44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 8:33:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act. This is the reformed War Measures Act that gives the federal government and police sweeping and never-before-used powers. Let us acknowledge what has happened. The Emergencies Act suspends civil liberties.
I said earlier this week that this is a deep stain on our country's reputation as a defender of rights and that the dictators around the world would be delighted with Canada. Government MPs scoffed when I said that in the House of Commons. If Canada does this, who could say tyrants, with protesters in their capital cities, could not do the same?
It was not long until we heard answers. China’s state media was first, declaring Beijing had greater moral and legal authority to invoke its national security law in Hong Kong than Canada did against its truckers. Russia Today served up outsized reporting, four times that of the BBC and Al Jazeera, to gin up its viewers, and then there was the best. When I say the best, I mean the worst. The best was Iran’s former leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tweeting out support. Oh, Canada, what horrible company for our nation to keep with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran cheering on the Liberal government. It must feel a little uncomfortable where Liberal, NDP and possibly Green MPs sit.
While the street blockade had to be resolved in Ottawa, the conditions to invoke the Emergencies Act have not been met. This is why I will vote to repeal this dreadful infringement by the federal government. Should most other MPs vote to endorse the Prime Minister’s use of force, they will set a very low bar on future governments to suspend civil liberties. What should concern us, particularly opposition MPs who are willing to support the government’s motion, is the test to invoke the Emergencies Act in the future will be today’s feeble justifications. Here is the actual requirement:
...a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the [lives,] health or safety of Canadians [that cannot be effectively dealt with by provinces or territories]
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada
It must be a situation “that cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada”.
Unlawful blockades in Surrey, Coutts and Windsor were dispersed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Should Parliament label protesters on Wellington and its surrounding streets in Ottawa as a genuine national emergency, a future government could easily find others, such as another protest outside Parliament, illegal immigration or eco-radicalism. Lawmakers should be careful on which path they lead our country.
The members opposite who would support this motion affix their names to it in perpetuity. They will authorize and endorse the suspension of constitutional rights. Government members argue civil liberties are not infringed merely because the law’s preamble says that charter rights are protected, yet prohibiting public assembly is an infringement on civil liberties. Seizing private property without due process is an infringement on civil liberties. Withholding assets without the right to recourse is an infringement on civil liberties. Freezing bank accounts and forcing banks to share private information with security agencies, without any court oversight or even criminal charges being laid, is a gross violation of fundamental rights. Limiting travel is an infringement on civil liberties. There are over 100 police checkpoints in our nation’s capital.
Today’s invocation of the Emergencies Act is an out-of-proportion use of federal powers. Are MPs opposite going to vote to endorse this unwarranted withdrawal of civil liberties?
The government’s actions, along with those of the police, will be studied and analyzed for decades to come by academics, researchers and students just as the draconian War Measures Act has been for the last 50 years. I do not believe their judgment will be a pleasant one. Indeed, I am already struck by the large and growing divergence in perspectives and reporting on this matter by our domestic media and foreign press.
Canada's media and elite opinion, albeit with some exceptions in both camps, have largely echoed the government's position. They say Ottawa protesters are not peaceful while downplaying the suspension of rights. Some simply parrot the government line. Others dismiss the legitimate concerns Canadians have about lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. What we do not see is a full-throated defence of Charter freedoms from Liberal reporters and opinion pundits whom we look for when rights are curtailed at home or abroad. This is in sharp contrast to foreign reporting.
What exactly is being reported beyond our borders?
A Newsweek editor wrote mid-week, “Canada is...arresting dissidents. A country that considers itself a democracy arresting people for the crime of organizing a mass grassroots nonviolent protest should horrify” us.
The Economist, which has long celebrated Canada's Liberals in its pages, wrote:
[The Prime Minister]'s crackdown on protests could make things worse....
Canada’s government should have drawn a clear distinction between harmful acts and obnoxious or foolish words. Peaceful protests are fine; blocking crucial highways so that others cannot go about their business is not.
