SoVote

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 10:36:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the provisions in the Emergencies Act is warrantless search and seizure. This provision is especially relevant to the freezing of bank accounts of those known to be connected to the protesters outside or of people who are related to them, which could happen further down. I would like to hear the member comment on the fact that the government no longer needs to go to a judge to obtain a warrant to freeze a bank account or financial assets. Does she have any concerns whatsoever that the government could abuse this power because there is no longer judicial oversight?

103 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Feb/20/22 10:36:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will just remind the member that it was the NDP that first identified the fact that online platforms and crowdfunding platforms were being used outside of the country to fuel and to pay for these illegal occupations.

40 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/20/22 10:37:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I call myself a progressive. We know that freedom movements often involve protests. I do not agree with the protesters' arguments, which, in my view are not valid. However, what worries me is that the government is using a law that in future could limit the actions of people who have valid arguments and are trying to effect social change. Does my colleague not believe that invoking the Emergencies Act will create a terrible precedent?

80 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Feb/20/22 10:37:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NDP has been very clear that we fully support peaceful protesting and exercising the right to gather together and fight for ideas and for change in the government. We absolutely protect the right of land defenders, environmentalists and those who take part in peaceful protests. What we saw over these last few weeks was unlawful occupation.

59 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/20/22 10:38:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam both for the tone and the substance of her advocacy in this place. I am curious hear more from her with respect to the scope of the regulation. We have heard some members of the governing party share that it is meant to be a very targeted approach, but we also see in the regulations “critical infrastructure” being used quite broadly to include bus stations, ferry terminals and lighthouses, for example. I am curious to hear the member's perspective on ensuring that it is appropriate in scale and does not set a precedent for those that were mentioned previously, such as indigenous land defenders and climate activists, for example.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Feb/20/22 10:39:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will go back to what I was saying on the first response to one of the members who asked me a question in the House. I and the NDP value protecting the rights of Canadians. Right now, the rights of Canadians widely feel to be at risk, and we are looking to restore confidence and security in our institutions in Canada.

