44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 7:04:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
This crucial debate is not to be taken lightly. It was prompted by an event that will go down in the history of the Canadian federation, though not as one of its most glorious moments.
Let me say off the top that I am against the use of the Emergencies Act as set out in the orders, and I am definitely against its use in Quebec. To support my argument, I will review what the act does.
As its name suggests, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort that can only be used when a situation is so imminent, so overwhelming and so insurmountable a threat, that it is strictly impossible for the government to control it under existing legislation.
The consequence of the application of the act is that the executive may, by order, impose measures to ensure the safety of Canadians, the territorial integrity of the country and the protection of the constitutionally established order. This may include prohibiting movement or assembly, regulating the use of specified property, taking control of public services, imposing fines or even summary imprisonment.
Given the potentially antifreedom and undemocratic nature of the measures that can be imposed, Parliament has taken care to specify an exhaustive list of situations that can justify invoking the act. Accordingly, the only grounds for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act are as follows.
The first is a public welfare emergency. It should be noted that since the act came into force, none of the devastating floods, winter ice storms or wildfires that Canadians and Quebeckers have faced has led the government to use these extraordinary powers.
In addition to natural disasters, the definition of a public welfare emergency also includes disease. It is especially pertinent to note that the global health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic did not require the invocation of the Emergencies Act, even though it has caused over 35,000 deaths in Canada and nearly six million deaths worldwide to date, and it is about to mark its ill-fated second anniversary. Despite their exceptional nature, the actions taken to respond to the needs created by this unprecedented crisis were possible without resorting to the Emergencies Act.
Third, the declaration of an international emergency, which is defined as a situation or acts of coercion involving the use of force between countries, may constitute grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act. Similarly, if Canada were to go to war, that may justify the use of the exceptional measures allowed under the Emergencies Act.
The fourth and final rationale provided as justification for a government giving itself these extraordinary powers is that of a public order emergency. Since that term is rather vague, the legislator was good enough to provide a definition in section 16 of the act:
public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency;
For the members who are wondering what a national emergency is, section 3 of the Act specifies that it:
...is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
That is significant. My colleagues will agree that the wording is very explicit as to how severe the circumstances must be to justify invoking the Act. Whether it is invoked for one or the other of the reasons I just mentioned, it is an extremely serious measure that must not be taken lightly by the government. It should be a last resort—a tool to be used only after we tried to turn off the leaky tap, used every tool in the box and called in the plumber, but the tap is still leaking.
This is the first time since the Emergencies Act was passed in 1988 that a Prime Minister of Canada has felt the need to resort to the special powers it confers. Its previous incarnation, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times, specifically, during the First World War, during the Second World War, and during the episode of October 1970, an episode that deeply scarred the people of Quebec.
To be fair, I would like to note that the two pieces of legislation are not comparable and we have to be careful about comparing everything from that perspective.
The Emergencies Act requires the government to show that it is facing a dangerous and urgent situation that it finds impossible to deal with it under ordinary laws. The government failed to demonstrate any such thing in the statement of reasons it submitted to parliamentarians. Even worse, it did not even try to do so, since it has remained completely silent on the topic.
I want to explain to members why. It is simply because there is no good reason to justify using this special legislation. There is no legal vacuum preventing the government from resolving the crisis in Ottawa.
The vast majority of protests and blockades that we have seen over the past few weeks have been brought under control or removed without the use of the federal Emergencies Act. The Sarnia, Fort Erie, Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were successfully removed. All of those border crossings are now back up and running, and trade with the United States has been re-established, so it seems that law enforcement was able to put an end to these protests without needing to use any special powers.
What is it about the Ottawa protest that makes it so unstoppable that it cannot be dealt with under the existing legislative framework? What laws are insufficient to resolve the crisis? Why do those laws not allow us to deal with the situation effectively? We do not know. The government has never said.
What is more, before invoking the Emergencies Act, the Prime Minister dragged his feet for two long weeks rather than trying to resolve the crisis. How can he claim, after—
1069 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:21:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the debate on the legitimacy of invoking the Emergencies Act. This is a very important and urgent subject. I know the members are eager to hear my point of view. I thank them for being here.
I salute the police forces for their work, their professionalism and their actions yesterday. I would like to thank the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue for being so resilient, and I applaud our health care workers, who have been working so hard for us for so many months. I would also like to thank child care and education workers, who have braved this virus every day and enable children to learn and grow.
So many other people have worked hard to keep our local economy going, which I am proud of. I speak on behalf of a resource region known for its ability to innovate and recover from tough economic times. That is our path forward.
I appreciate the gravity of the unique situation we find ourselves in here and throughout all regions of Quebec and Canada. The pandemic certainly caused a great deal of harm, which we tried to control through measures that restricted our freedoms, but everyone knows these measures are temporary. People are perfectly aware of that and have said as much in many ways. We hope this all comes to an end without violence.
We are currently debating the Emergencies Act to make it clear to the Prime Minister, as well as Liberal and NDP members, that we do not want this legislation to be invoked. This Prime Minister invoked it for the wrong reasons. First, he has failed to convince us that this is a dangerous and urgent situation all across Canada. The danger is in Ontario, in Ottawa. The provinces possess the necessary powers, and they do not want this legislation invoked on their territory. Second, we are being told that dealing with this situation under existing laws would be impossible. That is false.
I hope all members understand just how far‑reaching the use of the Emergencies Act is, but I doubt it. The act gives the federal government special powers to deal with urgent and critical situations. In other words, these are situations that can only be resolved by granting the federal government even more rights, and it has the right to do so only if other means have been exhausted. That includes dialogue. This act must be used sparingly. We have the privilege of deciding whether the time is right. We have an obligation to weigh each of the requirements of the act.
The Prime Minister of Canada shirked his responsibilities and clearly lacked leadership, judging from his actions and bad decisions. He added fuel to the fire and made enemies of the far right and even the people on the left. It is a serious mistake to lump all the protesters together at this point.
Every analysis and crisis management expert agrees that it is premature and inappropriate to invoke this legislation, but the government will not budge and is acting tough. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. It is rather embarrassing at this stage for the Liberal Prime Minister to admit that he is making a mistake and that he will pay for his poor choices. I hope he is seriously thinking about his future.
Now, what is happening with the provinces? To be clear, I think the Government of Quebec has done its homework. In Quebec, we do not want to give power to a Prime Minister who has shirked his responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will fight hard against legislation that is being used to cover up the Prime Minister's political failure. We are definitely voting against the Emergencies Act. We do not want this legislation in Quebec, period.
The use of this legislation has to be better and clearly justified to members of Parliament and senators. The effectiveness of this measure is questionable. It has become very clear to everyone that the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act not to end the protests that are blockading downtown Ottawa and border crossings across the country, but to restore the public's trust in him. He is using it to score political points yet again.
Can the government do whatever it wants? The answer is no. The act imposes limits. The government is also limited by Parliament, fortunately, because the House of Commons or the Senate can put an end to this declaration.
What is more, every two days, Parliament reviews the decisions the government has made. Parliament can then amend or reverse them. What should this legislation be used for? The Emergencies Act imposes special measures. It gives the government the licence to order actions to be taken within specific boundaries and restore the order that existed before the crisis. There is therefore a start and an end.
