule-of-law country, consistency matters. It is the foundation upon which legal precedent is built. People who join protests to encourage violence or the overthrow of government undermine democracy, but let us be very clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is looking to overthrow the government. Many are looking just to be heard, peacefully. To them I say that we hear them. I hear them.
Somewhere along the way, we entered a state of lawlessness, but the answer to lawlessness cannot be more lawlessness. The government is asking us to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking others. We are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see democracy itself undermined.
The threshold for invoking the act is supposed to be high, and quite rightly. This is a temporary law that will give the government awesome and extraordinary powers: powers to freeze assets with no recourse, and to compel citizens to act contrary to their own interests in favour of the state's.
In the House, just days ago, the Prime Minister presented a timeline. He held a cabinet meeting on Sunday and a caucus meeting on Monday, followed by a meeting with premiers and finally a press conference on Monday afternoon. Why did it take days for the Prime Minister to address the House, and what evidence has he presented?
It is difficult to determine whether the government is justified without adequate information. There were no briefings. No secret intelligence has been shared. Whether it is incompetence or malfeasance is truly regrettable.
Why was the committee not struck immediately? Is there evidence pointing to significantly compromised public safety or impending danger? Should that not have been made immediately available to members, or at least a subset representing all parties? If we wanted to take the politics out of this, information would have been made immediately available. Otherwise, a conclusion might be that this was politics.
Why do ministers of the Crown opt first to give details to media before the House? Ministers have held press conferences and conducted interviews implying that terrorists are at the steps of Parliament, but have offered the House no evidence. Is it then surprising that Canadians are losing faith in our public institutions? Perhaps it is because the Prime Minister and the government have shown the House and institution little respect.
After all, at the beginning of the pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without the oversight of Parliament. The same government prorogued Parliament to frustrate a committee investigation. To this day, we still have not seen the Winnipeg lab documents that members of the House have asked the government to provide. Forgive me for being skeptical that this move is justified without seeing the evidence.
We must not understate the impact of the ability for individuals to have their bank accounts frozen. This will not just be a 30-day impact. It could affect their ability to receive financial services for 30 years or more. Individuals whose relationship with the state has already been strained, if not completely severed, will be further ostracized from broader society.
This power must be used sparingly, if at all, and the government has provided very little detail on how it intends to use this power. For example, what is the process through which individuals will be identified? Will these powers be confined to protest organizers, or will they apply to anyone who has shown up to Parliament Hill or donated to the cause, no matter how large or small the amount? What recourse, if any, do individuals have against financial institutions if these powers have been mistakenly or unevenly applied?
These powers are not merely incidental. They should not be dismissed, downplayed or underestimated. I approach every decision with an open mind, but the consequences for individuals are too great, and the precedent this sets is too monumental to waive away legitimate questions or concerns. We are setting a dangerous precedent.
We should be very careful before we use the awesome power of the state. That this moment is the seminal moment upon which we would decide to invoke a never-before-used act seems disproportional, when there are other actions that the government could have taken.
We should be very careful about normalizing the use of a blunt tool in circumstances such as these. If we must consider using the Emergencies Act every time there's a protest that lasts over a certain period of time, we have much bigger problems. In many ways, that the government has resorted to invoking this act is an indictment of its overall handling of the situation.
I am therefore left with no reason but to impress upon my colleagues that the threshold has not been met, and as a matter of law, If I am wrong, the threshold has been seen to be met by a court that the government is not justified in its use of the act.
While the Emergencies Act is the question before the House today, we should reflect on what has led us here and the lessons we may draw for the future. The hallmark of any democracy is the ability to have reasonable debates with each other about how society functions, but somewhere along the way, we have lost the ability to listen to each other or to consider the perspectives of our neighbours. We are too quick to call something black or white and too quick to demand that each other pick a side. Pro or against, right or left, we leave little room for nuance, reflection or compromise anymore. It should be okay to disagree.
I am sympathetic to those who are frustrated with the pandemic and the government's response. Many of us are frustrated. We are frustrated with overly punitive travel restrictions and redundant and confusing testing requirements, and we are worried about losing livelihoods because of making a medical decision.
We have seen rules that seem more often grounded in politics than in science. This has left deep divisions in society that will take some time to heal. It has been a long two years, and there are no clean hands in this battle of rhetoric.
It is therefore up to all of us to be part of the solution. I am left to consider whether I could have been quicker to call out abhorrent behaviour, or how I could have shown greater empathy to my neighbours. What can I do now to be a positive actor inside and outside of the House?
