44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 8:00:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not falsely conflate the two acts, but the trauma does still remain in our collective psyche. It makes no difference. There is no crisis. That is what is being falsely conflated. The Emergencies Act applies all across Canada to situations that are not crises, like the one we are experiencing.
The situation in Windsor has been resolved because the police managed to resolve it, and yes, it still needs to be stabilized, but the police must do that. We saw that it worked. Do we have to wait for President Biden to call the Prime Minister again to resolve the matter, because that makes it more important?
Jurisdictional issues are not an excuse for incompetence and the inability to coordinate all the resources that would have been necessary to deal with the situation in Ontario.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:18:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are very worried about the expanded powers that this act could give the government.
Once again, we are insisting on the fact that everything we needed was already in place. Laws such as the Criminal Code already exist and injunctions can be obtained. Everything could have been addressed in some other way. As proof, crises were resolved elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec.
We must be vigilant. We cannot let people challenge the rule of law, but, at some point, we must intervene and be proactive.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:43:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I join fellow members of Parliament in debating the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act and the extraordinary powers of the act that have never been used by any government since the act was created in 1988. As the House debates the matters in front of us today, I believe the responsibility each of us carries individually to our respective constituents and the responsibility we hold collectively to the people of Canada are of extreme gravity.
Today, Canada is likely more divided than we have ever been before. This division has grown during a time when Canada has faced not just one crisis but layers of crises and unprecedented challenges. It is within the context of division and crisis that Canadians look to us, their members of Parliament, to focus on the leadership required to start healing divisions and focus on the questions that need to be answered for the government to produce a plan for recovery. As we undertake our work today and any other day, let us not forget for a moment that Canadians are counting on us, all 338 of us, to deliver the leadership that they want and deserve.
Prior to the government's official confirmation on February 14 that it was invoking the Emergencies Act, the leader of the official opposition asked the Prime Minister if he considered the protests in Coutts, Alberta; Windsor; and Ottawa to be the “threats to the security of Canada” that section 16 of the act refers to. In response to her question, the public safety minister told the leader of the official opposition that, since the beginning of the blockades, “this federal government has provided law enforcement with all of the resources that they have needed.”
It is important to note here that the Minister of Public Safety did not confirm that the blockades represented threats to the security of Canada, the threshold set out in section 16. Rather, the public safety minister confirmed that the federal government had provided law enforcement services with all of the resources they needed. If the government believed on February 14 that the blockades represented threats to the security of Canada, described by section 16, it should have said so, but it did not. If the government had truly provided law enforcement agencies with all of the resources they needed since the beginning, then who needed the resources of the unprecedented powers that the government invoked with the Emergencies Act?
On February 14, before the government invoked the Emergencies Act, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor was reopened and the blockade at Coutts was in its waning hours before it ended the next day. In Ottawa, the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police had established an integrated command centre with the Ottawa Police Service, three weeks after the blockade began. Within four days of forming the integrated command centre, law enforcement officers in Ottawa were clearing the blockades. All of this is to say that, of all the blockades that the Prime Minister was questioned about on February 14, one was cleared, a second one was coming down and the days of the Ottawa blockades were numbered as law enforcement branches integrated their commands, yet here we are today, in this extraordinary sitting of the House, trying to get a straight answer from the government as to why it insists on continuing to invoke the extraordinary powers of the Emergencies Act.
This is a question of profound gravity because the powers the government has bestowed upon itself, with scant explanation of why, are profound. I am disappointed that we are here today debating this serious question. The fact that this question and many more have not been clearly answered by the government over the past six days should raise red flags for all members.
It is incumbent on all members of all parties to insist that the government provides us and Canadians clear, complete and timely answers because our history is stained by instances where individual rights and due process were errantly passed over by powers similar to those we are examining today.
The Emergencies Act was created in 1988 to replace and prevent the abuses inflicted under the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was replaced because its powers had been wrongfully applied by federal governments that failed to reflect on asking and answering essential questions before its powers were deployed on Canadian citizens.
These powers were wielded in Canada's World War I internment activities from 1914-20. Although internees were predominantly recently immigrated Europeans, mostly from the western Ukraine, Canadian-born and naturalized British subjects were also interned. Similarly, the powers of the War Measures Act were also wielded in the internment of persons of Japanese heritage, including Canadian-born Japanese Canadians and others during the Second World War. These applications of the War Measures Act raised and continue to raise serious questions of what thresholds of threat to the security of Canada justify the application of powers such as those invoked by the government on February 14.
