44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 5:42:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
I rise today with a very heavy heart to speak in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act by our government and the motion in this House to affirm the government's decision. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people. I want to thank the many truckers in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, and the hundreds of thousands of truckers around the world, who have helped us throughout the pandemic.
Ever since I can remember, I have gone to protests. We have been protesting the rights of Tamils on the island of Sri Lanka from the time I was maybe four or five. After the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1983, I demonstrated for weeks on end at the India consulate in Dublin, Ireland. Later in Canada in the 1980s, I protested apartheid of South Africa. In the 1990s, I protested the cuts to education in Ontario under their then premier Bob Rae. In 1995, I organized a vigil and protest right here on Parliament Hill as Tamils were being displaced in the north and east of the island.
In the 2000s, I extended legal supports to protesters at Queen's Park. I did a number of them throughout the decade. In 2009, I was right here in Ottawa and provided legal support to those who were protesting against the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka. This has been referred to, in the last several days, as the Tamil protest. It started in early February and ended in May of 2009. This included similar protests on University Avenue in front of the U.S. consulate, and I worked with the then chief of police for the City of Toronto, now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, to ensure those protests were peaceful.
I can recall my nephew, who was 10 years old at that time, going to many of these protests with my late father-in-law. My partner and I took our four-month-old in frigid temperatures to protest on Dundas Square in the winter of 2009. During this time, I also attended protests in Washington, New York and Geneva. I am therefore an ardent believer in the right to protest as a tool of dissent and political advocacy. I believe in the right to protest, and I also believe that children should be part of protests, but not used as shields in an illegal occupation.
Since January 29, 2022, Canada has been gripped by what started off with protesting, and has turned into illegal blockades and occupiers. Many colleagues across the aisle have talked about their interactions with the illegal blockaders. I have a great deal of respect for many of my colleagues across the aisle. They have spoken about their interactions with some truckers and other protesters, and their ability to walk through the illegal blockades and understand and empathize.
Sadly, I do not have that privilege. Many in this House do not have that privilege. Even though, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to enjoy the same level of privilege, I do not share that privilege.
They have called for the overthrow of a government and, de facto, all of us serving in this House. They brought symbols of hate, like the confederate flag, Nazi symbols and others, to the protest. They have destroyed the pride flag. They have threatened media. They have taken food from a homeless shelter. I ask my colleagues opposite to please forgive me if I do not feel the same level of confidence engaging with these so-called protesters.
I would never cast dispersions over a group based on the acts of a few, but after 23 days, many who may feel strongly about the type of hate and vitriol we see on the streets should distance themselves and condemn them, including the Conservative Party of Canada.
The impacts of these illegal blockades on Ottawa, Coutts, Emerson, Surrey and Windsor are profound. These illegal blockades are different in form and substance to the hundreds of protests we see here in Ottawa annually. That is why, after considerable consultation and engagement, our government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022. We did so after the City of Ottawa, Windsor and others invoked emergencies in their municipalities, and after the Province of Ontario did so as well.
Ultimately, Canada is a rule of law country. In declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law and are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for a public order emergency to be declared. Our government believes those conditions have been met.
I want to highlight the preamble of the Emergencies Act, which reads:
AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;
Any and all action our government takes will be subject to the charter, and it is the solemn responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure this. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in specific serious circumstances that amount to a national emergency.
In order to meet the threshold for a national emergency, three conditions must be met. First, we must be in a situation that either seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and exceeds the capacity of authority of a province to deal with it, or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
Second, the capacity of the provinces and territories to handle the situation must be considered insufficient or show gaps. Third, we must conclude the situation cannot be handled adequately under any other Canadian law, including provincial and territorial laws.
Our government believes these conditions were met, and we have tabled an explanation of the reasons for issuing this declaration, as required by this act. We also tabled, as required, a report on any consultation with the provinces with respect to the declaration. I would especially like to highlight and thank for their support the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as noted in the document of invoking the act to respond to this national emergency.
As members have seen, our government introduced targeted orders under the act. While the act technically applies to all of Canada, we have been very careful to tailor orders to be as focused as possible and only those places affected by blockades and illegal occupations will see any change at all.
We introduced the following six temporary measures to bring the situation under control. One, regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of peace and go beyond lawful protests. Two, designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. Three, directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. Four, authorizing direct financial institutions to render essential services to relieve impact of blockades. Five, enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal laws and provincial offences. Finally, imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of any order or regulation made under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
There are a number of safeguards built into this act. As required by the act, the Prime Minister met with the cabinet, as well as premiers, prior to invoking the act. After having declared the act, we tabled the declaration within two days, and Parliament has been able to debate it within seven days. In the coming days, the parliamentary committee will be struck and an inquiry will be called. The declaration lasts for 30 days and can be revoked at any time at the will of Parliament.
The situation is urgent. As interim chief of the Ottawa Police Steve Bell said yesterday that the police would not have been able to undertake the enormous operation currently taking in place in Ottawa without the temporary measures extended to it by the Emergencies Act.
We are invoking the Emergencies Act to end illegal blockades and occupations. We are invoking it to restore the rights of those who cannot safely walk the streets of downtown Ottawa and other places.
1424 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:23:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
The situation is serious. People are concerned. They are contacting us. I have received all sorts of messages. The vast majority are from people asking us not to support this special legislation. People are saying that they do not want us to support this unacceptable law.
