44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 7:18:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if I could put my monitor half a block behind me and zoom it, I could show the member the barricades that are still up in the Windsor area because the Ambassador Bridge blockade has now moved to city streets. Mohammed could not get to school last week and Joyce, a child, could not get to her doctor's appointment because of the blockade. The blockades have moved off Huron Church Road and are now blocking intersections. People cannot go to work and businesses are closed.
What does the member say to Mohammed and Joyce who have missed school and missed a doctor's appointment? Who is responsible for that, because what has happened is not normal? The blockades are displaced and are now in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada. What does he have to say to Mohammed and Joyce about their lives?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:35:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today from the well-travelled traditional grounds of the Three Fires Confederacy represented by the Ojibwa, Odawa and the Potawatomi. It is also an area for the Caldwell First Nation, whose people in the War of 1812 were very relevant to creating freedom for our country.
I have been very disappointed with regard to some of the debate that has taken place. My riding of Windsor West is the route for 40% of the trade per day to the United States, with 40,000 vehicles, of which 10,000 are transport trucks, travelling along this corridor. It is also the spot of an illegal blockade that took place. I do not know why the speaking points of the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois continue to reference things being okay at the Ambassador Bridge. I can tell everyone they are not.
The blockades have moved off Huron Church Road. It is a traditional first nations route in this country as the area was settled first by the French, then by the British. It has now come to the point where the blockade is in the city streets, similar to Ottawa. We have Jersey barriers and blockades as part of our life.
Most people do not know that the Ambassador Bridge is privately owned by an American billionaire. For years, I have fought to get a new border crossing, which is finally happening. My first public meeting was in 1998. The provincial and federal governments, in their wisdom, decided to end the 401 approximately 17 kilometres from the actual border crossing because of jurisdictional wrangling, something we see today between Ontario and the federal government over day care. Ironically, things have not changed much.
At any point in time, a transport truck could turn over or have a spill. It would cost all kinds of money, and cause pain and anguish to businesses and emergency services. It would cause all kinds of different repercussions to the Canadian economy. Not only do we build auto parts here, we also do mining and build other equipment. We are the lifeline and lifeblood of the country, with 40% of Canada's daily trade happening through this corridor.
In fact, right now someone could go on the bridge without seeing anybody and set off a bomb. They could go onto the plaza and do the same, and it would have lasting damage. It is why we fought for redundancy and why I have asked for government solutions. I am disappointed in the government in many respects. Even during this process, I proposed increasing the truck ferry redundancy and having a safe border task force to allow Canadian families to reunite, to take the steam off some of the frustration that we are faced with. We have residents in this community who have not seen their relatives for over two and a half years, who live two kilometres across the river. That is still no excuse for blocking that corridor. That corridor has often had demonstrations, but they have been peaceful and respectful. They have slowed traffic, but not at the expense of other people, their freedoms and their livelihoods.
Earlier today, I mentioned Mohammed, who could not go to school last week, and Joyce, whose doctor could not see her for her appointment because of the Jersey barriers that are here. Again, the Bloc and the Conservatives continue to profess that things are normal. Those individuals and their families paid just as much as anybody else in this pandemic, and now they are being further punished at their expense because other people think that that their freedoms are greater. No. A child should be able to see their doctor. People should not have to go crying to services.
Most importantly, the residents there who are currently losing their jobs do not qualify for extra assistance right now. Who is there to help them? I have asked for reparations like Ottawa got: some money to help the businesses and so forth. I held a press conference in this area, which has had some of the highest child poverty in Canada. It is finally getting a new development, which now is under siege. There are police vehicles. Jersey barriers are up, and it is cut off.
If anyone wants to see the protest that took place, I would suggest they go to Twitter. Jon Liedtke, a journalist, went down there and filmed some of it. It is on Twitter, at @jonliedtke. He interviewed people there. Do members know why some people were there? It was because they wanted their dog to go to a South Carolinian beach. They had not been able to go there for the last couple of years. Other people did it because they were frustrated, because they had lost their jobs. They parked their cars and vehicles in the middle of the street like no one had done before. This is a 10-lane road where people brought picnics, bouncy castles and a whole series of different things as well as their children. Moving that crowd, and the occupation of Ottawa, required extensive police coordination. In fact, we had armoured vehicles down here.