If anyone causes a disruption or is proven to be the source of a disruption, the government can impose harsh penalties, including imprisonment. The consent of provincial governments is required.
The Emergencies Act allows the government to limit or prohibit travel to or from a specified area, limit or prohibit any public assembly that may disturb the peace, designate and secure protected places, and assume control of public utilities and services.
Towards the end of the 1980s, the government decided to repeal the War Measures Act to allow debate on emergency measures. It would never have believed that a Prime Minister would invoke it unless there was an exceptional situation and unless all other means had been exhausted. The members of the House put many conditions in place at the time, including a debate in the House of Commons and a debate in the Senate, to ensure that the government would never be tempted to appropriate such powers for political reasons.
It is outrageous that the Liberal government has brazenly ignored the spirit of the act to further its own interests and avoid taking responsibility for its bad decisions. That is truly deplorable. It is very clear to me that the threshold required to invoke the Emergencies Act has not, in my opinion, been reached. What the NDP and the Liberals are doing is wrong, and they are doing it blindly, wilfully and deliberately, without checking the facts. That is irresponsible.
We must not turn our backs on the people who gave us the privilege of governing them. These people are out in the streets because they came to tell us that they they are not doing well and that they want to have the same rights as they did before the health crisis. It was expected that things might get out of hand, and government inaction has played a major role in what is now looking like a siege around Parliament Hill.
How can the government invoke the Emergencies Act when it is unwilling to take a clear stand and has failed to live up to its responsibilities?
We asked the federal government to show us a plan. Protesters from Quebec and Canada are telling us that they are fed up and that they want to get back to some semblance of normal life. That is starting to happen. The Government of Quebec has made some announcements in that regard.
The Prime Minister is acting as though he has not been listening to the provincial press conferences. I sincerely believe it would be in his best interest to do so. He would realize a lot of things, starting with the fact that everyone thinks this is a bad idea at this point. If he had been involved from the beginning of the crisis, he would realize that there have been mixed reactions from people. I want my constituents to know that we read the many emails that we get at our offices. People have expressed many emotions, including excitement, relief, indifference, doubt and disappointment.
The powers that the Liberal government has given itself are not even appropriate. The federal government should not have the right to freeze bank accounts before it has even presented a plan for a potential return to a much less restrictive environment, as other governments have done.
In practical terms, people have been victimized by this pandemic, particularly seniors. People have lost economic power, and businesses in all sectors have had to adjust. To make it through, we have been trying things with regard to health measures, guidelines and what is being asked, and understandably so. The pandemic has affected everyone across Quebec and Canada.
The most important thing will always be information, or what people are told. The public seeks out quality information; failure to provide it results in knowledge gaps and confusion. Having doubts is fine. Speaking out and protesting are fine. Calls for insurrection and abdication, on the other hand, are not. It was the government's job to answer our questions and give us accurate information. If it had done so at the right time, we would not all be here. When measures are needed and relevant, and people's freedoms must be altered, it is paramount that these people and all of us are notified.
The Prime Minister surely cannot tell us that he has not had any available resources over the past three weeks. He knows full well that there were ministers who could have freed up resources to help the Ontario government and the Ottawa Police Service. Ottawa police asked for more resources to manage the convoys, but the federal government merely told them that RCMP officers were stationed around the Hill.
Was that truly necessary? Would it not have been more appropriate to station them elsewhere, knowing that several convoys of trucks were heading for Ottawa?
When trucks stop at a red light, that is one thing. When they stop and park in the middle of the street, that is a whole other thing, and it is illegal. I do not support this occupation in any way.
The federal government dragged its feet while the City of Ottawa was asking for reinforcements, because it knew all too well that the truckers would not be gone on the Monday following the start of the protests. The Prime Minister of Canada certainly could have stepped up and shown that kind of leadership.
1728 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 9:23:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my take-away from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay's speech is that he supports the Emergencies Act because there is a national crisis.
Oddly enough, some former NDP MPs disagree. I would like to quote two former MPs, Svend Robinson and Erin Weir, whose statements appeared in an article published on February 18 in the National Post.
Svend Robinson stated that the NDP caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act, and that today's NDP under the member for Burnaby South betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. He says that it is shameful and that a very dangerous precedent is being set.
Mr. Weir stated that it is disappointing to see the federal NDP today support the Emergencies Act when there really is not a national emergency as is settled in that legislation.
I would like my colleague to think about this. My question is as follows. The NDP said that it might stop supporting the Emergencies Act, but only on the basis of various emotional criteria that we are still in the dark about.
I would like my colleague to tell us what those criteria are.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:41:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the constituents who elected me to come to the House.
It is important to lay out that within the Emergencies Act there is a threshold that has been established to justify its use, which is when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”, and when the situation cannot effectively be dealt with under any other order of law. I do not believe the government has shown that this threshold has been met.
As many of my colleagues from all sides of the House have pointed out, this legislation has never been used in its current format. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was only used three times. The first was in World War I, the second was in World War II and the third was during the FLQ crisis.
It is important to note that—
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:42:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty evident. Clearly the member opposite and members from the NDP are a little bit uneasy when we talk about the fact that this act's predecessor was the War Measures Act, because it was the NDP under Tommy Douglas who took a courageous stand against the use of the War Measures Act in the FLQ crisis. It is a piece there. The reason I bring this up is that the weight of those events should be a caution to all parliamentarians against making a decision to invoke an act like this lightly.
We have had numerous provincial politicians state that they do not support the use of the Emergencies Act. These include provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and my home province of Alberta. Numerous times over the past few days, the Prime Minister has said that using the Emergencies Act was not the first, second or third option. However, members on this side have asked many times what the first three options were, and we have yet to be given any concrete answers. In the absence of an answer, I am left to assume that step one was wait, step two was do nothing and step three was shift blame.
This is not the leadership Canadians expect or deserve. What we saw was a refusal by the Prime Minister to provide additional support to the Ottawa Police Service when they asked for it. In fact, on February 11, the Prime Minister stated that they had enough resources. A short three days later, on February 14, the Emergencies Act was invoked. What happened in those three days that dramatically changed everything? We have not been told that as parliamentarians.
In the past few days, my office has received hundreds of phone calls, and thousands of emails, on the use of the Emergencies Act. Many constituents shared with me their fears, their anxieties, their collective trauma and the sense of PTSD they had. They shared how they saw government overreach as a very scary precedent.
One constituent, Lindsay, wrote to me and said, “I continue to try and wrap my head around the fact of how we are here and why we are here. How have things gotten so out of control? I feel very fearful, anxious and upset with how our Prime Minister has been treating the people of this country. Both his actions and language are not in alignment with true Canadian values: peace, freedom or protection. He is continuously inflaming the situation and I cannot believe that I am living in fear in Canada”.
Many of the emails and calls that I had were from parents who were tearful because they felt afraid for their children. They felt like they had been ignored and left behind by the Liberal government. Another constituent, Tyler, wrote, “I wholeheartedly disagree with the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. I firmly believe that his decision is unjustified and an abuse of power. It only serves to instill more fear and further divide the citizens of this wonderful country.”
