SoVote

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

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

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

Mr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

Feb/20/22 4:21:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the test is in the legislation. There has to be a threat that is national in scope. We did not have the tools available that could deal with that. This emergency is national in scope. It has impacted pretty much the entire country. There is not only the occupation of downtown Ottawa, but also the blockades that we saw in Windsor, in Manitoba at the Emerson crossing, in Coutts, Alberta and, most recently, in British Columbia. Certain tactics have been used to impede not only people's lives, like in the case of Ottawa, but also the commerce and economic viability of the country. The tools that were available to use were not sufficient to put an end to it. This is not to mention the financial aspect, which is very necessary and very much part and parcel of this emergency declaration.

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

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

Mr. Yasir Naqvi

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

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 4:24:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton. I have listened quite intently to the debate that has been ongoing on the question of the emergency measures act. While I am sometimes disappointed in the partisan and petty level of debate coming from the opposition benches, I think there are some things we can agree on as a House. We can agree that all Canadians are protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is our job as MPs in this House to protect those rights, including the right to expression, to peaceful assembly and to the safety and security of the person. We can agree that the majority of Canadians are frustrated and tired of this COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed the lives of over 34,000 Canadians. We can agree that our Prime Minister did not create COVID-19 or this global pandemic. He and his government created measures to combat it, with the objective of protecting Canadians' health and safety. We can agree that a convoy of protesters drove for days, uninhibited, to Ottawa to protest various provincial and some federal regulations. For at least three weeks, they blocked major streets and were allowed to set up tents, speak their minds and express their feelings. We can agree that the organizers of this convoy-turned occupation officially called for the fall of this democratically elected government and its replacement by people of their own choosing. We can agree that crowd-sourcing efforts raised millions of dollars for this occupation, and that over 50% of that funding came from foreign lands. We can agree that the Ambassador Bridge was blocked by these protesters for many days, causing hundreds of millions of dollars lost in trade per day, and that those losses still continue. We can agree that lethal weapons were seized in Coutts, Alberta from protesters and over a dozen people were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. We can agree that children were used as shields in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge. We also agree that Canada is a federation, with separation of powers outlined in our Constitution, and that those powers include policing powers, where provinces take leadership, including in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and so forth. I have received thousands of emails from across Canada, and not just from my own riding, from people who are confused and scared. Some were repeating misinformation about what is happening in our country. My job as a member of Parliament is to listen to all voices in my riding and balance the diverse ideas into a consensus that I then represent in this esteemed House. I will continue to try to clear up some of that misinformation that has been disseminated irresponsibly by some in this very place. This convoy does not represent all truckers, and it has been condemned by all major trucking organizations across Canada. I have heard from truckers living in Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they have expressed to me their disgust with the actions we are seeing from certain participants in the convoy. They pleaded with me not to judge them for the protesters' actions, because they do not represent them or their industry. I do not believe that every person supporting these convoys has behaved in this way. For many, this was a way to express their frustration with the pandemic. The fact is that these incidents keep happening. They keep encroaching on the rights of Canadians, and it needs to stop. When it comes to this issue, the majority of Canadians do not care about a person's politics and they do not care about what colour a person's party is. This behaviour just cannot be defended and our citizens have demanded action. When these convoys arrived in the GTA, the greater Toronto area, we saw that appropriate police action could minimize the harm and damage to local residents. We need to understand why Ottawa had so much trouble. I appreciate that the hard-working women and men of our police services and our federal government have been responding since day one with all the support we could provide under normal circumstances. To be honest, I am disappointed that the provincial and local leadership could not handle policing these demonstrations to ensure that Ottawa citizens were treated with respect and that our supply chains were secure. After two weeks of what we saw here, the Premier of Ontario declared a state of emergency and called for greater tools from our federal government to take action, which could be administered only through the Emergencies Act. Instead of leaving Ontario out in the cold, our government is invoking this legislation, after careful consideration and after exhausting all other measures, to provide these greater tools to local authorities to address the situation. We are taking action to keep Canadians safe, to protect people's jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. If we look outside, we will see that the emergency orders we are debating right now are already helping local law enforcement restore safety and a sense of normality to the streets of Ottawa. After weeks on end of working day and night, they now have the tools they need to enforce the law, thanks to the federal government. Citizens should be able to walk freely without the fear of being harassed. They have the right to safety and security. Small businesses in the downtown core should be able to open their doors to the public again without fearing for their safety and that of their staff. These organizers have had weeks to address the hate symbols and disturbing statements, weeks to root out the participants who are putting the citizens of Ottawa in danger, weeks to leave and go home. They refused at every turn, and that is what brought us to today. The Prime Minister has said this over and over again and I will say it once more. These measures are temporary. To be clear, the Emergencies Act does not involve the military and will not be used to limit people's freedom of expression or freedom of speech. In fact, the Emergencies Act requires that any steps taken be reasonable and proportionate to the situation. There is a strict time limit of 30 days, unless the House votes to extend, and the House of Commons has the power to revoke these measures at any time. It will not prevent people from peacefully protesting. It will certainly not infringe on individual rights, which will always be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There must also be a joint review by Parliament, including the Senate, to ensure that all requirements under the act were followed and justified. Residents in Erin Mills have told me that they would expect such a review to also scrutinize the response of provincial and municipal governments and why they needed to kick this issue up to the federal government. We must maintain the appropriate balance between Canadians' rights and their freedoms, including the right to peacefully protest. At the same time, we must protect the safety and well-being of Canadians and of our nation's supply chains. I assure my constituents that I will be the first to defend them against government erosion of their rights. I sincerely do not believe that these powers are abusive, and I sincerely do believe they will help to restore peace and order and the rule of law in our Canada. I recognize that we are all tired of the pandemic and we are all tired of the public health measures that have separated us from our loved ones for over two years. We want life to go back to a semblance of normalcy, and that is what we are all working towards every single day. Our government has already been loosening certain restrictions at the federal level that pertain to travel, and will continue to do so at a pace that ensures that Canadians' health and safety are protected. If we are to live with COVID-19, then we need to make COVID-19 livable for everyone, especially vulnerable residents for whom this virus is a death sentence. I am encouraging all of us to take a step back and start connecting with our residents on the ground rather than with spectators on social media, to take the time to clear up the misconceptions and misinformation that are beginning to fester in our grassroots. It is time we really talked about the real issues, and I am looking forward to spending time this coming week connecting with Erin Mills and celebrating Black History Month the way we should. I look forward to hearing from constituents about our ongoing budget, which is our plan forward out of the pandemic and out of this economic downturn.