I have never seen, in 25 years of representing this area, armoured vehicles. The last time the bridge was shut down because of a demonstration, it was over the original NAFTA. People were arrested for that.
Meanwhile, during the pandemic, the myth has been that the American border had been closed. It had not been closed. Truckers in my community had been crossing every single day. The numbers were down to 5,000, with 4,000 trucks to every 1,000 vehicles at one point. They crossed every single day until this illegal blockade. That kept this country moving. That kept medical supplies coming in. That kept the jobs open, the ones that were able to be. That gave us revenue to be able to deal with these things. It was only closed by the illegal blockade. That is the only time it happened.
As for the repercussions, Dr. Khahra is in a veterinary clinic right now. We talk about mental health. He cannot get to his clinic. People cannot help their pets right now during a time when people are isolated. I represent people with disabilities, children with pets and so forth. They cannot get to those things right now. Why do they have to pay extra?
They already turned away another convoy. A couple more convoys have come to shut us down, so the threat is not gone. The mayor of Windsor received a bomb threat, for which someone was arrested. That is what is taking place down here. That is what is happening.
If I walk to the end of my street and go two kilometres the other way, the barriers are there. People will not get to their jobs today. The Tim Hortons along the corridor is shut down. It is only open for the emergency vehicles there. Tim Hortons hires from Community Living. It hires from different organizations. It actually gives money to some of the area's schools and some of the area's community groups. It is shut down right now, and it does not have a future. Why does it have to pay extra during the pandemic?
What happens next time? There is no plan right now. I have asked for an operational plan to be supported, not only for now but in the future.
I am as frustrated as every other member of the House with regard to the Prime Minister's treatment of COVID and the way he has handled it. That does not take away my responsibility to do the things that are right for this community and for the country.
I wake up every single day and hope the Prime Minister and every other member of Parliament in this place has a better day, because if I actually get my job done here and I have a better day, and my representatives actually create better lives for people, it will help everybody else. Again, 40% of trade comes through this community.
That is my goal every day. I do not get up to go against whatever is happening in the House. I do not understand this. It has been 20 years that I have been in Parliament. I could not have imagined the divisiveness that is taking place. Somebody has some type of idea. I do not have all the solutions for things, but I can tell you one right now. If we do not do the things that are necessary right now to protect the corridor, the pain will continue.
We get to live down here with the uncertainty. The bridge finally got a new corridor coming into it along the 401. We fought forever to get a new parkway developed so that it is no longer just all lights. There are several traffic lights there, and there are several intersections. We get to live with that over our heads every single day.
To get a resolution to this, a school along the corridor had a Health Canada study with backpacks to monitor children's air quality, because that is how many transport trucks go down this corridor.
We finally got some justice here. We are finally getting a new border crossing. In the meantime, we are going to have to live with the fact that at any point in time, 10 or 12 vehicles, or even two or three vehicles depending on what they want to do, could shut down this corridor.
I have to say that, when I look at some of the protests going on, there are some very legitimate concerns being expressed by Canadians, and so they should. As I mentioned earlier, I have been appealing to the government for a safe border task force, so we can get in front of some of the issues.
At the beginning of the pandemic, I had to fight tooth and nail to finally get somebody from the United States to be able to come to a hospice room to see a dying relative, without stopping anywhere and without ever having left the vehicle. It was only six kilometres away. It took moving a mountain.
I understand the frustrations. I have not seen my daughter for half a year because of COVID restrictions. She is away at school, and because she had a cold, she could not come home for the holidays. That is a minor thing compared with the fact that, here where I represent, people can walk down to the river, look across and see the United States, yet they have not been able to see their relatives.
I do not like the way the government has done some of the testing, or the cost of the testing. Right now, there are rich people who can cross over and see American relatives and their friends and families, whereas there are poor people who cannot, or they have to decide who it is that can go.
