44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 8:40:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Egmont.
It is with sadness that I rise in this House this morning because of the circumstances outside of our Parliament, but with the privilege to bring the voice of our community of Orléans, a community that has sent me once again to the House of Commons in 2021 with the clear understanding of the importance of the public health measures.
We are here today to debate the motion regarding the invocation of the Emergencies Act. This law, the Emergencies Act, was passed in 1988, bringing in new parliamentary oversight through a requirement for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we invoked it on February 14.
As a society, we need to put this in perspective with the values we all share, particularly democracy and the rule of law. From an Orléans perspective, many people have called in the last 22 days.
After two years of the pandemic, a general sense of fatigue had set in, but thanks to an extraordinarily high vaccination rate, the stress levels of families and business owners were beginning to come down. The hope of returning to some semblance of a normal life was on the horizon. It was palpable.
Then a convoy of trucks decided to overstay their welcome in our national capital. We are now at Saturday, day 23. People, neighbours, family members and residents, when I do my groceries at our local stores, have shared their thoughts with me. They want us to do something.
After working hard with our municipal partner and after the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency on January 6, the Province of Ontario followed in declaring a state of emergency as well on February 11. We need to understand what our downtown businesses and its residents have endured for the past 23 days.
I was a former business owner in Orléans before politics. As exciting as it was to own a business and be an entrepreneur, it is hard work. We have payments to make, payroll to look after, employees to manage and rent to pay. Business owners in Orléans and in Ottawa are our neighbours and our friends. They are people we have gotten to know, people we have developed friendships and relationships with. It has been hard for them since the beginning of the pandemic.
My heart goes out to the people who live and reside in downtown Ottawa and to the businesses that were expecting to open on January 31. They were looking ahead to happier days. They were looking to do what they love to do. They were hoping to open their businesses. They were hoping to be there for their employees, and I have to say that we were hoping to support them.
I have to say it again: Small businesses are the heart of our economy. I speak monthly with my local BIA, the Heart of Orléans BIA. We know our businesses needed our government's support since the beginning of this pandemic, and we did. We brought in several measures to support them.
I will repeat that January 31 was to be a new beginning for our businesses. It was supposed to be a good day for them, since the provincial Progressive Conservative government here in Ontario was loosening public health measures. Unfortunately, it was not for our downtown businesses.
We have worked so hard for the past two years. We have joined forces among each other for the better good of our communities, our provinces and our country. We have listened to the experts. We did what had to be done to see our loved ones and to protect our seniors.
We were hoping for a return to normalcy at last, but that did not happen for everyone. It was a very different situation for residents and merchants downtown, who were denied this opportunity.
It is because they had to suffer from this illegal blockade, and this is not acceptable.
It is hard for me to explain how I feel about this illegal blockade. For 23 days, we have been unable to enjoy the beauty of the capital, move freely in the streets, socialize with our friends or get to our place of work.
What can I say about the impact of this illegal blockade on the quality of life of the residents, on the health of our students and that of people living with a disability? What can I say about the impact on our social stability, our mental health and our environment?
That is why we are here now. That is why the government invoked the Emergencies Act. We have to put an end to this nightmare.
We are now at a point where the government felt the need to invoke the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and municipal capacity to address this illegal blockade.
I want to reinforce that the emergency declaration would be for a maximum period of 30 days. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportionate. We are invoking them only after exhausting all options. They will allow the RCMP to enforce municipal, provincial and federal laws; allow the federal government to mobilize essential services, such as tow trucks; give new authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, prohibit blockades and keep essential infrastructure open; and provide enhanced power to stop the flow of money supporting the blockades. That is important for the people who are listening here in Orléans to understand.
Let me be clear with respect to what invoking these measures will not do: It will not invoke the military, it would not limit our freedom, it would not limit a peaceful assembly and it would not suspend fundamental rights.
Sometimes when we talk about Ottawa among friends and family, we make comparisons with other capitals or cities, and we sometimes describe Ottawa as a quiet, not too lively city. Well, I can absolutely assure them that today I stand in this House to say that I am looking forward to once again enjoying my quiet city, my quiet downtown, where we can walk with our family, where we can enjoy time with our children visiting a museum, for example, and where we can go to see our loved ones or just have a safe and simple walk in our neighbourhood with our favourite pets.
1073 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:33:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question and comments.