The tone must start from the top. The Prime Minister must be hopeful, because Canadians need to see a hopeful way ahead. Continued hyperpoliticization will only make the situation worse. It is not leadership when a prime minister discounts and dismisses the views of millions of Canadians with whom he disagrees. It stigmatizes, sows division and escalates.
We must show empathy over judgment, promote dialogue over silence and prefer persuasion over coercion. We must be looking for opportunities to de-escalate. We need to bring people closer instead of pushing them further away.
Great leaders possess the capability of self-reflection. We must acknowledge the possibility that people descended on our nation's capital, or crowded overpasses across the country, in part because of their frustration with being demeaned and marginalized for political gain. It suggests that self-reflection is required.
In 2013, the Prime Minister, as the leader of the opposition, said, “The role of the prime minister is to build a stronger country, not make it easier to break apart.” This is a time for leadership. This is the prime minister I would like to see show up for work. Canadians are depending on him.
1522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:52:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. As parliamentarians and as a government, it is not for us to dictate police instructions and operations or what the justice system is currently doing. I will leave that to the people who are better qualified than I am when it comes to the legal process that has been triggered in the past few days. I would just note that the GoFundMe page has stopped supporting the participants of the illegal blockades here in Ottawa, because it became apparent that these people may not have had the best of intentions.
99 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 9:52:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member was accurately portraying what I heard from that news conference. I think it is very important to highlight the fact that the blockades at our borders were resolved before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, therefore showing that there are laws currently in place in this nation in our provinces and communities that could have resolved these problems.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:29:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act has already demonstrated that it can be effective. Law enforcement officers are, in fact, using it and it is being effective. We are very much concerned about the blockades shutting down downtown Ottawa and the blockades that have affected hundreds of millions of dollars in international trade on our trade corridors, and about the impact they are having today and will have into the future. These are very serious. We are talking about jobs and we are talking about health conditions. There are so many reasons to do this.
Does the member believe that law enforcement officers are wrong today for using the tool we are providing them? Are our law enforcement officers offside with Parliament?
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:23:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois strongly condemns the occupation, the siege and the blockades. That is clear, and I hope nobody will ever doubt it.
I refuse to play the game the Liberals and the NDP MPs want to play. I think it is deplorable. Do not ask me to just go along with it. This order is utterly out of proportion. It could destroy our freedoms. The Liberals deployed it in the hope that we would not notice their incompetence and their sloppy, pathetic handling of the crisis.
This government, and particularly this Prime Minister, were asleep at the switch for three weeks. As my leader said, out of nowhere, they dropped a nuclear bomb, the Emergencies Act. Our role as BQ MPs is to protect our constituents from these bad federal government decisions. Taking coercive action without taking Quebec's opinion into account was a very bad decision.
The government had police forces at its disposal. They were capable of taking action; they had the tools to do so. Unfortunately, the government waited too long. As my leader said, it is obvious that a truck parked on the white lines of a public roadway, even if it is just for a minute and a half, is breaking several laws.
Let us talk about existing laws. Subsection 430(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
430 (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
Note that property here can refer to a road, bridge, tunnel or port.
The right to protest is a recognized right. However, a protest can be declared illegal for several reasons. For instance, section 63(1) of the Criminal Code states, and I quote:
63 (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.
Both types of mischief constitute offences that have been perpetrated continuously for 23 days. Individual freedom does have its limits. We were already at that point a few weeks ago. This is not a new problem. A free and democratic society forms the basis of our social contract.
The Prime Minister should clearly have woken up sooner. He knew that the Ottawa Police Service did not have the staff to manage this crisis, and he did nothing to help. On February 10, Ottawa asked for an additional 1,800 police officers. The federal government sent 275. That is not too bad. However, they were mainly assigned to the Prime Minister and Parliament. In reality, 20 police officers were added to the detail monitoring the protesters. That is embarrassing and shameful.
Suddenly, on day 16 of the occupation, the Prime Minister woke up and spoke about the nuclear option, the Emergencies Act. The government says it is justified in invoking this act, so let us talk about the justification or the lack thereof.
Since Monday, the government has used its order to financially punish and literally ruin the protesters and their associated entities. Did we then see the protesters run away with their tails between their legs? No. Everyone is talking about one case that was reported on the news two days ago, I believe, the only known case, the only recorded case.
The protesters have remained, more determined than ever, now convinced that they are living under a dictatorship. This government provoked them and continues to provoke them.
The Economist wrote that this act could make the situation worse. I think it hit the nail on the head. It was right on.
