SoVote

Feb/20/22 7:47:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the jurisdictional football that people have watched take place with COVID is symptomatic of what I have seen in politics as a municipal city councillor, and it has continued to plague us. I asked the government to do a vaccination program for truckers, similar to what provinces were doing in advance. The government refused to do that, so there has been no centralization of some of the programs that have taken place, even though the federal government has been presented with solutions. Those are the things we should get in front of. We are always on the defence. To be frank, we need to stop the jurisdictional wrangling. The Ambassador Bridge sits on a road in the city of Windsor that goes to an interprovincial highway and then goes to the 401. Who is going to protect those roads? Who is going to pay when convoys are still coming here and the mayor receives a bomb threat for taking a stand? These things are not right and they are not helpful, and that is why I support corrective action now before things get worse.

186 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:46:38 a.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I would like to thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest. I have been thoroughly disgusted that the Conservatives continue to minimize the extremism that has been allowed to grow in all of Canada. I have seen the effects of these extremist messages reach my home community of Iqaluit. Iqaluit has one of the lowest vaccination rates in Nunavut, albeit about 70%. These extremist ideologies, such as not getting vaccinated because of religion, have had detrimental effects in my community. Once COVID-19 arrived in Iqaluit, it rampaged through the community. For weeks, COVID-19 cases rose. Iqaluit is not the largest community in Nunavut, but it had the highest incidence rates for a while. Does the member agree that these extremist views having infiltrated the farthest reaches of my riding in Nunavut is an indication that extremism such as this is a national issue requiring urgent action?

