44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 3:26:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate we are having on the Emergencies Act is the most important and significant debate Parliament will have in a generation. Canadians are watching what we do. I have never received more emails and phone calls from my constituents since I have been elected. The vote on such unprecedented powers should not be taken lightly by any member of the House. This is not just another vote on another bill. It is setting a precedent in the House of Commons the people of this nation will judge for generations to come. This is not a vote that will impact a few Canadians. It is a decision that will impact the lives of every single Canadian from coast to coast to coast.
I want to begin by discussing how we got here, before I tell the House why I believe the use of the Emergencies Act is not warranted in this situation. The Prime Minister is responsible for this mess. He pushed Canadians to the breaking point. He stripped them of their dignity. He deprived them of their livelihoods. He made absolutely no attempt to unite this country or heal divisions. He pitted friends against friends, neighbours against neighbours and kids against parents. While other world leaders encouraged and supported their citizens to get vaccinated, the Prime Minister pressured, insulted and demonized ours. Our Prime Minister is not a leader, and history will show that he is not fit to lead our nation.
When faced with a growing crisis, he made no attempt to resolve the problem, and now the Prime Minister is trying to cover up his own inaction with a dramatic political performance. I should remind members of the House that the Prime Minister was not confined to two options in addressing the state of affairs we face today. This was not a binary choice between choosing not to do anything and choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has decided to go from zero to 100 without attempting to solve the problem.
Parliamentarians have been urging the Prime Minister to resolve the situation at hand. Last week, Conservatives put forward a reasonable solution to resolve it. We introduced a motion calling on the government to present a plan on when Canadians could regain control of their lives. Canadians saw a glimmer of hope, but the government voted against the plan for them. The Liberals could have de-escalated the situation, but they chose not to for their own political gain. The government never attempted to de-escalate the situation. We should not have ever gotten to this point.
The question we are debating today is not whether the blockades should come down. We should not tolerate blockades on any occasion. They are illegal and must be removed. I thank law enforcement for doing its job on that front. The question we are debating today is whether the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used before in our nation's history, is an appropriate and justified response to the situation our nation is facing. When I read the criteria for implementing the Emergencies Act, it is clear that the extreme use of this government power is not only excessive for the situation at hand, but also an infringement on some of our very basic freedoms.
The House must ask itself what constitutes a national emergency to give the government such extreme and excessive powers. Section 2 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as meeting one of two criteria. Does it “seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians”, and is it “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”?
Let us examine section 2(a). Does the situation we are encountering exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? The answer is no. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all publicly opposed the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act, and the illegal blockades at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba and the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario have all been resolved with the tools and resources available to those provinces.
The Emergencies Act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that existing laws cannot address.
The government has failed to provide any evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act. There is a stark difference between inaction and not having the ability to act. Parliament has clearly heard that the government could have used existing legislation to address the situation, but failed to do so. Now the government faces court challenges from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation for failing to meet the threshold defined in the act.
Let us examine section 2(b). Does this “seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”? Does the situation we are encountering threaten the sovereignty of our nation? Again, the answer is no. Our sovereignty is not in question.
Do members of the House believe that semi trucks on Parliament Hill threaten our territorial integrity? The government has provided zero evidence to support such an extreme assumption, and now there are more questions than there are answers.
Suppose a grandmother donated $20 to feed local truckers four weeks ago. Will she be treated as someone who funded a terrorism activity, and be barred from using her bank account? Suppose a Canadian walks down to the main street in their local community to peacefully voice their concerns with their government. Will they be arrested and criminally charged for peacefully protesting?
We have faced many crises in my lifetime: the Oka crisis, the aftermath of 9/11, the Parliament Hill shooting, deadly wildfires, historic floods, the pandemic and many blockades, just to name a few. Not once have such powers been needed to address these problems. Invoking such extreme measures without meeting the high threshold outlined in the act is setting a dangerous precedent of government overreach. Who are we as a nation if we normalize the use of emergency powers? I encourage all the members of the House not to dilute the magnitude of the decision on this vote.
To my NDP colleagues, who I hear plan to support the Prime Minister in this excessive power grab, I want to remind them of the words of their former leader, Tommy Douglas, who famously took a principled stand and opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. He stood in this same democratic chamber and stated:
The fact is, and this is very clear, that the government has panicked and is now putting on a dramatic performance to cover up its own ineptitude.