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/20/22 10:39:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we come together today at a precarious moment in our nation's history. Over the last month a cascading series of intelligence, policing and governance failures have resulted in an unprecedented situation that no Canadian of any persuasion is contented with or approves. We have all witnessed a siege of our nation's capital, an economic blockade of our international borders and threats to the political stability of our society. Ironically, Canadians on all sides of the issues feel abandoned. Public confidence has been shaken and communities are divided. The institutions citizens expect to protect them have proved unresponsive. They have looked for leadership from their governments that has not been delivered. After speaking to many constituents in Vancouver Kingsway, two things are crystal clear to me. First, the current crisis has been badly mismanaged by the Prime Minister, who was virtually absent as it developed. Second, this situation should never have progressed this far, so it disappoints me profoundly to see that our Parliament has to debate the application of measures that are by design intended for the most serious situations of turmoil and danger. Nonetheless, we indeed find our nation in crisis. As such, it is for us to determine the best course of action to restore public confidence, stability and security to our society. I would like to state that this is also a time of great sensitivity and emotion. The issues engaged cherished principles that are equally valued and difficult to reconcile. I think that thoughtful people of good faith can rationally differ with views that deserve respect and careful consideration. I believe our nation could use a generous application of compassion and understanding. At the outset, I think it is important to delineate what the present situation is and, just as importantly, what it is not. First, we are not dealing with a peaceful protest. We are dealing with an economic blockade, accompanied by both threats and actual violence, with an attempt to force political change by mob behaviour and, in substance, hostage diplomacy. A review of the facts bears this out. We saw a serious border closure at the Ambassador Bridge, interrupting some $350 million in trade every day and threatening Canada-U.S. trade relations. Canada's crucial auto industry and manufacturing sector in the Golden Horseshoe were affected at a time of already constrained supply chains. A cache of weapons and murder conspiracy charges emerged in Coutts, Alberta. We witnessed a blockade for nearly a month in our nation's capital, with citizens threatened, workers intimidated and hundreds of businesses shut down. Undercover intelligence revealed plans to expand the border blockade to other essential Canadian infrastructure, including airports and ports. An openly publicized manifesto calling for government change was released. We have seen foreign interference and funding in our domestic political affairs. There is far-right involvement, with clear connections to the same forces that led the charge on Washington last January. We have seen threats to towing companies and drivers to intimidate them into not doing their jobs. We have seen the use of heavy equipment, tractors and trailers as weapons of blockade. The events of the last two days further bear this out. Blockade participants refused to leave the parliamentary precinct when ordered to do so, assaulted police officers and tried to seize their weapons, threw bicycles at mounted officers, and spat upon and assaulted journalists. These are not the acts of peaceful protesters. Second, this was never really about truckers. This fact is rendered nakedly bare by the fact that not a single demand was ever made to address the very real issues truckers face, like low wages, long hours, fatigue, occupational safety, inadequate rest stops, poor road conditions and high expenses. It was never truly about truckers' vaccine policies either. This is also easily seen by the fact that it is the United States that set a requirement that all Canadian truckers must be vaccinated in order to enter the country, and that nothing done in Canada could alter that fact. Third, the legislation before us is not the War Measures Act. As a New Democrat, I have always taken tremendous pride in the moral courage that Tommy Douglas demonstrated in opposing Pierre Trudeau’s invocation of the War Measures Act, despite strong public support for the move. In 1970, civil liberties were suspended, the military was deployed, and hundreds of innocent people were arbitrarily rounded up and held without charge. Habeas corpus was suspended by cabinet fiat, with no recourse to democratic institutions or the courts. None of that is occurring here. Unlike the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act does not suspend Canadians' civil rights. Emergency orders are subject to judicial review and must be charter-compliant. Indeed, in 1970, Canada did not even have a charter of rights with constitutional force. Unlike the War Measures Act, the Emergencies Act is subject to extensive parliamentary oversight and democratic protections. For example, this very debate we are having was triggered by the declaration of a public order emergency. Parliament will have the opportunity to affirm or revoke the declaration tomorrow. A parliamentary committee will be able to amend or revoke all emergency orders, and a motion signed by 20 MPs can trigger a vote on revoking the declaration. The truth is that the Emergencies Act has many legal and parliamentary protections, as it was expressly designed to have. I also think it is important to note that the six measures applied under the act are targeted in scope, duration and purpose. It is critical to remember that they provide powers to address the current crisis that would not otherwise be possible, such as ensuring that towing equipment can be marshalled to clear heavy machinery used to block public roads, criminalizing the supply of goods to blockades that were crippling our nation's capital and interrupting the flow of foreign funding to interfere in our domestic political affairs. On this latter point, I note that over 50% of the funds used to support the blockade came from outside of Canada. Hundreds of donors were Americans who have been linked to far-right groups or those involved in the attempted insurrection at the U.S. capitol last January. This constitutes direct foreign interference in Canadian domestic affairs that cannot be tolerated. To my Conservative and Bloc colleagues who oppose the emergency measures used to intercept and freeze these funds, I ask this: If we substituted Russian for American donors sending money to try to change Canadian government policy, would they still have no problem with this? I know the answer. To me, it is imperative for the sovereignty and territorial and security interests of Canada that we act strongly and resolutely to address foreign interference in our internal political affairs. Some have argued that invoking the Emergencies Act will set a dangerous precedent that could be applied in the future to disruptive protests that are otherwise peaceful. They say Parliament should not act lest it start down a slippery slope to irresponsible behaviour. Somewhat ironically, this is said by members of the Bloc Québécois and Conservative Party, whose provincial cousins have invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights to actually violate the rights of their own citizens, something the Emergencies Act does not do. Apparently, their concern for slippery slopes does not extend to their own sectarian interests. I fundamentally agree that the right to peaceful protest is indispensable in a free and democratic society and must never be subject to unreasonable limitations. However, I categorically reject the assertion that we cannot act in appropriate circumstances because future parliamentarians may not do so. I also believe that every single parliamentarian today and in the future well knows that this legislation is extraordinarily targeted and reserved for the rarest of circumstances. I trust in their judgment, in the Canadian public and in institutions to ensure that happens. Finally, others have argued that this crisis does not meet the threshold set out in the Emergencies Act for the declaration of a public order emergency. I have carefully read the act and agree that reasonable people may disagree on this point. While I respect those who feel otherwise, it is my view that, given the facts that have emerged over the last four weeks, the act is properly engaged. Further, I believe that the invocation of the act is already proving to be effective in resolving the crisis, paralysis and threats that so clearly have gripped our nation. I strongly agree with those who argue that the invocation of public order emergencies should never be normalized. Instead, it should be reserved only for rare circumstances such as this, where decisive action is needed to address urgent threats to the security of Canada. If we hope to emerge from this pandemic as a strong and united country, then every member of the House must put aside their partisan political interests and work together to regain the public's confidence. Rather than wedge politics and polarization, Canadians need honesty, accountability and responsible leadership from their elected representatives. I believe it is time for all parliamentarians to provide just that.