That does not give me the right to infringe on other people's freedoms. That does not give me the right to be so unhappy that I can shut down others' prosperity.
If we had a protest that blocked roads every single time in this country, nothing would be—
1899 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:50:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to the people in my riding of Thérèse‑De Blainville, and thanking the many constituents who have sent messages of support for the position taken by my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I on the blockade in downtown Ottawa and in this debate on the Emergencies Act.
People have very legitimate questions, worries and concerns. We have listened carefully, and they have been heard. We also heard their heartfelt pleas that they never again wanted to experience or be afraid of experiencing the worst, that is events such as those of 1970, when the War Measures Act was invoked. The collective trauma and the fear experienced are still vivid and painful memories for an entire nation, namely, the people of Quebec.
I forgot to mention that, in the spirit of solidarity, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Repentigny. We stand twice as united.
Of course, the Emergencies Act is not the same as the War Measures Act. We know the difference. The former is nevertheless the spawn of the latter, as our leader so aptly put it. Although these two acts must not be conflated, they do have one thing in common: They are both special laws. This means that the exception should not be the rule or become the norm in dealing with situations or events that can be resolved using other means, whether political or legal, or through laws already in place. Any government that is even considering using the Emergencies Act must demonstrate unequivocally that all avenues have been pursued and all options have been exhausted.
Isaac Newton said that we should only be certain about what can be proven. I am certain that the Emergencies Act is not necessary because the government and the Prime Minister have failed to prove that it is.
On the first day of debate in the House, the Prime Minister described the Emergencies Act as targeted, proportionate and reasonable. That same day, I described it as the opposite. This act is disproportionate and unreasonable. How can he claim that it is targeted when, in fact, its scope is from one end of Canada to the other, whether we need it or not?
One thing the act requires is consultation with the provinces. Even though seven of them said no, even though the Premier of Quebec said no, even though the National Assembly unanimously said no, the federal government does not care. It does not give a fig. That is bad.
To hear the Prime Minister tell it, this is a law of last resort to be used once options 1, 2 and 3 have all failed. Those options did not fail; they were not even tried.
Plans for a protest at the Parliament of Canada in the national capital were announced over three weeks ago now. We knew a convoy of truckers was coming from as far away as Vancouver, bearing a message for the federal government. What steps did the federal government take to prepare? Nobody knows. Did the federal government analyze the potential impact of the protest based on the messages it was expecting to hear from the protestors? Apparently not. It seems to have opted for a wait-and-see approach, which led the protesters to believe they were welcome in Ottawa and could make themselves right at home.
Once the protesters were settled in in front of Parliament Hill and on main downtown arteries, the only thing the Prime Minister deigned to say was that they were a fringe minority. After that, there was no sign of him. A few days later, things got worse. We acknowledge that. We condemn what happened. We do not tolerate these incidents. At that point, the Prime Minister said that it was not up to the government, that it was up to the City of Ottawa and its police service.
Funnily enough, around the same time, I heard a City of Ottawa police officer saying that the police were speaking to protesters, but that the protesters were not interested in talking to the police because they wanted to speak to the Prime Minister. That short message spoke volumes.
In the House, we urged the government to take action and we proposed such solutions as creating a crisis task force, requesting a meeting with the opposition party leaders and the Prime Minister, and emphasizing that coordinated action was necessary. That would have been possible and, in fact, it proved to be possible when law enforcement coordinated their efforts and took down the protest in front of Parliament Hill in two days. No one had been able to take down that protest for three weeks.
The City of Ottawa requested an additional 1,800 police officers, and the federal government sent them 275 RCMP officers. The Prime Minister and his government had options and chose to let the situation drag on. What is worse, the government now wants our blessing for its inaction and is calling on us to vote in favour of using the Emergencies Act, a piece of legislation designed to be used in exceptional circumstances. We will not support the use of this act, because the evidence is clear that the government dropped the ball. Once again, one too many times, the Prime Minister and his government proved themselves to be incapable of managing conflicts.