Those words could not be truer today. This is nothing more than a dramatic performance to cover up the Liberals' own ineptitude. I also want to remind my NDP colleagues that disagreeing with the demonstrations and disagreeing with the Emergencies Act are not mutually exclusive. They can do both.
We have a decision to make. Will we stand up for the freedoms of Canadians, or will we hand over the unprecedented reins of power to a Prime Minister who has shown no respect for our democratic institutions? The Prime Minister thinks he is leaving behind a legacy, when he is really leaving behind a scar that will take years to heal.
I will be voting against the Emergencies Act, and I encourage every other member in the House to do the same as well.
1281 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:35:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his acknowledgement of the illegality of the blockades. I know that he referenced the steps undertaken by the government. I am wondering if he had a chance to read the “Report to the Houses of Parliament: Emergencies Act Consultations”. It is an eight-page report that was tabled. It outlines all of the measures undertaken by the government, including the Prime Minister and a number of ministers who were involved with this.
Could he comment on why he feels that this is inadequate? This does really outline the urgent manner in which this issue has been addressed throughout the government since the beginning.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:36:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last couple of days, I know my office has been receiving literally thousands of emails. I suspect that colleagues across all parties are receiving the emails, particularly as they relate to the Emergencies Act and the concern that Canadians are now waking up to as they start to better understand just the expansive overreach of the state into their lives. I just wonder if the member can comment on that.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:39:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is dark days for our country. I am here before members, despondent, with some serious questions about the motion before us. History will look back on the debate today as a black mark on the leadership of the Prime Minister, of the government and of all those who lend their support to this gross overreach.
All members of the House have watched the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and the key border crossings across the country with great concern. Every single member of the House has done that no matter what people hear from those who have convinced themselves otherwise. However, never has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has always been there but never used. In challenging times and in times of true crisis, it has always been there, but it was never used because it was viewed as a last resort and not a first resort. The motion before us today asks members to approve an act that gives the federal government enhanced powers.
As its questionable justification is being discussed in this House for the first time, Canadians are watching. Much of this debate has been mired in the hyperbole of members opposite tripping over one another to claim that any member of this House encouraged the lawlessness that they, themselves, stoked. The idea that any member of the House would support the vile elements of this protest is wrong and members of the House know it. There is no precedent for this. Instead, we are making a precedent. The points we make, the evidence we present and the tone we use will be judged by those who will look back on these dark days to ask, “How did we get here?”
Everyone has a right to peacefully protest any government policy. This is a fundamental freedom in our democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by the elected government of the day. While these protests are a fundamental part of Canadian democracy, so too is the rule of law. The blockades that incapacitate our critical infrastructure, including our rail lines, our pipelines, our bridges and our urban downtown areas, are illegal. We cannot and should not arbitrarily decide to apply the rule of law to some situations and not others, like we are doing today, because that is not how we build precedent.
I do not think for a moment the threshold has been met to apply the Emergencies Act. This debate has failed to make that threshold known. There is no question that some in these protests and their views are alarming. They have been categorically denounced by every member of the House.
Let us be clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is a racist, a misogynist or a woman-hating terrorist trying to overthrow a government. Hearing members of the House suggest they are is the ugliest of politics, something Canadians have come to distrust and reject.
Some of those outside are frustrated by the government’s inability to manage a pandemic two years in without relying on tired talking points and ancient solutions that fail to hear the outcry of those disproportionally hurt by the government’s addiction to lockdowns, restrictions and mandates as the only policy response.
We hear the other side talking about the economic activity jeopardized by these blockades as the primary reason for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. While I will never disagree that our economy is fundamental to the function of our nation, I will remind these very members that for two years few of them raised questions about the economic activity in this country lost due to the heavy-handed COVID restrictions and mandates that have come to be the cornerstone of the Canadian policy response.
There have been terrorist attacks, economic collapses, national protest movements and a pandemic. Every single one of these situations were dealt with using existing laws and existing democratic processes, and at times, when absolutely necessary, municipal and provincial emergency powers.
Let me remind Canadians that there have also been national protest movements that have occupied city streets and parks for months and blockaded critical infrastructure like railways where essential democratic activity, economic activity, had been disrupted or stopped entirely. These have all been responded to within the context of existing laws, every single one of them.
Not only is it not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act to address them, but it is frustrating to watch members of the government take credit for things that were resolved outside of the powers of this act. Two of the most serious incidents, the blockading of the Ambassador Bridge and the RCMP arrests in Alberta, were both accomplished without the need to invoke the legislation. A national emergency has a high bar for the very reason that it must actually be a national emergency. The answer to lawlessness cannot and should not be a greater level of lawlessness.
