SoVote

Ms. Sonia Sidhu (Brampton South, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 7:48:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am also thankful that the appropriate measures are being taken to ensure safety and security. Before, we were hearing about limited police enforcement capabilities, and now we are hearing from law enforcement that these additional supports are helping to bring this matter to a peaceful end. Does the hon. member agree that the Emergencies Act is helping bring this unlawful protest to an end?

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:49:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her dedication to many issues and concerns that we share in common. I do believe, again, referring back to the fact that this will be scaled, focused and responsive, that the act was appropriate. I believe it was effective in bringing an end to the blockade, and it should be effective in maintaining order until such a time as, under expert advice, it is no longer deemed necessary.

75 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 7:50:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention today. He spoke about knowing when it would be appropriate for the powers that are part of the Emergencies Act to stop. How will he know that? How will the Liberal Party give information to parliamentarians that it is in fact time for us to end the Emergencies Act powers?

62 words

All Topics

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:50:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her dedication. Certainly, if I think of my previous role, decisions depended on input from a variety of experts and from discussion with colleagues, as well as security assessments and briefings from intelligence officials. I would expect the same types of considerations to be put to cabinet to allow a determination of when that would no longer be necessary. It is important to reflect that the degree of oversight, including the striking of a committee, would allow for transparency in the decision-making process that would allow us, hopefully as soon as possible, to be able to cease the invocation of this act.

110 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 7:52:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the problems I had with the member's speech is that he seemed to assume that the implications we are dealing with in respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its relationship to the Emergencies Act have somehow already been tested. I would encourage the hon. member to look at the Debates from April 1988, when MP Blackburn, a former NDP member from Brant, stated that Japanese Canadians who had been interned under the War Measures Act were very concerned that the Emergencies Act would not actually protect charter rights. To this day, there has been no reference to the Supreme Court on the application of the Emergencies Act. To have it on record, is the member okay with that? Second, I would hope that the member agrees that—

136 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/20/22 7:53:00 p.m.
Watch

We are running out of time, so I will let the member respond to the first question, and if there is another question it can go to a different member. The hon. member for Yukon with a brief answer.

39 words

Yukon

Mr. Brendan Hanley

Feb/20/22 7:53:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say that the courts will rule on the threshold issue and on the constitutionality of the act, including any intrusion on provincial jurisdiction, so I think there is accountability written into this act through all the mechanisms I have mentioned. There will be a public inquiry. There are many opportunities to review the implementation of this act.