Upon reflection, from all the correspondence and phone calls I have received, it left me wondering if perhaps the Prime Minister may have forgotten or missed the point as to why so many Canadians were protesting right now. I will help, and lay it out simply for him. Many are frustrated with what they see as government overreach. If the Prime Minister thinks that a solution to that overreach is adding more overreach, he is woefully short-sighted.
It is worth noting that the border protests in Windsor, Emerson, Coutts and Surrey have all ended peacefully. They ended through negotiation with local law enforcement and precise local police action. They all ended before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
I think this is an important point to highlight. It is incredibly important. I think those on the Liberal benches should take some time to reflect on this point. The laws of our country, and the widespread respect of the rule of law, were ultimately enough to get the protesters blocking the border to move. Police did their job by enforcing the laws currently on the books, and the protesters went home.
I am a passionate believer in the rule of law. Everyday Canadians' respect for the laws that serve the cause of peace, order and good government is something that makes me incredibly proud of my country. Yes, there are some among the protesters who probably do not share that same feeling, but I think it would be worthwhile for the Prime Minister to reflect on how his dubious leadership has contributed to some of these events.
Trust in the rule of law breaks down when people stop believing the law is equal and equally applied to everyone. This includes politicians ignoring their own guidelines with regard to COVID restrictions, a Prime Minister who treats ethics violations as a minor inconvenience, conflict-of-interest violations, election-law infractions and a woman fired from cabinet because she refused to break the law. We are considering enacting a law that has previously been reserved for world wars and deadly terrorism, because the protesters will not respect the law—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Laila Goodridge: —and here they are on the other side, heckling me—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Laila Goodridge: Mr. Speaker, this is so inappropriate.
917 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:53:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her speech.
I would like to hear her speak about the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. We have heard several times that they are not the same, and I could not agree more. In my view, both existed and both still exist. There are still links between them. In the House of Commons, it does not do to pretend that certain things do not exist.
I will give an example that I really like: the 1982 Constitution. Quebec suffered the consequences of not signing the Constitution Act of 1982. We did not sign it, but it still exists.
I wonder if the member would speak to the relevance of the Emergencies Act and point out some links to the War Measures Act that was implemented during the First World War, the Second World War and the October crisis of 1970.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:56:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rising here today, not to talk about the technicalities of the Emergencies Act but to discuss how we got here. How did we possibly get to the point where, after 34 years of governments not invoking the Emergencies Act, the current Liberal government feels it necessary to enact it now. Unfortunately, our country has experienced many dire situations in the past, yet those situations all came to a resolution without the unprecedented and dangerous step of invoking the Emergencies Act.
The 1990 Oka Crisis is one such example. During this crisis, protesters and the Quebec police engaged in a 78-day standoff. We witnessed gunfire exchanges. We mourned the tragic death of Mohawk elder Joe Armstrong and the tragic death of Quebec provincial police officer Corporal Marcel Lemay. Surely, violent deaths and gunfire could have warranted invoking the Emergencies Act, yet Prime Minister Mulroney did not invoke the Emergencies Act. Instead, cooler heads prevailed and the protest was negotiated.
On September 11, 2001, our closest ally, the United States, suffered a series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks, resulting in extensive death and destruction. Over 2,900 people were killed, including at least two dozen Canadian citizens. Surely the Emergencies Act could have been invoked under the war or international sections of the act, yet Prime Minister Chrétien did not invoke the act. Instead, we supported our American neighbours in any way we could and stood by our friends when they needed us most.
In the summer of 2013, Alberta experienced catastrophic floods that tragically claimed the lives of five Canadians and resulted in billions of dollars of damage. That summer, local states of emergency were declared. Did Prime Minister Harper invoke a public welfare emergency then? No, instead Canadians banded together to help southern Albertans.
On October 22, 2014, a gunman, whom I will not name, shot and tragically killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the Canadian National War Memorial. The gunman also injured three others and then stormed Parliament, the very heart of our democracy, yet again Prime Minister Harper did not invoke the Emergencies Act.
On May 1, 2016, our country witnessed the costliest disaster in Canadian history when Fort McMurray, Alberta, was devastated by wildfire. Over 80,000 people were forced from their homes and the economic damage of the wildfire was estimated to be upward of $9 billion. Premier Notley declared a provincial state of urgency, yet, still, the Prime Minister did not invoke the Emergencies Act.
From January to March 2020, critical infrastructure such as pipelines and railways was blocked across Canada by protesters and environmental activists in response to the construction of the Coastal GasLink pipeline. This caused the construction of the pipeline to be halted, passenger rail to be suspended and commercial rail to be stopped. What did this Prime Minister do? Did he invoke the Emergencies Act then? No he did not. Instead, the government negotiated with indigenous leaders and blockades came to an end.
Most recently, in November 2021, British Columbia experienced massive flooding. This natural disaster tragically claimed the lives of five people and resulted in short- and long-term disruption of Canada's largest port, Fraser Valley. The flooding severed critical infrastructure that connects British Columbia with the rest of Canada. Again, surely this disaster could have warranted the Emergencies Act as well.
Finally, let us not forget that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic the Prime Minister could have invoked a public welfare emergency, yet he did not because the provinces did not see it as necessary.
Why is this Prime Minister choosing to take the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act now? What makes this situation so much worse, so dire that the Prime Minister is compelled to invoke the Emergencies Act? Let me be clear. The situation we are currently facing does not warrant the Liberal government's invoking of the Emergencies Act. We are witnessing a clear-cut case of government overreach. This act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that cannot be addressed through existing laws.
Our country has gone 34 years without invoking this act. We have addressed real emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, domestic terrorism and even illegal blockades, yet no other sitting prime minister, including Mr. Trudeau himself, has utilized the powers of the Emergencies Act to address any of these situations.
729 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:07:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks and the ideas he shared with Parliament.
At this point in the debate, I am thinking about potential crisis exit strategies that might work. Sending the army and the police, including mounted police, into crowds of protesters is not going to calm people down. Eventually, we have to figure out how to end this crisis. Parliament will have to make compromises and reach out.
What crisis exit strategies would satisfy my colleague? Should the Prime Minister be pondering crisis exit strategies too, such as resigning?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:11:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to mention right away that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
As we speak to the confirmation of the February 14 proclamation of a state of emergency, on the other side of these walls, the police are lifting the siege in Ottawa. We all want it to be done as peaceful as possible. As colleagues have done before me, and as others will undoubtedly do, I encourage the participants in this siege to leave without further delay.
I want to acknowledge the excellent work of the men and women who have been working since yesterday to bring order to the streets of the capital. This effective work demonstrates what we have been saying since the beginning of the siege: We do not need the Emergencies Act. We need concerted action by all police forces. We need a crisis task force and a coordination centre. As we have been saying for the past three weeks, we need a plan.
What has been lacking since the siege began is not the use of the Emergencies Act. What has been lacking is leadership from the top, starting with the federal government.
We are calling on the government to not use this legislation, as all governments have refrained from doing since 1988, or for 52 years, if we include the use of the War Measures Act, the predecessor to this act. More than half a century has passed since this legislation was used. There must be good reason for that.