The government is asking members of the House to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking other laws, and we are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see our very democracy undermined. These powers allow the government to freeze Canadians' assets with no recourse. The 76 bank accounts so far is 76 bank accounts too many. We have seen some very troubling scenes outside of this place over the last couple of days and hearing few mention it shows Canadians that this is still an insular talking club of those who show little regard for the people who do not share their views.
Less than one week ago, the Prime Minister, after 18 days of doing absolutely nothing about the situation in Ottawa, convened the cabinet on Sunday, told his caucus, informed premiers on Monday and, by press conference, later that day informed Canadians that the Emergencies Act was needed to do the very thing by last resort he failed to do by first resort.
It took days for the Prime Minister to address the House. There were no briefings, no intelligence, no committees struck and if there were evidence pointing to some serious issue of public safety, should members not have been told? If we were all under siege by terrorists waiting to breach the gate of Parliament Hill, would it not be the government's responsibility to tell members of the House not to cross the street right through the protests every day?
The story has changed more times than Canadians can keep up with today and the government's justification in the House was a calculated solution to its own political peril. The Prime Minister's vague claims that whatever he does with these currently unchecked powers will be targeted and time-limited simply is not backed up by the formal text or members of his own caucus. Nor did the text contain any detail on what he planned to do. All he was saying was “trust me”. Forgive me, he has given Canadians absolutely no reason to trust him.
At the beginning of this pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without oversight of Parliament. They said “trust me”. The government has given itself the power to freeze the assets and finances of people involved in political protests, people who disagree with the government's COVID policy, without the courts' oversight and with no recourse available to those targeted. We cannot treat this as a foregone conclusion because we have an NDP that cannot and will not stand up for protests, for scrutiny or have any courage on this one.
If we wanted to pretend that this was not about politics, the information would have been shared immediately. Otherwise, the only conclusion of any of this is that this is all politics.
The House must approach every decision with caution. The consequences for individuals are too great if we decide to approve the use of this act, and the precedent that will be set is too great to shrug off the legitimate questions and concerns that I think are valid in this discussion. We are setting a very dangerous precedent and it would be a shame if members of the House decide to invoke a never before used disproportional act, when there are very clearly other actions the government could have taken.
We should be cautious about normalizing the use of a blunt instrument in this circumstance. If we consider using the Emergencies Act every time there is a protest that lasts a certain number of days, we have much bigger problems in our democracy. The threshold has not been met and we cannot leave the decision to politics over the real scrutiny that is required. It will be a dark chapter in our history when members of the House choose political expediency over the rights of individuals.
I implore my colleagues, those with a voice, to vote against this motion, because I certainly will.
1510 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:48:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. First of all, would the member acknowledge that the Emergencies Act brought in place by a Conservative government is subject to the charter? The charter still reigns supreme. Would she acknowledge that?
Second, how does she feel about the fact that the Conservative Party is now on the opposite side of this issue, not just with respect to where the government sits but also the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ottawa police chief and the Conservative Premier of Ontario? All of these three have supported the government putting in place the Emergencies Act. How does she feel about those two things?
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:50:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she very eloquently explained all the reasons for which this legislation was not necessary.
Does my hon. colleague agree that, even if it was necessary to use the Emergencies Act in downtown Ottawa, the law could and should have been limited to this city instead of being enforced across Canada?
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:14:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was in the House yesterday when that member yelled across the floor to a colleague of mine from B.C. in the official opposition, asking them something to the effect of how they would feel if something like this was happening in their community.
I just want to remind the member that last year a huge portion of B.C., my riding and neighbouring ridings in particular, had extensive fires, floods, mudslides, lives lost, houses burnt, substantial infrastructure destroyed and livelihoods destroyed. The member talked about having to go through some checkpoints to get to his office; in British Columbia, for many days and weeks, many members of Parliament could not get around their constituencies and could not even get to the airport to come to Ottawa. It just shows a disconnect with what is happening across the rest of the country.
The member is in the government and knows the serious crisis that we had. Just as a reflection, the act defines an emergency as a situation that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians”. Based on that, was this member involved last summer, due to the serious situations happening in British Columbia, and did he advocate invoking the Emergencies Act at that time, or is he only considering—
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:17:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is right. He and I had the opportunity to work on very important charter-related issues when we were banning the practice of carding in the province of Ontario. The member was a city councillor then, and he and I worked together on that particular aspect.
