44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 9:09:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when historians write this chapter of the Canadian story, what will they say about the protest? I do not question that for some it was about vaccine requirements for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border, nor do I question that others came here earnestly to protest pandemic restrictions and the disruption these public health measures brought on all of us. Although I do not share their views, vigorous debate and peaceful protest make Canada's democracy stronger. However, for more than a few and for many of those making up the core of organizers themselves, who sat atop a chain of command throughout this three-week occupation, the purpose was something far more sinister and one that betrayed the earnest initial intent of the others. These individuals came to upend the democracy upon which our country is found. They had their demands and soon resorted to intimidation, lawlessness, force and even sedition to see them met, regardless of whether those demands were wise or even fell within the jurisdiction of the federal government at all. Thwarted by the incoherence of their own demands and frustrated by our resolve, they laid siege to our capital with the stated intent to overthrow the democratically elected government and install themselves in our place.
Today, it is evident that they have failed. With the powers of the Emergencies Act, law and order have returned to the streets of Ottawa. Our democratic system, as well as the rights and freedoms that it provides, carries on. Members of Parliament, duly elected, continue debate on the Emergencies Act, invoked in the spirit of peace, order and good government.
Today, it is evident that this measure was necessary, so let me speak to why I will be voting in support of invoking the Emergencies Act. I have the benefit of addressing the chamber following this week's police operation that finally brought the occupation to an end. What we saw was a methodical, orderly and restrained operation by professional police from across the country working as one.
We know now just how integral the powers of the Emergencies Act were to the success of that operation. When asked if the Emergencies Act was necessary, the interim chief of the Ottawa police, Steve Bell, could not have been more clear: Police could not have done the job they did the way they did it without the powers provided by the act. That comes from the senior commanding officer for the operation.
He is not alone. Many more academic, legal and security professionals have come to the same conclusion, including a Harper-appointed senator, Vernon White, a former Ottawa police chief himself, and security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, whom I know to be a respected voice by many in the chamber, including my Conservative colleagues. It is, of course, worth noting that a recent poll indicated that two-thirds of Canadians support this measure as well.
Specifically, the Emergencies Act provided these key powers that were absolutely critical. One, it allowed police to establish a secure perimeter around the downtown core, preventing additional trucks or groups from joining the occupations. Two, it allowed Canadian financial service providers to immediately freeze or suspend accounts of an individual or a business affiliated with these illegal blockades until such time as that illegal activity was ceased. Three, it compelled private companies to provide towing services, fully compensated, to remove trucks and other vehicles from the occupation zone. It also allowed for the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, among other important measures.
Some have asked, which is responsible, whether the Emergencies Act is an overreach. In fact, that is the essential question before Parliament today. It is a minority Parliament that will make a determination on the matter and revoke the measure if it not agreed to by the House. It is an excellent example of the oversight built into the legislation written by the Mulroney government. With due credit to the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, other accountability measures include a special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate to review the government's actions under the act on an ongoing basis, a 30-day sunset clause to make sure that these powers do not extend longer than necessary and an inquiry after one year.
Importantly, the Emergencies Act does not limit charter rights; rather, it is subordinate to those rights. Still, a common refrain from the occupiers is that the Emergencies Act and the police operation to end the lawlessness in our capital trampled on their charter rights to peaceful assembly. That is simply false. The charter protections extend only to assembly that is peaceful. The charter does not protect one's right to seriously disturb the peace, as the occupation of Ottawa has done over the past three weeks. It also does not provide cover for illegal activities carried out during a protest, like the flagrant disregard for the law that has been well documented in the streets of our capital throughout the occupation, with hate crimes, misogyny, arson, vandalism and intimidation. The list is long.
Importantly, the Emergencies Act is democratic. It is an act of Parliament already debated and passed by both Houses, given royal assent, proclaimed and gazetted some 30 years ago. Its application is now being democratically debated in the House of Commons.
Did the time-limited, targeted and proportionate powers of the act work? For the first time in 23 days, quiet has descended upon Ottawa. The streets of the city have finally been returned to its residents, law and order have been restored and the Emergencies Act has performed its function as intended by the Progressive Conservative government that enacted it in 1988.
Three decades later, we find ourselves in the unexpected situation in which the party of Mulroney opposed invoking the measure, while the Liberals and the NDP support it. Our parliamentary system requires Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is an essential part of the checks and balances that keep our country on a stable footing and ensures that the diverse voices of Canadians are heard in this place. However, when crisis strikes, as leaders we are called to rise above our political divides, for we all take an oath as members of Parliament to act in the best interests of our country.
