SoVote

Feb/20/22 10:50:50 a.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. This is not just about the Prime Minister's failures. It is about a lot more. It is not just about peaceful disobedience. Questions have been raised about whether other tools could have been used instead of the Emergencies Act. I want to remind the member that in Ottawa there was a court-ordered injunction. Well, these extremists complied for a short term but then proceeded to ignore this legal instrument. Indeed, municipal and provincial state of emergency declarations did not affect the physical entrenchment for the remaining time. Do the Conservatives not view this situation as an emergency, indeed a national emergency, to prevent more Canadians from being infiltrated by the extremists' ideology?

116 words

All Topics

Hon. Ed Fast

Feb/20/22 10:51:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member and I have a very different perspective on what may have happened with the injunction against the truckers using their horns. Remember, I live in the middle of that protest zone. The trucks are right outside my doorway. When that injunction was issued, the truckers, for the most part, did comply with that injunction. I think anybody who would have walked through that area, post-injunction, would affirm my version of the events. Does this have anything to do with racism? I would say to her, listen, when this convoy started out, when this protest started, it was about vaccine mandates being compelled by the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister's mess. What happened, of course, like many protests, was that it evolved. Protests are like magnets, and they attract people who may not be desirable, who will have views that are very antithetical to Canadian values. We disavow those views. We have said that clearly.

165 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 10:53:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. We have reached a critical point, a fork in the road, in the history of Canadian democracy, and that needs to be acknowledged. There is no Canadian exceptionalism. If there is not any American exceptionalism, and we know that is one of the founding myths of the United States in terms of its democracy, it is also true that it is a founding myth of this country. However, that myth has been exposed. There is nothing inevitable about Canadian democracy. There is nothing guaranteed about it. The past few weeks have shown that. At the outset, before going into my remarks, let me thank law enforcement, here on the Hill, the Parliamentary Protective Service, for all the work they have done to ensure our security, also law enforcement, all law enforcement but especially in Ottawa those who have travelled from London. They have been here and they have been in Windsor in recent weeks. I deeply thank them for their service. The Emergencies Act is an extraordinary measure, it is true. Introduced in 1988, it has never been used. I heard my colleague opposite's remarks. I have great respect for him. We served on the finance committee together for a time. I have to take issue with many of his remarks, especially when he said that the Emergencies Act confers onto the government martial law powers. That is an extraordinary way to look at it. It is also the wrong way to look at it. As we know, and as the government has made clear, the Emergencies Act is subject to the charter, it is time limited, and it is geographically focused. On top of that and, interestingly, I have not heard very much from the Conservative Party on this, the act itself was introduced by a Progressive Conservative government in 1988 under Prime Minister Mulroney and under defence minister Perrin Beatty. The debates on that act are very interesting. People could go back in the Hansard and look at them. Time and again it was emphasized by that Conservative government that the charter is sacrosanct. There was an attempt at that time to ensure that the infringements of civil liberties that had taken place under the War Measures Act in World War I, in World War II and in the October crisis of 1970 would not be repeated. When I hear my colleagues talk about the Emergencies Act in the way that they do, as martial law or as war measures, there is nothing to that. If we are going to disagree, that is fine, but let us at least agree on a shared set of facts in order to have a meaningful discussion. For the purposes of the act, I would remind my colleagues, if they have not read the act itself and it sounds as if they have not on the opposite side, unfortunately, that under the 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. Let us break that down to see if that first condition has been met, the “health or safety of Canadians.” For the residents of Ottawa, life has been completely upended in the past few weeks, seniors unable to go get groceries, families unable to take their kids to school and people unable to get to work, among other deep challenges. This is a crisis. Challenge does not even begin to describe what the people of Ottawa have faced. On top of that, “the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it.” We heard yesterday, very clearly, from Ottawa's interim police chief, Steve Bell, who made it very clear that the Emergencies Act has been instrumental in the success that police have made over the past couple of days in terms of dealing with the challenge of the convoy and everything it represents, and pushing it back. On top of that, we have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who have come out very strongly and agreed with the government's position on invoking the Emergencies Act. The Mayor of Ottawa made clear, time and again, that his government lacked the resources to deal with the crisis. The Premier of Ontario has made the same comment. The Premier of Ontario, a Conservative premier, has been very clear that he agrees with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Under the act, I believe that section 3 paragraph (a), in terms of the definition of what an emergency constitutes, has been met. Section 3 paragraph (b) talks about an emergency being when there is a serious threat to “the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity” of the country. We have seen several border point crossings blockaded over many days. Borders are about many things. These vital crossings ensure economic security for our country. They ensure jobs for people. When they were blockaded, people could not get to work. They were temporarily laid off. More than that, I think we have to understand borders in terms of sovereignty and security. A country that is unable to control its borders because of a blockade has a threat to its sovereignty in place and a threat to its security in place and a threat to its people's security in place, so for that reason, I believe the condition in paragraph (b) has been met. The government has elaborated that in the acts there are various ways an emergency is understood. What we have in front of us is a public order emergency. In the act, that is defined as “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state”. It is that latter part that is crucial: “achieving a political, religious or ideological objective”. The convoy's organizers had as one of their principal motives the overthrow of a democratically elected government. This was their ideological objective. For that reason I think the government's position that this meets the definition of a public order emergency is exactly right. I want to put my view on the record on why I think the invocation of the Emergencies Act is quite correct. Let me now deal with some broader issues in the abstract. First of all, regarding freedom and democracy in the charter, I absolutely agree that these are sacrosanct values that underpin our democracy. The charter is, in many ways, the founding document of Canada, even though it was only introduced in 1982. Many observers have made the quite correct argument that Canada only really became an independent country in 1982, because that is when the charter was put in place. This document, as we know, ensures freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. Without those freedoms, Canadians are not free. They ensure our ability as legislators to discuss and debate the issues of the day. They ensure the ability of our constituents to stand up and either agree or disagree. They ensure the ability of the press to carry out its work. How tragic and sad it has been to see that journalists have been treated in the way they have been. Maybe I will get to that if I have time a little later. Crucial to the charter, and the part that so many forget to pay attention to, is that section 1 makes clear there are limits to these freedoms. In section 1, there is a guarantee of “rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” I hear, for example, my colleagues opposite, especially in the Conservative Party, talk about how the government has upended the freedom of Canadians. When I hear convoy participants—and I will not call them “protesters”, because what they did is not a protest; it is more of an occupation—say that the government has violated the charter, it becomes difficult to take seriously that they have taken section 1 seriously. Section 1 makes clear these limits. During a pandemic the government is quite right to introduce vaccine mandates, which, fair enough, could get in the way of some freedom, but there are limits on that. Peaceful assembly is not what we saw, and there is a reasonable limit in terms of—