150 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:48:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. That is the deal. From the early stages of the pandemic to a protest that has become the target of the sledgehammer that is the Emergencies Act, the government has failed in every way to plan for events that it had ample opportunity to be ready for. It has dismally planned to fail. Before COVID-19 we had SARS, a precursor to the pandemic that should have given us a road map for what could come, but it did not. From a dismal lack of stockpiling of PPE to the completely inadequate health care capacity of our whole system to the failure to produce a single drop of vaccine two years in, Canada was not ready for what became the biggest spend of money in all Canadians' lifetimes combined. What will we see in the next decade? Misspending has created the largest inflation in 30 years, gas prices are now over $1.80 in some parts of the country, and grocery bills are crippling our families. The government did what the government had to do when there was no plan: It intervened. The problem with the government taking total control is that it hates to lose the control that it has gained. Let us switch gears to the protests here in Ottawa. The convoy drove from west to east, making its way slowly across the country while making it well known that it was not happy with the mandates. In every town it entered, it was met with thousands of Canadians who supported it, feeling hopeful for change. Canadians had their own reasons for supporting it, but the common thread was the need for change, for hope and for the end of suffering. The government had fair warning. People were coming and they were unhappy. The government had ample time to listen to the people and create a plan, a road map out of this pandemic, that Canadians so desperately needed. However, instead of listening and seeing what other countries that had had fourth waves ahead of us were doing, on January 7 our health minister said that he saw more mandates coming. There was Quebec's tax on health and the continued PCR testing that the WHO said was unnecessary. There was and has been no scientific medical data to back up these mandates, just as there was no data to prove that the Prime Minister was correct in suggesting that interprovincial passports for truckers were absolutely necessary. Instead of listening and creating a safe, responsible plan, the government took a heavy hand, threatening more mandates and belittling Canadians for expressing their displeasure. The Ottawa police, the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police had all the time they needed to prepare for trucks coming downtown, but let us be honest: There was no plan. An article in the National Post on Saturday stated that the Ottawa police's plan was that the trucker protest would last just a weekend. When police were overwhelmed, they still did not announce an emergency. The following week, they became more indecisive. The police chief stated that he believed protesters would dissipate on their own. It was a failure to plan. Especially, there was no plan from the federal government to address this larger group or manage any elements of lawlessness. There was absolutely no plan to understand that this was not just a fringe element, but a larger movement of ordinary Canadians simply looking for hope from somebody, anybody, as we in the world continually reach the last phases of the pandemic and the beginning of an endemic. It was a larger group that had no affiliation with hate, intolerance or lawlessness. We only had to listen to and speak to many of those screaming to be heard, or see the messaging from our constituencies. Most of all, it was a failure of the Prime Minister. We must all remember just one thing in the House, and that is whom we work for, whom we represent and whom we answer to. When we forget that, and it feels like the government has forgotten it, we find a divided country. A divided country allows our country to be weak on the world stage, weak in future planning and weak to those who look to us for a path forward. The Prime Minister made a choice, and that choice ignored Canadians when they most needed a leader to hear from. Here are some of the voices from Bay of Quinte in the last few weeks. My son struggles after COVID19 to the point where he has completely broken down. He can no longer play with friends and he has no interest in even attending school. I