44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 8:02:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech.
I am somewhat baffled by the comments I just heard from our Liberal colleague. The Liberals pick and choose what applies to us and claim that the Emergencies Act is there to be used but will have no impact on the provinces that decide not to use it.
Does my colleague agree that an emergency measures act that applies from coast to coast to coast will have consequences even in provinces that have decided not to use it and, more importantly, have said they do not want it imposed on their territory?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:05:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to greet you so early in the morning, but we have to acknowledge that what is happening now is also very unusual. I also want to greet the House staff who are here early this morning, making it possible for us to work. I thank them.
We are here to declare emergency measures or, better yet, to not declare emergency measures. The exchanges and comments over the past few days between members present in the House or attending remotely cover the entire spectrum of opinions, but I do not think I am wrong when I say that this government order leaves no one indifferent, as evidenced by the many emails my office is getting, even on the weekend.
The Emergencies Act takes on special meaning in the current context. I would like to note from the outset that the Premier of Quebec has made it clear that he does not want the act to be applied in Quebec, and he even secured a unanimous vote to that effect from the National Assembly of Quebec on February 15. For the people of Quebec, this is a bit of a touchy subject. It was 185 years ago to the day that the Patriotes were thrown in jail. I just had to add that little historical aside.
Let us now get back to the seven of the 10 Canadian provinces that told the Prime Minister on February 14 that they did not want this legislation invoked within their borders because they have the necessary tools and resources to manage the crisis and because invoking it would only add fuel to the fire. Newfoundland and British Columbia were in favour of this tool, but they do not need it. Therefore, the order should only apply to Ontario, if the province deems it necessary.
Invoking the Emergencies Act is a dangerous step to take. It is a legislative tool whose consequences must be carefully weighed, with an eye to the future. The self-styled “Freedom Convoy” did not sneak into Ottawa, as quiet as a mouse. After leaving British Columbia, the convoy got bigger and bigger. The traffic and the commotion it caused all along the Trans-Canada Highway could not have gone unnoticed. A momentum developed at the very heart of the convoy's partisan and politicized core. The convoy made its affiliations crystal clear, so it was able to rally supporters along the way.
By failing to prepare for what it knew to be a large convoy heading for the Canadian capital, the government did not keep its options open for dealing with what became a security issue for the parliamentary precinct and for the people of Ottawa and the neighbouring region of Quebec.
As several observers have noted, when the government waits 20 days after the arrival of the convoy to invoke the Emergencies Act, what is the point of that order?
I am asking because the fact that the Prime Minister took a few calls here and there and made the choice, when the convoy arrived, to offload intervention onto municipal and provincial police services is a clear indication of lack of leadership and, I have to say, incompetence. The convoy settled in in the parliamentary precinct and was widely condemned for its impact on the locals. In no time at all, it had spawned offshoots all over the place, including an occupation at the Ambassador Bridge.
The infamous convoy left its mark, even internationally. It instigated action at Fort Erie, Coutts, Emerson and Sarnia. Provincial law enforcement took the necessary steps to gradually and successfully disperse the blockades.
It took a call from the White House to the Prime Minister for the latter to start really thinking about this and for the bridge to Michigan, a key North American trade corridor, to be cleared. The Prime Minister decided against mobilizing Parliament Hill law enforcement and the RCMP when the convoy arrived. There was no attempt to prevent the convoy from occupying the area, no concrete bollards, no barricades, no roadblocks. At no time did the government appoint a representative to negotiate with the convoy's spokespeople.
When the Ottawa police asked for 1,800 federal officers, 275 were provided, of which only 20 were for the protests. Ottawa is not like other cities. Canada has a Prime Minister who has done virtually nothing to defend his country's capital. Was it not predictable that there would be public frustration with the health measures?
It was. We understand the fatigue of everyone who did what they felt was their civic duty: showing support for their community by getting vaccinated, so we can put this pandemic behind us. These people are exhausted. This also causes frustration for those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. We understand that. We are all going through it. What we are going through is nothing less than an ordeal.