The essence of the Emergencies Act is to ensure that charter rights are protected. That is very much the intention and motivation behind it. It states so within the legislation itself. We also have to remember that the charter rights come with reasonable limits. There are reasonable limits that allow for charter rights. For example, as long as a protest is a peaceful and lawful expression of ideas, that is within the charter rights, but if it becomes not peaceful or becomes unlawful, then there is recourse available to ensure that the protest or, in this instance, an occupation almost four weeks long, a total siege, can be put to an end.
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:19:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Does he believe that Canada's current laws and the provinces' current resources and powers are so insufficient as to warrant federal intervention when a protest takes place or streets get blocked? If so, should we expect the Emergencies Act to be invoked every time there is a protest on Wellington Street in Ottawa?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what we have to remember in this instance is that for over three weeks, we were not able to put an end to the occupation. It continued on. Different tactics were used, with the application of existing law being present, but our law enforcement agencies were not able to end this occupation.
Through the provision of powers, some of which I articulated, and their application, law enforcement was able to end the occupation. We heard that from our local interim police chief in Ottawa. These powers that were given to him through the Emergencies Act gave him sufficient tools to end the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:21:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his speech.
I certainly appreciated his analysis of the events based on his experience and his perspective as a lawyer and former attorney general of Ontario.
I would actually like to ask my colleague to tell us, based on that perspective, what test needs to be met to make the Emergencies Act necessary.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for some good points. I disagree with some of them, but he is debating in a strong parliamentary fashion.
I disagree with some of the things he said. As mentioned, under the Emergencies Act, the key test is whether or not existing laws in Canada can solve the problems we face. In the case of Ottawa, and I have been in and out of the city since the truckers' protest began, the actions we saw in the last couple of days were a reflection not so much of the fact that we needed the Emergencies Act, but that the Ottawa police had finally started to act. At the very beginning, we could have avoided some of the challenges that we have today if the Ottawa police had taken a different approach from the onset.
The member opposite is the former attorney general of Ontario. There have been many cases in Ontario where a large police presence was required, such as the G20 summit a number of years ago. It had a huge police presence and was able to contain a large crowd.
I still have not received enough evidence from the government to determine that no other existing laws could have effectively dealt with the current situation.
216 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:24:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that politicians cannot dictate to law enforcement how to apply the law. We have to rely on law enforcement to do the work.
We have heard from our interim police chief that the Emergencies Act allowed him to do the important work he has done, with the help of many other police services, including the RCMP and the OPP, to put an end to this illegal occupation here in Ottawa.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:35:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act allows the government powers without judicial oversight. That is what is going to happen. The Emergencies Act removes judicial oversight regarding the freezing of bank accounts.
Earlier today, members on the Liberal side mentioned 73 bank accounts have been frozen. Andreas Park, a finance professor at the University of Toronto, expressed alarm at the scope of the government's financial measures. He says, “It doesn't just raise eyeballs, it makes your head explode.” He believes that Canadians have a “fundamental right to participate in the economy”.
What the member supports is that without judicial oversight, the government can order financial institutions to freeze bank accounts. Does she think that is right? How will charter rights be protected if there is no recourse? Will people have to go to their financial institution? Do they have to go to court?
There are also civil liabilities. The banks are protected when they do this, so if they do it in error to someone, how will a person have recourse during this so-called emergency the government is claiming?
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:36:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to stay on the topic of the financial measures.
I was reading the order and its requirements. It talks about financial monitoring and accounts getting frozen. All of that is already part of the existing Criminal Code, but what about cryptocurrency?
If that is the only element that is not in the Criminal Code, was it really worth proceeding with the Emergencies Act, instead of quickly passing a bill to include cryptocurrency as personal property that can be seized in the event of illegal transactions, as the member said?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:38:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is very much incumbent on the government to explain to Canadians on an ongoing basis the justification for the Emergencies Act. I agree that a situation exists that requires its invocation now, but in her mind, what conditions would need to exist to convince her that the Emergencies Act is no longer necessary? I think Canadians really need to have that kind of an explanation because they are quite concerned with it being invoked.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:39:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act that is being invoked now has a sunset clause of 30 days. Not only that, but members in the House can revoke it at any time. Those are the powers within the House. On a consensus basis and a majority basis, we can continue to debate and continue to keep ourselves apprised of the fluid situation to ensure that everything we are doing is within the limits. In fact, as the Prime Minister has said, none of this applies to the whole country. All of the measures taken will be very targeted to the issues that we are facing currently, and as those issues are resolved, we will be bringing this issue back to the House.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:40:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the clash of words and social media clickbait we are witnessing around this conflict, I feel it necessary to remind the House and Canadians that we are taking part in this critical debate as people, speaking from our individual vantage points. It is the same for all who comment, who analyze, who interpret and who express their opinions. We are all just people.