The second thing covered by this order in council is the much-talked-about towing logistics. Tow truck drivers in the area apparently did not want to use their equipment to tow the trucks. The government could have looked to bring in tow trucks from outside the national capital, which would have eliminated the need for this order in council.
When there is a big storm that causes massive damage in Sherbrooke, what happens? People from Saguenay will show up quickly to help. That is how it works in Quebec, at least. People come from far and away to help. All you have to do is ask.
Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois offered to form an all-party crisis task force in the early days of the occupation. We wanted to work together to address this effectively. The Prime Minister took his time agreeing. He wound up backed into a corner and said yes.
The Bloc Québécois wanted and still wants to help the country get out of this mess, this terrible crisis. The reality on the ground is that the police are now doing their job and they did not need this order to do it. They needed more people.
The Bloc Québécois is opposed to this legislation because it was and still is sufficient to allocate as many police officers and resources as necessary to each site, for example to the Ambassador Bridge and Coutts.
A moment ago, I was talking about solidarity. I would like to express my gratitude to the Sûreté du Québec officers who came to lend a hand to our Ontario neighbours. I would also like to express my deep admiration to the seven police forces that have been here in Ottawa since Friday and who are doing an extraordinary job of removing the occupiers. They are professional, methodical and effective. I have nothing but praise for them.
By the way, there are not many NDP members here today, so maybe the NDP is reconsidering its position. At least that is what we hope. After all, only fools do not change their minds.
1046 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 2:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act has been critical in supporting what is happening in Ottawa today and, frankly, in clearing blockades at the border crossings over the last number of days. I say that because there are a number of measures in the Emergencies Act that give the police powers they did not have before, such as cutting off funding for the blockades, ensuring that people who are blockading a border crossing or in Ottawa know that their accounts can be frozen, and making sure that the RCMP can enforce local laws. We could not have otherwise provided the resources the member is talking about in the time needed and the amounts needed to clear these blockades. The Emergencies Act is helping in Ottawa and it has helped at the border crossings.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:36:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
First, I would say that I am not worried about setting a precedent because the act, as written, ensures that MPs and Canadians can scrutinize how the act was used. There are protections in the act to ensure it is not used if it is not necessary.
Second, Windsor was an exception. With other border crossing blockades, the act helped the police put an end to them, partly by cutting off funding.
81 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 3:39:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley West.
It is an absolute honour for me to stand in the House of Commons today on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport to speak to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Before I continue, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.
Earlier this week, on February 14, our federal government declared a public order emergency and invoked the Emergencies Act. This was the first time this act had been used since it was created in 1988. There were clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for the public order emergency to be declared. The act was invoked only after exhausting other options.
The act is time-limited to 30 days. It is geographically targeted. It proposes measures that are reasonable and proportional to the threats it is meant to address, and it does not displace or replace provincial or territorial authorities. The act was invoked after discussions with the cabinet and caucus, after consultations with the premiers from all provinces and territories, and after speaking with opposition leaders. I support this decision.
For almost three weeks now, blockades have been illegally disrupting the lives of Canadians. They have been harming our economy and endangering public safety. The “freedom convoy 2022” has created a critical, urgent, temporary situation that is national in scope and cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The blockades at the ports of entry have disrupted the transportation of crucial medicine, goods, fuel and food to Canadians. They are causing significant adverse effects on Canada's economy, on its relationship with trading partners and on supply chains. These trade disruptions, the increase in criminal activity, the occupation of downtown Ottawa, the lawlessness and the threats of violence, as well as the presence of firearms, constitute a public order emergency. It is an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.
What may have started as a protest by truck drivers against border mandates quickly morphed into a rallying point for anti-vaccination, anti-government, anti-authority and white supremacist groups with demands ranging from an end to all public health restrictions to the overthrow of an elected government.
At occupations and blockades across the country, we have seen harmful racist and violent behaviour, and attempts to minimize or discount the harm done to Canadians. It was also clear that there were serious challenges to, and gaps in, local law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law.
It is clear that extraordinary measures had to be taken to keep Canadians safe, protect people's jobs and restore confidence in our institutions. Canada, at the very core of its existence, is a country that fundamentally believes in, and is governed by, the rule of law. In our blood and in our souls, we believe in peace, order and good government.
Over the last three weeks, we did not see peace and order in specific parts of our nation, and especially here in Ottawa. There was a complete shutdown of key parts of Centretown due to the occupation. It stopped people from going to work, stopped businesses from reopening and stopped people from carrying on with their normal lives.