It is up to all of us here in the House of Commons to ensure that we have learned from history, because if we have not learned and if we have not asked the questions and if we have not made informed and just decisions, we make ourselves and Canada vulnerable to repeating history.
We are examining the questions before us today because the government has chosen to invoke the Emergencies Act even though two of the three blockades that existed a week ago have been eliminated and the third is all but over. That said, I call on the government to rescind this invocation and turn its focus and the focus of the House to the crises in Canada that persist unabated today.
As I mentioned at the outset, Canada today is severely divided, wrapped up in crises and Canadians are counting on us to provide leadership in pursuit of the recovery that all Canadians want and need. Last week, the Conservative motion proposing a reasonable approach to help lower the temperature across Canada by providing Canadians with a specific plan and timeline for ending all federal mandates was defeated. I call on colleagues from all parties to reflect on the opportunity that was missed last week, a missed opportunity to start taking down fences and rebuilding bridges.
Canadians need a signal and hope that we are nearing the end of restrictions and mandates. For too long, Canadians have been hoping for a plan to move forward and I am not sure how much longer some can continue to hold on. Over recent months, I have heard from constituents suffering from extreme stress and mental health challenges. Some called me in tears because they are afraid to leave their homes for fear of being confronted because they are unable to wear a mask or be vaccinated due to extreme conditions. Many others have called because they have not been able to spend time with their families and loved ones, and others have called because they have lost their jobs due to the multitude of COVID-related mandates and restrictions.
Canadians need unity, not division. Overcoming the crises and unprecedented challenges Canadians face today should start with the members of the House embracing the mantles of leadership, setting aside partisan interests and embracing national interests on behalf of Canadians. United we can learn from our past. United we can adapt to overcome the realities of COVID-19. United we can start reclaiming our economy, help Canadians get back to work and start paying off the national debt. United we can start to restore connections and mental health eroded by two years of restrictions and isolation. United we can rebuild the confidence of Canadians in their Parliament and their country. United we can build a better Canada.
1312 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:26:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate we are having on the Emergencies Act is the most important and significant debate Parliament will have in a generation. Canadians are watching what we do. I have never received more emails and phone calls from my constituents since I have been elected. The vote on such unprecedented powers should not be taken lightly by any member of the House. This is not just another vote on another bill. It is setting a precedent in the House of Commons the people of this nation will judge for generations to come. This is not a vote that will impact a few Canadians. It is a decision that will impact the lives of every single Canadian from coast to coast to coast.
I want to begin by discussing how we got here, before I tell the House why I believe the use of the Emergencies Act is not warranted in this situation. The Prime Minister is responsible for this mess. He pushed Canadians to the breaking point. He stripped them of their dignity. He deprived them of their livelihoods. He made absolutely no attempt to unite this country or heal divisions. He pitted friends against friends, neighbours against neighbours and kids against parents. While other world leaders encouraged and supported their citizens to get vaccinated, the Prime Minister pressured, insulted and demonized ours. Our Prime Minister is not a leader, and history will show that he is not fit to lead our nation.
When faced with a growing crisis, he made no attempt to resolve the problem, and now the Prime Minister is trying to cover up his own inaction with a dramatic political performance. I should remind members of the House that the Prime Minister was not confined to two options in addressing the state of affairs we face today. This was not a binary choice between choosing not to do anything and choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has decided to go from zero to 100 without attempting to solve the problem.
Parliamentarians have been urging the Prime Minister to resolve the situation at hand. Last week, Conservatives put forward a reasonable solution to resolve it. We introduced a motion calling on the government to present a plan on when Canadians could regain control of their lives. Canadians saw a glimmer of hope, but the government voted against the plan for them. The Liberals could have de-escalated the situation, but they chose not to for their own political gain. The government never attempted to de-escalate the situation. We should not have ever gotten to this point.
The question we are debating today is not whether the blockades should come down. We should not tolerate blockades on any occasion. They are illegal and must be removed. I thank law enforcement for doing its job on that front. The question we are debating today is whether the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used before in our nation's history, is an appropriate and justified response to the situation our nation is facing. When I read the criteria for implementing the Emergencies Act, it is clear that the extreme use of this government power is not only excessive for the situation at hand, but also an infringement on some of our very basic freedoms.
The House must ask itself what constitutes a national emergency to give the government such extreme and excessive powers. Section 2 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as meeting one of two criteria. Does it “seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians”, and is it “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”?