I want to be clear. We are criticizing the possible associations between questionable political positions, the unwarranted occupations and the use of the Emergencies Act, which we do not think is justifiable.
I completely agree with what the member said about denouncing hate speech and unacceptable comments and continuing to fight this issue. That said, the government cannot claim that the Emergencies Act is required because the siege must be stopped.
I remind members that in the 1970s, Tommy Douglas's party was the only one that opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act. I urge the NDP to draw some inspiration from Tommy Douglas and the decision he made back then.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:50:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member on his excellent speech in this difficult time.
I would like to ask him a question about the order in council that the government passed that led to the invocation of the act that we're debating today. One of the clauses in the act gives the government the power to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known”. It is a pretty open-ended power that the government is asking for.
We know that the Prime Minister has limited respect for the House. He disregarded the request for the production of documents with regard to the Winnipeg lab. He tried to interfere in the legal system with the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
Why should we trust him? He has not called a meeting of the privy councillors sworn in in this House to brief them on any security issues. Why should we trust that this power should be granted to the government, which is—
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:54:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, today we are debating the Emergencies Act and the motion for confirmation of a declaration of an emergency, pursuant to section 58 of the act. There is a lot to be said and I cannot cover everything in 10 minutes.
Under section 58, the government is required to provide a motion for confirmation of the declaration of an emergency and an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, and to report on any consultation with the provinces and territories it is undertaking. Indeed, thousands of people have reached out to me in the last week regarding the temporary measures under the public order emergency, including the points on public assembly, fines and imprisonment, compelling to work on behalf of the Government of Canada and other measures, such as the freezing of one's financial assets.
The powers of Parliament in this unique situation are to protect against government overreach and bad decisions and to support the necessity of ensuring effective checks and balances are in place when a declaration of a public order emergency has been made under section 17 of the act. Upon review of the explanation pursuant to the Emergencies Act, I cannot support the reasons provided by the Governor in Council for the continued use of this act. My reasons relate to the following.
Under point two of the reasons for public emergency, “adverse effects on the Canadian economy”, numerous citations were made regarding protests at points of entry across Canada. It is my understanding that as of February 14, no major blockade was inhibiting the flow of goods between Canada and the United States to warrant this unprecedented action. The ability of law enforcement to deal with the protests was demonstrated last weekend when the protesters at points of entry were removed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
It goes on to explain that threats were made to block railways, which could result in significant economic disruptions. The report outlines that railways in Canada have operating revenues of more than $16 billion a year. A threat can be dealt with under existing laws and Parliament requires more information than the flimsy explanation provided regarding the economic significance of railways in Canada. The Railway Safety Act is a strong piece of legislation. I am sure it could be used if there was a legitimate threat.
I would say the same for point four, “the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods”. Again the reasons provided by the government are without any evidence. Parliamentarians require more than general trade statistics to confirm the application of the most severe measure the government can possibly take. I just cannot support this.
Again the same could be said for point five, “the potential for an increase in the level of unrest”. The government has not provided the House with adequate justification that the situation in which we find ourselves today could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Neither rhetoric nor emotion justifies such actions.
The report to the Houses of Parliament on the consultations regarding the Emergencies Act lack sufficient justification as well. Words like “spoke”, “met”, “regular engagement” and “discussed” are numerous throughout the document. Real and concrete steps, however, taken by the government in the context of consultations are void. For such a time as this, a government simply indicating that it spoke with the provinces and territories is not sufficient. What Parliament needs to know is what was discussed, what the government said to the provinces and territories and the actions it took to prevent national disruptions, and I would say vice versa in the context of the provinces and territories as well.
Let me quote the Prime Minister, who said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly. This is not the first, second or third option. It is the last resort.” Nothing the Prime Minister has provided the House demonstrates what the first, second or third actions actually were.
During the debate on Thursday, the member for Ottawa Centre asked, while pointing to members of the official opposition, that if this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row, how would members be acting?
Arguably, many of the justifications provided relate more to the disasters, floods, wildfires and landslides British Columbians experienced last year. Lytton burned to the ground last summer and this fall every major roadway in the province of B.C. was flooded or washed away. The CP and CN rail lines were not operational. The port of metro Vancouver was cut off from Canada.
In my riding, there was danger to life, lives lost, real property damage for thousands, complete social disruption through the destruction of critical infrastructure and a loss of essential goods and services. People are still without permanent shelter and critical roadways are not fully operational, including the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 8.
