44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 11:40:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I join the debate today. I feel that we should not have gotten to this place where we are debating whether or not to use the Emergencies Act. I believe so many steps should have been taken before we got to the point where a government can freeze Canadians' bank accounts if they do not believe in its political ideology. It is not with great joy that I stand on my feet today, but it is always an honour to represent the people of Regina—Lewvan. I want to do that because I have had countless phone calls and hundreds of emails on what we are talking about today in the House of Commons.
I have constantly heard from the other side about the threat to democracy in Canada, but over the last three weeks, we have all been in the chamber, day in and day out, doing our jobs. We have been to committee, doing our jobs. Not once have I heard a Liberal member tell us what the threat to democracy is, because we have been here doing our jobs.
Our leader is a member of the Privy Council, and if there were imminent threats, they could have taken her in, briefed her and talked about what those imminent threats were. The only other group that is carrying the same narrative about a threat to democracy is the CBC. I would love to see the proof from my hon. Liberal colleagues about what is and what was the actual threat to democracy.
It seems that everyone on their feet today is trying to litigate the protest outside, which does not exist anymore, or trying to litigate whether the blockades were illegal. They were illegal, but they are over. What we are talking about is a government that never has the ability to look forward. This Monday, we asked the Liberals for a plan to get rid of mandates and restrictions and they voted against that because they did not have a plan to put in place.
When I stand on my feet today, I am not going to litigate the protests, nor whether the blockades were illegal, because they were illegal and they were removed. What I am going to talk about is whether the Emergencies Act, formerly the War Measures Act, is needed going forward. Does the government still need that power? Does the government still need the ability to freeze the bank accounts of people who donated to the “freedom convoy”? Does the government need the ability to freeze the bank accounts of people who have put pro-Donald Trump comments on their Facebook pages? Is that something that we believe as Canadians a government actually needs? Does the NDP believe that this is a power the government needs going forward?
These are the questions that I think everyone in the chamber should ask. The Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act and used it to get rid of the protesters and the trucks on Wellington. They are not there anymore, so the question is, moving forward as Canadians, do we want to give the current Prime Minister these powers?
I have the order in council right here, and it is one of the reasons I could never support this act. The order in council, in item (c)(vi), says:
other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.
Canadians do not want to give more power to the Prime Minister and his cabinet given not only what is in the act, but what is not even known yet about what they might use this power for. When I go back to Regina—Lewvan for door knocking and to talk to constituents, they are going to ask if I voted for this. I am going to be proud to say that I absolutely did not.
There are so many other measures the government could have taken before we got to this point. It was unnecessary. We saw the illegal blockades at Coutts, Emerson and Surrey removed without this act. Going forward, when there are no protests and no trucks on Wellington, why would we ever approve this power? Not one Liberal has explained that to me. I hope that in questions and answers one of them does try to explain, first of all, why they need these powers going forward, and second of all, what the imminent threat to our democracy is. We are here. We are doing our jobs. Why would this power be needed going forward?
I had the experience, as many of my colleagues did, of staying downtown in a hotel and walking here and back over the last three weeks. My family was in town for the weekend. My wife, kids and I walked around and talked to some people who were from Saskatchewan. We had conversations and we never felt threatened.
The member for Whitby talked in his speech about downtown residents of Ottawa feeling terrorized by horn-honking and big trucks. I know one resident of downtown Ottawa who feels terrorized right now and her name is Tammy. She runs a gelato café.
Her bank account was just frozen because she has a big heart and she cares for people. She donated $250 for the truck convoy and now her bank and business accounts are frozen. That is one citizen of Ottawa who is feeling terrorized by not the protesters, but by their own government right now. That is what we are talking about.
Citizens around this country are now feeling traumatized, stigmatized, divided from their government. What would my colleagues across the way have to say to Tammy? Do they think it is fair? She said in an interview that she has a big heart and cares for people, but her bank account was frozen. Do they think she is a domestic terrorist? Is that the type of people that now we are trying to protect other Canadians from? I would ask my friends on the NDP side to think about some of these statements because they are going to have to answer to their constituents as well.