Quebec did not escape the protests spurred on by the Ottawa convoy, but the difference is that the Quebec government and the mayor of Quebec City both stood firm. They were not caught off guard like the Prime Minister. The municipal and provincial police were ready, even though they already had to manage the security logistics of the Quebec Winter Carnival. As a result, the city was not overrun. There were still angry protesters, but the leaders in Quebec and Quebec City did not allow them to set up hot tubs, skating rinks, barbecues, tents, and everything else that we could see in Ottawa.
Picture someone standing on the side of the road. A transport truck is approaching. They brace themselves. They know that if they do not get ready and take a step back, they will get a blast of exhaust and gravel right in the face.
That is what is happening to the Prime Minister. He is wiping the gravel off his face because he did not take the most elementary precautions. He and his government failed to make decisions, take action and provide assistance when it was needed.
Is it acceptable for a Prime Minister known for his indolent attitude to suddenly break out the heavy artillery?
This order in council is the government's last-resort attempt to cover for its failure to recognize what is going on, to cling to what little credibility it has left for its pseudo-strategy.
Although I am not on Parliament Hill, I still wondered every day what was going on. I did not understand this silence. I need someone to explain it to me.
What were the Prime Minister and his entourage waiting for to be proactive, to listen to and support the Ottawa police, to address the protesters at least once at the beginning ?
What was the Prime Minister waiting for to show the country that he “continues to work hard”, if I may borrow one of his favourite sayings?
Let us be clear. The Bloc Québécois values freedom of expression. However, this freedom has limits. It does not come with limitless rights. It does not come with the right to protest to the detriment of an entire population.
The Bloc is in favour of health measures as long as public health and medical authorities recommend them. What the Bloc condemns is what is before us now, in other words this worrisome display of negligence via legislation. We all know the expression “too little, too late”. This morning, I would change that to “too much, too late”.
My colleague from Joliette did a fine job yesterday morning outlining all the inconsistencies topping the list in this order. There is no need to repeat what he said. We are on the same page and have reached identical and complementary conclusions, as has the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, who spoke before me and shared her speaking time with me.
One thing is certain. What is needed right now is available through the existing legislation. Activating the Emergencies Act is neither justified nor required, unless the federal government is trying to get its hands on a tool that would inflame the situation. That is the last thing we need.
1375 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:20:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I should start by saying that I am opposed to the government's invoking the Emergencies Act, and I will be voting against this motion when it comes up for a vote tomorrow evening. I will now explain my reasons for doing so.
The invocation of the Emergencies Act, formally known as the War Measures Act, is an extremely serious matter that rightfully concerns all Canadians. This is only the fourth time in history that either of these acts has been invoked, and I certainly hope that it will be the last for the foreseeable future.
The first time the War Measures Act was invoked was during World War I, the second time was during World War II, and the third and most recent time was during the FLQ crisis of 1970. For context, I would like to speak a little more about this most recent invocation of the War Measures Act, in 1970, during the FLQ crisis.
The Front de libération du Québec, or FLQ, was by any objective measure a terrorist organization. The FLQ plotted and carried out dozens of bombings. The FLQ robbed banks. The FLQ performed kidnappings. The FLQ murdered a total of eight people and wounded dozens more. Finally, after all the bombings, all the bank robberies, all the kidnappings and all the murders, the federal government decided that this matter could no longer be left to local law enforcement officials; it decided to invoke the War Measures Act in October 1970. To this day, scholars, historians and even politicians who were there at the time remain critical of the decision by then prime minister Pierre Trudeau to invoke the War Measures Act in 1970. Instead, they argue that the matter should simply have been left to local law enforcement officials.
NDP leader Tommy Douglas was very critical of the decision on the floor of the House of Commons, noting that the Liberal government of the day did not provide one shred of evidence to support its claim of an apprehended insurrection. Don Jamieson, Pierre Trudeau's transport minister, wrote in his memoirs years later, “In concrete terms, we did not have a compelling case to put forward.” In his opinion, invoking the War Measures Act was simply a way for Pierre Trudeau to make life difficult for his political opponents.