had a major reaction to the first vaccine where I cannot mentally get the second and cannot get a medical exception. I am at the verge of breaking down every day and have never had so little hope. I donated $30 to the trucker convoy not because of any other reason than I wanted hope and an end to mandates. I’m a single mother and I’m afraid my bank account will be frozen, and I will be detained. I am currently a teacher. I am speaking on behalf of children that are being masked all day long. They cannot breathe. They are not developing social skills with one another that they should be. The language development in several of my senior kindergarten students are being stunted because of masks. This is after we should be celebrating what we have done as a country, a country that is 90% vaccinated, a country that has all the opportunity in front of it for a prosperous future and a country that can start to heal from its wounds. As COVID‑19 wanes, what is left today is a country in shambles. What remains is a country divided, leaving generations of mistrust in government. When a government divides and conquers, once trust is broken, it is almost impossible to build it back. Mothers, daughters and sons have contacted us in the last few weeks. There has been massive trauma experienced as a result of COVID‑19. Domestic abuse and mental health issues have gone through the roof. The question for the government is this: Why are your politics more important than the heart of this nation? We keep creating division when we should be healing. We cannot keep fighting across the aisle, slinging mud and acting like it is helpful. Canadians need us to meet them with an open heart, acknowledge the pain and trauma they have suffered throughout this pandemic and do all we can to be a light after this dark tunnel. It is time to say that we are sorry, right our wrongs, start mending our country and build trust again. The government did what it had to do at the beginning of the pandemic: It intervened because it had no plan. There have been countless consequences of that. Again, with no plan to deal with a prolonged protest in downtown Ottawa, the government is in another failure scenario with the Emergencies Act. We are against this act. The actions taken these past three weeks in several locations in Canada are not an aberration, but rather a manifestation of the growing frustration Canadians feel with our federal government and its inability to truly listen to Canadians and put them ahead of its overreach. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is a slap in the face to all Canadians and not a proud moment in our country’s history. Even if the need for law enforcement is justified to bail out those who failed to plan, it is the financial overreach that has me most concerned. The law must be predictable and transparent, and the financial overreach of this act is not. Banks should not be and are not our nation’s prosecutors. There are laws now that ensure law enforcement can and will go after unlawful activities, but no Canadian who innocently donated to a cause because they wanted desperately to feel hope should feel maligned. Certainly no government looking at powers that allow financial information to be accessed should be allowed to make those changes permanent, as the Deputy Prime Minister made claim to this week. The invocation of the Emergencies Act under these circumstances is an insult to all Canadians and certainly not a proud moment in our country’s history. Our nation needs to start healing now, and that is the only plan that we all need to get behind.

1443 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:18:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an area I feel very passionately about and have been troubled by since becoming a member of Parliament and seeing the proliferation of disinformation online and the impacts it has had on people during COVID‑19 while they have been isolated for periods of time. I think many people have consumed a lot of this misinformation or disinformation, and I believe it is incumbent upon all of us, as members of Parliament, to combat this and not lose sight of the fact that our dialogue and debates are supposed to be anchored in the pursuit of truth. If democracy loses sight of that, we are in big trouble, and I think that is what we are seeing today. People are misinformed. I watched the live news coverage on Friday, all day. I could not help but notice and be—