I am from Saskatchewan, home of the CCF, home of Tommy Douglas. I guarantee if Tommy Douglas were in the chamber today, he would not be voting in favour of the Emergencies Act. He is the founder of the NDP. He built the principles that the party is supposed to stand on. I believe his comment was “using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut”. Do the New Democrats still have those same principles? Do they believe in the Civil Liberties Association of Canada that is suing the government now saying this is a step too far, this is unconstitutional?
In going home to our ridings, I believe my colleague and friend from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex was exactly right. This will be remembered throughout history. This speech is something that people will look back on and decide who was on the right side of this. The trucks are gone. The blockades are gone. Now we have to decide whether or not we want to be on that side.
I know my Liberal colleagues thought I was going to be up in arms in a very passionate speech, but it is something that is coming from my heart and from what people are telling me. The member for Winnipeg North is always on his feet and says a lot in the chamber and he is going to have to make a decision on how he is going to vote. I know some of his constituents are asking how he is going to vote on this because some will not want him to and he is ignoring his community.
I have some really good friends, Derek, Ryan and Mike, who drove here to to see what was going on. It is 30 hours from Saskatchewan. We walked around the other night and talked with people and they did not feel threatened. A couple of them started to tear up and these are grown farm kids when they saw what was going on in our country. They said is this what Canada looks like now? Is this the type of Canada we want to leave for our children? Police in riot gear and horses on the street. I remember the 2006 election campaign the Liberals said Stephen Harper was going to have police on the street. Well, the Liberals are actually fulfilling that prophesy. They brought in many armed riot police to make sure that Canadians were dispersed. There was not a lot of violence.
Why is no one talking about the violence that happened at the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, where 20 people with axes attacked police officers, did tens of millions of dollars worth of damage and there was not a peep from the Liberal side. Why is that so different from what is going on here? They tried to light a car on fire with people in it. I am troubled. What is the difference?
One of the things I want to get on the record is that the Liberals did not do the steps to make sure the protesters left before three weeks. They sent the Minister of Indigenous Services to talk to some of the protesters in 2020. They sent the Minister of Northern Affairs to talk to protesters at the Mohawk blockades. Why did not one of the front-benchers talk to the protesters and listen to what they had to say?
I will represent my people well. I will be voting against the Emergencies Act. There is no emergency. There is no threat to our democracy and it is a shame that the government has not pulled this bill.
1644 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:55:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is what this question is about. To have one's own opinion about protesters and blockades, that is fine, but what we are talking about today is the Emergencies Act, and whether it should be used going forward and whether we in this House think the government needs that unbridled power—
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:06:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member was a member of Parliament in 2020, when there were protests across the country that shut down our rail system. This included both passengers and goods moving across the country. There was damage as well. In addition to that, at the time, there were more than a thousand people who were laid off. Even BC Ferries was shut down.
Looking at that, which was a national issue across the entire country that stopped all of our goods and services from moving across the country at the time, did he advocate then to invoke the Emergencies Act?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:07:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in fact, no, I did not look to the Emergencies Act for that particular issue and the challenge that Canadians faced.
However, when we look at this particular challenge, the fact that it is coast to coast to coast and that it is, quite frankly, heavily invested in by American interest groups, we understand that the threat to democracy is imminent, whether it is in Ottawa, Coutts or Windsor. Situations dictate very timely responses.
That is what we are doing, and that is what we are going to continue to do.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:22:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Steveston—Richmond East. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
I really liked his definition of patriotism, and I think it is something we need to consider here. However, he was quick to paint patriots as the good guys, the ones who wanted to adopt the Emergencies Act, and said that the others were not patriots.
I want to know two things. First, does he therefore think that Bloc members are not patriots? Second, does he think that the Emergencies Act was the only solution, despite the problems and illegal activities that were going on?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord.
The Talleyrand quote “all that is excessive is insignificant” could have been said today about the situation we are debating in the House.
Yes, we are in the midst of a crisis, but the federal government chose to enforce an act by proclamation, which would allow the state to infringe on citizens' rights. Although the government could have taken many different paths, it chose to break out the heavy artillery. All that is excessive is insignificant.
The Liberal government claims that the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve this crisis, but in reality, it needs to use this act because it was unable to properly manage the crisis from the outset. This type of act is meant to be used exceptionally, especially if it was designed to apply to Quebec. The War Measures Act may have gotten a new name, but it still brings back bad memories for Quebec.