The first week of the occupation had an unprecedented amount of noise, which caused great distress to all those living in or near the occupied area. It seriously impacted the mental health of nearby Ottawa residents. The mental health of many was already fragile due to the unprecedented pandemic we have all had to live through over the past couple of years.
At the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario, trucker convoys blocked the crossing and stopped trade from moving between the United States and Canada. This is a border point that sees over $400 million in trade per day. Many Canadians were temporarily laid off, and the economies of both countries were impacted. What is worse is that our reputation as a place to do business with ease across our two borders was greatly impacted.
Our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said that the disruptions had shaken Canada's reputation as a place in which to invest and do business. She further said the world was watching us and that our jobs, our prosperity and our livelihoods were endangered, and we would not allow Canada's privileged trading relationship with the United States to be compromised.
Windsor was not the only border crossing that was impacted. We saw trucker blockades in Coutts, Alberta, and in Emerson, Manitoba. The impact economically was $48 million and $73 million in trade each day, respectively. The threat exists for other border crossings across our country.
There were guns found in Coutts, Alberta. Protesters have been charged with conspiracy to commit the murder of police officers, and a large cache of guns and ammunition was seized by the RCMP. All of these actions and threats demanded that our federal government take extraordinary action.
It is important to note that this act does not suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the act was created to flow from and uphold the charter. The act's preamble explicitly states that any measures taken under the act must be compliant with charter rights. The invocation of the act does not limit freedom of speech. It does not limit peaceful assembly, and it does not prevent people from exercising their right to protest legally. We are reinforcing the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free.
The Emergencies Act also provides additional powers to stop the flow of money that has been funding these trucker blockades and occupations. Leaked data has shown that the majority of the donations, over 50%, have been coming from outside of the country, primarily the United States. When police notified GoFundMe that the funds it was collecting were being used for unlawful purposes, the campaign was shut down. Protesters then turned to the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo, which raised almost $11 million.
In order to stop the flow of funds for these illegal blockades and occupations, the Emergencies Act includes four key financial measures. From a press release and announcement that our Deputy Prime Minister made earlier this week, we learned a lot about the details.
The first of those measures is that the act extends the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment processors they use. This change covers all forms of transactions, including digital assets such as cryptocurrencies.
Second, the order directs Canadian banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers to temporarily cease providing financial services when the institution suspects that an account, either personal or corporate, is being used to further the blockades.
Third, the act also enables and directs Canadian financial institutions to review their relationship with anyone involved in the illegal blockades, and to report the assets and related transactions of those involved to the RCMP or to CSIS.
The fourth measure provides federal, provincial and territorial government institutions with new authority to share relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if the information will help put a stop to the funding of illegal blockades and illegal activities. Canadian financial service providers will be able to immediately freeze or suspend the account of an individual or business affiliated with the blockades without a court order.
All of these new requirements and authorities will help mitigate the risks for Canadian financial institutions and crowdfunding platforms to transact illicit funds, increasing the quality and quantity of the intelligence received by FINTRAC in allowing us to stop the flow of funding to these illegal blockades.
It is important to highlight the safeguards, and the parliamentary oversight and accountability measures, that are contained within the act. As was required, the government tabled the declaration of emergency so that the House could debate and decide upon the declaration. The government also tabled the orders, as required, before the House. The oversight this legislation gives us as parliamentarians is important to ensure that it is acting with the law, and I take that responsibility incredibly seriously.
We have seen support from a number of provinces for this action, including from British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario. Our federal government is conscious of the need for transparency and parliamentary oversight as we undertake this action. In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while the emergency measure is in effect. As well, an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency must be initiated once the state of emergency is over.
To conclude, I thank the residents in my riding of Davenport who have called and written to me all this week. I appreciated hearing their thoughts and having them reach out. It is an extraordinary moment in the history of our nation, and this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is absolutely the responsibility of our government and myself as a parliamentarian to make sure that we explain why we need to invoke this public order emergency, and why this Emergencies Act needed to be introduced.
1558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:52:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member. We realized, and the police forces across the country made us realize, that there were some gaps in their ability to be able to act. Tracking and stopping the money was one of the key elements that was missing, as was designating spaces to be able to enforce protection and enabling tow trucks to take action. To address the use of trucks as instruments in the blockades was also a gap in our ability to use existing laws.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:07:11 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I want to thank the member for Don Valley West. I also want to thank the parliamentary staff, who have been doing an extraordinary job.
I have described the leaders of the so-called “freedom convoy” as extremists. I am being asked by my constituents in Nunavut what extremists I am talking about. Could the member describe those who have led the illegal blockades and tell us exactly what danger they pose to the rest of Canada?
81 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