Under section 58 of the bill, there is nothing in these documents that shows the government is meeting the threshold of this legislation. I can argue more concretely that the disasters that B.C. faced last year are a much better example of when this act could have been used under part I, “Public Welfare Emergency”.
Friday morning, I was also devastated, as has been mentioned in this House, to read of the horrific acts of violence that occurred in the northern community of Houston, British Columbia. Will this fall under the radar of our Prime Minister and his Emergencies Act? There was real violence there.
I am also reminded of other historical instances in Canada, such as the G20 summit, where the former Toronto chief of police and current Minister of Emergency Preparedness had hundreds of protesters arrested as police cars were burned in the streets and the Emergencies Act was not applied. The eyes of the world were on Canada at that time as well. Our reputation was also at stake in that moment.
In the annex of the motion tabled in Parliament, the Prime Minister included his letter to the premiers. He mentioned that he is concerned about the undermining of the confidence in our institutions. I believe Canadians are concerned the Prime Minister allowed the situation to escalate to where it is today. That is on him. That is on cabinet. I believe his actions are what is actually undermining the confidence in our institutions.
In preparation for today's debate I looked back at the Debates of 1988 when the Emergencies Act was before Parliament as a bill. I learned that parliamentarians of all political stripes were concerned about the future application of the bill and its relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
NDP MP Derek Blackburn, on April 25, 1988, referred to the horrific experiences of Canadians of Japanese descent who suffered internment under the War Measures Act, the preceding legislation. Although in support of the bill, he was concerned that the Emergencies Act could still infringe on Canadian rights and freedoms beyond what is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. I share his concern. Mr. Blackburn suggested that the Supreme Court review the bill to be more confident that we would strike the right balance and Canadians would be protected. No review ever took place and look at where we find ourselves today.
In closing, I want to remind all members of the House of the thoughtful reflections of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, former MP for York Centre and Liberal member of the House of Commons, from July 11, 1988, who at the time was in the official opposition. He stated:
The legislation we are passing today [the Emergencies Act] still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four...categories of emergencies provided for under this legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation.
We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not...abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in...the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched.
The Prime Minister needs to be watched. The government needs to be watched. It needs to be accountable. I stand here on behalf of my constituents, who expect me to hold the current government to account. I am asking all members of the House to carefully consider how they will vote on this unprecedented and unnecessary measure. Confidence in our institutions depends on it. The trust Canadians have in us collectively as parliamentarians depends on it. Our nation depends on it.
I encourage all members to vote in opposition of this motion out of respect for a concern of government overreach.
1529 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:41:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Mirabel.
First of all, I would like to say that I will be doing something that I normally do not do. Rather than ad lib my speech, which is something I tend to strongly favour for parliamentary debates, since it makes them much livelier, I will be reading it from beginning to end.
That is my way of trying to help out the support staff in the House who are working very hard right now so that we can do our jobs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them very much.
Today we are debating something exceptional. I am not talking about the situation, but about the Emergencies Act itself. The act is exceptional. The act is an ex post facto law. That means that it applies after the fact. This is a complete departure from the basic principle of natural justice that a person should not be subject to arbitrary laws imposed by a government that can decide that an action is illegal after the fact, especially retroactively.
When it proclaimed this act into law in 1988, Parliament defined very clear criteria for invoking it, specifically to justify deviating from this basic principle and to avoid undermining the foundations of democracy, which state that citizens should be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Those criteria are precisely what members should be looking at today.
The only question that matters is this: Keeping in mind that these criteria were rigorously set out to protect the bulwarks of justice and democracy, are we satisfied that the invocation criteria have been met?
The government's backgrounder is quite enlightening on these invocation criteria:
The Act contains a specific definition of “national emergency” that makes clear how serious a situation needs to be before the Act can be relied upon. A national emergency is an urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces and territories, or by any other law of Canada.
Basically, not only does it have to be proven that the act is useful, but it also has to be proven that it is necessary. It is not enough that the situation be serious; the conclusion must be that the only possible response to the emergency is to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The problem is that I have listened to the speeches given so far by the members who support the use of the act. I have listened to them in good faith, in case I hear an argument that makes me doubt my own position. I have heard nothing persuasive so far. I feel like listing off the greatest hits of some of the arguments that I have heard since the beginning of debate and offering my thoughts in response.