We are here today to deal in facts and to debate the unprecedented use of a tool of government to deal with a crisis. The Emergencies Act authorizes the taking of special, temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies. With its inception, it created more limited and specific powers for the federal government to deal with security emergencies of five different types: national emergencies, public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies.
To demonstrate my support for deployment of the act, I am going to share facts from my vantage point, which, as I also hope to demonstrate, comes from a place of love and deep respect for this country.
I have formally trained in critical studies and education. I have had the privilege of studying the lenses of oppression in our society from a white gaze. I am going to recommend that all who identify as the same check that privilege when having this discussion. While we are talking about privilege, as a scholar of Canadian and international military history, we must also check our privilege as citizens in a democracy and in an ever-progressing judicial system designed to protect our individual freedoms. We represent less than 0.5% of the total world population and have the second-largest land mass. We are truly among the most privileged people in the world. We must never forget that.
I challenge Canadians and members of the House to question their echo chambers, to check themselves and their privilege and to try to see things from the other side, even if it is only to strengthen their arguments. At least that moves us past assumptions, which are the real scourge of our society. They are what really divide us.
Many Canadians are being misled. These Canadians do not need us to encourage them or keep them blissfully ignorant. Today, far too much of Canadian discourse is hateful, reactionary and dangerous, and the political rhetoric that ramps it up is reprehensible. We are indeed facing extremism in Canada, and it is incumbent on each of us to call it what it is.
As New Brunswick's commissioner on systemic racism said, continuing to pretend that what we have witnessed over the last three weeks is not a cover for a maturing anti-government, anti-pluralist, far-right extremism does nothing to combat the rising hate in this country. That extremism culminated in the occupation of our nation’s capital and other key locations, in a politically motivated coup attempt, and it requires decisive action with measures that are targeted, temporary and proportionate.
This is what has brought us here today. I have heard many in the House ask this question during this debate: How did we get here? It has been clear from the outset, long before the initial convoy colonizers arrived in Ottawa, Windsor, Surrey or Coutts, that the intent has been to disrupt and indeed overthrow our government. This is not a simple question of public health mandates. This cannot be denied, and there is no integrity in calling these protests peaceful.
A protest cannot be deemed peaceful unless every citizen feels safe and protected while being exposed to it. That was certainly not the experience of hundreds of people across this country and the residents in Ottawa. People were being harassed and intimidated by illegal occupiers simply because they were wearing masks. Women were targeted, noise levels were unbearable, hotel lobbies and retail spaces were taken over, staff were terrorized and ultimately businesses were forced to close. The narrative that this was peaceful was false from the beginning.
It feels as though the Conservatives are celebrating these occupations, purposely inflaming the debate, intentionally escalating tensions while claiming the opposite. Sowing mistrust in government institutions and public health advice is causing further harm. I have had many conversations about vaccines specifically in my community. I encourage people to listen to their health care providers, not politicians and certainly not the loudest voices in an angry mob.
In Ottawa, over the last three weeks, residents lost their sense of safety. Countless testimonials describe vitriol and harassment. Our 2SLGBTQ+ community members, racialized community members and women had to limit their movement, shelter at home or, as a last resort, leave the city because they were not feeling safe. Terrorizing people for weeks is an act of violence, regardless of the perceived merits of the original intent.
Minimizing what is happening here and how we got here is unacceptable, as is minimizing other large-scale demonstrations and incidents of civil disobedience because of what they too were trying to say and how they felt the need to express it. There is a lot to be learned from what has transpired.
I have committed to the people of Fredericton that with each new issue, I ask for input. I ask constituents to engage to help me take the temperature, to listen, to learn and to then act after thoughtful, informed, evidence-based consideration.
I know I am not alone in the House in saying that I received thousands of emails, letters and calls and had many conversations on what has been playing out. Many are asking to be heard, and I am listening. While there are many who have legitimate questions and concerns that I do my best to address, what I am also hearing are strings of false narratives and scapegoating. I see fear based on misinformation.