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Feb/20/22 7:53:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to join the debate on the Emergencies Act. I hate to spoil the surprise for those waiting until the end of my speech to understand how I will vote, but I am going to come out early now and spoil it by saying I do not support this overreach by the government. We have to ask how we got here today. I am sure the Liberals are saying “by Air Canada”, but I mean the crisis we are dealing with right now. Some think it was because of the trucker vaccine mandate brought in by the government about a month ago, and I have to wonder why, now, the government would bring this in. At the very beginning of the pandemic, two years ago, before we had vaccines and before we knew much about COVID, truckers were able to come and go. They were deemed vital to the continuation of our economy, bringing food exports, so we were not putting any mandates on them then. During the delta wave, we had some vaccines, but not a huge part of the population had been vaccinated. Truckers were able to come into the country without having the mandate. Here we are, now, where 90% of Canadians are vaxxed or partially vaxxed. We have had omicron wash through the country. Thankfully, due to the high vaccination rate and that it is milder, we have not had the problems and the issues of the first waves. Now, the Liberals decide they are going to hit the truckers with a mandate. There was no data to back it up and no reason, it seems, apart from politicking. At the point where we are here with the crisis happening in Ottawa, some might think the tipping point was the Prime Minister in September, but it was reported in January, calling the unvaccinated racists, misogynists and extremists. The Prime Minister asked if we should “tolerate” these people, pitting Canadian against Canadian. However, I think the roots of what is happening across Canada and outside this place, go back to the election. On July 13 the Prime Minister stated there would be no vaccine mandates. Two weeks later, when he called the unnecessary, unneeded election, he found out, though internal polling, that this was a wedge issue and he could wedge Canadian against Canadian and the electorate against Conservatives by flip-flopping and bringing in vaccine mandates and making it the prime election issue. It is quite funny, listening to the other side, especially the finance minister, calling Conservatives the party of flip-flop. This country has had a number of distinguished finance ministers: Paul Martin, Jim Flaherty and Michael Wilson. Can members imagine any of these distinguished and fine finance ministers reducing themselves to name-calling, such as “the party of flip-flop”, like the current one? That seems to be the modus operandi of the government. During the election, we had never seen protests like we did, caused by the current government. We had never had people out shamefully throwing rocks and pebbles at a prime minister until the government purposely wedged Canadians against Canadians. We understand vaccines are important. We all know that, but pitting Canadians against unvaccinated Canadians for political gain is wrong, and it has led to what has happened outside. I have been doing this game for a long time. I actually started my political volunteering with a gentleman named Chuck Cook, who was the member of Parliament for North Vancouver and was the whip at one time for the Mulroney government. I helped out as a youth delegate alternate for Joe Clark, losing unfortunately. I campaigned from Victoria to Newfoundland, knocking at doors, and I have never seen such anger or so many Canadians turned against each other as I have because of the government turning one group against the other. I once even actually door-knocked in the by-election in Davenport after Jack Layton passed away. I had never in my life seen a campaign where every single house had an orange sign throughout the entire riding. The support was amazing, but as a Conservative I was able to door-knock there with none of the vitriol we saw in the last election, again caused by the Prime Minister pitting Canadian against Canadian and wondering if we should tolerate other Canadians who have not been vaccinated. When the truckers announced they were coming to town, the Prime Minister thought he could just demonize them like he did with other protests. If he called them names, they would simply go away, but they did not. The Prime Minister riled them up. Again, instead of discussing the issue, instead of debating it in the House, he called them names. He created the conditions and the anger and that stuck in Canada. When we had rail protests a couple of years ago, crippling the economy, the port of Vancouver blockaded, the situation in Quebec with the lack of fuel was so bad that Alberta companies were talking about, heaven forbid, a convoy to bring propane to keep Quebeckers heated. What did the Prime Minister do? Did he call them names? These were protesters who were throwing furniture in front of moving trains, hoping to derail them. Did he call them names? Of course not. He actually hurried and sent ministers out to negotiate. This is not a national emergency as much as the other side will claim. This is a political emergency for the Prime Minister. On the act itself, since 1988, we think of all the crises Canada has faced, and there have been a lot, some major, some not as much. We had Oka. I remember Oka. The army was there against people with AK47s, and it was solved without the Emergencies Act. There was Caledonia, and again the protests two years ago with the rail blockades. The G20 summit protest, where we had over 1,000 arrests, violence in the streets and storefronts destroyed, was not a national emergency. In 1997, we remember Vancouver during APEC, when the RCMP famously pepper sprayed protesters and then prime minister Chrétien talked about pepper being something to put on his steak. People do not realize that the RCMP feared for protesters' lives, because the government for the first time had allowed eight different nations to have armed security with their leaders. I am not worried about Bush being here and the U.S. being armed, but President Suharto, a strongman and thug from Indonesia at the time had armed security with him. The RCMP stated they were afraid Suharto's thugs would fire into the crowd and kill Canadians, but that was not an emergency under the act. At the Coastal GasLink protest, we just saw that people broke in and tried to light a car on fire that had workers inside. They broke in with axes; there were millions of dollars' worth of equipment and, when the police were attending, they ambushed the police, throwing burning items at the police cars. Apparently that was not an emergency. I wonder if the government is actually going to try to seize some of the bank accounts of those supporting such things. Are the Liberals going to investigate that? Of course not, because certain ideological protests are apparently more fair than others. The Liberals will try their best to trot out the various reasons that this is a national emergency. They try to claim, as we heard earlier in one of my interventions, that these people were trying to overthrow the government. Seriously, as if the hot tub time machine guys out there with the ludicrous online demand to overthrow the government are to be taken seriously, or the people calling in saying, “Have the Governor General replace the Prime Minister.” That is not a serious issue. Perhaps bringing out former prime minister Harper to be beheaded on the lawn of this place like the Toronto 18 planned to do could have been considered an emergency, but again, I do not think the bouncy castle people are anything that constitutes an emergency. Earlier, when this first came up, I was heckled by one of the Liberals when I was asking a question about why they were able to clear Windsor, Surrey and the other border crossings without the Emergencies Act. Why do we need it? The Liberal MP yelled across that they might come back. I have to ask, when will this actually end for the Liberal government? When will the political emergency end if the government is saying secretly maybe they will come back and we will keep it going. The Liberals have not justified in any way the use of the Emergencies Act. That is why I will not be supporting it.

1478 words

All Topics

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:03:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must profoundly disagree with many of the premises of my colleague from Edmonton West's statement. I want to probe into one issue that has come forth, which is the financing of these protests. One report says that 1,100 of the donors to this protest were also donors to the January 6 Capitol Hill riot. Of course, there has been a lot written about them and the motivations there. We also see the protesters here with very hateful flags and symbols, reports of shelters being overtaken, and so on. Can my colleague opposite talk about the funding and, if he is worried about the impact of the funding on Canada's political system, what kind of impact—

122 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 8:04:51 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

6 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:04:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to get a question from my colleague. I appreciate the comment, and I do not want to be mean back, but I appreciate what he is saying. I am kind of stunned though. The U.S. treasury, its version of our Treasury Board, did an investigation on Tides. It found that money from Russia was being funnelled into Tides in the U.S.A. and that money was getting funnelled into Canada. We knew about this. The government knew about that, yet did nothing. There were millions of dollars funnelled in through other environmental groups to fight development in Alberta, probably the Coastal GasLink protest. Why are those okay, but bouncy castle donations are not?