1534 words

All Topics

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

Feb/20/22 10:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will pick up on what the member just stated. At this time we are talking about the Emergencies Act, but think of how much better it would have been to be talking about the heroes of the pandemic. Here we are pushing the three-year mark, and at the end of the day, so much good has taken place. Moving to his speech, there are a couple of points I would like to highlight. One is the importance and supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have heard the word “freedom” a lot during this debate, and the Emergencies Act does not override any aspect of the charter. Second, as the member made reference to, at any point in time there are four political entities in the House that have more than 20 members. All it takes is 20 members to require a vote on the revocation of the act at any point in time. If the member could pick up on those points, I would appreciate it.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies

Feb/20/22 10:50:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hear two main points. The first one gives us an opportunity to again thank all of the frontline workers and health care workers in this country who, while we debate this legislation, are tasked with the critical job of dealing with vulnerable people, helping patients and getting us through what is still a pandemic. I think that is always important to keep in mind as our attention is taken elsewhere. Second of all, it was a major part of my research and speech to note that the Emergencies Act was carefully crafted in response to the excesses of the War Measures Act and contains within it many parliamentary oversights, restrictions and careful parameters to ensure that the excesses of the War Measures Act are not repeated. I think that is also a very vital point to make to Canadians to assure them that their rights remain paramount, even with the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Feb/20/22 10:51:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the respectful tone the member for Vancouver Kingsway has taken in his presentation tonight, and I offer my observations and comments in the same light. I have often heard the word “sedition”, not from the member's presentation directly, but from members of the NDP and the Liberal Party throughout today and the debates on Saturday and Thursday. It is a very powerful word that I think is often being abused in the discussion around this. My observation is that there are very strong tools for the government, under section 46 of the Criminal Code, to deal with treason and sedition. If the government believes that this is treason and sedition, perhaps it should have used that tool. If that is the case, why has nobody been charged under it?

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies

Feb/20/22 10:52:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important point, which is that the Emergencies Act is only supposed to be triggered when the current laws in Canada have proven ineffective in dealing with the current situation. I think the word “ineffective” is very important, and I will note two examples. The current laws, for instance, have proven ineffective in stopping the flow of funds, money and supplies into the blockade in Ottawa. It is not a crime to walk down the street carrying a gas can full of gasoline. There is no law in Canada that would prevent that. However, by invoking the Emergencies Act and saying that anybody who is supplying the blockades is acting illegally, that now becomes a criminal act. That is an example where the Emergencies Act was necessary. Another one is towing. I do not think it was an accident that this very well organized blockade used heavy equipment and machinery to block public roadways in this country. When towing companies and their trucks were being intimidated, there was no way to commandeer those companies to get them working to clear the roadways, except by the invocation of the Emergencies Act. These are a couple of examples that I think make it is necessary to have that special power.

217 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/20/22 10:54:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway was a bit impertinent towards Quebec. In fact, he stated that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause to violate the rights of its own citizens. My colleague has shown either his ignorance or his contempt. Either way, that is unacceptable. I will nevertheless ask him a question. What is happening at this time could create a dangerous precedent. Will the NDP be able to oppose this act if, in 10 years, a more right-leaning federal government is in power, and we again go through, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, events such as those of 10 years ago, in the spring of 2012, when large numbers of students were protesting and slightly more radical groups infiltrated the protests?