If I may, I would like to provide a brief history of the introduction and use of the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. The War Measures Act was introduced and came into force in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Its purpose was to give additional powers to the government in the event of a war, invasion or insurrection. The act was used again in 1939 because of the Second World War.
The third time the government invoked this law—we still remember it in Quebec—was during the October crisis in 1970. Immediately following the adoption of an executive order issued during the night at the request of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, the army took to the streets of Montreal in large numbers, striking terror and fear in the hearts of all Quebeckers. That was when their rights and freedoms were trampled on. In total, 497 Quebeckers were arrested and thrown in jail without reasonable cause or recourse. It happened before I was born, but the people have certainly not forgotten: “Je me souviens”.
In 1988, the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The new act changed the way the federal government can use extraordinary powers in times of crisis. Since it was passed, the government has never invoked it, so why now?
To answer that question, let us look closely at the present situation and the invocation criteria for this act. To have the right to invoke the act, the government must prove two things: first, that a dangerous and urgent situation exists; second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation with any other existing law.
First, is the current situation dangerous and urgent? The government does not meet this requirement for the unilateral application of the act. Allow me to demonstrate. On January 15, 2020, proof of vaccination against COVID‑19 became mandatory to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Two weeks later, on January 29, a truckers' movement opposed to this measure decided to gather and protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. So far, it all seems reasonable, because the right to protest and freedom of expression are guaranteed by both the Quebec and the Canadian charters of rights and freedoms.
The protest that was supposed to last a few days at the most turned into an occupation of the downtown area. At that point, the government should have dealt with the situation. Instead of taking action, the government washed its hands of it, claiming that crisis management was the Ottawa police's responsibility. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and the next day, on February 7, the Ottawa police force requested assistance from the federal and Ontario provincial governments. On February 11, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency, granting additional resources and powers to law enforcement services. The federal government continued doing nothing, except to polarize the public with inflammatory statements.
Let us keep in mind that in addition to the Ottawa siege, border blockades were set up in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, in such places as Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia.
However, these situations were resolved through existing laws. The same was obviously true for the protests in Quebec City.
As to whether this was an urgent and critical situation, if the situation was cause for concern, that was only true in Ontario, specifically in Ottawa, and nowhere else, especially not in Quebec. The Emergencies Act was to be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner, as the government had announced. That is clearly not the case.
The Liberal government's lack of leadership caused to the situation to deteriorate. Each day of inaction strengthened the protesters' position. Each day required more effort to enforce the law and each day the Prime Minister refused to take action, choosing to throw fuel on the fire with disparaging statements. As a result, the offenders were allowed to organize. They were allowed to set up tents, toilets, kitchens, cafeterias, a stage and barbecues. They even let them install a hot tub. A hot tub impeded the smooth functioning of democracy in a G7 nation.
By allowing the situation to fester, the Prime Minister gave the protesters time—time to fortify their position, time for radicals to get from one coast to the other or to cross the border, and time for foreign elements seeking to destabilize democracy in Quebec and Canada to raise funds in support of the offenders. Had action been taken earlier, we would not be here in Ottawa on a Sunday. We would be home with our constituents, which is where we should be.
Invoking the Emergencies Act is a massive smokescreen, a diversion to trick Quebeckers and Canadians into looking elsewhere so they will forget how things got to this point. It is unnecessary, dangerous and disproportionate. To be clear, the January 29 protest no longer has anything to do with the die-hards who decided to place the House under siege. Those who continue to resist, if any, are extremists who should have been contained by law enforcement long ago.
Now let us turn to the second criterion for invoking the Emergencies Act. The situation must be such that ordinary laws cannot address it.
Could the crisis have been addressed with existing laws? The answer is yes.
These protesters had been breaking the law for weeks. All the police had to do was enforce the laws already in place, and the whole thing would have been over in two days. The government had plenty of options. The Criminal Code is full of offences that were committed by the protesters.
Subsection 63(1) talks about “unlawful assembly”; section 64 defines the term “riot”; section 68 deals with people who fail to peaceably disperse and depart from a riot; section 430 talks about “mischief”; subsection 181(1) describes “common nuisance”; subsection 423.1(1) talks about the intimidation of a journalist; and section 129 talks about the obstruction of public officers or peace officers.