Unfortunately, we have heard a lot of speeches where members have tried to justify using the act because, for example, the situation has prevented the public from enjoying the beauty of Ottawa, or because people have not been able to go to museums, or because businesses have not been able to open.
It may seem a bit ridiculous to bring up these arguments that have been used in this debate. I am only doing so because these arguments have not just been raised a couple of times.
Several members have tried to justify their choice using arguments that are not, by any stretch of the imagination, even remotely in the same league as a national emergency situation. To me, that exposes just how flimsy the arguments in support of invoking the act are.
Another argument we have heard is that 72% of the population agrees with invoking the act. I actually find it frightening that anyone is justifying the use of this exceptional measure on the basis of a survey. Obviously, nowhere in the criteria I listed earlier does it say anything about how, if a certain percentage of the population likes the idea, then invoking the Emergencies Act is justified. Thank goodness for that.
That said, here are my thoughts on the survey results. I am absolutely certain that the 72% support is not specifically for the act. I think it is actually indicative of people's desire to see the situation resolved one way or another. It reflects people's reaction to the appalling lack of government leadership in managing this crisis. Ultimately, the government's use of the Emergencies Act is merely a pathetic attempt to cover up its incompetence.
Nevertheless, we have heard some arguments that seem convincing, and they deserve some more attention.
In his questions and comments today, the member for Windsor West emphasized several times that the situation at the Ambassador Bridge has not been completely resolved. He pointed out that although some traffic has resumed, there are still obstacles and barriers. He mentioned that families were prevented from accessing health care, for example.
He asked my Bloc colleagues what we had to say to those families. He asked whether we should not support the Emergencies Act for them. Obviously, I have all the compassion in the world for those families, but I still believe that invoking the act is not the solution.
As evidence, the authorities have been able to use the emergency measures since Monday, and yet, according to the member himself, the situation has not been resolved. Moreover, the blockades were shut down for the most part using the legal means already available before the emergency order was invoked.
It is not the use of the act that is the issue here, but rather the misuse or incomplete use of the resources that were already available, and those families should not be led to believe that invoking the Emergencies Act will solve their situation.
The leader of the NDP and many of his colleagues have also argued that the situation is urgent, particularly because many of the occupiers have started calling for the current government to be overthrown, which would be outright sedition.
I did most of my studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal. There was a protest almost every week calling for the government to be overthrown. Luckily, no one asked to invoke the Emergencies Act. If they had, Montreal would have been in a constant state of emergency.
Seriously, though, I doubt that the criterion of a serious and real threat to the sovereignty of Canada applies here. If we hold to Max Weber's definition, the government is not about to lose its monopoly on legitimate violence, and we are not facing an insurrection.
As for territorial integrity, I realize that Ottawa residents are patriotic, but, even though Ottawa is the nation's capital, I doubt that taking over an area of a mere three square kilometres constitutes undermining the territorial integrity of a country that covers 10 million square kilometres.
We have also heard the argument that the police officers have said that they would not have been able to do everything they have done without the Emergencies Act. I have heard police officers say that the act was useful, but I have not heard them say why it was necessary.
My colleagues in the Bloc have brilliantly explained how existing legislation would have allowed meaningful action to be taken without the use of the Emergencies Act. Before Monday, there was nothing stopping the different police forces from working together to achieve the results we have seen in the past 24 hours.
What is more, it is not the role of the police to justify the use of the act. It is the role of parliamentarians. I think simply citing the police without tangibly and clearly establishing what legal vacuum the Emergencies Act is filling is a weak argument. I even see it as an abdication of the parliamentary role.
The member who primarily used the opinion of police officers to justify his support for the act said in response to one of my colleagues that he was not 100% sure that using the Emergencies Act was the best thing to do. The Emergencies Act is the type of legislation that calls for us to be more certain than that when the time comes to apply it and to have at least tried to resolve the situation some other way first.
Another argument made by a colleague this morning was that the Emergencies Act has probably discouraged protesters from joining the occupiers who are already here. I find the slippery slope of even considering the Emergencies Act as a deterrent, and a preventive one at that, particularly dangerous.
In fact, from Monday to Friday morning, while the act was in force, nothing discouraged protesters from partying, barbecuing, or getting into a hot tub in the middle of the street. What served as a deterrent was not the act, but rather a start of a coordinated police response at long last.