Let us examine section 2(a). Does the situation we are encountering exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? The answer is no. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all publicly opposed the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act, and the illegal blockades at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba and the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario have all been resolved with the tools and resources available to those provinces.
The Emergencies Act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that existing laws cannot address.
The government has failed to provide any evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act. There is a stark difference between inaction and not having the ability to act. Parliament has clearly heard that the government could have used existing legislation to address the situation, but failed to do so. Now the government faces court challenges from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation for failing to meet the threshold defined in the act.
Let us examine section 2(b). Does this “seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”? Does the situation we are encountering threaten the sovereignty of our nation? Again, the answer is no. Our sovereignty is not in question.
Do members of the House believe that semi trucks on Parliament Hill threaten our territorial integrity? The government has provided zero evidence to support such an extreme assumption, and now there are more questions than there are answers.
Suppose a grandmother donated $20 to feed local truckers four weeks ago. Will she be treated as someone who funded a terrorism activity, and be barred from using her bank account? Suppose a Canadian walks down to the main street in their local community to peacefully voice their concerns with their government. Will they be arrested and criminally charged for peacefully protesting?
We have faced many crises in my lifetime: the Oka crisis, the aftermath of 9/11, the Parliament Hill shooting, deadly wildfires, historic floods, the pandemic and many blockades, just to name a few. Not once have such powers been needed to address these problems. Invoking such extreme measures without meeting the high threshold outlined in the act is setting a dangerous precedent of government overreach. Who are we as a nation if we normalize the use of emergency powers? I encourage all the members of the House not to dilute the magnitude of the decision on this vote.
To my NDP colleagues, who I hear plan to support the Prime Minister in this excessive power grab, I want to remind them of the words of their former leader, Tommy Douglas, who famously took a principled stand and opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. He stood in this same democratic chamber and stated:
The fact is, and this is very clear, that the government has panicked and is now putting on a dramatic performance to cover up its own ineptitude.
Those words could not be truer today. This is nothing more than a dramatic performance to cover up the Liberals' own ineptitude. I also want to remind my NDP colleagues that disagreeing with the demonstrations and disagreeing with the Emergencies Act are not mutually exclusive. They can do both.
We have a decision to make. Will we stand up for the freedoms of Canadians, or will we hand over the unprecedented reins of power to a Prime Minister who has shown no respect for our democratic institutions? The Prime Minister thinks he is leaving behind a legacy, when he is really leaving behind a scar that will take years to heal.
I will be voting against the Emergencies Act, and I encourage every other member in the House to do the same as well.
1281 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:11:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is without pleasure that I rise today to speak on the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.
Following my election as the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in 2019, we put signs throughout the riding with the slogan “building authentic relationships”. I realize this probably is not the catchiest slogan ever, but it demonstrates how my team and I have operated since.
Throughout the pandemic, my team and I have consistently and strategically attempted to be a voice that brings calm and reason to a very tumultuous environment. Personally, I believe that is what leaders should do. The failure of the Prime Minister to show even a shred of grace or compassion for people who are clearly frustrated is frankly unbecoming.
Some may ask why I start here. I start here because of what I have observed since entering federal politics just over three years ago. The Prime Minister and the federal government have shown absolutely no interest in building relationships with anyone, other than those who vote for them.
It is my belief that the moment the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada became the Prime Minister, he no longer had the option of only representing Liberal voters. It became his job to represent all Canadians. However, not only have the Prime Minister and his government shown no interest in representing all Canadians, but they have time and again shown disdain, contempt and disrespect for Canadians who do not agree with them.
Before I address my opinion on the government’s use of the Emergencies Act, it is important that we consider what actions, or inactions, have led to us being here today. As confirmed by our Liberal colleague for Louis-Hébert last week, during the last election campaign, the Liberals saw an opportunity to wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians over vaccines and vaccine mandates. They did this to get re-elected, and they were successful, but at what cost?
A poll taken just after the election showed that 77% of Canadians felt the country was more fractured than ever. I am fearful of what that number might be today. The politicization of vaccines and vaccine mandates by our Prime Minister has led to deep divisions in our communities, our provinces and across our country.
By treating Canadians with impunity, the Prime Minister laid the foundation for what happened just outside these walls in Ottawa and across our great nation. He called Canadians racists and misogynists. We have even heard Liberal members in the House this weekend call them terrorists. This is not acceptable. Might I add that this was before making any attempt whatsoever to meet or speak with them.