Some police authorities claimed recently that the only solution was the integration of the various police forces involved. However, there is no need for the Emergencies Act to request reinforcements and coordinate efforts. The RCMP, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the OPP, municipal police forces from neighbouring cities and even the Sûreté du Québec were already working together, and this legislation was not required.
As for the claim that the occupation could not be dealt with using ordinary legislation, as I have demonstrated to the House, the Criminal Code was already more than adequate to deal with the threat.
The government decided to use legislation by proclamation, in other words without consulting the opposition parties or allowing the smallest amendment. By ignoring those who were elected by the majority of the voters, this minority government is undermining its legitimacy and proving its detractors right. The Prime Minister decided to ignore the verdict of the voters, who gave him a minority mandate. He is acting as though he was granted all the power. That is not what the voters chose.
The government could use the act in specific locations, when the provinces request it. Quebec made it clear to the federal government that it wanted absolutely nothing to do with its emergency measures. Several Canadian provinces did the same. Rather than consult the provinces and Quebec, the Liberal government chose to impose an act that applies across Canada.
This law therefore cannot be limited. It is foreign to the reality of Quebec. It should not apply to Quebec.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:35:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to the Emergencies Act, the interim chief of the Ottawa police said that it is because of the application of this legislation—which we hope will be temporary—that the police were able to take the various actions they did in the past few days.
What does my colleague think of this statement? Is what the interim chief of police is saying true?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:36:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, which allows me to repeat something I said.
Yes, integrating the various police forces was probably necessary, but the Emergencies Act was not needed in order for the various police forces to work together and coordinate. This means that the law is unnecessary.
56 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Terrebonne very eloquently expressed the reasons why the threshold has not been satisfied under the Emergencies Act. What we have instead is an unprecedented overreach on the part of the government that threatens the foundations of democracy. As the member pointed out, the blockades along the Canada-U.S. border were dispersed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The protesters here in Ottawa have been dispersed, and yet here we are debating the Emergencies Act.
Would the member agree that the motivations behind this on the part of the government are in fact quite sinister and that it is not about what was happening here in Ottawa or what was happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it is about crushing those who disagree with them?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:37:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I agree that this is a huge smokescreen. As I said in my speech, there was no need for this legislation.
Given its minority status, the government does not have the democratic legitimacy to impose such a far-reaching measure. The Emergencies Act cannot legitimately be applied because it does not meet the two criteria necessary to invoke it.
As representatives of the Quebec nation, we in the Bloc Québécois have the legitimacy to oppose it.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I need to clarify something. The Emergencies Act was assented to on July 21, 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act. I would agree that there are important, not to say fundamental, differences between them. However, both acts set out the manner in which we wish to articulate our interventions and responses to the worst situations, namely a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. There is nothing ordinary or trivial about this act. It is the heavy artillery of legislation. It must only be invoked sparingly and with the utmost prudence.
Today, we must decide if using this act in the current situation is appropriate. Are we in a state of emergency? If the answer is yes, does the seriousness of the situation justify invoking the Emergencies Act? If so, as provided for in subsection 17(2), what area is affected by this state of emergency?
Subsection 17(1) of the act provides for the Governor in Council to declare a state of emergency after holding consultations under section 25. Pursuant to section 25, this means that “the lieutenant governor in council of each province...shall be consulted”. This exercise should usually make it possible to determine, with a modicum of reliability, if a situation exists in a province that requires us to invoke the Emergencies Act.
In the interest of being thorough, subsection 58(1) provides that the report on the consultations must be provided with the motion for confirmation of the potential proclamation. The Governor in Council's proclamation, dated February 15, 2022, states that the consultation under subsection 25(1) did take place, and it “declare[s] that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures”.
What does that mean, exactly? Like all the other members of the Bloc Québécois caucus, I think that ratifying this proclamation at this point in time would be a grave error that could have worse consequences than the situation it seeks to address. Even setting aside the fact that no end date is given for the allegedly temporary proposed measures, there are plainly at least two big issues with the proclamation. First of all, and this is no small matter, it is clear that there is no state of emergency as defined in the act, which I think nullifies any argument for authorizing the proclamation under section 17(1). The definition of a public order emergency is set out in section 16 of the act and requires “a national emergency”. This national emergency is itself defined in section 3 of the act, which states that the situation must be such that it “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It also states that the situation must “exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”.