145 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/20/22 10:20:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, from what I understand, omicron has changed the whole scenario we are in, so the context has shifted. However, that does not undermine the effectiveness of our vaccines in significantly reducing hospitalizations, severe illness and outcomes such as death. Vaccine mandates are still effective in reducing the spread of COVID‑19, specifically the spread of severe outcomes, and alleviating the burden on our health care systems, which we saw come very close to breaking down completely in the omicron wave. We have to continue this fight. The higher the vaccination rates, the better, and vaccine mandates have been proven in many jurisdictions to push those vaccination rates up as high as possible, which is good for our country and for our economy. I fully believe every Canadian should choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated. If they choose not to do so, that is their choice, but there are going to be some consequences associated with that.

160 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Hon. Mike Lake

Feb/20/22 10:35:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to be clear, Conservatives have been unequivocal in denouncing the clearly negative aspects of what happened outside this place, while at the same time clearly supporting individuals from across the country who have legitimate concerns about the approach the government is taking. In regard to the plan the hon. member mentioned, I would point out that her party supported the plan. We appreciate that because last Monday we did have a chance to move forward. It was a simple ask of the government to put forward a plan on February 28, two weeks after that date and one week from tomorrow, that would have laid out where we plan to go with COVID. It is something that governments around the world are doing. It is something that would have definitely had an impact on many of the people who were protesting here in Ottawa and across the country.

150 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Hon. Kirsty Duncan (Deputy House Leader of the Government, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 3:10:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I have always loved about this place, the people's House, is that it represents our great country of Canada. Each day we have the opportunity to listen to our colleagues and friends here in the House, who represent and serve their constituents from every corner of the country. This is the place where we come together to challenge and debate ideas by always putting Canadians first. Canadians are hurting. It has been a long, hard two years. Families have lost loved ones and friends. Many had to say goodbye over Zoom, never getting to see their family, hold their hand or give them comfort. They have lost businesses, and health care and emergency professionals have been tirelessly fighting COVID-19 day in and day out for two years. Families, communities and Canadians have been fighting COVID-19 in their own way. The silent majority of Canadians understand that the past two years have been about a public health crisis. When Canadians are hurting, it is our job to work even harder to come together, to lose the rhetoric, to lower the temperature, especially during volatile times, and to find a better way forward for all of us, for our children and for our most vulnerable. I think we can agree that our Constitution is founded on the values of peace, order and good government, and that people have the right to peaceful protest. I think we can also agree that the blockades have caused major damage to our economy. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge alone has affected about $390 million in trade each day. This bridge supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and the United States, our most important trading partner. In Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. In Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. These costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers, just as everyone is working hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID-19. I think we can agree that blocking trade routes, hurting the Canadian economy and preventing food and medicine from being delivered is not okay. Blocking life-saving ambulances, preventing cancer treatment appointments and the picking up of prescriptions, and forcing hospitals to take on extra security is not okay. I think we can also agree emphatically that desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is not okay, and that none of us ever wants to see a Nazi swastika flown anywhere in Canada. However, this sacred tomb has been desecrated. It is a place of national remembrance, a place that must be respected at all times. Nazi swastikas have been flown here and around Parliament Hill. This is not peaceful protest. Rather, these are heinous and incendiary acts that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The Nazi swastika symbolizes a regime that murdered six million Jews. It has an unimaginable and transgenerational impact on Holocaust survivors and on families that lost mothers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and loved ones. It is beyond disgusting and horrific that people would use symbols like the Nazi swastika, symbols that are like daggers, that are meant to hurt and meant to cause pain. In Germany, the public display of the Nazi swastika is punishable by jail time. It is our shared responsibility to remember those who suffered under the Nazi regime, to protect the truth, to confront those who seek to deny, to support research and documentation and to teach about the Holocaust so that education may prevent anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. It is also our job to protect children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. On Friday, Ottawa police reported that protesters had put children between police operations and the unlawful protest site. No child should ever be put in harm's way, let alone in the middle of a demonstration where a police operation is unfolding. Canadians do not want finger pointing. They do not want name-calling. They do not want blaming other levels of government. They want us to work together to put an end to this. Canadians understand that what was happening in Ottawa was no longer a lawful protest, but rather an illegal occupation. In fact, a national survey shows two-thirds of Canadians support the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and believe that it is time to restore order and peace in Ottawa. As elected officials, our first responsibility is to protect those we serve. How would we feel if what we have been witnessing in Ottawa were happening in other communities that we serve? How would we feel if businesses, schools and vaccine clinics were closed? How would we feel if people were driving trucks around elementary schools and neighbourhoods, and swearing at and intimidating children? How would we feel if major arteries were blocked, access roads to airports were blocked or highly flammable materials were near campfires? How would we feel if public safety were threatened through deliberate acts of discrimination, displays of hate symbols, harassment, physical assault and vandalism? On Friday, the gridlock in our capital city reached a sad climax when Ottawa police reported that protesters had assaulted officers and tried to remove their weapons. In response, city, provincial and federal law enforcement officers began an operation Friday morning to remove protesters along with their vehicles. One person was arrested after throwing a bicycle toward a police horse. By the end of yesterday, more than 170 were arrested and 53 vehicles were towed. This unprecedented situation prompted the House to be shuttered Friday out of an abundance of caution, and it was agreed to by all political parties. Let us actually break that down a bit. While people talked about freedom and the importance of protecting freedom, on Friday, the freedom to speak in the House, the seat of our democracy, had to be suspended to protect the health and safety of everyone who works in the precinct. All of us have heard from people in our communities with varying perspectives, but it is clear that the majority of Canadians want this to stop and that a majority support the Emergencies Act. The actions we have witnessed these past weeks go far beyond what we accept as free speech. The Nazi swastika and other hate symbols threaten democracy itself. Protests that embrace such symbols and that have connections outside our country threaten our democracy. How we choose to act in this chamber, what we choose to say and what we learn will really matter as we recover from COVID-19 and this illegal occupation. My hope is that we will choose to make our flag a hopeful rallying point, with more and more people feeling they belong, they matter and they are included. We must choose to make our political dialogue peaceful and respectful and choose to think about how to regulate and prevent the spread of hate speech and other forms of misinformation. Canada's silent majority must be given a greater voice. After all, the silent majority is winning the war against the pandemic. Together, we must rebuild a better, brighter future for all.