In the Journal of Canadian Studies, Professor Dominique Clément has argued, “The universal suspension of human rights is, in retrospect, the most damning indictment of the government's decision to invoke the War Measures Act.” Richard Gwyn, one of Pierre Trudeau's biographers, argues, “Trudeau smeared irredeemably his reputation as a champion of civil liberties. No other prime minister has been so severely criticized for crushing civil liberties.”
There is a strong argument to be made by historians and academics that even the FLQ crisis, with all of its bombings, bank robberies, kidnappings and murders, did not justify invoking the War Measures Act, and that these matters were best left to local law enforcement officials.
Therefore, if it is highly questionable as to whether the War Measures Act was justified in 1970, then what is the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act today? What are the protesters in downtown Ottawa and on Parliament Hill doing that would justify the invocation of this act?
Well, for starters, they have bouncy castles. I have walked through the crowd of protesters almost every morning on my way to work on Parliament Hill and I can confirm that there are bouncy castles, but bouncy castles do not justify invoking the Emergencies Act. Bouncy castles in the middle of the street are a matter for local law enforcement.
Many of these protesters and truckers have parked their trucks illegally and have been blaring their horns all night long. I think these trucks should be ticketed and towed, but the need to ticket and tow some vehicles does not justify invoking the Emergencies Act. Ticketing and towing vehicles is a matter for local law enforcement officials.
There has also been an incident of someone jumping up and down on the National War Memorial. There has been another incident of someone putting an upside-down flag on the Terry Fox statue. There have also been reports of local residents being intimidated and harassed. I certainly condemn all these activities, but none of this justifies invoking the emergency measures act. These are matters for local law enforcement, nothing more.
In order for the act to be invoked, I think it is important for Canadians, including members of this House, to understand the threshold that must be met. Section 16 of the act reads, “public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”. It says a “national emergency”. The noisy truckers and the bouncy castles out on Wellington Street do not constitute a national emergency.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: They are not there anymore.
Mr. Michael Kram: Then they especially do not.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I have walked through the crowds out on Wellington Street almost every morning on my way to work since the convoy arrived, and I lived to tell about it. There is no al Qaeda. There is no Taliban. There are no North Korean special forces looking to take over the government. This is a matter for local law enforcement officials, and it is wrong for the government to try to make it out to be anything more than that.
If the protestors out on Wellington Street are best left to local law enforcement, then that raises the following questions: What should the federal government be doing? How can the federal government best respond to this whole situation in a positive and constructive manner? I think the federal government needs to get to the root cause of the frustrations we have all been feeling over the last two years. Of course, I am talking about the pandemic restrictions that have been disrupting the lives of Canadians.
The government would do well to come up with a science-based and evidence-based plan to safely and responsibly wind down pandemic restrictions at the federal level. This is exactly what the Conservative opposition has been calling on the government to do for some time. In fact, every provincial government has already presented a science-based, evidence-based plan to gradually wind down most, if not all pandemic restrictions, in a measurable, quantifiable manner based on metrics, benchmarks and milestones.
It is time for the federal government to do the same. If the government would focus its efforts on coming up with a science-based and evidence-based plan to responsibly wind down pandemic restrictions, that would be infinitely more beneficial to the quality of life of Canadians than invoking the emergency measures act to deal with noisy truckers and bouncy castles.
1167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:32:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the hon. member does vote against the invocation of this act. We can agree this whole situation could have been handled better, as we have seen with other police departments in other cities across the country.
There certainly is a role to be played for law enforcement. We cannot have law and order break down. I did say in my speech I condemn the jumping up and down on the National War Memorial and the intimidation of local residents.
Again, these are matters for local law enforcement and do not justify the national emergency spelled out in the Emergencies Act.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:21:13 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a deep honour to stand in this place and represent the people of Edmonton Strathcona.
Today we gather to debate the enactment and bringing forward of the Emergencies Act. It is the enactment of legislation that has never been used before. I deeply feel the gravity and the responsibility of the work that we are doing in this place. I recognize the serious situation that we as parliamentarians, indeed we as Canadians, find ourselves at this pivotal time. I hope that every member in this place has spent time over the past several weeks thinking about our role as leaders in this country and the responsibility we have to make difficult decisions for the benefit of our constituents and for the benefit of Canada.