However, the protests and the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada have all been dealt with. The blockades have been removed and the offenders punished without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act. The existing laws and provincial and municipal powers to intervene were clearly sufficient. Moreover, the majority of premiers consulted by the Prime Minister confirmed that they did not need this act and made it clear that they were opposed to using it. In fact, of the 13 premiers consulted, only three said they supported invoking the act. How then can anyone seriously argue that the whole country is in a state of emergency?
The Premier of Quebec even said as much to the Prime Minister. Page 5 of the report attached to the proclamation says that “municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation”. It then says that “the use of the Act would be divisive”.
The least we can conclude from that is that the national emergency, which the act states is a condition for declaring a public order emergency, simply does not exist.
Furthermore, in the worst-case scenario, the report on the consultation with the provinces under in subsection 25(1) of the act would only justify the declaration of a public order emergency in the three provinces that were affected and that supported the declaration, namely Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia.
The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec all said that they had the situation under control and did not support the invocation of this act.
Unless the government has no regard for these premiers, it certainly cannot claim that there is a national emergency in these seven provinces as required by the act.
As for the premiers of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the report merely states that they have not issued public statements. It would be pretty difficult to interpret that silence as a call for help or as approval to invoke the Emergencies Act.
As for Quebec, I will simply read the quote from the report on the consultations regarding the proclamation. It takes up just three short lines in an eight-page document:
The Premier of Quebec said that he opposed the application of the Emergencies Act in Quebec, stating that municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation, and arguing that the use of the Act would be divisive.
Under subsection 17(2) of the Act, the emergency, if it existed, was in only three provinces, so the proclamation should have stated that there was a situation in the provinces of Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia, rather than indicating that a state of emergency exists throughout the country, as appears in the third paragraph of the declaration.
The government's claim that the lieutenant governor in council of each province and the commissioners of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut had been consulted and that it had therefore concluded that a state of emergency exists throughout the country inevitably suggests either a serious lack of judgment or equally serious wilful blindness. As the Premier of Quebec rightly said, this is not an inconsequential mistake, but a potentially divisive act. Do we really need this?
Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. This kind of law constitutes a serious argument to convince anyone that the Government of Canada has the power to control its territory. Invoking it on a whim anytime an unexpected situation causes headaches and creates major policing challenges actually weakens its impact. The most powerful weapons should be used only as a last resort. They tend to be more effective as a deterrent than when they are put to use.
Let us be clear. The situation that has been happening on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks is unacceptable in a democracy and should never have been tolerated this long. In a democracy, the right to express disapproval of our leaders' decisions and the right to assemble are sacred.
However, we must bear in mind that each individual's rights end where another's begin. Abuse of those rights is a violation that can and actually should always be punished. Have we reached the point of bringing out the heavy artillery? I do not think so. It might happen one day. We cannot rule it out. As I see it, this act should be delayed for as long as possible and be used as rarely as possible—ideally, never.
In conclusion, the invocation of the Emergencies Act at this point could be seen as a clumsy or perhaps desperate move on the part of a beleaguered Prime Minister trying to make it look like he took action to deal with a situation that is unacceptable in a democracy. Either way, it is a serious, dangerous move whose consequences will not be fully understood for years.
It is therefore my intention and that of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus to vote against the confirmation motion, and I urge my 306 colleagues, be they NDP, Conservative, Green, Liberal or independent, who also care about democracy and the rights we enjoy because of it, to reject this motion.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:53:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I completely agree with her. The situation has been resolved, as I said in my speech.
It is a difficult situation, we agree. It is unacceptable. People cannot block off streets like that. If there had been a fire or if someone had fallen ill on Wellington Street, it would have been impossible for an ambulance or the fire department to get there. I agree that this is unacceptable.
That said, the situation was resolved through the police. It was almost nice to see the various police forces supporting each other. That is how the situation was settled.
The Emergencies Act needs to be kept for real emergency measures, otherwise we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. It is much like the story of Peter and the wolf. We cry wolf when there is no wolf. At some point, there will be a wolf, but our cries will not be heard.