A lot of people need help right now. That is unequivocally clear based on the number of threats I have received, that my staff has had to endure and that anyone involved has been subjected to. I have been told that my family is also at risk, and that if I exercise my vote in a way some do not agree with, I should watch my back. There have been threats to our Prime Minister and all government members with bullets and nooses. It is enough.
That is how I know these are not peaceful protesters. It is how I know we have a very real and serious problem in Canada.
I have been mad, disrespected and wronged, and I have stood up. I have protested for justice for many causes, with the law on my side, within my rights and with a firm understanding of the charter. I also took things further when I felt it was not enough and felt the system had failed and had to be changed. I organized and ran for office, again with great privilege. It takes a lot of hard work and dedication, it takes sacrifices and it takes a toll, but it is the greatest honour. Thanks to political financing laws, we are a collection of everyday Canadians who have the trust and respect of our electors.
Here in Canada, to vote is a sacred right and a duty, and I serve to protect that right every day in the House. Those who disagree with me, based on the laws of this land and under our flag that has been so disrespected, do not get to shut down critical infrastructure, illegally disrupt the lives of Canadians and endanger public safety. We are not living in a dictatorship; we are not living in tyranny. The misleading, the agitating, the grifting, the harassment and the threats must all come to an end. It has become clear, after three weeks of coordinated, foreign-funded and right-wing white supremacy infiltration, that we have reached the threshold of emergency requiring the implementation of this act.
I have heard Conservative members of the House suggest that this is not necessary, that we have not met the threshold, that there are more options available and that our focus must be on de-escalation. On that last point alone, I agree. We absolutely must de-escalate, which is what we see unfolding before us in a renewed law enforcement operation, initiated only after engaging the Emergencies Act.
In the words of the interim Ottawa Police chief, without the additional legislation, we could not have done what we did. De-escalation was stopping the weekend protest tourism from ramping up again in Ottawa. De-escalation was stopping the never-ending stream of supplies and funds from siege supporters laughing in the wings. Compromise has been on the table since the beginning, and the comparisons with how demonstrators of different stripes have been treated within mere hours of assembly suggest to me, as far as law enforcement and government go, that we have been more than tolerant, perhaps unjustifiably so. I would support a national inquiry into the original police response.
I was born and raised in a military town, with military roots and a deep respect for our Canadian Armed Forces. I was also raised to respect the men and women in police uniforms serving and protecting our communities. Having said this, after watching video of uniformed police saying it feels like war, with a service weapon on their hip, or high-fiving, smiling for selfies, using squad cars as carnival rides and turning a blind eye to bylaw and Criminal Code infractions, or when neighbours from my local military community threaten me directly, I know we have a very serious problem.
I am white. I can only imagine how some Canadians who have demonstrated in their lives against oppression must be feeling as they watched how white protesters were comfortably dealt with over the last weeks. We have been watching the entitlement of those who party in hot tubs, with their barbecues and fireworks, having street fires or stockpiling diesel and propane near the parliamentary precinct. They claim oppression, claim that we do not live in a free society and claim that there was no other recourse for their grievances to be heard. It is enough. This needs to stop, and that is what the government is committed to doing.
1718 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:50:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I understand that she believes that the situation is untenable, and I share that point of view. It is not normal to set up barbecues and occupy a street like that for three weeks.
However, I also understand that she believes that nothing could have been done, that the government did not have the means to remove the blockades. I gather from her response to my other colleague that her government would have crumbled and that the protesters could have taken over.
I would like to know whether my colleague, whose constituency is in New Brunswick, agrees with her province's premier. According to page 6 of the report that is appended to the proclamation we are talking about, the Premier of New Brunswick commented that he does not believe the Emergencies Act is necessary in his province, stating that policing services have sufficient authority to enforce the law.
Am I to understand that my colleague—
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:53:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Fredericton for her thoughts and say on a personal level how deeply distressing it is to imagine that people in her own community are making her feel physically threatened based on how she may vote on the matter here in the House of Commons.
It seems to me that the convoy exposes white supremacists and racism in a well-organized, alt-right network that is fuelled by social media, Facebook and Russian sites, not just here, but also elsewhere. The problem is that the Emergencies Act can only last 30 days. We are uncovering a cesspool that will take years to clean up. How does the hon. member think we can cut short the Emergencies Act, which I think should be done very soon if we keep and, and not let go of what we are discovering?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
