44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 10:52:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important point, which is that the Emergencies Act is only supposed to be triggered when the current laws in Canada have proven ineffective in dealing with the current situation. I think the word “ineffective” is very important, and I will note two examples.
The current laws, for instance, have proven ineffective in stopping the flow of funds, money and supplies into the blockade in Ottawa. It is not a crime to walk down the street carrying a gas can full of gasoline. There is no law in Canada that would prevent that. However, by invoking the Emergencies Act and saying that anybody who is supplying the blockades is acting illegally, that now becomes a criminal act. That is an example where the Emergencies Act was necessary.
Another one is towing. I do not think it was an accident that this very well organized blockade used heavy equipment and machinery to block public roadways in this country. When towing companies and their trucks were being intimidated, there was no way to commandeer those companies to get them working to clear the roadways, except by the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
These are a couple of examples that I think make it is necessary to have that special power.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:55:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Emergencies Act is relegated to specific circumstances, and every time it is possibly invoked, it needs to be carefully studied.
I wonder if my hon. colleague is worried that the provinces might use the notwithstanding clause more often. Is he worried about a slippery slope? Of course, the notwithstanding clause is only engaged when there is an acknowledgement that the charter rights of citizens have been violated. Otherwise, we do not need to use the notwithstanding clause. That was my point, and I just wonder if he should have a conversation with his provincial colleagues in Quebec to warn them that using the notwithstanding clause may lead to a slippery slope if they are tempted to do it again. I do not think that is a valid—
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:06:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if this was an honest attempt by the government to include the official opposition and convince us that the use of the Emergencies Act was warranted and met the threshold, I would have thought the government would have given us all the briefing materials, the evidence and the facts. It would have released them and made the judicial opinions from Justice Canada officials public. It did not do any of those things.
In fact, I distinctly remember that on Wednesday morning, before our national caucus meeting even began, we went to reporters, and the House Leader of the Opposition told them very clearly that we were not provided any documentation in order for our caucus to make a decision based on what evidence the government had in its hands. This is not a good-faith attempt to work across both sides of the aisle. This is a politically driven use of the Emergencies Act to save the leadership of the Prime Minister, and nothing else.
I do not have a question for the member. I just wanted to put that on the record.
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:09:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
To sum up the situation, the crowdfunding platforms that are the main reason for the use of the Emergencies Act are already governed by the provinces. There are already laws in place that make it possible to arrest people for a crime or an offence. Thank goodness. Everyone is saying that the siege is illegal. The law already provides for sanctions in that regard, as well as for uttering threats, possession of unauthorized weapons and calls for insurrection.
I have a question for my colleague. What is the point of invoking the Emergencies Act if there are already conventional legal tools and institutions that could have been used over the past two weeks but were not?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:21:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have heard a few times this evening that the Ottawa police and the Province of Ontario were somewhat slow to respond. The member for Kingston and the Islands said it, and my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst just did as well.
To me, that sounds like an attempt to conceal the Prime Minister's turpitude. I am not looking to dump on my colleague, but I do want to ask him a question. Will the government invoke the Emergencies Act every time a police force is slow to respond? That would be completely ridiculous and unimaginable.
The crisis has subsided and things are starting to more or less get under control. Why does this act still need to be used? It kind of seems like using a bazooka to kill a mosquito.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. I would also ask that he refrain from giving me the usual talking points.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:22:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
The Bloc Québécois is always the one talking about respecting provincial, municipal or other jurisdictions.
Since this convoy began, some municipalities and even the police forces in Ottawa have unfortunately been unable to carry out certain operations and deal with the situation. That is why, as a last resort, we want to move forward with applying the Emergencies Act.
We gave the Ottawa Police Service and the other police forces the resources they needed to put an end to the convoy, remove all of the trucks, restore peace in downtown Ottawa and give some relief to the residents who endured three long weeks of noise and unnecessary turbulence in downtown Ottawa.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:23:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we know that the Emergencies Act is reasonable and moderate. It gives parliamentarians the tools they need to do checks. The use of this act is time limited. It will be in effect for 30 days and can be revoked in three days by a vote in the House.