I am urging us to show restraint. The Emergencies Act should be invoked when there are emergency measures to be taken. If there are other ways to deal with a situation, we should use them. If the act is to be invoked, it should be done sparingly and judiciously, selecting the places where it applies. It was only three provinces, not the ten provinces and three territories, that asked for it.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:55:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I also appreciate very much.
I could not agree more with her. I looked at the protesters flying American flags, Canadian flags, Quebec flags and so on. It is easy to conflate all the causes and make comparisons to anti-Semitism. However, we are really far from that. If we were in a situation like the one Poland and Germany experienced in the dark years we would prefer to forget but can never forget, the Emergencies Act would obviously be called for. However, we are not there.
Conflating situations like this is dangerous. First, it does a disservice to the memory of victims of the Holocaust. Second, it undermines the sound, informed and intelligent management of situations here at home.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe that all of us have to first look at ourselves in this chamber with respect to our rhetoric and the words we use. I agree that we all have a role to play in turning down the temperature in our country, making sure we avoid divisive language as much as possible and coming together as Canadians.
I can tell the member that I have also heard from many in my constituency who were deeply hurt by the protests that took place on the Ambassador Bridge, the thousands of jobs lost, the workers who were sent home and the businesses that were brought to their knees. The Emergencies Act we are bringing forward here will help to make sure that never happens again on our Ambassador Bridge.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:08:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
His account of what happened to his family is unfortunately similar to what I have been told, and what my aunt and family friends have told me, about October 1970, and I totally understand the horror he must have experienced back then.
What is happening now is not about the army, it is about protesters. I kept reading and rereading, and I wondered what powers the police did not have before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Were they unable to issue fines? Were they unable to co-operate? Were they unable to enforce a court order? What powers did they not have that were suddenly given to them?
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:10:15 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, many Canadians are struggling to get beyond the party politics, because it is mainly party politics that are being debated throughout this House. It is in part due to the effectiveness of the extremist ideologies that have infiltrated their minds, causing them to fear the Emergencies Act. Can the member explain to Canadians how their civil liberties are not being violated in this Emergencies Act and why they do not need to fear it?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for that key question we should be asking ourselves. I reiterate that the Emergencies Act is fundamentally subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These measures are targeted. The time is limited as well. There is a 30-day sunset clause. At any time, Parliament can vote to reduce the timing of it. There is also a joint oversight committee that has to be struck, which oversees the enactment and operation of the Emergencies Act. There are many safeguards in place to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is the fundamental question we are debating here today.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:12:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although it is an honour today to rise in the House of Commons to discuss and debate imposing the Emergencies Act, I do so with a heavy heart. I am fiercely proud to be Canadian. I love our country and everything about it. That is why I am here today. It is a big part of why I ran and had the courage to put my name on a ballot, and that is why I must use my voice today as we take these historic measures. Undeniably, this is one of the most important debates that we will have in the House.
The debate is about a solution to a very big problem. It is a problem that we have seen exceed the ability of the Ottawa police force and other police forces across the country to address on their own. It is multifaceted, it is menacing and it is an attack on our democracy. The protesters here in Ottawa just outside this building, the seat of our federal government, stated that their goal was to take down the government: to overthrow this democratically elected government. This certainly raises alarm bells in my head.
As we know, on Friday, all parties agreed to cancel the debate in the House on the Emergencies Act because of the emergency that was happening just outside this building. It was not considered safe for us to come to this building to debate the Emergencies Act. Let us all pause on that. I would say that when the elected representatives of this country are unable to safely debate in the House, it is an emergency of national significance.
I have received many emails, phone calls and messages from residents in my riding of Kanata—Carleton about these measures. I have been actively participating in and listening to this lengthy debate, and I would like to use my time today to share my view and to provide answers to the questions that many people seem to still have. I would also like to clarify that it is my job to represent the residents of Kanata—Carleton to the best of my abilities. This is not about partisan politics, and it does not matter what stripe of politics I believe in. It matters that I rise and represent the will of my residents. That is exactly what I am here to do today.