There is no crisis in the country right now that warrants invoking the Emergencies Act. Yes, for the past 24 days there has been a protest-turned-blockade that is interfering with the peace of mind and safety of downtown Ottawa residents. We condemned this protest and continue to do so. However, the situation can and could have been dealt with long before, with the powers that the police already have and with the legislative tools already available.
The Emergencies Act was passed in 1988, over 30 years ago, and to this day it has never been enacted. The fact that the government is invoking it now is proof of its failure in managing the crisis. We cannot endorse it, because this government has failed to demonstrate that it is needed. Nor can it be considered a “just in case” option.
I heard the Minister of Justice say that this legislation is being invoked in case the protesters come back or in case the situation in Windsor becomes destabilized. The Emergencies Act is there to deal with an ongoing situation, not to prevent one in the future or to act retroactively on a past situation. The minister should know that, because it is an essential principle of natural justice.
There is one option that we would support, and that is for the government to withdraw this motion and to admit that it was wrong. That would take courage and humility. If that is not possible, we would be satisfied with an apology from the Prime Minister. We know that he is capable of giving them.
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:14:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
Ironically, this morning I received an Instagram notification, which reminded me of what happened exactly two years ago, specifically the rail blockade of—
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:42:23 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk from the perspective of being an Albertan and what has been happening in Alberta. I am the daughter of a truck driver, and the truck drivers that sat around my kitchen table while I was growing up, they got vaccinated. They care about their community. They care about the people they work with, and they want to get to work. They want to be able to make a living. Truck drivers do not make a living if they are not driving their truck. When their truck is parked, they do not make a living.
What I see in Coutts, and what I see when these major throughways are impacted, is the fact that these guys cannot get to work, and they cannot make an income. That is so unfair, to say nothing of the fact that the blockade, which was in place for 18 days, cost over $40 million a day to the Alberta economy. If we cannot think about the truckers who are trying to do their job, we can think about the economic impacts on Albertans.
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:10:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do truly believe in facts as well. Certain members in this House have not experienced a lot of push-back as a result of the blockade, but I have talked to many people, and I encourage members here to talk to people. I have talked to those who are working in hotels and who are immensely stressed out. They are stressed out and traumatized by seeing Confederate flags and Nazi symbols in the hotel. It is so important that we continue to focus on the rule of law, because that is the very essence of who we are as Canadians. The values we share are enshrined in the laws we have, and we must uphold them.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.
I agree that Ottawa residents have suffered enough. I hope that I explained in my speech, and now in my answer, that this blockade should never have taken place.
The government's mistake was to allow the protesters to settle in and get organized. Things should never have gotten to that point. Extremists should never have gained so much visibility.
It was a mistake for the government to let this happen. It should have acted earlier, and it should never have gotten to the point of illegitimately invoking this law.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:16:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important to note that no level of government can direct a police force. We do not, nor should we, have these powers. The failure of the Ottawa Police Service to shut down this occupation quickly at the beginning will, I am sure, be the subject of further analysis, but that is not the debate today.
The Emergencies Act was enacted due to the inability of provincial and municipal law enforcement to peacefully enforce the rule of law to address the blockades and occupation, to keep Canadians safe, to protect people’s jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. I fear many Canadians do not understand that the Emergencies Act is, indeed, different from the War Measures Act. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still in place, of course, while the Emergencies Act is in force. Civil liberties are not suspended, nor is the charter set aside.
If the above rationale is not sufficient, then I point members to the proclamation declaring the public order emergency with further rationale. That includes the continuing blockades occurring at various locations throughout Canada and continuing threats to oppose measures to remove blockades, including by force, for the purpose of achieving political or ideological objectives; the adverse impact on the Canadian economy from the impacts of the blockades, and on Canada’s relationships with its trading partners, including the United States; the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods, services and resources caused by the blockades, and the risk that this could continue; and the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence, with further threats to our safety and security as Canadians.
What does this actually mean? What does invoking the Emergencies Act actually do? Canadian governments at all levels have given the protesters a lot of leeway. Governments have allowed this protest to proceed despite a number of laws being broken. The protesters were allowed to make their point. We understand and continue to hear their concerns, and they have been debated at length in the House of Commons.