Before I share my thoughts on the implementation of the Emergencies Act, I want to take a moment, if I can, to acknowledge the staff and the security working on the Hill today. I want to thank all of those who have had to walk across a blockade to get to work. I want to thank all of those who are not spending the Family Day long weekend with their families because they are helping us in the House today, as well as the pages, as my colleague reminded me.
I want to thank the law enforcement officers as well. I walked home from this place last night in the dark, protected by the police officers who held the line so that I could get to my apartment in Centretown, the police who have put themselves at risk today and for the last several days to make the city safe again for the people in Ottawa. I want to thank them.
Finally, I want to thank the journalists, who, in frigid temperatures for days on end, have brought information to Canadians. They have been sworn at. They have been spat at. They have been assaulted. They have been threatened. They have stood on the streets of Ottawa to tell this story every day. That is a cornerstone of our democracy and every Canadian should be thankful that we have members of an independent media that will tell the story and share the information that needs to be shared with Canadians.
Where we find ourselves as a nation is heartbreaking. What we have collectively witnessed over the past three weeks makes it crystal clear just how crucial it is that we do what we can to restore order in our country and to clear our borders of blockades and the illegal siege of Ottawa and the threats and intimidation directed at those who live and work here.
More importantly, as parliamentarians we need to make sure that this cannot happen again. I want to be very clear. I am not happy with where we find ourselves. I am angry that our country has come to this. The deep failures of our municipal and provincial governments and, yes, the failures of our federal government, have put us in a position where we are required to use extraordinary actions to go forward. Today and every day, I use my voice and I use my role in this place, in this chamber, to fix the issues that have led to the use of the Emergencies Act. I will use my role so that it never has to be used again.
We need to take a close look at policing in this country. We have seen obvious, systemic racism across the police force on an almost daily basis. There are far too many examples of unnecessary and excessive uses of force directed at Black, indigenous and racialized individuals and against the unhoused and others who are living in poverty. We have seen vicious attacks on these individuals' bodies and belongings, yet we know that the RCMP can exhibit incredible care and restraint. We have seen it. We saw it demonstrated in Ottawa, in Windsor, in Emerson and in Coutts. We saw incredible restraint and a refusal to act from our police forces play out, not over minutes and hours but over days and weeks.
As I stand in this place, I want us all to try to imagine how it must feel to be an indigenous land defender and watch white blockade members in Coutts, Alberta hug the RCMP. I want us to think about how it must feel for an unhoused person in Toronto who has been brutalized by police to watch the Ottawa police employ unbelievable gentleness with the illegal occupation in Ottawa.
In Alberta, we have a law that I deeply dislike. It was the very first law that was put in place under Premier Kenney: Bill 1, his first legislation. It was so that blockades could not stop our major infrastructure. It was to protect our major infrastructure from being clogged up. However, that law has not been enacted. If we ever needed something that proved to us that Bill 1 was never intended to be used against white people, that it was never intended to be used against the premier's friends, this is proof. That legislation was put in place to hurt indigenous people. It was put in place to stop environmentalists. It was never intended to be used against Jason Kenney's friends, who have shown who they are, who have shown that they are white supremacists, who have shown that they have attempted murder. This is an armed insurrection on the border in our country, and the legislation was not used.
We also need to fully examine and strengthen our federal hate crime legislation to make sure that it can address the white supremacist and neo-Nazi extremism that is threatening our society.
I was happy to second the bill put forward by my dear friend, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, to ban symbols of hate, symbols like swastikas and Confederate flags, symbols we have seen in our nation's capital during the illegal occupation. However, we cannot only ban the symbols of hate; we must counter the radicalization of Canadians that is happening online and over our public airwaves, like the trash radio that radicalized the man who killed six worshippers at the Quebec City mosque, like the online hate that radicalized one of the men arrested in Coutts, Alberta, who was accused of participating in a plot to murder an RCMP officer. According to his father, this man was radicalized online by a far-right extremist group known as Diagolon, a group that seeks to overthrow our government through violence.