121 words

All Topics

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:05:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on February 5, the Alberta government addressed an official request to the federal government requesting federal assistance in dealing with border protests invoking a necessity to intervene. It stated, “this complex and dynamic situation continues to impede the free and safe movement of not only Albertans, but also of critical goods and services vital to both the Canadian and American economy”. Is the honourable Ric McIver, Minister of Municipal Affairs of Alberta, completely off the track, or is what is good for Albertans not good for the rest of Canadians?

94 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:06:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that what is good for Alberta is good for the rest of the country, as he knows from the equalization payments we pay out. He should note this as well, and he should not mislead the House, that Coutts was settled without bringing in the draconian Emergencies Act. It was settled using existing police powers, just like in Surrey, Emerson and Windsor, and just like it could have been done here in Ottawa as well.

81 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Feb/20/22 8:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's presentation, in which he gave examples of situations that appeared to be far more serious, but for which we did not invoke the Emergencies Act. What does he think of the fact that, three days before invoking the Act, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that the police had all the tools they needed? Are the government and the Prime Minister not using this act to hide their incompetence?

78 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:07:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleague in the House. My answer is yes. As I said, this is a political emergency created by the government. It is not a national emergency. We have seen in bigger, more serious issues across the country, both in the past years and the past week. It can be solved with the current powers that the police have.

66 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:08:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am disappointed to see the dismissive comments made by the member in regard to unlawful activities that have caused a lot of real trauma to Canadians across this country. Using trucks as weapons of intimidation is not something to be dismissed. Does the member acknowledge that hateful symbols and rhetoric did rear its ugly head during these occupations?

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Feb/20/22 8:09:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am disappointed with the member's question. Clearly, she continues to politicize this issue. In no way and in no part of my speech was I ever dismissive of what was going on. We treat this issue very seriously. The reality is that the government bungled this situation. The government had ways to fix the situation, but it decided, with the help of its coalition colleagues, to use a sledgehammer to break open a nut.