Some other levels of government have even met protesters' demands and have begun repealing some COVID-19 measures, yet in the words of the protest organizers themselves, these concessions are insufficient. Anything short of overthrowing this democratically elected government is insufficient. At some point, protesters need to abide by the rules of democracy, just as the rest of us do.
A democratically elected government, meaning us, may invoke duly-enacted emergency laws that are reviewable by the courts, subject to compliance with the charter, that are proportionate to civil disturbance and that are limited in scope. That is what has happened here. Any action taken under the Emergencies Act must be accountable to Parliament, to the courts and to the imminent public inquiry on the use of the Emergencies Act. There is no better example of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act than what has transpired over the past 48 hours just outside these doors.
We heard directly from interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell that the additional tools he had at his disposal because of this action the government took to invoke the Emergencies Act enabled his force, with the support of the RCMP, OPP and other police forces from across the country, to lawfully dismantle the siege that crippled our downtown for far too long.
I would like to review the measures that have been brought forward under the public order emergency very quickly. The first is regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to the breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest. The second is designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. The third is directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades. This is critical. This enabled us to compel tow truck drivers to engage and provide the services that we needed to clear this blockade.
The fourth is authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades. The fifth covers measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, and the sixth is the imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of the order.
My hope is that we have seen invoking the Emergencies Act achieve two things. First, it gave the police forces the tools they needed to be able to end the occupation. Second, it enabled us to address the financial aspects of the protesters. We cannot let the international reputation of Canada be tarnished by letting our capital city fall because of this occupation.
Colleagues on all sides of the House, let us find a way to govern together. We all have the best interests of Canadians at heart. Let us learn from this, both from our mistakes and our successes. The safety of Canadians and our democracy cannot be a partisan issue.
816 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:37:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can remove all of the blockades. Let us remove the mandates and restrictions that are blocking people's livelihoods today. Let us end the blockades on freedom of speech that the government is trying to erect with its online censorship bill. Let us end the regulatory blockades so that builders can provide affordable homes, first nations can develop their economies and escape poverty, and newcomers can actually work in the professions for which they were trained. Let us remove the inflationary taxes, deficits, and money printing so that people's wages can again buy them homes, food and fuel. Let us remove that blockade.
Let us put people back in control of their lives by making Canada the freest place on earth: free to speak, free to think, free to work, free to worship, free to own a home and build one's own destiny. Let us bind up the nation's wounds with compassion and respect and unite our country for freedom.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:10:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, given the parliamentary secretary's role in agriculture and agri-food, he would know the extraordinary importance of ensuring that our supply chain is maintained across that border. My colleague from Windsor West spoke this morning about the incredible impact that this blockade was having on his riding, which of course has a border crossing within it. He called for the government to put forward a safe border task force.
Is that something the hon. parliamentary secretary can support?
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:40:49 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.
Some have tried to hide the influence that foreign extremists had in the illegal blockade and what they might continue to have.
It is also great to start seeing Ottawans walking the streets in joy and with freedom from fear from the so-called freedom convoy. It is great to see them wearing their masks and enjoying the normally beautiful downtown core.
Can the member say whether it is more important to listen to public health officials whose interests are to protect the health of Canadians or to the extremist leadership who have attempted to overthrow a democratically elected government?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:49:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate being here in the House debating the very important piece of legislation before us.
I want to thank the member who just spoke. I work with her closely in our joint roles as whips, and I really appreciated the very sensitive approach she took in her speech. I also want to say that these are amazing times. I believe we should not be here, yet here we are. I also want to say that today when I was walking to come to work I saw something that really bothered me. I saw a small business owner chasing two men out of his store with a stick, yelling at them. He could not get hold of the police.
I am just wondering if the member could talk about the impacts this kind of recklessness is having in this county, when we see this extremism, when we see a blockade for three weeks, when we see people feeling so afraid and we also see the impacts of that activity, which means our social structures start to come undone. If we cannot stand up in this House and talk about how we are going to deal with that, then I do not think we are doing our jobs very well. I would love to hear her thoughtful response, just as thoughtful as her speech was.