In my past life experience, in any kind of conflict resolution mechanism there was always one thing in common: dialogue. They all require some sort of dialogue and active listening. I was raised to believe that respect begets respect. I am, and will always be, willing to meet with Canadians, especially my constituents, regardless of their political leanings. The only limit I impose on them is that they must be willing to be respectful and have what I call “adult conversations”.
I believe that, had the Prime Minister and his government operated in this manner, we would not be having this debate tonight. In fact, I believe that not only would the protesters have left, but they would likely have never come here in the first place. Unfortunately, because of the government’s offensive rhetoric, several blocks surrounding Parliament Hill were indeed gridlocked and people had to forcefully be removed.
I have consistently said that when individuals cross lines of acceptable and legal behaviour, they should be called out and individually held accountable for their actions, but we cannot paint everyone with the same brush.
Let me share something I read from a blog last night. The writer explains that he lives in downtown Ottawa and defines it as “absolute ground zero”. The truckers are literally camped out below his bedroom window. He read a lot about what his new neighbours, he calls them, are supposed to be like, mostly from reporters. He decided to go for a walk to find out who these people actually were. He stated the following:
As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except P.E.I. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians.... Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob.
He concludes a long blog with the following statement:
...what we should have never forgotten: We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.
This brings me to the second part of my speech, and that is how I believe the current situation in Ottawa does not fit the requirements outlined in the Emergencies Act.
During the introduction of the Emergencies Act in 1988, the minister responsible, the Hon. Perrin Beatty, said this in his remarks:
The legislation for second reading which I am proposing today will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to national crises without invoking the War Measures Act. It applies only to national emergencies and distinguishes between four types.
In broad terms they are these: First, situations affecting public welfare and caused by an accident such as a massive chemical spill or by natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or tornadoes that are of such magnitude as to exceed the capacity of the affected province to respond and to require special powers for an effective federal response; second, public order disturbances that threaten the security of Canada and which are so serious as to be national emergencies; third, international emergencies requiring Canada to take special preparatory measures in concert with our allies; fourth, and finally, war itself.
The order in council released by the government authorizes the government to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.”
The Prime Minister is essentially asking the House to hand him unlimited authority. We have seen this movie before. Do people remember March 2020, when the Liberals introduced an unprecedented bill to give their government unlimited powers to tax Canadians and spend public money without parliamentary approval for 21 months? Do people remember the documents from the Winnipeg lab, and how the Prime Minister's actions showed he has little or no respect for parliamentary oversight? Let us not forget how the SNC-Lavalin scandal demonstrated that he has little respect for the independence of our justice system.
More recently, on Monday, when the Prime Minister announced he was invoking the Emergencies Act, he said the following:
I want to be clear. The scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.
Since then, the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister has stated that she is looking to make some of these provisions permanent.
The justice minister admitted that the Liberals were looking to use the act to punish political opponents. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said that the Emergencies Act provisions technically apply to all of Canada. Why should Canadians trust this Prime Minister now and grant this open-ended request to limit the civil liberties of all Canadians?
Today, I join with the premiers of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, as well as with Premier Scott Moe from my province of Saskatchewan, along with many legal experts, civil liberties associations and millions of regular Canadians across the country saying that while the situation in Ottawa has been very difficult for many people, and I have a great amount of compassion for them, it did not meet the standard of a national emergency. Thankfully, there was no widespread violence and no loss of life.
The Prime Minister said, in his remarks at the opening of this debate, “the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada.” I do not believe this to be true, and for the Prime Minister to say this in the House of Commons leads to the degradation of our democratic systems and erodes the already low level of trust in government. The precedent that this sets is leaving many people in my riding with grave concerns for the future of our country.
Far be it from me to quote an NDP MP, but tonight I am going to because the Hon. Tommy Douglas was from Saskatchewan. In describing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis, he said it was “like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. I am sure that my colleagues from all parties would agree that what happened outside these walls pales in comparison with what took place in 1970. I implore my NDP colleagues to consider their roots and consider what the great Tommy Douglas would do if he were here in the House at this moment in time.
In closing, there is no easy way to put this. The division that has resulted from this pandemic has been heartbreaking. I have seen it divide our country, provinces, communities, workplaces, social clubs, churches, friendships and even our families. I am afraid that the Prime Minister's use of these heavy-handed measures will only further divide our country.
Thus, I am asking all members in the House to search very long and very hard when they decide how they are going to vote on this motion tomorrow night. Let us work together to start healing the brokenness that is so evident across this great country.
1650 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