1211 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

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

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

1483 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mr. Bernard Généreux

Feb/20/22 7:22:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was the first to condemn the vaccine mandate for truckers on December 15. I can assure the House that I have not changed my mind. As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert said earlier, the government used the election to sow division between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in Canada. It is still doing so. The Liberal Party members are doing the same thing now. It was not necessary to impose this requirement on the truckers, since the government tolerated the situation for two years. The government did not present any valid studies to show that the truckers were coming into Canada with COVID. There was absolutely no need to impose this requirement.

118 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 35 - Feb/20/22

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Feb/20/22 11:39:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this place to the motion put forward by the government, the absolute seriousness of these days and how we chart a path forward as a nation cannot be overstated. There is so much at stake. I am grateful for the insightful interventions that have already been put forward by my caucus colleagues. From the outset, I want to assure my constituents that I have heard them and I want them to know that I will be voting against this motion. I believe this action taken by the government is unnecessary, divisive and a dramatic overreaction given the circumstances. At a time when provincial governments and other countries have ended COVID-19 restrictions or announced plans to end them, the Prime Minister is an exception to the trend and is out of step. When Conservatives brought forward a reasonable motion calling on the federal government to table a plan outlining the steps and dates as to when federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions would be rolled back, a plan that would reduce the temperature and address the concerns of Canadians across the entire country, the Prime Minister refused, and the Liberals, together with the NDP, defeated our motion. This crisis was entirely preventable and is the result of the Prime Minister's unwillingness to use common sense. Instead of taking action to help lower the temperature, he insulted and disrespected Canadians. Instead of respecting Canadians, he doubled down on his efforts to wedge, divide and stigmatize. Instead of apologizing and listening to what Canadians had to say, he jumped straight to the most extreme measures to deal with the protests and invoked the Emergencies Act. I want to thank the hundreds of constituents who emailed and called my office over the past week regarding the matter we are discussing tonight. Less than 1% support the government's actions. Almost everyone is shocked and disappointed by the Prime Minister's invocation of the Emergencies Act. They understand that imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent, especially when the Prime Minister has made no other efforts to de-escalate the situation. I would like to read an email from a constituent, which is representative of the hundreds of messages I have received. Kathy wrote the following: “I am emailing you in regard to the Prime Minister's irrational invoking of the emergency measures act. I have read that the Emergencies Act can only be invoked if the situation cannot be dealt with through any other lawful manner in Canada. Considering the fact that the Prime Minister has not even sat down with the freedom convoy organizers to discuss removing all mandates, there is no need to invoke such an act. It has become very clear that the Prime Minister does not care about Canadians or our rights and freedoms. Many other countries have removed all mandates and restrictions and have come to realize that COVID has run its course. We need to get back to our lives and begin the massive job of rebuilding not only our economy, but mending all the division that the Prime Minister has created over the past two years. It breaks my heart to see all the families and friends being driven apart by this. As your constituent, I ask that when the Prime Minister goes before Parliament to seek approval of the Emergencies Act that you do not approve this. Please help us in our fight to make Canada free again.” To be clear, while I have heard from hundreds of my constituents, there have also been messages from hundreds of Canadians from across the country. They are worried about the future for their children and their grandchildren. Ultimately, they are concerned for the future of their beloved Canada. Many legal experts also oppose this action on the grounds that the test for invoking the Emergencies Act has not been met. A Twitter thread on February 14 by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association was damning of the government's decision: The federal government has not met the threshold necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: the Act allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes. This standard has not been met. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation "seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada" & when the situation "cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada." Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties. Many legal experts and organizations across Canada echo these concerns and believe that invoking this act is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent. Let us compare events in our not so distant past with the current situation. Two years ago there were a series of blockades on major rail lines and at the port of Vancouver. From January to March of 2020, protesters and their supporters across Canada who were opposed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline caused much economic hardship to the Canadian economy. What is strikingly different about that protest two years ago and the one we are experiencing today is not the response of law enforcement but rather the response of the government. Two years ago, ministers of the Crown met with the protesters, listened to their issues and sought a peaceful resolution through dialogue. Granted, the police eventually moved in to clear the blockades, but it was obvious that all other avenues seeking a resolution had been exhausted. Did that happen this time? Certainly not. What have these protesters received from the Liberal government? Insults, divisiveness and stigmatization. The Prime Minister's rhetoric during and since the election has poured fuel on the embers of distrust and division that were already smouldering. What we are seeing from this Prime Minister, his cabinet and his backbench is shocking. Their willingness to exploit the pandemic and divide Canadians, together with their overreach, is driving fear and concern for our future among my constituents and Canadians at large. This motion imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act will only exacerbate these feelings. Furthermore, the Government of Canada should not have the power to close the bank accounts of hard-working Canadians simply on the suspicion that they support causes of which the government does not approve. This is a slippery slope and not how the government should operate in a free and democratic society. Perhaps that is the whole point of this exercise, given the Deputy Prime Minister's comments yesterday when she stated, “For some of those tools, we will be putting forward measures to put those tools permanently in place. The authorities of FINTRAC, I believe, do need to be expanded to cover crowdsourcing platforms and payment platforms.” The minister used her inside voice and revealed the true Liberal agenda. Canada must not be defined by any one government, any one Parliament or any one person, but rather by our shared values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These values guide our institutions, through which are realized peace, order and good government. The pandemic has taken its toll on many of these institutions, largely because there was so much confusion and uncertainty in the beginning, planting the seeds of doubt and mistrust, but as we fast-forward two years, now the science and health experts are telling us that we have come through the worst of it and we need to re-evaluate and get back to normal. Sadly, the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act is another huge blow to the already crumbling trust many Canadians have in our institutions. Parliament has an opportunity to repair some of the damage and defeat this motion. I implore my colleagues to seize this opportunity and vote “nay”.

1350 words

All Topics