I would like my hon. Liberal colleague to explain why it took so long for the government to act. The people of Ottawa are the ones who have paid the price. This convoy was organized by members of the far right, who were openly declaring that they wanted to overthrow a democratically elected government. This convoy is funded by Donald Trump supporters in the United States.
What were the Liberals doing for three weeks?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:25:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is sad to see protesters spitting on police officers and harassing journalists. I am concerned about the spread of misinformation generally around the act as well. We have heard some of the protesters, and even members of the opposition, refer to the measures we are discussing as if this is the War Measures Act, which it is not.
Could my hon. colleague explain how this is not the case and assure Canadians that the Emergencies Act maintains their charter rights, as well as restore their confidence in our institutions?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:26:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.
We are here this whole weekend debating the merits of the Liberal government motion to invoke the Emergencies Act.
Before I get into that, I want to take the opportunity to thank the many people in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove who have reached out to me to encourage me and to plead with me to vote against this motion. I can assure them that I and my Conservative colleagues will definitely vote against it, and I will explain why that is. I also want to thank those people who told me they were praying for the peace, security and healing of this nation. I am praying for that as well in what hopefully soon is going to be a post-pandemic world.
On February 14, the Liberal government issued a declaration invoking the Emergencies Act based on their finding that there was a public welfare emergency existing in Canada at the moment. To understand what that means, we need to take a look at the definition section of the act. It states that:
For the purposes of this Act, a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it
It concludes, “and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
It is a very high burden of proof and that is exactly what the drafters of this legislation intended back in the 1980s. It was supposed to be a tool of last resort, not a tool of first resort. What is the situation that is alarming the government to the extent that it now feels it has to invoke this very drastic step?
What we have is trucks parked in Ottawa, big trucks, rigs clogging up the streets in downtown Ottawa. It is a real nuisance along Wellington Street and some of the side streets. It is a real problem for local businesses and people who live in the downtown core. I and other members of the House who come into the House every day had to negotiate our way across Wellington Street and that is the same for all the employees as well in the House and in our parliamentary offices.
It is a nuisance, an inconvenience and an irritant, yes, but a national emergency, no. It fails that test. This does not attain the very high level that was set by the drafters of this emergency legislation.
The order in council also makes reference to blockages at border crossings in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and in my home province of British Columbia. The Liberals have a better argument here, because that is going to be very devastating to our economy and also to our international reputation.
However, here is the challenge that we have. Before this declaration was made, a week ago, all those blockages had already been cleared up. How? It was done by provincial forces, by municipal forces, by the RCMP that came under provincial jurisdiction. The police forces were doing exactly what they were supposed to do and the fact that they were successful proved that the situation did not exceed the capacity or the authority of the province to deal with it. I submit that it fails the test.
We come back to what was going on in Ottawa. We have heard members on the Liberal side of the House quote the interim chief of the city of Ottawa Police Service, saying that the Emergencies Act was a very helpful tool for him, for them, to solve the problem. We do not dispute that at all. Of course the nuclear option is going to be successful. We know that and there is no argument with that, but that is not the test.
The test is not whether it would be successful, but whether it was necessary. I submit that it was not necessary. The proof is that provincial police forces and municipal police forces were able to solve the problem at the borders and also control other protests that were going on in other cities across the country. It fails the threshold.
I now want to turn my attention to a constitutional analysis of what is going on. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that the Emergencies Act requires that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights be honoured, respected and maintained.
It is interesting that the Bill of Rights is included in that. It is an older piece of legislation and people sometimes assume that it was subsumed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that is not the case. It is still a good law in Canada today. It is very useful for our analysis today, because it talks about property rights for individuals. What property are we talking about? We are talking about bank accounts, bank accounts that have been frozen under the regulations.