Let us have a look at the legislation, which states:
WHEREAS the safety and security of the individual, the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state are fundamental obligations of government;
AND WHEREAS the fulfilment of those obligations in Canada may be seriously threatened by a national emergency and, in order to ensure safety and security during such an emergency, the Governor in Council should be authorized, subject to the supervision of Parliament, to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times;
That is part of the preamble at the beginning of the Emergencies Act, which serves as a warning of sorts, saying “handle with care” or “caution: dangerous material”.
The act states: “to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. I really want to repeat that part again, because it carries a heavy burden in a democracy: “special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”.
The authors of this legislation and the parliamentarians who passed it warned us that we are entering at our own risk.
Such warnings should be taken seriously. At the same time, the Emergencies Act exists and must therefore serve some purpose. Parliament does not pass laws that it does not intend to use.
There is no doubt that this act serves a purpose, but it is meant to be used in extraordinary situations: in case of a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. It is a law to be used in the case of a disaster.
Over the past few weeks, there has been a siege here. It is true. We are talking about angry Canadians who are unhappy with the public health measures, people who are irrefutably and without a doubt participating in an illegal activity. They deserve to be fined, to have their vehicles seized and possibly even be put in prison in some cases. Is that a disaster? Is it a national crisis? Is it an extraordinary situation?
Over the past few weeks, we have been witnessing a siege. The participants are misguided, ill-informed, fractious and fully aware that they are participating in an illegal activity. In many cases, these people have their children with them.
The police are dealing with this, but I would like to say that I find it extremely irresponsible to bring children into such a situation. I would ask those who brought their children here to leave, because they are putting their children in danger.
From day one we have been asking these people to leave. On Monday we asked the government to tell us its plan. On day six we asked that a crisis task force be created and that it include every police force. The government did nothing.
The people outside do not have the right to be there. At the end of day one, it was no longer a demonstration, but an occupation. At the end of the first week, it was no longer an occupation, but a siege.
What should have been an incident in our lives has become an episode in Canadian history. This government is writing these people into our history.
We have before us a siege that required police intervention and not the invocation of legislation that is used in war time, in times of international crisis or during an earthquake.
This law was not needed during the ice storm. It was not needed during the Oka crisis, or the fires in British Columbia. It has never been needed in the past 25 years.
When the entire world was dealing with a pandemic in 2020, the government was not compelled to use the Emergencies Act.
We are supposed to believe that this out-of-control protest justifies its application today. That creates a dangerous precedent, much like lighting up that first cigarette after not smoking for years. The trick is not to have that cigarette.
Some of us have more conservative values, others more liberal ones. For some, the priority is clean energy, for others it is the fight against climate change. We can have a debate, insult one another in the House and get carried away. Some of us want Quebec to be a country, others want the federal government to be more centralist. We know that we will never agree on several issues.
However, I sincerely believe that all members of the House are democrats and care deeply about democracy. The Emergencies Act provides for “special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. We do not need them, not for those people. Even though the government has chosen this path, we need not follow. The House must not support this proclamation. We must be bigger than that.
The Emergency Measures Regulations of Tuesday's order in council state, “A person must not travel to or within an area where an assembly referred to in subsection 2(1) is taking place.” Participating in a public assembly that could severely disturb the peace is prohibited. I understand that.
Nevertheless, people who are not in the area are prohibited from travelling to get there. That is what I am trying to understand. It is prohibited to have the intention to do something that is prohibited. Somebody who is about to do something, without however having done it, is guilty of an offence and could be fined. The government should have a good reason to make freedom of association a relative concept and jeopardize freedom of movement. I do not see it.
What I see are people who are committing mischief and other illegal actions, as well as trucks that are dangerously blocking public roads. I see crowds that should have been dispersed a long time ago and trucks that should have been towed a long time ago. From the outset, we have been calling on the police to intervene peacefully, but firmly. Invoking the Emergencies Act is frankly not necessary for that purpose. If it is invoked to deal with these people, if we open Pandora's box, if we smoke that first cigarette, where will that lead us?
As I have said, I understand the purpose of the Emergencies Act, but if we confirm the declaration, it will say much more about us than about those in the streets. Yes, there have been biker gangs, white supremacists, racists and homophobes in this rather strange crowd. Yes, there are some people in the crowd who believe in the great reset, who think that the vaccine contains sterilizing agents and who believe in other conspiracy theories. There are also people who have disengaged from our institutions, who no longer believe in the government or in the media.
I want to acknowledge the brave women and men who are putting themselves in the middle of this to keep us informed. I am thinking of Raymond Filion, who was assaulted while he was out reporting. Being informed is freedom.
Frankly, there is more freedom for the media than for the opponents. This siege is not sympathetic, nor are the occupiers. Police intervention is necessary, and that is what is happening. However, the government has not convinced us of the need to use the Emergencies Act and should refrain from doing so.
1500 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:21:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The Bloc Québécois has not changed its position. From day one of the siege, we have been calling on the government to do something, to take responsibility, to create a crisis task force and to work with law enforcement, the Mayor of Ottawa and the Premier of Ontario in a concerted and coordinated way. We asked for everyone to work together and for this government to show some leadership, because the siege was serving as inspiration for other protests in other parts of the country.
The other protests were well managed by the police without any need for the Emergencies Act. Right now, there is a siege in downtown Ottawa. However, this crisis is limited to one area. It is not a nationwide crisis and it does not justify the use of the Emergencies Act. If the government had shown some leadership, this crisis would have been over a long time ago.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:24:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, sometimes I do not know whether the question is coming from the NDP or the Liberal Party, because they sound the same.
Yes, it is a crisis, but it would not have gotten as serious as it did if the federal government had taken its responsibilities from day one. This is not a national crisis. All of Canada is not being targeted and under siege; it is a security perimeter in front of Parliament. The situation could have been dealt with by the police without the Emergencies Act.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:25:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I have no sympathy for what has been happening on Ottawa streets for the past three weeks. Fortunately, after 22 days of siege, the crisis may be over. As we speak, the police are dispersing and arresting the occupiers.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank all the police forces for their courage, patience and professionalism. We have our fingers crossed, but we may well have avoided the worst. Let us be honest: We feared the worst, and the worst is still possible.
Since the beginning of the siege, the Bloc Québécois has recognized the right to protest, but not the right to occupy, to intimidate, to engage in hate speech, and so on. As I said, I have no sympathy for what has been happening for three weeks on the streets of Ottawa. However, my lack of sympathy should not colour my judgment when it comes to the use of the Emergencies Act. That is the national crisis. What is happening outside is extremely serious, but the police are dealing with it thanks to their well-coordinated efforts, not the federal government.
The national crisis is that, for the first time in history, the Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used since being enacted in 1988, 34 years ago. This legislation limits fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of association and freedom of movement. It allows the federal government to intervene in Quebec territory, as well as in Quebec infrastructure, such as hospitals, dams and vaccination centres. It goes against the will of the Quebec National Assembly, which is unanimously opposed to its application in Quebec. It allows the government “to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. The Prime Minister has claimed the right to take inappropriate measures. As parliamentarians, we must determine whether he has truly been able to justify taking these measures.
The Prime Minister is making a historic mistake by invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time ever. I repeat: This is the first time in history it has been invoked. That is why the Prime Minister's decision has two effects that will mark the future: trivializing and setting a benchmark. I say trivializing because he is using this act, even though he has not demonstrated that it meets the necessary emergency criteria at all. It is written in black and white that the Emergencies Act must only be invoked if the government is facing a national crisis that threatens its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity. That is serious. It almost describes a state of war. As we know, this legislation is an updated version of the old War Measures Act.