Sadly, that is not what we have seen from the Conservatives throughout this occupation. Through their actions in the last three weeks, it is all too clear that the Conservative Party has strayed from its origins as a party of principle and accountability. Its proud tradition as the party of law and order lies shattered in the dirty snow on Wellington Street. The Conservatives have put their own political gain ahead of the country's security, prosperity and democracy. As their party clamours for an ever-smaller and more extreme faction of the far right, they abandon the hard-working conservatives who look to them for a credible potential government. Instead, the Canadians they have left behind watch in horror as our police and media are spat on and assaulted in the throes of a lawless occupation that today's Conservative Party has chosen to defend.
With the help of the powers of the Emergencies Act, the occupation has come to an end. The trucks and the protesters have gone home, the people of Ottawa are breathing a sigh of relief and Parliament has resumed its important democratic function. However, something has changed in Canada or has perhaps been uncovered these past three weeks. Some will say the divide has grown wider. As political columnist John Ivison wrote yesterday, “It feels like Canada is splintering into two tribes—the intolerant, authoritarian woke lunatics on the left and the spittle-flecked, hateful lunatics on the far-right.” The optimist in me wants to deny it, but I cannot. At times, that is how it feels. Perhaps that is how it feels to a growing number of Canadians as well after these last two years or after these last 23 days.
We need to log out of social media, put down our phones, stop doom-scrolling and ask why it is that, despite a pretty strong consensus on the effectiveness of the broad pandemic response from all parties and all orders of government, it still feels at times like we are more divided than ever. The answer may lie in the palm of our hands in the devices we carry with us day and night. Our political beliefs and grievances are being fed to us by opaque algorithms that serve a singular function: profit for the massive tech giants that dominate our online realm. These platforms prey on our psyche, weaponizing our emotions to keep us all online all the time and garnering untold fortunes in ad revenue. Disinformation, a tool of foreign influence in the cyber-era, goes unchecked. Division, it turns out, is a money-maker. The scene was set as the pandemic locked us inside, and the very same screens they told us would keep us together served instead to push us further apart.
It is my hope that the joint committee and inquiry required in the Emergencies Act will take a hard look at the fundamental role that online platforms played in stoking the flames of division, anger and disinformation, making it harder for any of us to see the other side, as though we live in two entirely different and separate universes, unrecognizable to one another, with incompatible ideas of truth, media and science. Until we address this, I fear we risk repeating the crisis, and who knows in what terrifying form next time. We must act before a generation of children, our children, online as they are, grow up never knowing that there was a better way to be.
1653 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:19:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot discern a sensible question, but the member did mention political rhetoric. I note that the interim leader of the member's party stated recently, “It’s time for MPs to return to the House and restore unity, wholeness and hope back to our nation.” I would suggest that perhaps the member and his interim leader should focus on restoring unity, wholeness and hope back to their party as we watch it self-immolate in real time day by day.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:20:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the interim chief of police in Ottawa was very clear in stating that he was unable to do his job without the act. We have seen the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police underscore that same truth: that this act was a required action to have been taken by the government to help police forces across the country deal with the blockades.
I would further say that there are checks built into this act. The special committee that will be set up to review the actions under the act will shed more light on the question the member asked, but for now I am very satisfied that we are well within the confines of the law.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:21:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that multiple premiers across the country reached out and asked for help. When that happened, the government got busy invoking the act. It was very important to give the provincial governments the required time and space to act under their own laws and rules, but when it became clear to some of the premiers, and to the federal government, that the additional powers of the act were required, the Prime Minister and the cabinet acted very swiftly. The results, as we saw, were delivered very swiftly as well.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:23:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we all have stories about how the lockdown here and the blockades elsewhere have had a personal impact, but I want to address the part of the question about the interruption of trade, the job losses, the shuttering of automobile factories in Canada and the loss of wages that resulted from these blockades.
I was privileged to be part of a call two days ago with the Canadian American Business Council. I found it necessary to reassure our American trade partners that the government had acted at a national level to ensure that such disruptions would not happen again. It was important for them to hear that, and they were edified by it. We must never let it happen again.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:48:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of meeting the member yet, but I look forward to meeting him and working with him productively in the House.
I thank him for his invitation to vote against the motion confirming the declaration of emergency, but I must assure him that I will be voting in favour of it. I must also remind him that, in fact, two-thirds of Canadians support it, including 75% of Canadians in his own province of British Columbia, 72% of Canadians in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, 65% in Ontario, 57% in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and 51% of Canadians in Alberta. In fact, a majority of Canadians in every province support the invocation. By the way, 82% of Canadians believe that premiers who lifted restrictions lifted them too quickly. That is 82% of Canadians.
The member mentioned that one of the actions he wished the Prime Minister would have taken was speaking to the protesters. I remember a press conference in the early days of the protest and it looked like it was a small, confined basement room somewhere. The Conservatives were asking the Prime Minister to speak with this group.
Why would the Prime Minister of any country empower illegal occupiers with a conversation? What message would that send to future occupiers?
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