226 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:53:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we all know that invoking the Emergencies Act sent a very strong message to the occupiers who were conducting the blockade. It enabled them to be dispersed. I do not know if the hon. member heard the speech from the member for Windsor West, but subsequently, at a number of our border crossings, those measures really helped to turn away convoys and prevent subsequent blockades.
The legislation is working. It will have to be ratified by the House tomorrow, and I look forward to that vote.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:47:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will get another opportunity at a future time to talk about the type of legacy that this government and the Prime Minister will be able to leave, but for now, with regard to the Emergencies Act, it is important for us to recognize that by enacting it, we have enabled people like the interim chief of police here in Ottawa and other law enforcement agencies to access laws that will assist them in dealing with things such as the illegal blockade. We know that for a fact, and there are many individuals out there who support this initiative.
My question for my friend is this: Does he not see the benefit of having targeted actions taken, such as not being able to use children as a form of blockade and having additional fines in place to protect our borders for international trade and downtowns from being blockaded in the future, if in fact that were—
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:53:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by noting I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.
I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's critically important debate at a difficult time for our country. It is difficult because it pains me to see the lengths that those who descended upon Ottawa and our border crossings across the country, and those who sympathized with them, felt they needed to go just to have their voices heard. It pains me to see the response that was necessary to restore order in our country.
For three weeks the occupation of Ottawa's downtown core has forced businesses to close, putting thousands out of work. It has restricted the movement of essential workers and goods and has threatened the health and safety of the city's residents. Since the blockades began at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, over $390 million in daily trade with Canada's largest and most important trading partner has been adversely affected.
Border blockades have stretched as far away as the Pacific truck crossing here in B.C., causing significant damage to our supply chains and our economy, and even reconstituted yesterday. As the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, these costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers just as they are working hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID. They also threaten our reputation as a reliable trading partner. Clearly, this is unacceptable.
These illegal blockades and occupations are not just a threat to our economy. The leaders of these activities are not just calling for their voices to be heard. They are calling for Canada's recently democratically elected government to be overthrown through threats of violence and coercion and by holding our cities and our supply chains hostage through illegal activities that rob fellow citizens of their rights.
The leaders of these protests are supported by a vast, coordinated and well-financed international network of disinformation that is seeking to sow doubt in our country's institutions, in independent media and in science. It is a network involving the alt-right that promotes xenophobic and racist views that, despite our hopes that Canada was immune from it, presents a real and present threat to our democratic institutions.
It is a coordinated effort to use mistruths and half-truths to misrepresent constantly evolving scientific evidence as a reason to attack and discredit expert opinion. It pains me to think that in Canada we are talking about fake news, yet here we are. This coordinated effort has exploited the very real frustration that we all feel having lived through this pandemic for two whole years. It has exploited people's legitimate desires to gather, let loose and enjoy the company of others by using conspiracy theories that scapegoat the Prime Minister, governments, experts, the media and shadow elites, rather than recognizing that we all face one common enemy: the virus.
I do not want to paint all the people who have attended these protests or those who sympathize with them with the same brush. I have spoken to many who have legitimate concerns and see this as an opportunity to express the frustration that we all feel. Coming to Parliament to make our voices heard in peaceful protest is a sacred right that we all must protect. I want to assure the folks that have reached out to me by phone, email and social media that they have been heard. What we are debating here today is not about silencing their voices, but rather re-establishing order and restoring freedoms to those who have had them taken away.
To the measure at hand, on February 14, the Government of Canada appropriately declared a public order emergency. This order is effectively and peacefully putting an end to these illegal acts. Make no mistake. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented measure that was invoked in the context of ongoing border blockades, which became necessary after weeks of impasse with the occupation in Ottawa and after all other measures had been exhausted. It comes after occupiers had been directed to leave for weeks, after additional resources were provided to the police of local jurisdiction and after coordinated efforts of law enforcement were not able to rectify a solution nor remove the illegal blockade in Ottawa.