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies

Feb/20/22 10:55:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the Emergencies Act is relegated to specific circumstances, and every time it is possibly invoked, it needs to be carefully studied. I wonder if my hon. colleague is worried that the provinces might use the notwithstanding clause more often. Is he worried about a slippery slope? Of course, the notwithstanding clause is only engaged when there is an acknowledgement that the charter rights of citizens have been violated. Otherwise, we do not need to use the notwithstanding clause. That was my point, and I just wonder if he should have a conversation with his provincial colleagues in Quebec to warn them that using the notwithstanding clause may lead to a slippery slope if they are tempted to do it again. I do not think that is a valid—

133 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 10:55:59 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

11 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 10:56:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your time today in the chair. You have been here since early morning, and I appreciate the service you provide to the House. Please note that I will be sharing my time this evening with the member for Acadie—Bathurst. It is important for us to put into context what has transpired over the last number of weeks as it relates to events here in the city of Ottawa and at various other locations in Canada. The vast majority of us in the chamber are visitors in the city of Ottawa. We reside here on a temporary basis, with our principal residences back home in our respective ridings. For me, that is Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. In the past three weeks, I have spent many days here in the nation's capital watching the occupation grow in size and spread through the downtown, well beyond the parliamentary precinct and into residential neighbourhoods surrounding where we meet here today. During that time, the downtown descended into chaos, offending the lives of those people who reside here in the city centre. I have had the opportunity to speak to many people here in the downtown who have been impacted by the occupation and they have made it clear to me that they are accustomed to visitors in the city. On any day of the year, it is not uncommon to witness protests, demonstrations, vigils or ceremonial activities in and around the parliamentary precinct. Peaceful activities are not only welcomed but encouraged by the people who live here in Ottawa. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed over the past three weeks was at times neither peaceful nor lawful. What started as a protest quickly turned into an occupation. For those of us in the chamber who have served at the municipal level as city or town councillors or possibly as a mayor, we know it is not uncommon to receive calls for service related to municipal bylaws. We know that municipal bylaws are important, as they keep the city moving and provide an element of protection for law-abiding citizens. I was not surprised, to be honest, to hear that over 3,700 notices of violation have been issued to date here in the city of Ottawa. However, thousands of violations occurred without enforcement, and these violations significantly impacted the quality of life for everyone who resides in the downtown area. As reported in the media, residents have been subjected to illegal and tortuous behaviour. I try to picture what has occurred here in Ottawa and think about how the occupation would be received by my own constituents in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek or other communities across the country. I want to be clear that those of us residing here temporarily have witnessed, over the last three weeks, fireworks displays at 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. on a regular basis. We witnessed, even through the period of the injunction, the constant honking of horns and the use of whistles, bells and other noisemakers, again sometimes well into the early morning hours. We witnessed the illegal confiscation of public property and the blockade of public streets, which led to the detour and cancellation of public transit routes and prohibited first responders, including police, fire and ambulatory services, from accessing people in downtown Ottawa. We witnessed trucks and vehicles parked on public sidewalks and many of them illegally parked throughout the core of the city, preventing access to businesses. Sadly, many of those businesses had to close. We read with horror and disgust about a report from local police that there was a concerted effort to tie up the 911 lines here in Ottawa, a campaign planned to prevent the people of Ottawa from accessing emergency services provided by police, fire and ambulatory staff. We witnessed the illegal erection of cranes, stages, tents and other permanent structures in the middle of residential streets. On the hour, we witnessed people haphazardly transporting fuel on city sidewalks to encampment areas as part of the occupation that occurred here in the downtown. We witnessed illegal fires and barbecues on city sidewalks and in city parking lots. I am sure everyone in the House is aware that a fire was started in the lobby of an Ottawa apartment building here in the city centre. We witnessed the harassment of local residents who, in their daily travels, were mocked and chastised for wearing masks as they went about their lives, minding their own business. This is just a brief description of what has transpired here over the past three weeks. I know very well how my residents would react to these illegal actions. They would not be tolerated. There would be an expectation that those responsible for upholding the law would attend and restore the peace and ensure people's rights were upheld as tenants and property owners. Ottawa residents want their lives back. They want a peaceful night's sleep. They want their public transit back. They want access to roads and sidewalks. They want to see businesses reopen. People want to go back to work. They want their city back. The only way to restore peace and some sense of normalcy is with all three levels of government working together. At this point in time in the House, I want to publicly commend the premier of Ontario for his support. Instead of handing out coffee and doughnuts, as members of the opposition did, he declared a state of emergency in the province. Instead of taking selfies with those who illegally occupied downtown Ottawa and blocked the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, he signed an order that sought to assist the City of Ottawa and complement the actions of the federal government. He appropriately described the situation as a “siege”, and these illegal actions as holding millions of people “hostage”. Compare and contrast the premier's comments with those of the interim Leader of the Opposition, who stated, “I don't think we should be asking them to go home”, if members can believe that. Then, as has been the trademark of the official opposition, the flip-flop statement soon followed from the same member. Just over a week ago, the interim leader finally recognized that the extent of the damage inflicted upon the city of Ottawa, its citizens and the Canadian economy had reached a breaking point. By the time she issued her uninvited speech, the damage was already done. The hollow words that it was time to take down the barricades, stop the disruptive actions and come together were delivered. It was too little, too late. I think it is imperative that we recognize the joint forces that have come together here over the past number of days. It is, as Ottawa's interim police chief described it, a real “Canadian effort.” I come from a police family and, as a city councillor for 26 years, I served for many years on the city's police services board. I am a strong supporter of the police, so I was pleased to hear that 28 members of the Hamilton Police Service are here in Ottawa to assist with efforts to restore peace and return the city to its citizens. Members of the Hamilton Police Service have joined officers from Toronto, Sudbury, York, Kingston, Peel, Durham, London, Calgary, Edmonton and other jurisdictions. The ugly side of the occupation has continued to be laid bare on television over the past couple of days, with extraordinary scenes of people spitting on officers, berating law enforcement officials, throwing objects at police and their horses, and engaging in other disruptive activities with the sole objective of standing in the way of reclaiming the city and upholding the rule of law. We heard here in Ottawa that the local police needed additional support, additional resources and tools to confront a national event in an area that falls under the jurisdiction of local police services. To date, the police have shown great restraint, even while under attack. As has been reported, the police have been the target of protesters not just here in Ottawa, but at other locations across Canada, including southern Alberta. The domestic terrorist plot in Alberta highlights and emphasizes the need for all levels of government to provide the police with the appropriate level of support and necessary tools to keep their members and the public safe, and we are doing that here tonight. I look forward to the studies and inquiry that will follow, and the reviews that will help us plan for future events that will occur, whether in Windsor, Coutts, Ottawa or elsewhere. We cannot sit on our hands and hope the problems will go away on their own, as the official opposition has suggested. We need to fully understand how the illegal blockades and occupations were planned and funded. The recommendations—