Shortly after the announcement was made on Monday, my office started getting phone calls. I started getting text messages. People were asking, “Is my bank account going to be frozen? I made a donation to the convoy through GoFundMe.” I assured them, “No, no, no. This is Canada in the 21st century. We are a modern, free and democratic society. There is no way that your federal government is interested in donations that you might make to a cause that is important to you.”
Then I picked up the regulation and started to read it. I was wrong. I was hoping that I was misreading it, so I checked with some lawyer friends of mine who said, “No, absolutely that is exactly what it says.” Then I was hoping that maybe it was just a drafting error. All doubt was set aside the other day when our Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was interviewed on national television.
This is how the conversation went. The interviewer asked, “A lot of folks said, 'I just don’t like your vaccine mandates and I donated to this, now it’s illegal, should I be worried that the bank can freeze my account?'” The Minister of Justice said in reply, “If you are a member of a pro-Trump movement who is donating hundreds of thousands of dollars, and millions of dollars to this kind of thing, then you ought to be worried.
There it is, straight out of the mouth of the Minister of Justice. If someone has made a donation to the freedom convoy, then the Minister of Justice thinks they are part of a Trump movement and that they ought to be worried. The Liberal Party is no longer the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has become the party of correct political thought. People now have to think like the Minister of Justice does or they ought to be worried.
I plead with members of this House to vote against this motion. It is incumbent upon us to do this. This is wrong legislation. We must defend Canadian rights and civil liberties. We must vote against this. I plead with members of the NDP. They can make the difference. Members should please vote with the Conservative Party on this one.
1261 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:36:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are hearing a lot of discussion about the Emergencies Act, which I hope will rally enough opponents to overturn its invocation by tomorrow night’s vote.
There is obviously a lot of criticism, and I believe that people are divided as to what the government should have done. These differences of opinion are quite normal.
What does my colleague think would have been the ideal course of action to deal with this crisis on Parliament Hill over the last three weeks? What would have been a good plan? Would the protesters still be here today, or would they have been asked to leave in some other way?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:37:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that's a great question. What could have been done? Let us take a look at where it was done successfully in other provinces and other cities. The problem is in Ottawa. Far be it from me to criticize the police forces of the nation's capital, but they could have subpoenaed tow trucks or asked the provincial government for more help. They could have asked for police forces from across the country to come help. All of this could have been done without the Emergencies Act and without suspending people's civil rights and liberties.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:38:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there were two questions. The first was about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the Emergencies Act says that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights must still apply, but it is not good enough just to say that. The regulations coming out of the order in council actually have to honour that, and I am submitting that did not happen.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:49:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from the hon. member about common sense and doing what is best for Canadians, and I would love her comment on whether it was common sense for the interim leader of the Conservative Party to be photographed wearing MAGA hats, to talk about making the convoy the Prime Minister's problem and to say we should not be asking them go home. I wonder if she thinks that is common sense.
Speaking of common sense, I will ask the same question I asked earlier. Given that she does not trust the government, would she trust the national security adviser to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said that it was not only appropriate but necessary for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it relates to the very concerns around financing of this convoy that she seems to want us not to consider?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have to say that I believe this is exactly what the Prime Minister would like parliamentarians to be doing here in the House. Instead of focusing on the overreach of invoking the Emergencies Act, he wants us to be arguing about whose fault it is that the protests lasted for as long as they did in the city of Ottawa.
To be very clear, I firmly support the right to peaceful protest and the freedom of peaceful assembly, and I agree with the premier of my province, who called on the people of Saskatchewan to exercise their rights without impeding the rights of others. However, I will reiterate that I believe there is only one person who bears the responsibility—
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:53:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would tell my hon. colleague that I absolutely disagree with the premise of that question.
First we had a leader who resigned back in 2019, and in this most recent case we had adopted the Reform Act, which is a law of Parliament that provides members of Parliament with the tools they need to hold their leader accountable, so that is exactly what happened within the Conservative caucus. I would say that rather than discussing the overreach of the government and the current Prime Minister in invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with something that could have been dealt with using the law and authorities in the City of Ottawa and in the Province of Ontario, the member is asking me about internal caucus issues.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