This is not the first resort and it has not been used lightly. Contrary to what many believe, it does not suspend the application of our rights and freedoms. This act is replete with checks and balances to ensure it is not abused. This is an, at most, 30-day time-limited measure overseen by a committee of parliamentarians that is proportional, targeted and will be followed by an inquiry. It can also be revoked by Parliament at any time, and it is our duty to ensure that these powers are used prudently and only so long as they are needed.
The measures being implemented allow the temporary designation of secure areas to prevent blockades, allow for the freezing of accounts of those financing illegal activities and other assets used in the furtherance of these illegal activities, allow the RCMP to enforce local bylaws, bring law enforcement capabilities from across the country to bear and importantly enable the government to commandeer tow trucks to finally move the blockade. This is precisely what we have seen happen in the last week.
We have heard from the opposition that these powers are not necessary, so I want to quote the interim Ottawa police chief. He said, on Friday, “Without the authorities that have been provided to us through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to be doing the work we are today.” I want to thank law enforcement for their professional work to carry out this operation, largely safely, and the vast majority of the protesters who eschewed violence and went home peacefully. I also want to thank members of the media for putting themselves in harm's way to cover the events of the past few days in the face of so much abuse.
I have had constituents question whether there was, in fact, a public order emergency, as the act requires to trigger this measure, so I want to touch on that briefly. The Emergencies Act states that the threshold that must be met is a reasonable belief that a public order emergency exists. Public order emergencies are defined as serious threats to the security of Canada, and such threats are defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act as including:
foreign influenced activities...that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person
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
activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts...to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada
We know that over half the donations made in furtherance of these illegal blockades came from international sources, thousands of which funded the January 6 insurrection in Washington. Also, there have been serious threats and destructive acts to individuals and businesses in Ottawa, and the stated purpose of this enterprise was to overthrow the government. Therefore, from my reading, this threshold is clearly met.
Many have raised concerns about the precedent that using this act presents, and while this act must always be used sparingly, I believe it is warranted in this situation for the reasons I mentioned before. I would also counter that we need to be similarly concerned with the precedent that would be set if we did not act. The precedent would be allowing an openly seditious movement to be legitimized, and to legitimize the methods of blockading critical infrastructure and of seeking to hold cities hostage for weeks on end with the goal of forcing a change in government policy or of the government itself.
I would agree we should never have ended up at this point. We should not have had to resort to the Emergencies Act, but here we are. The last few weeks have revealed vulnerabilities in our law enforcement system, and it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to learn from these illegal blockades, and who and what was behind them, to take remedial action and to take seriously the threat that misinformation and foreign influence pose to our democracy. If we can do that, we will ensure that tools, systems and protocols are in place to prevent similar situations from occurring without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act, as we must do now.
I also want to clarify a distinction and misinterpretation that sits at the heart of these illegal activities, and that is the idea of freedom. Freedom cannot be absolute in a free and democratic society. Freedom is not a form of unbridled licence to do whatever we want regardless of how it harms others. Personal freedoms must be limited when they take away the freedoms of others. The flip side of personal rights and freedoms is societal obligations and responsibilities. They must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of others. That is how a democratic society functions, and that is why these blockades must end.
Political protest is protected by our charter right to freedom of expression, but there is no right in this country to block critical infrastructure, to harass fellow Canadians, to vandalize businesses and homes, to defecate in the streets, to saddle others with the cost of policing these actions or to saddle our country with billions of dollars in economic losses from illegal blockades. None of these aforementioned acts can ever be considered a legitimate form of expression.
I have to say that I have been embarrassed by what I have seen in Canada over the last month, from the hateful symbols we have seen in public and hateful political rhetoric to the horrible messages my staff, many of my hon. colleagues and I have been receiving. We need to be civil. We need to be better. We need to be able to truly listen to the ideas that differ from our own without pointing fingers and calling each other names. As elected representatives of Canadians, that starts in this House.
With that, I look forward to questions from my hon. friends.
1751 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:53:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I never said it was not important. For example, just before COVID we had the railway blockade where $6 billion was lost for our economy and we did not react to that. When she asks that question, I will say I do care and I think we should be doing something. I do believe we do not need the Emergencies Act to keep our streets safe.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