82 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:09:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will start by taking note of the recent news that Her Majesty the Queen has contracted COVID. Reports tell us she is well and continues to perform light duties, but, of course, Her Majesty is 95 years old and this places her in a high-risk group, even for the relatively mild omicron variant. It goes without saying that every Canadian wishes her a prompt and complete recovery. Let me now turn to the debate at hand on whether the House should vote to support or negative the government's February 14 proclamation invoking the Emergencies Act. I will frame my remarks by observing that it would be appropriate if the act were named the emergency powers act or the emergency measures act because the act allows the government, in extraordinary times and under a set of narrowly defined circumstances, to implement emergency powers and emergency measures, thereby temporarily acquiring extraordinary powers that intrude upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians in ways that are not permitted in ordinary times. Therefore, it is the powers being exercised by the government, under the authority of this proclamation, on which we are being asked to pass judgment. I will argue that we should vote to negative the proclamation, not merely because the purported emergency could have been dealt with by means less drastic than those contained in the Emergencies Act, but also because the most important features of the proclamation, which are designated by the government as the emergency economic measures order and the emergency measures regulations, assert powers that are not actually authorized under the act. Since these claimed powers are ultra vires the act, this part of the proclamation is itself unlawful. I note that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has filed a brief in federal court asserting that the order and regulations are also unconstitutional, because they represent a clear breach of section 8 of the charter, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The argument of unconstitutionality is not my focus today, but I will observe here that the CCLA's brief is available online and should be read by everyone. Let me return to my main argument. The Emergencies Act designates four types of emergencies. The type specified in the February 14 proclamation is called a public order emergency. The extra powers permitted under each kind of emergency are not identical. Those permitted under a public order emergency are listed in section 19 of the act. They include the regulation or prohibition of certain kinds of public assembly or of travel to or within areas the government can designate, and limits on the use of what the act calls “specified property”. The act also allows the designation and securing of certain protected places such as Parliament Hill. It allows the government to assume control of public utilities or services, and it allows the government the power to compel any person to provide services that the state deems essential, such as, famously in this case, tow truck drivers. In its February 14 proclamation, the government asserts its intention to exercise most of these powers and impose the maximum penalties the act permits on citizens who fail to obey. The government also asserts an additional power that does not exist under any reasonable reading of the act. This is the power that is the subject of the emergency economic measures order contained within the proclamation. This order makes it unlawful to make “available any property, including funds or virtual currency, to or for the benefit of a designated person”. In other words, it is a person “engaged, directly or indirectly, in an activity prohibited by [the proclamation]”, or a person acting on behalf of such a person. This is a truly extraordinary exercise of power. The order and the regulations are the source of the government's claimed authority to deny access to bank accounts without seeking an injunction or a court order from a judge, and to force crowdsourced fundraisers to make known their donations to the state, the latter of which is apparently a measure the finance minister would like to make permanent. The explanatory memorandum provided by the Minister of Justice, pursuant to subsection 58(1) of the act, offers the following description of what the regulations do. The regulations “prohibit directly or indirectly using, collecting, providing, making available or soliciting property to facilitate or participate in a prohibited assembly, or to benefit any person who is facilitating or participating in a prohibited assembly.” The first part of this prohibition is perhaps acceptable, since it is the assemblies themselves that are the events claimed to be emergencies: the so-called blockades and occupation. The second part, however, makes it unlawful to engage in any form of commercial or monetary transaction whatever with a person who is involved in any way with these assemblies. It is unlawful to pay their salary or wages. It is unlawful to provide them with food or shelter. Such persons become, in essence, unpersons, stripped of any power to engage in any economic activity whatsoever, and the rest of us can be punished for failing to make sure that this is so. Most obviously, the rest of us, all Canadians, may have our own assets frozen for failure to obey. This claimed power is the basis for all the detailed regulations that follow, such as the requirement that all financial institutions and crowdfunding platforms must now reveal their transactions to FINTRAC, and that they are under an obligation to proactively comb through the accounts of Canadians, reporting their confidential financial information to the police. However, none of this is actually authorized by the act. Section 19(1)(a)(iii) of the act does state that, in a public order emergency, “the Governor in Council may make orders with respect to the use of specified property”. The argument that absolutely all property in Canada, including all money, falls into this category is self-evident nonsense. It is like specifying that the entire universe is a subset of the universe. The purpose of this provision is clearly not to bring an end to the issues, the blocking of bridges and so forth, that the government asserts are the source of the purported emergency. The actual and rather obvious purpose of this provision is to destroy these citizens, even if they are ultimately found to be guilty of nothing. For this reason, even if the measures contained in the emergency economic measures order and regulations were not an unconstitutional violation of section 8 of the Charter, and even if they were not ultra vires the act, they would be impermissible simply because they are disproportionate. A disproportionate penalty is normally dismissed by a court. We are all familiar with how the courts have reacted to mandatory minimum sentences, for example, but the genius of this provision is that it destroys its victims in ways that cannot be overturned by the courts, just as they were not authorized by the courts. The prosecution is itself the punishment. By the time a person is cleared or assigned a nominal fine for what the court determines to be a minor offence, they are financially destroyed. The only way we can prevent this catastrophe for people who are, as far as I can tell, mostly guilty of being naive, is for us to vote down the government's proclamation as fast as possible before citizens start losing their assets, credit ratings, jobs or contracts and livelihoods. The problem to which I am drawing attention is part of a broader set of concerns, which are brilliantly summed up in a paper released today by Advocates for the Rule of Law. They write: Maintaining this declaration of emergency will endow the Government of Canada with far-reaching powers and it will set a dangerous precedent. If the Government can declare an emergency based on these facts, then it will also be able to do so the next time there is a railway blockade, a threat to pipelines or any other endangerment of national infrastructure. To be sure, each of these is a serious situation that calls for decisive action. But normalizing the declaration of emergencies, especially before other less intrusive (but still significant) measures have been attempted, threatens to render hollow the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all Canadians For this reason, along with many others, I ask all members to vote to quash this dreadful and shameful proposition.

1420 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:18:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. Both a Conservative, Stephen Harper-appointed senator, who used to be the chief of police for Ottawa, and Peter MacKay, a former strong Conservative leadership candidate, have been very clear in saying that we should in fact be voting in favour of this legislation and passing it. Does the member have any thoughts as to why he believes those two individuals would have taken that position, given that the entire Conservative caucus has made the decision not to?

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Scott Reid

Feb/20/22 8:19:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they are not the only Conservatives who have been in favour of it. Premier Ford has been in favour of it. This is the same Premier Ford who got rid of an entire level of government because of a vindictive desire to keep a rival, predecessor Conservative leader from having a chance at elected office. It is the same Premier Ford who, last year, engaged in shutdowns in which he made it unlawful to buy children's clothes and rain boots but people could buy garden gnomes. It is the same Premier Ford who invoked the notwithstanding clause so he could make a change to Toronto City Council structure. I do not respect or admire many of the things that he says, and I do not think I am required to pick sides with him or Peter MacKay against the Conservative premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, all of whom think this should not have gone in place, and two of whom, or at least one of whom, is looking at legal action to stop this terrible measure.

180 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35