The Liberal government has promised to table legislation to stop online hate, and it has failed, as of yet, to act on that. In fact, we see misinformation on our radio waves; we see Russian misinformation happening with CRTC licensing. This is something we can and need to fix now. We have to review and update our money laundering laws to combat the funding mechanisms that fund hate groups and that hate groups use to bankroll their activities. We need ongoing measures to prevent the funding of hate groups, not Emergencies Act legislation. We need ongoing support for that.
As my friend, the member for Hamilton Centre, said yesterday, none of this is new. None of this is things that we have not heard before. We have known that these are things that have to be fixed, and we have not done it. We find ourselves in an emergency situation because those steps have not been taken.
COVID has been incredibly hard for all of us. We have all had to deal with the lockdowns, the restrictions, the protections put in place for years. It has been a challenge.
I am a mother. I have watched my children be challenged and I have seen the things they have missed. I am a daughter, and I have elderly parents whom I worry about every day. I have seen people in our community lose loved ones, and I have seen them lose livelihoods. I have seen the impacts of the opioid addiction crisis, the unsafe drug supply crisis in my province.
However, we do not end pandemics with illegal blockades. We do not end pandemics with sieges and occupations. Viruses do not care if we are done with them; they are not done with us. That is not how it works. The only way to end a pandemic is through public health measures that are based on science. If we allow bullies to intimidate us out of protecting public health, as we have seen in Alberta, we are surrendering to injustice. We are allowing those with the strongest voices, the largest vehicles, the loudest horns to rule. We are capitulating to mob rule, and we are sacrificing our democracy and our own values.
The speaker before me made it sound like this is not what is happening in Alberta. However, we are seeing the worst of it in Alberta. Thirteen armed men are directing our public health policy in Alberta. Think about that for a moment.
Today, we are debating the Emergencies Act to deal with illegal activities that the province and the police forces have not had the will to address, but the government must also address the underlying cause of the alienation that many people feel in our country.
Over the past two decades, we have seen the wealth and well-being of ordinary Canadians decline, while wealth and power have accumulated to the top 1% in our country, the billionaire class. Costs continue to rise. Electricity and heating costs, grocery costs and housing costs are all rising, while incomes are staying stagnant. The urge to lower taxes that has obsessed our governments over the past 20 years may, on the surface, look like a solution, but upon closer examination, it actually contributed to the problems we are facing. Taxes for the wealthy corporations have been slashed dramatically, while the tax burden has shifted to low- and middle-income Canadians. It is not fair, and it is not working.
We have a housing crisis in this country. We have an opioid poisoning crisis in this country. One in 10 Canadians lives in poverty, and more than half of those are seniors. We have more Canadians working more hours with less job security than we have seen since the 1970s. This is not a sustainable plan. This is not a sustainable way for our country to go forward. When a crisis comes along, when a global pandemic threatens the life and livelihood of nearly every Canadian, we should not be surprised that some Canadians start to feel alienated and left out. We should not be surprised that they turn to false prophets and misinformation and turn on those who govern.
In the just over two years that I have been sitting as a member in the House, it is true that we have worked together through this pandemic, but we have not worked together to address the underlying issues, the root causes of the alienation and dissatisfaction that so many Canadians feel now and the sense of hopelessness that pervades.
We do not know when this pandemic will end. No one in this House knows when this pandemic will end. We do not know how many times the virus will mutate. We do not know how many variants still await us or how many waves we may face. Yet, the government has been so anxious to cancel COVID support programs and so hesitant to address the underlying economic and social problems that the pandemic has laid bare and that have led to the sense of hopelessness so many Canadians feel.
We have so much work to do here, together, to create a better, fairer and more just Canada.
We know why we are here today. Ottawa has been under siege. Our borders have been blockaded. Our democracy has been threatened. We have witnessed some of the greatest failures of leadership our country has ever seen. Where was the coordination between the federal government, the province and the City of Ottawa? Why did it take so long for the Prime Minister to act?
So-called leaders, like Doug Ford and Jason Kenney, have completely failed their provinces. They have failed to act, they have failed to lead and they have failed to protect their citizens. They have failed to protect jobs and the economy. They have failed to protect health care workers. They have failed to even address the racism and violence that undermine our democracy.