This is a clear distinction between border points and the Wellington Street protest. The Economist article continues:
[T]he truckers have every right to express their disagreement. A wise government would [have] listen[ed] to them and respond[ed] politely, taking their complaints seriously....
[But the Liberal Prime Minister] has done the opposite.
Another respectful British magazine, The Spectator, was much more harsh, writing:
Peaceful civil disobedience is an established means of drawing attention to injustice when ordinary means of recourse have been exhausted....
... Canada’s elites...are fixating on the presence of truckers in the capital and at the borders only as [a national] embarrassment.... They aren’t interested in hearing about the impact of the mandates on citizens’ lives....
It has not been possible for the truckers and their supporters to have their grievances addressed by ordinary civic means....
This civil disobedience is all [the Prime Minister] can cite in justification of the Emergencies Act. The [government] rationale is that ongoing protest and peaceful civil disobedience constitute a threat to national security and to the economy....[A] credible government would have avoided this situation entirely by addressing, or at least expressing a willingness to evaluate, the suffering it is inflicting on its own people.
The title of this provocative article is “[The PM]'s totalitarian turn”, but its conclusion is identical to that of the liberal magazine, The Economist, along with Europe's Financial Times, which is that the Government of Canada got it wrong.
It goes on in other publications. The New York Times asserted, on Monday, that Canada “Declares National Emergency”, allowing temporary suspension of civil liberties.
Ottawa-based reporters did not like that or that The New York Times included coverage as well as photos of police arresting protesters near our Parliament yesterday, at gunpoint.
The Wall Street Journal, which is the largest U.S. newspaper, editorialized that the truckers' protest could have been handled without abusing the law. “Government's job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties.” Canada has failed on both scores.
Foreign press's conclusion is that our Prime Minister crossed a democratic line.
Canadians want the blockade to end, but it never should have come at the expense of the rule of law, crackdowns, abuse and totalitarian methods in Canada, say western press. Oh Canada, that is a deep stain and national embarrassment.
I miss my Canada, but there is some hope. The Wall Street Journal's editorial offers a warning and perhaps a way out, writing, “Protesters aren't emergencies, and Western leaders had better get used to handling civil disobedience firmly without traducing civil liberties.”
How should Parliament respond? The only question for us is this: Does this legislative body support trampling civil disobedience and protest by undermining rights and freedoms? We cannot undo what has happened. Invoking the Emergencies Act is on the Prime Minister and his Liberal cabinet, but we do not need to be culpable. We can stop it. Parliament can act. We must not approve our juvenile Prime Minister's decision and gross misuse of federal law. Parliament can reject the Emergencies Act. It should, because Canadians, along with the rest of the world, are watching and seeing whether we will get it right.
1447 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:44:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to maintain a civil tone throughout these debates.
I actually do not know where the majority of truckers are on this question. I certainly know a lot of them are not happy with lockdowns, restrictions and mandates, even though the vast majority of them are vaccinated.
I represent a border community. There are five international crossings in my riding. I do not think that border points should be blocked, which is why I maintained from the outset that they had to be cleared out. That being said, peaceful civil disobedience is an acceptable way to express oneself. We have seen it throughout the ages, and I hope it will continue here in Canada.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:46:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think it has repercussions on Canada's reputation.
Right now, in Europe, England, the United States and elsewhere, people are saying that Canada does not respect human rights. I find that disturbing and very unfortunate.
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:47:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree that citizens in this country should look to science and vaccines as a way out and a way to protect themselves. However, that does not involve invoking the Emergencies Act. I hope my remarks today have convinced NDP members to at least think about their support for the draconian actions that the government has taken and the impact on Canada's reputation. We cannot undo it, but Parliament should not sanction what the Liberal government has done.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:43:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. First of all, is the member at all concerned that today's top bar for using the Emergencies Act will become the threshold going forward, that a future government could look upon other protesters or other challenges and invoke the Emergencies Act?
Second, has the member, and other members of the NDP, considered denying the government's use of the motion on Monday, since it will already have been in effect and will have permitted the government to do what had had to be done, but saying that it could go no further and that it needs to end on Monday?
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