1483 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

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

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Feb/20/22 4:35:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the incident that has occurred over the past number of weeks and months, we saw how much foreign interference there was in the funding of the convoy and occupation. I think we need to be very strict with how we approach this to ensure that Canadians are protected, that our borders are protected and that we are making our own decisions as citizens. As I mentioned in my speech, these measures have a very limited time frame. An inquiry will happen and a joint committee will sit. Canadians will have their rights protected through this.

98 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

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

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Feb/20/22 4:37:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we need to do is take swift action to ensure that we are protecting rules-based laws and the lives we live very peacefully here in Canada. Through this, we are also seeing some of the gaps that exist within our current FINTRAC laws, for example. As we go through the process, it will be a great learning experience for all members of the House to see how we can strengthen our laws to ensure that we are protecting Canadians from fraud, protecting Canadians from crime and protecting Canadians from the national security issues that some of this has triggered.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

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

Ms. Iqra Khalid

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

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

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

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

Feb/20/22 4:49:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member really think the trucker convoy is going to take over the federal government? If so, how?

22 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Feb/20/22 4:49:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was a very clearly stated outcome in a widely circulated memorandum of understand that specifically set out the terms and demands of this occupation. It was indeed to overthrow the government by having a special committee selected by Canada Unity, with the Governor General and the Senate. Yes, I do believe that was the stated intent.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 4:51:19 p.m.
Watch

I must give the member a chance to answer the question. The hon. member for Fredericton.

16 words

Fredericton

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Feb/20/22 4:51:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It should come as no surprise, but I often disagree with my premier on many, many issues. Based on some of the things he has said over the last year in particular, it does not surprise me that he is putting forth some resistance to this measure. I am not shocked at all, and I disagree.

65 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35