1489 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/20/22 11:06:19 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member can complete his thoughts in questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

17 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:06:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if this was an honest attempt by the government to include the official opposition and convince us that the use of the Emergencies Act was warranted and met the threshold, I would have thought the government would have given us all the briefing materials, the evidence and the facts. It would have released them and made the judicial opinions from Justice Canada officials public. It did not do any of those things. In fact, I distinctly remember that on Wednesday morning, before our national caucus meeting even began, we went to reporters, and the House Leader of the Opposition told them very clearly that we were not provided any documentation in order for our caucus to make a decision based on what evidence the government had in its hands. This is not a good-faith attempt to work across both sides of the aisle. This is a politically driven use of the Emergencies Act to save the leadership of the Prime Minister, and nothing else. I do not have a question for the member. I just wanted to put that on the record.

185 words

All Topics

Mr. Chad Collins

Feb/20/22 11:07:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the member does not have a question. Millions of Canadians, over the last couple of days, have watched what transpired in Ottawa. What he and his party have ignored is the impact it has had on Ottawa's citizens. The member for Carleton today stood and talked about what is happening in Canada. As an Ottawa representative, not once did he reference what was happening in this city. Conservatives are ignoring what is happening to people in Ottawa and the impact it is having on people's daily lives.

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/20/22 11:08:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a very odd day in the House of Commons when the Conservatives are choosing to negatively attack the premier of Ontario and the Liberals are standing for him. It is a unique moment in time for us today. My question has to do with Conservative premiers in this country. On February 4, the premier of my province, Premier Kenney, asked the federal government for help: There was a need to stop the blockades in Coutts. The provincial government was unable to manage the blockade there. On February 18, Premier Kenney decided he was going to sue the federal government. I would like some information. How does the member feel about this sort of flip-flopping between requiring help and then wanting to take to court the same people he asked for help?

136 words

All Topics

Mr. Chad Collins

Feb/20/22 11:09:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member noted, there has been a flip-flop of events in Alberta, in terms of asking for help and then criticizing the government when it acted upon the request from that province. As she mentioned, here in Ontario, the premier has declared a state of emergency. That is what the act does. It declares a state of emergency and gives provinces the ability to deal with protesters, whether they are in blockades or in occupations such as we saw in Ottawa.

85 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35