I would like to quote Jim Watson, who said this morning that this police operation should have happened on day two. The point is not just that it should have happened, but that it could have happened even without the Emergencies Act.
Lastly, it was argued that we should support the Emergencies Act because it was requested by the City of Ottawa and the Government of Ontario, which have also enacted their own emergency legislation.
Provincial approval is a safeguard governing the application of the act, not simply a justification for invoking it. Again, the criteria for invoking the act are well defined, and the mere fact that a province requests it is not one of them. If it were, there would be the unfortunate risk of unwarranted use of the act when a province loses control of a situation without first demonstrating that all possible solutions have been tried and that the province is genuinely out of options.
Basically, I am not convinced. I am still waiting to hear an argument that will change my mind by Monday, but I must admit that I have my doubts. The government has not met its burden of persuading us that we have no choice but to use the act, as the act itself requires, so I find it hard to see how I could support it.
1759 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:52:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I remind members that the Emergencies Act states that the government must have done everything possible. However, before invoking the act, the government made no attempt to co-ordinate the various police services. That is proof that the nuclear option, as some members are calling it, was used without justification. The work was not done.
The only measure not permitted under existing legislation is the requisitioning of tow truck services. My colleagues demonstrated that. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is smoke and mirrors and an attempt to remedy the government's poor management of the crisis.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:26:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons, especially in this seminal moment in Canadian history. I did not want to do it this way, but I did come back to my riding. I thought it important to understand very clearly what the national emergency was, and I will come to that more in the rest of my intervention.
There are many difficulties with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and to be debating something that has already happened is somewhat counterproductive. However, that will be an important part of the mandatory review of the entire process as we go forward. The two main issues, as I see them, really boil down to how we got here and what the justification is for the Emergencies Act.
There are those here who wish to muddy the waters as to the legal justification for using the Emergencies Act, and I do believe that there are people out there who have that very important skill set. That will form part of the review as well. The question we need to start with is how we got here, and this, in my mind, has been the most dismal display of leadership I have ever seen.
As many in the House have been, I have been a part of sporting teams, committees and leadership positions in the medical community, and I have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. One thing that is very crystal clear is that when we encounter those who do not fully agree with our position or support what we think is important, then that moment in time represents a significant opportunity for dialogue. Also, as a physician, I think the opportunity to discuss options and negotiate with patients presented itself to me on a daily basis, and I will be so crass as to say that this is communications 101.
Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been shocked and appalled with respect to the language used by the Prime Minister when commenting upon those who have been vaccine-hesitant. I have been concerned about vaccine hesitancy since the beginning of the pandemic, and certainly I took the opportunity to review the scientific literature on the topic of vaccine hesitancy. There are innumerable papers, and I have had the opportunity to review them, and there was absolutely no mention of division, stigmatization or name-calling. The language used in these scientific papers would be more along the lines of building relationships, building trust and understanding the other person's position.
Chris Voss, who is a famous FBI negotiator, during one particularly difficult case, spoke through an apartment door for six hours with no response. In the end, the fugitives and the hostages emerged suddenly. The fugitives commented, “you calmed us down.... We finally believed you wouldn't go away, so we just came out.”
I think it is important people know I have been in Ottawa for the last three weeks, since the protests began, and every day I walked to work. I realize, as has been brought forward by others, I am a white man. I understand that. I have never been accosted, accused or threatened. I wear a mask, but sadly, Canadians who do not agree with the Prime Minister have been vilified, stigmatized and called names. Let us keep that in mind.
Even on Wednesday evening just past, I left my office at the corner of Bank and Wellington, and I walked all the way up to the Byward Market during the protest. Indeed, I did not feel unsafe. Nobody even spoke to me. Was this a public order emergency? Certainly, I do believe there are other avenues to deal with this situation, and certainly, as I have mentioned previously, I returned here to Nova Scotia and there is absolutely no public order emergency here. Life is going on as normal, and I think parliamentarians portraying what is going on in Ottawa as a public order emergency are a little misguided.
This isolated issue here in Ottawa does not a national emergency make. I have heard many Liberal colleagues talking about how dangerous or scary—
700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:30:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had promised that the law would be applied in a limited way, and then he changed his mind and said that it was not possible. However, section 17(2)(c) of part II of the Emergencies Act says exactly the opposite.
If the Prime Minister had kept his word and followed the act, what would my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and his party have thought about the invocation of the act?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