However, the crisis in Ottawa is not national. It is confined to downtown Ottawa and the neighbouring cities, such as Gatineau. Yes, there are other demonstrations in Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario, and there was even a flash in the pan in Quebec City, but everything was resolved by law enforcement with the tools they already had. The simple truth is that every time governments and police forces have worked properly, in co‑operation, they have prevailed. We are crossing our fingers, but the same scenario seems to be playing out in Ottawa. Each jurisdiction already seems to have all the tools to intervene.
Dialogue is impossible when, upon seeing a convoy of protesters arriving in the federal capital and setting up in front of the federal Parliament to oppose a federal policy and call out the Prime Minister, the federal government spends three weeks saying it is the city's problem.
Moreover, Canada's territorial integrity is not under threat. What is happening is extremely reprehensible, but it is not an invasion.
Furthermore, there is no threat to Canadian sovereignty. Once again, we have our fingers crossed, but the police seem to have the situation under control.
What has been missing for the past three weeks is that the federal government should have been at the helm, carefully managing the crisis. Now it is embarrassing to see the government claiming that it had no choice but to resort to emergency measures. Over the past three weeks, we have watched the occupiers of the capital of a G7 country set up a hot tub, saunas, bouncy castles and street hockey games. Everyone who is present here has seen it first-hand.
Who in the House can seriously claim that every possible effort had been made to resolve this crisis? Does anyone really believe that?
That is why the Prime Minister is normalizing the use of the Emergencies Act. He is setting the precedent that the criteria to be met to use this legislation are discretionary.
He is setting the precedent that it is acceptable to use this legislation without the consensus of the House and maybe even without a majority. He is setting the precedent that it is acceptable to use it against the will of Quebec and most of the provinces. He is setting the precedent that the federal government can essentially use this legislation to say that it did something after three weeks of inaction.
The Prime Minister is using the Emergencies Act in an arbitrary and divisive way for purely political reasons. This normalizing will be used as a benchmark for every successive prime minister. The Prime Minister is charting a course for every future government. In the future, every political player who faces a crisis will look at how the Prime Minister of Canada invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022. They will all look at his decision and see that the bar for invoking the emergency measures is not as high as the legislation suggests.
Political posturing and pressure in times of crisis threaten to again lower the bar a little bit more, always just a little bit more. This will serve as a precedent for all future governments for assessing things like the funding of environmental movements; grassroots campaigns against climate change; student protests; tense labour disputes; protests on civil rights, self-determination or racism; or highly charged debates, such as a nation aspiring to independence. It will serve as the benchmark.
That is why we must be prudent. That is why we must conduct ourselves as statesmen and stateswomen and rise above the fray. We must consider the consequences of our decisions on more than just the situation right under our noses. We must foresee the long-term consequences and think several steps ahead. We must separate our opinions from the legislative decision, the immediate political situation from the legislative decision. As politicians, that is the only way to respect the contract between citizens and the state.
We cannot control the future. I do not know who will be governing the country in 10 years. I am optimistic enough to hope that all future prime ministers will be careful, compassionate, discerning and aware of the impact of every decision they make. However, I have no guarantee of this. I am profoundly disturbed that the political significance of a last-resort emergency measure, a nuclear option, is being downplayed today and for all time.
As I have said before, I have no sympathy for what has been going on in Ottawa in the last three weeks, but that does not matter. I am opposed to the use of the Emergencies Act, despite what I have seen with my own eyes every day while coming to work. In the House, I am the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Every morning, I remind myself who I work for. I work for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. I will not support a reckless decision that could one day impact the rights of my constituents in Lac-Saint-Jean and all Quebeckers. I cannot trivialize invoking the Emergencies Act. I cannot carelessly chart this path for all future governments to walk on.
Frankly, I cannot be absolutely certain that the Prime Minister did not let his disdain for the occupiers influence his decision. I also cannot be certain that he was not influenced by the immediate political situation to make a decision that feels good today but will feel terrible tomorrow. I am not absolutely certain that he fully comprehends the impact of the legacy he will leave. I am also not absolutely certain that the NDP did not rush to support the decision in part because it too lacks sympathy for what has gone on in the streets of Ottawa. I am not certain that the NDP was not distracted by the immediate political situation, leading it to forget how important it is to protect rights and freedoms in the long term. The NDP seems to be thinking about what legacy it will leave today. That is good news.
We must remember the occupation of Ottawa as the crisis that led to proactive co-operation among governments and police forces. It must not be remembered as a crisis that normalized and set a precedent for the use of the Emergencies Act.
Let us make the right decision for the future of a healthy democracy, for the future of the social contract and for the future of the people we have the honour of representing.
1557 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:53:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we have seen here is a complete, manifest failure of leadership at every level that put us in this situation. The fact is, something that should have been contained through ticketing and normal police activity was allowed to metastasize to such a level that it became an international embarrassment that happened at the Ambassador Bridge.
I ask my colleague this: Will the Liberals agree to our call for a full, complete, independent inquiry into every level of this crisis that has been allowed to happen, and then follow up as well to ensure that these tools that we need to use now will not be misused in future? Where is the oversight committee, so that we can make sure that these are limited tools to be used to get people safe again in the streets of Ottawa, without any further government abuse?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:11:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by commending the work of the various police forces. So far, the clearing of the protest has been carried out in a calm and orderly manner, under the circumstances. I hope to see that continue.
I would also like to thank the House of Commons staff and security service, whose outstanding efforts have made it possible for us to sit today under these exceptional circumstances.
This is an extremely serious debate. The Emergencies Act is the nuclear option of legislative tools. It is the last resort. Governing by decree is not right. The decision of whether or not to authorize the use of this legislation lies with all of us as members of Parliament.
What we decide will go down in history. We have the power to stop it or to give the government carte blanche. The decision falls squarely on our shoulders. I urge all parliamentarians across party lines to rise to the occasion in a way that reflects the gravity of the situation.
The Emergencies Act is special legislation that should be invoked only when it is absolutely necessary. It is invoked after concluding that ordinary legislation is inadequate to deal with an urgent and dangerous situation. I really want to emphasize again that invoking this act is the nuclear option and must not be taken lightly.
Some have argued that the act was necessary to send a message to the occupiers of Ottawa. There is no need to go nuclear to send a message.
The motion before us is not just about accepting the proclamation of emergency measures. It asks us to accept three orders that contain a series of measures. Our duty, as parliamentarians, is to study these measures and ask ourselves whether each of them is truly necessary and whether there is no other way to solve the problem. If we conclude that any of them is not really critical, then we must reject the motion.
The government could present a more suitable order if it thinks it is necessary. In that case, we will see. I am a Quebecker and a separatist. My colleagues will have no trouble understanding why the declaration of emergency measures feels like a punch to the gut to me.
Some have argued that the current Emergencies Act is completely different from the infamous War Measures Act that was used to intimidate Quebeckers and tyrannize the separatists in 1970. That is true, and for good reason.
To understand the purpose of the act, let us go back nearly 34 years to when it was passed. The act was passed in 1988, after being introduced in 1987. What happened in 1987? It was another time, but it helps us understand the intention of Parliament at the time.