Why did we invoke the Emergencies Act? Canada is a rule-of-law country. By declaring a public order emergency under the act, we followed the law and we are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act for a public order emergency to be declared, and these conditions have been met. Everyone in this chamber knows that the situation, particularly here in Ottawa, grew in intensity and in level of threat over the past 25 days. The threats at our land borders have mostly been managed to date, but with the benefit of planning and experience. The financing of the illegal occupation here in Ottawa has, as has now been exposed, required additional legislative powers to end it. The Ottawa Police Service acknowledged days ago it did not have the capacity to deal with this situation as it evolved over the last—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
554 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:16:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to note that no level of government can direct a police force. We do not, nor should we, have these powers. The failure of the Ottawa Police Service to shut down this occupation quickly at the beginning will, I am sure, be the subject of further analysis, but that is not the debate today.
The Emergencies Act was enacted due to the inability of provincial and municipal law enforcement to peacefully enforce the rule of law to address the blockades and occupation, to keep Canadians safe, to protect people’s jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. I fear many Canadians do not understand that the Emergencies Act is, indeed, different from the War Measures Act. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still in place, of course, while the Emergencies Act is in force. Civil liberties are not suspended, nor is the charter set aside.
If the above rationale is not sufficient, then I point members to the proclamation declaring the public order emergency with further rationale. That includes the continuing blockades occurring at various locations throughout Canada and continuing threats to oppose measures to remove blockades, including by force, for the purpose of achieving political or ideological objectives; the adverse impact on the Canadian economy from the impacts of the blockades, and on Canada’s relationships with its trading partners, including the United States; the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods, services and resources caused by the blockades, and the risk that this could continue; and the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence, with further threats to our safety and security as Canadians.
What does this actually mean? What does invoking the Emergencies Act actually do? Canadian governments at all levels have given the protesters a lot of leeway. Governments have allowed this protest to proceed despite a number of laws being broken. The protesters were allowed to make their point. We understand and continue to hear their concerns, and they have been debated at length in the House of Commons.
Some other levels of government have even met protesters' demands and have begun repealing some COVID-19 measures, yet in the words of the protest organizers themselves, these concessions are insufficient. Anything short of overthrowing this democratically elected government is insufficient. At some point, protesters need to abide by the rules of democracy, just as the rest of us do.
A democratically elected government, meaning us, may invoke duly-enacted emergency laws that are reviewable by the courts, subject to compliance with the charter, that are proportionate to civil disturbance and that are limited in scope. That is what has happened here. Any action taken under the Emergencies Act must be accountable to Parliament, to the courts and to the imminent public inquiry on the use of the Emergencies Act. There is no better example of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act than what has transpired over the past 48 hours just outside these doors.
We heard directly from interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell that the additional tools he had at his disposal because of this action the government took to invoke the Emergencies Act enabled his force, with the support of the RCMP, OPP and other police forces from across the country, to lawfully dismantle the siege that crippled our downtown for far too long.
I would like to review the measures that have been brought forward under the public order emergency very quickly. The first is regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to the breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest. The second is designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. The third is directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades. This is critical. This enabled us to compel tow truck drivers to engage and provide the services that we needed to clear this blockade.
The fourth is authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades. The fifth covers measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, and the sixth is the imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of the order.
My hope is that we have seen invoking the Emergencies Act achieve two things. First, it gave the police forces the tools they needed to be able to end the occupation. Second, it enabled us to address the financial aspects of the protesters. We cannot let the international reputation of Canada be tarnished by letting our capital city fall because of this occupation.
Colleagues on all sides of the House, let us find a way to govern together. We all have the best interests of Canadians at heart. Let us learn from this, both from our mistakes and our successes. The safety of Canadians and our democracy cannot be a partisan issue.
816 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:23:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the lack of a question. I am happy to speak to his comment.
My point is we are all here with Canadians' best interests at heart. That is why we should be here. It is our job to govern with their best interests at heart. I believe this should not be a partisan issue. This should be about the safety and security of Canadians. I believe that is what we are trying to achieve. We are invoking the Emergencies Act to protect the safety and security of Canadians across the country from the impact of these blockades and the occupation on our businesses, on our international reputation and importantly on the threat to our democracy, which they have stated is an objective.
With respect, I do believe we should all be able to come to together to support this.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