1486 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:03:15 a.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

10 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:03:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, although I very much disagree. Clearly, he has read the charter, but there are three million Canadians whose charter rights to freely leave and enter the country are being violated by the Liberal government's vaccine mandates, not to mention the privacy violations, the discrimination of unvaccinated people collecting EI, and the like. That said, my colleague is proposing that the reason the emergency measures act is needed is to remove this blockade in Ottawa, because all of the other things were removed with the existing provincial and police resources. However, the member for Windsor West has said he needs three more things, $10 million, a plan to remove barriers and a safe border task force, all of which can be done without the emergency measures act. I am concerned when I see bank accounts being frozen. The Minister of Justice said he is going to expand that to people who have pro-Trump ideas, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance said she would like to see those put permanently in place. If this is really just about the blockade, will the member rescind this act now that the blockades—

203 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:04:32 a.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

4 words

Secretary

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Feb/20/22 11:04:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague who is just down the road from us in London. I know her and like her, but I do not know where to begin as there are so many things that she said that are outright false. One point that I think has caught on among the public, because I have had a number of constituents who have asked about it, is the freezing of bank accounts. If there is such a worry that bank accounts will be frozen at will by the government, why is it that only 73 bank accounts have been frozen? Several thousand people came to Ottawa to support the convoy and there have been many donors, but only 73 bank accounts have been frozen. Charter rights have not been suspended here. The Emergencies Act is subject entirely to the charter. I invite my hon. colleague to read the Emergencies Act. Perhaps she has not.

158 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:05:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I got shivers listening to the member's speech because special legislation, in other words, the Emergencies Act, cannot be invoked every time there is an illegal protest. There are already rules in place in every province for these kinds of events. Consider, for example, the Maple Spring that happened in Quebec 10 years ago. According to my colleague, under the act, Ottawa could have come to Quebec City and shut it down. That is completely inconceivable. Does my colleague agree?

83 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Feb/20/22 11:06:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I took special care in my speech to emphasize the importance of the charter. As I said at the outset, the Emergencies Act is subject to it. It is time limited for a period of 30 days. It is geographically focused. If police need those powers, then those extra powers are available, but if they do not need them, they do not need to use them. Therefore, I do not know where the concern of the Bloc and Conservative members comes from when they say there is a threat to freedom and that the government has engaged in overreach here. We heard from the police. They needed the extra powers in order to push back against what was a clear threat to our democracy, and it looks like in the past few days there was success in that regard because of the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