Brian Mulroney was in power. He was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, which no longer exists. He was elected on a platform of reconciliation with Quebec, which is something that Canada no longer talks about.
In 1987, one of his reconciliation measures included signing the Meech Lake accord. He wanted to remedy a travesty committed in 1982, when English Canada amended the Constitution and reduced the National Assembly of Quebec's powers. This was done without us and against our will. The rest is history. The Meech Lake Constitutional Accord failed, as did the Charlottetown accord that followed, and there still has not been any reconciliation.
That same year, the Mulroney government introduced the act we are discussing today. It wanted to repeal the War Measures Act, a piece of legislation that had traumatized Quebec 17 years earlier. The Mulroney government was attempting to remedy the travesty of 1970 the same year it was trying to make up for the travesty of 1982. That is why the Emergencies Act is different from the War Measures Act.
This time, no police officers or soldiers will show up in middle of the night without a warrant and arrest innocent people whose only crime was having a different opinion. That will not happen this time around. Fundamental rights have not been abolished. There are safeguards now that did not exist under the accursed War Measures Act.
In the past, the government could invoke the act at will. Now, there are safeguards. We are one of those safeguards, but safeguards are only helpful if they are used. I urge everyone to make use of these safeguards today.
The first safeguard involves consulting the provinces. The act requires that the government consult the provinces and report back to Parliament. When this act was passed as part of the reconciliation with Quebec, no one ever thought that it would be imposed on us, because our consent was needed.
There was a requirement to consult. The government gave us a summary of its consultations, as required by law. It informed us that seven of the 10 provinces were opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Two of the three that agreed that the government had to invoke the act because of the problems in the city of Ottawa said that they did not need the act enforced in their provinces.
However, the government chose to impose this act from coast to coast to coast. The government is imposing this act on Quebec, which said no. The Government of Quebec said no. Members from all parties in the Quebec National Assembly, which speaks on behalf of the people of Quebec, unanimously said no. This unanimous decision from the Quebec National Assembly is nowhere to be found in the three orders that the government is asking us to approve. Consultations are meaningless to this government.
We understood that this act would never be imposed on us without our consent, but that is what is happening here. Reconciliation with Quebec, which, I will remind the House, was one of the cornerstones of getting the Emergencies Act passed, is being thrown out the window. The first safeguard to prevent government by decree failed. The government overrode it. The second safeguard is us parliamentarians.
The government is bound by the act to inform us that the provinces are opposed and that Quebec is opposed, so that we take it into consideration. The orders being imposed on us do not take it into consideration, however. The act applies to the country as a whole, regardless of whether or not there are problems, or whether or not Quebec is opposed. This is contrary to the spirit of reconciliation with Quebec that led to the passage of the act. Reconciliation with Quebec, respect for Quebec—that rings hollow now.
Let us get back to the act. Generally, two conditions must be met for the government to have the right to invoke it and for Parliament to be justified in approving it. First, there must be a dangerous and urgent situation. Second, it must be impossible to deal with the situation under existing laws, making it essential to move to governing by decree.
The Emergencies Act requires the government to justify its decision to invoke the act and to lay before Parliament “an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration”. On Wednesday evening, the government sent us a document entitled “Explanation pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the Emergencies Act”. In this explanatory document, the government cites five reasons to justify its decision to invoke the act.
(i) The occupiers threaten to use violence for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective.
(ii) The blockades, in particular blockades of critical infrastructure, threaten Canada's economic security.
(iii) The blockades, in particular those at the border, are detrimental to Canada-U.S. relations.
(iv) The blockades threaten the supply of essential goods to Canadians.
(v) There is potential for an increase in the level of violence.
It is conceivable that the five reasons cited by the government may or may not be real. That is a matter for debate. Given that the Emergencies Act is the nuclear option, however, it sets the bar higher than that. Even if these five reasons were well founded, the fact remains that this is not enough. The government needs to meet one more criterion in order to proceed. Section 3 of the act states that it is not enough for there to be a crisis. The crisis must also be “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it” and one that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”.
In other words, before it can invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that the crisis cannot be dealt with under ordinary laws and that it is absolutely necessary to resort to special legislation and government by decree. However, the government did not demonstrate this in the statement of reasons it gave to parliamentarians. Worse, it did not even attempt to do so, even though this is required under the act. It has remained completely silent on this.
By the way, I will ask again, what laws are currently insufficient?
The order states that it is prohibited to bring a child to an illegal protest. However, provincial child protection laws already prohibit exposing a child to a dangerous situation. That is already the case in both Quebec and Ontario. The Children's Aid Society, the Ontario equivalent of Quebec's Direction de la protection de la jeunesse, was already involved because Ottawa police had referred cases to it.
Exactly how are the regular laws are not effectively dealing with the situation?
1610 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:22:02 a.m.
- Watch
As I was saying, as far as child welfare is concerned, the file is already open.
In what way are Canada's laws inadequate for coping with this situation? Why does the government consider the Emergencies Act to be necessary? We do not know—no one knows—because the government is not saying.
The order provides for the possibility of having financial institutions freeze the accounts of those who participate in illegal demonstrations. However, the Criminal Code already prohibits the funding of illegal activities. This is already the case. The Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act already authorizes financial institutions to freeze the proceeds of criminal activities or funds used to finance such activities. This is already the case under Canada's existing laws. There is no legislative void.
In what way do these laws not allow us to deal with the current situation? Why does the government consider the Emergencies Act to be necessary? We do not know, no one knows, because the government is not saying.
In fact, not only has the government never said why this power was indispensable, it has also never said in what way it could be useful.
Last week, the government gave us a briefing on enforcing the act. What it told us about freezing bank accounts was disturbing. An assistant deputy minister from the Department of Finance explained how it would work. What the government told us was that it would be up to the financial institutions to freeze the accounts of those involved in the occupation in Ottawa. In other words, it would be up to the financial institutions to guess which of their members or customers are taking part in these illegal protests and then guess when they have left the protest so that their accounts can be reactivated. The government does not see itself as having any particular responsibility for this and says that it is the banks' responsibility. What a joke.
Banks are not the police. They cannot know who is blocking the streets of Ottawa. The government is washing his hands of this situation. It is utter nonsense.
Under the Emergencies Act, the government is required explain why it cannot end the occupation in Ottawa using existing laws. Not only has it failed to do so, but it has also not even told us how the act would help here.
I will give another example. Pursuant to the executive order, the measures against financing criminal activity extend to crowdfunding platforms. Now, that is a good idea. In fact, it is such a good idea that it is already possible to take such action under existing laws.
Crowdfunding platforms are already governed by the provinces. We have laws already, and they work. For example, on February 10, the Ontario Superior Court granted an injunction sought by the province to freeze funds raised by the “Freedom Convoy 2022” and “Adopt a Trucker” campaigns on the GiveSendGo crowdfunding platform. That happened under ordinary laws without the Emergencies Act and without the government's order.
In what way do existing laws not allow for adequate management of the situation? Why does the government think the Emergencies Act is necessary? We do not know, we do not see and we do not understand.