We have also received messages from people asking how they can support the protesters. Those messages are fewer in number, but we have received some. Still other messages ask me how I can abandon people who are fighting for their freedom. These messages are coming from all over, but these people all have one thing in common. They are all worried and unhappy with the situation.
Let us ask ourselves why. How did we get to the point where our society has become so divided? I am sure that all my colleagues in the House are also receiving all kinds of messages. We are doing our best to answer them. We are explaining our positions. Generally, it is fine.
How did we get to this point? It is because we do not have a leader. The government is sowing division. Let me put it this way: The government had the audacity to use the collective distress of a certain group of people for political purposes, and it let those people settle in.
We could have handled the situation differently. It is always easier to say that in hindsight, of course, but we know it can be done. We have seen it elsewhere.
What did it take? It took a leader. What is the difference between Quebec City and Ottawa? Earlier, someone said that other cities had learned from Ottawa's experience. Beyond that, Quebec City had the benefit of a mayor and a premier who spoke to each other, created a crisis task force, coordinated police forces and recognized the demonstrators' right to protest. These things were completely missing in Ottawa. Ironically enough, the most reviled of those people were the ones who protested the longest. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. I am speaking to the heart of the issue.
How can someone who is the Prime Minister, the head of state, throw fuel on the fire right from the outset and insult Canadians? Perhaps the Prime Minister did not agree with their message, but these people are Canadians.
A head of state must must be able to calm things down. I am not talking about giving in either, but, first of all, he should not have insulted people. Second, why not at least meet with the the truckers' official representatives? This has been mentioned several time in the debates. Ninety per cent of them are vaccinated too. For the most part, they did not agree with the protest. The Prime Minister did not meet with anyone.
Every time there is a crisis, this Prime Minister hides and waits for things to blow over. In times of crisis, the 338 elected members of the House of Commons have a collective duty to come together and work for the common good. To do that, something has to happen. Someone has to be willing to talk to us. We cannot always be dealing people who only want to score political points.
That just does not work. We all saw the images from yesterday and today. I want to once again commend the police forces, because this is not an easy job. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Everyone finds this sad.
How could the government allow the entire city to be occupied for 23 days? Think of Ottawa's residents and small businesses. We abandoned them.
Being Prime Minister is not about recognition. It is not about having a illustrious title and another trophy on the shelf.
Being prime minister is fraught with consequences. It comes with a very heavy burden. One must be worthy of the position. I am sad to say that no one saw the Prime Minister for three weeks. What happened? He went into hiding, hoping this would pass. It was not the first time this has happened.
Someone else mentioned this earlier today. I remember the blockades in support of the Wet'suwet'en Nation that took place not too long ago. No one talks about it, because it happened before COVID-19. It is as though we have forgotten everything before COVID-19.
Obviously, we are talking about two completely different types of protests. I am not trying to lump them together or draw a comparison. However, I remember that the blockades began in one place, but the government did absolutely nothing. Nothing happened. Our Prime Minister was in Africa, trying to win votes for Canada to get a seat at the UN. He never got it. He did not care about what was going on at home. He came back 10 days later. The crisis had grown, and it was much more difficult to manage.
We proposed solutions. We proposed that law enforcement, the RCMP, be withdrawn. We also proposed negotiations. In the beginning, the government wanted nothing to do with our proposals. What did it ultimately do to resolve the crisis? The government listened to the Bloc Québécois's recommendations.
I am very disappointed to say that this time no one listened to us at all. During the early days of the crisis, we called for the party leaders to meet. We also called for the creation of a crisis task force and a committee. There needs to be a discussion. Something needs to happen. We need to talk to our constituents, who are fed up and can no longer cope with the restrictions that have been in place for two years. That is the real situation. That is what happened.
I have a feeling—and it is just a feeling, not something I know for sure—but when I look at this from an outside perspective, I wonder why not let a demonstration go on in my capital in front of Parliament. It would make people unhappy and perhaps cause division within some of the opposition parties where there is some tension. It worked to some extent. After that, the protesters will get tired and leave. If they do not, then the government can intervene and will come across looking strong. That was an error in judgment.
What consequences did waiting have? More people ended up coming and sticking around. Everything ended up being blockaded. It was at that point that the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the borders started.
Suddenly, there was a dramatic turn of events. The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. I am not sure if my colleagues know this, but almost $400 million worth of goods move across the Ambassador Bridge every day. If Ottawa residents have to put up with honking for a month, then that is no big deal. I am not saying that the bridge used for commerce should be left blocked, but I am drawing a parallel between the two.
The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. Thrown into a panic, our poor Prime Minister started saying that this had to stop. That is when the police moved in, without using the Emergencies Act. That is the big difference. We did not need this law.
The same thing could have been done in the City of Ottawa. After it has dragged on for more than 20 days, it is much more difficult to move. We saw it in the last few days. It was predictable. This is a sad situation. It should not have gotten to this point. People have the right to protest, but they need to follow the rules while doing it. People have the right to protest, but they cannot occupy a city for a month. People have the right to go about their lives. This is not right.
Caught in a bind, the Liberals came up with a way to help the government and the Prime Minister save face by invoking this law as a publicity stunt. This is the first time that this has happened since 1988. In fact, this law has never been invoked before. Personally, I am deeply disturbed that it was invoked this time.
Of course, today's law is not the same as the 1970 law. I will not conflate the two. What bothers me a lot is that this sets a precedent. Now whenever a government gets into a political tight spot, it will use this law. What will happen five or 10 years from now, when another government, regardless of its political stripe, wants to use it? That is the question, and that is why we will be voting against it.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