149 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Feb/20/22 11:07:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to address a bit of a local issue. The people of London have experienced first-hand the dangers caused by the right-wing extreme hatred. Unfortunately, in the last few days we have seen the raising of Confederate flags in London as well. I want to ask the hon. member what he has heard from his constituents about that and how the government plans to address it. I would also ask him if he would be willing to support the NDP's private member's bill, Bill C-229, on the banning of those hate symbols.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Feb/20/22 11:08:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would tell my colleague that I am quite interested in learning more about the bill. It was introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, if I am not mistaken. I will look at the details of it. I know it has raised interest in this House. I have been very clear on what we saw in London a few days ago with respect to the raising of the Confederate flag. It is completely unacceptable. We have to be very mindful of the rise of white supremacy and far-right—

95 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:08:32 a.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

9 words

Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 11:09:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is customary when we start a speech to say we are honoured to stand and are privileged to do so, but today is not one of those days. I do not believe anybody is happy about having to stand or sit and speak to the issues we are dealing with. In fact, it is very unfortunate. I do not intend to repeat what others have said. We have been doing this for four days. I am not going to give free legal advice because, in my experience, free legal advice is worth exactly what one pays for it. I am going to speak, however, about the tone of the debate. Several weeks ago, peaceful protests started across the country, in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and right here in Ontario. People were standing together. People were defending freedom and fighting against oppression. I proudly participated in those rallies with colleagues from both sides of the House of Commons. We even took pictures together. However, I am not talking about what happened here in Ottawa or Windsor or Emerson or Coutts. I am talking about standing side by side with Ukrainian Canadians and my parliamentary colleagues united in defence of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Those people were fighting for freedom. What happened in Ottawa and Emerson and Coutts and other parts of the country, what happened on the streets in Ottawa, occupying streets and borders, harassing people and breaking the law, are not peaceful protests. People participating in the protests here could not be more free. They drove across the country and they are free to do so. They are free to stay in Ottawa as long as they want. They are free to leave when they want. They are free to stay where they want. However, when they were driving across the country, they were not free to park in the middle of the Trans-Canada Highway because that is illegal, nor is it peaceful. Until recently, the protesters in Ottawa, with their claim to be fighting for freedom outside this seat of democracy we are sitting in, were making a mockery of the rights of Canadians who take the right to protest seriously. Freedom is not defended by bouncy castles. Freedom is not defended by sitting in a hot tub. It is certainly not defended by drinking beer in the middle of the street. It is defended by conviction and belief in building a stronger, better society for all and strengthening the fabric of our nation, not destroying it. The occupiers here in Ottawa over the last few weeks have hijacked the term “freedom” and it is just wrong. In fact, the only freedom impacted by the protests here are of other Canadians, the people in Ottawa. Thousands of people cannot go to work. They feel unsafe leaving their home. They cannot go for a walk with their child. They cannot take their dog for a walk. It is ironic and it is tragic. I know that some Canadians are frustrated, angry and exhausted. They are tired of everything that has been going on for the last couple of years. Everybody in this chamber today is exhausted. I understand, believe me. COVID-19 has been difficult on everybody. We all want this to end, but the real enemy here is not the governments or politicians; it is the virus itself. We have to remember that. We have not forgotten in the last few weeks about the health care workers who continue to fight for the lives of Canadians. I thank them again. As time went on, it became clear that this occupation was not going to end on its own. The occupiers were free to leave. They had the chance to leave and they chose not to. Peace, order and good government is a phrase we are all familiar with. It is in our Constitution. This debate should be a sharing of ideas on how we move forward together, but sadly, it has become a toxic political debate. When Ottawa declared an emergency, no one was opposed. The situation was the same when Ontario declared a state of emergency. The official opposition members have been calling on the federal government to introduce measures as well, for weeks, and yet, when the government does and invokes the Emergencies Act, the official opposition opposes the move. Let us look no further than the Premier of Alberta. Two weeks ago, he was crying for help and now he is crying foul. Do we need to wonder why this situation exists? What does this all mean? The Emergencies Act gives police more tools. It strengthens their ability to fine and imprison, and to designate secure and protected critical places and infrastructure. It ensures essential services are rendered and prohibits the use of property to support illegal blockades. It allows the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences when required. There is no army. We are doing what has been asked of us and what needs to be done. Police forces have been using these rules over the past few days. Our forces from across Canada at various levels of jurisdiction came together and worked seamlessly to de-escalate the occupation of our capital, and they are to be thanked for their professionalism and complete dedication to ensuring the safety of everyone involved. My colleagues have mentioned the change today outside the House of Commons from days previous. I would also like to thank the thousands of truckers and frontline workers who have worked through all of this. The storyline has been distorted to suggest that we stand against truckers. Nobody in this chamber stands against truckers; in fact, it is completely the opposite. They were critical in getting us this far, and we are with them now, as we always have been. I want to give a special thanks to those who work at the Ontario Food Terminal in my riding. We are grateful to them. It has been especially important to recognize their contributions over the last few weeks. The truckers and workers at the food terminal have been working hard and tirelessly to keep goods and services moving for Canadians. It is a critical food hub for Ontario and many other parts of Canada. We depend heavily on imported fruits and vegetables at this time of year, and border disruptions put our supply of perishable food at risk. These disruptions are completely unacceptable. The Emergencies Act measures are time-limited, geographically targeted, reasonable and proportionate to the threats. The act is only being used to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across Canada. People are trying to tie this act to the War Measures Act. Let me be crystal clear that this is not the War Measures Act. With this act we are not calling in the military and we are not overriding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor are we limiting freedom of speech or freedom of peaceful assembly. This has been proven over the last few days. Canada is a rule-of-law country. The authorities have been cautious, careful, professional, respectful and patient, resulting in peaceful protesters leaving the streets of Ottawa. The Emergencies Act only applies to those involved in illegal activity. It is that simple. I next want to address something that has been repeated by the opposition time and time again, which is that this government should meet with leaders of the protests, as if this would make the whole thing go away and solve all the problems. This is nothing more than a distraction, as we all know, because there are no real leaders. This is not a cohesive group that is united in one cause. I have spoken to people on all sides of the issue and I continue to. I do it every day by phone and email, and yes, in Ottawa. Besides, if the Conservatives truly believed that meeting with any one group or individual would solve this problem and that was a real option, they would have done it. Instead, random MPs, including their now want-to-be leader, are taking pictures with random protesters. Now that aspiring leader is nowhere to be seen, following the selfies and photo ops which he has for so long criticized others for doing. The government's action was about keeping Canadians safe and protecting people's jobs. Let us restore freedom to the people of Ottawa, Windsor, Coutts, Emerson and British Columbia and elsewhere. Let us restore confidence in our institutions. Let us restore order together, please. We need to work together. The question is not what happens if we do this; the real question is what happens if we do not. We need to be the ones fighting to protect our freedoms, not fighting with each other and trying to one-up each other. In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while this emergency is in effect. Parliament has the ability to revoke the declaration of the emergency, as set out clearly in the act. There is no suspension of liberty here; we are trying to give people their liberty back. Peace, order and good government is what we were elected to provide, so let us do it.