Here is another example. The order authorizes insurers to suspend the occupiers' insurance. How are the truckers going to be able to leave if they are no longer insured? If the truckers' liability insurance is suspended and an accident happens, the victims will not receive compensation for damages. How is it necessary or useful to take that away from victims?
The government had a legal obligation to show that each of the emergency powers it was giving itself was absolutely necessary to resolve the crisis. In the case of suspending insurance, not only did the government not seek to demonstrate the absolute necessity of this measure, but it did not seek to demonstrate how it was useful.
The order sets out a series of grounds for declaring a protest to be illegal, including the paralysis of critical infrastructure, significant obstruction of traffic, and so on. All of these grounds are included in one or more of the ordinary laws that are currently in force, whether it is the Criminal Code, highway traffic acts, or municipal bylaws.
Law enforcement had all the legal tools to deal with the various border blockades. We saw that in Windsor and Coutts. There is no legal vacuum that needs to be filled by proclaiming emergency measures, as the government itself admits. It was not the absence of legislation that brought Ottawa to a standstill. In the government's statement of reasons, it does not even try to argue that there was a legal vacuum to be filled by the special legislation. That is just pathetic.
The Emergencies Act is designed to make up for the inadequacy of existing legislation. It is not designed to make up for the government's lack of leadership.
I could have understood the government needing emergency powers to requisition tow trucks and move the trucks currently being used as barricades in Ottawa. Even though the government did not make that argument, I could have understood it. A one-section order to address this shortfall in a very limited area might have been acceptable.
The orders before us are not just about requisitioning tow trucks in Ottawa.
These orders amount to a carte blanche. They cover a series of actions without any apparent justification, and they apply throughout Canada, including Quebec, where there is no state of emergency.
These extremely broad orders are what the House is being asked to approve.
In all conscience, I refuse to do so. The Bloc Québécois refuses to do so.
The Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called on the House of Commons to refuse to do this. The criteria for invoking the act have not been met. The government knows full well that the current laws are enough; otherwise, it would have told us so.
The Emergencies Act does not address a need. All it does is save face for the Prime Minister, who let the situation get out of hand from the very beginning and wants to show that he is doing something. However, as I said, you do not drop an atomic bomb in order to send a message. Quebec does not want the emergency measures to apply in its territory.
The government held consultations and was told no. It should have taken that for an answer, but it did not. Will parliamentarians do their part by hitting the brakes? Will they stand up against government by decree, or will they instead listen to the Liberal Party?
We know that the Liberals will listen to what the government tells them. Once a lapdog, always a lapdog.
Now I will turn to the NDP.
In 1970, Tommy Douglas said that invoking the War Measures Act was like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. The law changed in 1988, but the situation remains the same.
Proclaiming the Emergencies Act and imposing it on Quebec, where there is no state of emergency, is today's equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.
Of course, the Emergencies Act is different from the infamous War Measures Act. It contains safeguards, brakes on the authoritarianism of government by decree, but the key brake is us parliamentarians. We have a heavy burden on our shoulders.
Once a lapdog, always a lapdog. When it comes time to vote, we will see if the NDP should be called the New Liberal Party or remain the New Democratic Party. The NDP essentially has the burden of choosing between a democratic government and a government by decree.
I am standing up and saying no to these three outrageous orders out of respect and love for my people.
1320 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 1:40:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this place and speak. Today, I am going to lay out my case as to why I am voting against continuing the Emergencies Act.
In the past 34 years, since the inception of the Emergencies Act, there have been four times when a national crisis was faced by a prime minister, and they each refused to implement the act. Brian Mulroney did not do it during the two-month Oka standoff outside of Montreal in 1990. Jean Chrétien did not need to invoke it after the terrorist attack of 9/11. Stephen Harper did not during the 2008 banking crisis. The Prime Minister did not use it during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw 35,000 deaths and the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression.
For the first time in Canadian history, a prime minister will use the Emergencies Act when authorities already have every legal tool at their disposal to deal with the situation before us today. For me, there are many concerning parts of the act now being used, including instructing financial institutions to seize assets and freeze bank accounts without due process. As of this moment, the Minister of Public Safety has said that 76 bank accounts, worth a combined $3.2 million, have been frozen.
There are serious consequences of invoking this act, and ones that all parliamentarians need to reconcile with themselves before the vote on Monday. After 21 days of refusing to deal with the protest through a more civil and peaceful process, the government chose an act, the most heavy-handed, using the Emergencies Act.
Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. I do not support hate, nor do I find any legitimate rationale for the existence of groups that perpetuate discrimination, violence or hatred. I once again call on these blockades to end peacefully and quickly.
My constituency staff, who with unparalleled dedication and commitment have acted professionally and admirably during these trying times, have fielded hundreds of calls and emails from concerned and sometimes angry citizens.
For example, Kenneth and Lois from Bobcaygeon write, “There is no reason for this act to be used except fear from the Prime Minister. This could have all been avoided if the PM would have been willing to listen.”
Another Kawartha Lakes constituent writes, “I implore you not to support the Prime Minister in his attempt to enact the Emergencies Act. Not only is this a complete overreaction to the situation, one which in my opinion was brought about by the Prime Minister's refusal to listen to the convoy and also serves no one's best interests.” That was from Vanessa.
“We believe the government has overstepped their authority and are taking away our rights and freedoms”, write Peter and Lois.
This is just a small sample and cross-section of hundreds of similar messages that I am sure all of us in the House are receiving. These are the words of ordinary Canadians who fear the government has overreacted because of the failed leadership of the Prime Minister. The act is clear on when it should be implemented. It should only be invoked when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada” and when the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
The first question before us is whether the blockades seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty or territorial integrity, and whether there were no laws to deal with the protesters. The onus is on the federal government to demonstrate that the act was the only option left on the table.
National security experts have been expressing their concerns. For example, Leah West, a professor and national security expert at Carleton University, told the CBC that Canada was not facing the kind of public emergency that the act was designed to respond to, stating, “I'm kind of shocked, to be honest, that the government of Canada still actually believes that this meets the definition to even invoke the act”, adding, “I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have.”
Surely, if there were a serious threat to our nation, provinces would be clamouring to the government for help, yet provinces have told the Prime Minister that they do not need the act and that they have already dealt with their protesters through listening and talking. It is here that I believe the entire debate hinges: Does the perceived threat that the government felt needed to be addressed, now that the provinces have their own capacity resolved, still exist and therefore justify the invoking of this act?
Furthermore, the second condition, that the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, has been disproven by the leadership displayed by many of Canada's premiers right across this country. The provinces and their police services did not need the extraordinary powers granted by the Emergencies Act, because they already had the authority to deal with this. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister refused to follow the good governance practised by those premiers.
It is no wonder that Canadians who have been writing and calling, not just me but every member in the House, view the implementation of this act not under the auspices of protecting Canada, but rather of protecting the Prime Minister's political failure.
We have heard that part of the justification for invoking the act was deliberate foreign extremist interference in our democracy, yet I have not seen any evidence from the government to indicate foreign powers or organizations behind the protests here in Canada. In fact, in committee last week, the deputy director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the national financial intelligence agency, said that there was no “spike in suspicious transaction[s]” and no sign of extremist groups issuing transactions to the protesters.