1551 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:18:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the story that was just told by the Liberal member in trying to perpetuate the myths the Liberals are putting forward, the myths that there is no charter infringement, there is nothing going on here and people are not losing their freedoms. The government said it needed this act. Coutts got rid of the blockades without using the Emergencies Act. Surrey got rid of the blockades. Windsor got rid of the blockades. If the member does not think that individual Canadians are losing their freedoms, does he believe that the freezing of 73 bank accounts by the government is not a loss of freedom in Canadians' eyes?

111 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:19:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very serious issue, and when someone breaks the law, there are very serious consequences. What this act does is give police the legal authorities across the country to protect us and our constituencies from people who are working behind the scenes, including people donating to this cause for the wrong purposes. Rights are protected. It is right in the legislation. The member's party made sure of that when it introduced this piece of legislation. I am a lawyer. I worry all the time about protecting people's rights. I have spent my life fighting for them. I am comfortable with what we are doing here. It is the right thing to do.

118 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Feb/20/22 11:20:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said the government has been very patient. I would say it has been incompetent. I am going to ask the member a question that might help him explain why it took so long for the government to act. Were there perhaps any political considerations behind the government's inaction?

60 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:20:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this question sums up the whole problem that we have been facing for two years. Everybody likes blaming everybody else and taking credit for things they had nothing to do with. People throughout this camp in this two-year process have been saying this person moved too quickly or this person moved too slowly, when what they should have been doing was sitting down with each other and asking how they could work together to make it right. That is the real issue. Were there political considerations? Absolutely not. The only consideration here is the safety of Canadians and what the right steps are to make sure that they are safe. Full stop.

115 words

All Topics

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/20/22 11:21:32 a.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. Madam Speaker, change is never easy. I hear Canadians having a difficult time adjusting to a new life by taking extra care when they go shopping or eat at a restaurant, but these are measures that we need to take to protect those who cannot get vaccinated. Does this prevent everyday Canadians from living their daily lives?

59 words

All Topics

Mr. James Maloney

Feb/20/22 11:22:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. The short answer is no, of course not. It does not affect the people in my community or the communities of anybody in the House today, or stop them from carrying on with their normal lives. People are free to come and go and do what they want. Freedom to protest does not mean parking at the end of my driveway, honking your horn for weeks on end so that I cannot sleep, prohibiting me from going to work and then peeing on my lawn. This allows people—

96 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:22:32 a.m.
Watch

Can I remind the hon. member to be a little more prudent in the use of language, please? That is not terribly parliamentarian. The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore may continue.

32 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 35