Part of the government's intention with the use of this act is also to track and reveal information regarding private individual financial transactions. This information is going to go to the RCMP, CSIS and FINTRAC, and will suspend accounts without judicial process. I led off my speech talking about that.
It is quite concerning that the government will not tell Parliament whether it consulted with the Privacy Commissioner regarding the use of this information. Kim Manchester, managing director of the financial intelligence training company ManchesterCF, warned in an interview with CTV that flagging accounts could financially ruin those targeted and make it difficult for them to get any financial services in the future. He said, “It's very tough on people when the activities of the Canadian government can lead to the financial meltdown of individuals associated with the protests who are guilty by association, by directive, and not by judicial process.”
In the same interview, Vanessa Iafolla, a crime consultant, said that use of the measure was a “serious [deviation] from the normal democratic processes that we generally expect to see in Canadian society.”
This legislation was created to deal with terrorist organizations and transnational organized crime syndicates, not Canadian truckers.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's Noa Mendelsohn Aviv is concerned that “the act allows the government to...create new laws, bypassing democracy under what they have called a national emergency [and] they haven't presented any evidence that satisfies us that is in fact a national emergency as required”. The CCLA is suing the government for seriously infringing upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Paul Wells, in Maclean's on February 14, surmised:
I think the real explanation for today’s announcement came from [the deputy prime minister], who said it’s basically about the blocked Ambassador Bridge at Windsor. Inconveniently no longer blocked.... “We fought tooth and nail to protect Canada’s privileged relationship with the United States during the NAFTA negotiations,” the deputy prime minister said, “and we stood up to the 232 tariffs that were illegal and unjustified. We won’t let these hard-won victories be tarnished. The world is watching us. Our jobs, prosperity and livelihoods are at stake. That’s why the government is acting.”
The Emergencies Act is there to address extreme threats to Canada, not to protect the economy.
In 1978, approximately 30 countries were in some form of state of emergency. It had risen to 70 by 1986. By 1996, 147 countries had mechanisms to declare a state of emergency, a disturbing global trend that Canada now has the dubious honour of joining.
It is probably no coincidence that this historic announcement came only an hour after the government narrowly defeated the Conservative motion proposing that the government present a plan by the end of the month to lift federal mandates. The Prime Minister could see the writing on the wall, as his own caucus had started to revolt against him.
Rather than taking the diplomatic route, talking with the protesters, using the same media methods that he used to call them names, lowering the temperature, letting those with concerns know that they have been heard and laying out a plan to end the mandates and restrictions, like many provinces across the country and many countries around the world, he dug in his heels and brought out the sledgehammer. He is imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
Most concerning of all is that young Canadians who have no direct connection to the historic struggles against fascism, socialism and communism are losing faith and interest in freedom and democracy. Those noble ideals have been tarnished, and this is contributing to what we are seeing today.
I will leave members with a quote: “there will be time later to reflect on all the lessons that can be learned from this situation.” This is what the Prime Minister told reporters last Monday afternoon.
I would argue that these lessons already exist. We do not have to go that far in history to look back and find them.
1728 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:55:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to address my fellow Canadians about the current state of events unfolding in our country. I want to express my concerns about the lack of leadership by this government.
In a shocking display of defeat, the Prime Minister and his government have taken the unprecedented step to enact the Emergencies Act, which is the successor of the War Measures Act. Since the inception of the Emergencies Act in 1988, it has never been invoked. Let me repeat, in 34 years, there has never been a single crisis in which a federal administration felt it essential to use such measures. Neither 9/11, nor the Oka crisis in 1990, nor even the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic itself was a sufficient national threat to warrant the authority currently being debated. The last time any federal government gave itself such sweeping, unchecked power was during the October crisis in 1970, after 200 bombs had been detonated in civilian areas. Furthermore, several nationwide protests have blocked critical infrastructure since the inception of the Emergencies Act, but none has met the threshold for enacting these sweeping powers, despite similar tangible threats to our country's security.
I trust we can all agree that violence, threats and blockades are never appropriate and should never be permitted, especially when they infringe upon our civil freedoms. All levels of government have choices for dealing with the current crisis that do not necessitate one of the country's most sweeping increases in government authority.
The blockades at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor posed an immediate threat to thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in international trade. However, it was clear that in one day, with a court order injunction and a strong police presence, notably, the situation was resolved without enacting exceptional measures, legislative discussion or government powers that had never been used before. The same was true for other blockades in Alberta and Manitoba.
As my hon. colleagues reminded us in the House recently, the Prime Minister assured Canadians that using this act was the last measure to respond, and he said that it is not the first thing you turn to, nor the second, nor the third. When asked what exactly the first and second actions taken by the government were, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness responded by saying that his government “worked with municipal and provincial partners...to ensure that they had the resources and the support they needed”, as if that was not already an everyday expectation of the federal government.
It is clear that the Liberals cannot explain why they believe going beyond traditional legal options is necessary. Rather than considering the same laws that have already cleared blockades across the country, this government believes we should use military-style measures. Perhaps they have finally realized that their incompetency, inaction and drive to divide have left Canadians frustrated, and that the Liberals now making a big show will reflect positively.
Let me tell members that history will not look back fondly on this moment. The charter liberties that we all cherish are being threatened by actions the government cannot justify. What kind of precedent does it set for a government to so lazily use this heavy-handed legislation against its citizens? What will this mean for future demonstrations? Should Canadians not fear donating to movements and organizations, given that the current government believes it can declare such things illegal retroactively?
If, heaven forbid, we find ourselves in another global conflict in the future, would a government consider enacting the same measures put in place over a few weeks of disruptive protest? The international media is in shock over this action of our Prime Minister. It is no wonder, as he does not even have the slightest bit of regret about accusing Jewish members of standing with swastikas. Everyone can see that he is someone who prefers to slander and divide rather than unite and lead. This act may have never seen the light of day if not for the Prime Minister and his government.
Fortunately, the Liberals can consistently count on having the New Democrats as dance partners to help them shed accountability. The NDP used to be a party that stood with civil liberties. The last time such dramatic measures were used, in the October crisis, then NDP leader Tommy Douglas opposed the use of the War Measures Act for being overkill. Now, the modern NDP is doing its best to imitate the Liberals' disdain for dissent and opposition by preferring to point fingers rather than take responsibility for the instigation. The Liberal-NDP coalition is strong. Unfortunately for Canadians, it is strong enough to give the Prime Minister and his cabinet all the power they want.
It is a tragedy that we have arrived at this point. Canadians want the blockades to end. At the very least, the Conservatives want to return to normal. There are several critical issues on which Canadians deserve a thoughtful federal response. Inflation is surging to record highs. House prices have doubled since 2015 and people's mental health across the country requires serious attention. Despite these genuine concerns, though, the Prime Minister and his government are too preoccupied with covering up their failures, avoiding responsibility and blaming everyone else. Conservatives want to see an end to the confining mandates and a return to everyday life. We want a national leader who will act in the best interests of Canadian people.
914 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:52:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have had an absence of leadership in Canada under the Prime Minister all the way around.
I recall the remarks from the member for Louis-Hébert, who pointed out the extent to which this government made a deliberate choice to pit Canadians against each other long before this current crisis. One really must connect these two events. There is tremendous responsibility with the Prime Minister for the discord throughout our country.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