A government member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in my province joined the illegal blockade at Coutts. Another Conservative MLA in Alberta actually urged police officers not to follow the orders of their superiors. They have encouraged lawlessness. They have taken selfies with extremist leaders.
Imagine what it feels like to be a racialized Canadian and to see the Conservative member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands posing with Pat King, proclaiming his support for Pat King, the notorious leader of the convoy, the famous racist, the anti-Semitic and Islamophobic person who told us this thing would not end until bullets start flying.
Imagine what it feels like for people who live and work in Ottawa to not be able to go to their job, not be able to make an income, and to see the MP for Carleton handing out coffee and donuts to those who torment them.
Canadians have had enough of Conservatives playing footsie with radical extremists, with racists like Pat King and violent hate organizations like Diagolon. Canadians are fed up with the mob mentality of the Conservatives, and I would ask the Conservatives to apologize in this House.
I accept the profound responsibility that the Emergencies Act entails. I will do everything I can, alongside my colleagues in this House, to ensure that the government does not abuse the powers granted to it by this act. We and other parties in the House have the power to stop the emergency declaration should that become necessary. We will not hesitate to use that power if the government exceeds the authority necessary to deal with this emergency.
My Canada is filled with kind, caring, intelligent people who care for their community. My Canada has frontline workers, doctors, nurses and health care workers who have literally risked their lives for years to protect us. My Canada has teachers who have worked every day despite all the challenges COVID-19 has thrown at them.
However, it is also very important that we acknowledge and recognize that my Canada also has racists. It also has anti-Semites. It has violent, hateful people, and until we acknowledge that part of our Canada, we will not be able to move forward.
We have work to do in this country, and that task belongs to all of us. We need to work together, even when we disagree, to heal this country. I honestly believe that every member in this place wants a stronger, more resilient Canada.
Despite our differences and the disagreements we have on how to move forward, we must, as Canadians, work together. It is the only way to protect our democracy. It is the only way to protect our freedom.
2544 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:32:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and mention that I, too, have had several conversations with several protesters. I think it is important to have those conversations. My question stems from the member's comment regarding the fact that our government did not proceed with any actions prior to the invocation of the emergency measures act, which is completely incorrect. We did provide RCMP at the request of provinces and territories on every occasion.
In fact, following that, the Government of Alberta sent a letter to our federal government and I will read a portion of it quickly into the record. It states:
The RCMP, along with local and provincial officials, have been working closely in an attempt to persuade the demonstration participants to remove their vehicles but have been unsuccessful. In addition, as a result of private industry concerns over negative consequences, the RCMP have been unable to secure the appropriate heavy duty equipment required to remove vehicles and other items such as trailers and tractors from the area. Attempts to procure these services with—
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:50:50 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.
This is not just about the Prime Minister's failures. It is about a lot more. It is not just about peaceful disobedience. Questions have been raised about whether other tools could have been used instead of the Emergencies Act. I want to remind the member that in Ottawa there was a court-ordered injunction. Well, these extremists complied for a short term but then proceeded to ignore this legal instrument. Indeed, municipal and provincial state of emergency declarations did not affect the physical entrenchment for the remaining time.
Do the Conservatives not view this situation as an emergency, indeed a national emergency, to prevent more Canadians from being infiltrated by the extremists' ideology?
116 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 12:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord.
The Talleyrand quote “all that is excessive is insignificant” could have been said today about the situation we are debating in the House.
Yes, we are in the midst of a crisis, but the federal government chose to enforce an act by proclamation, which would allow the state to infringe on citizens' rights. Although the government could have taken many different paths, it chose to break out the heavy artillery. All that is excessive is insignificant.
The Liberal government claims that the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve this crisis, but in reality, it needs to use this act because it was unable to properly manage the crisis from the outset. This type of act is meant to be used exceptionally, especially if it was designed to apply to Quebec. The War Measures Act may have gotten a new name, but it still brings back bad memories for Quebec.
If I may, I would like to provide a brief history of the introduction and use of the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. The War Measures Act was introduced and came into force in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Its purpose was to give additional powers to the government in the event of a war, invasion or insurrection. The act was used again in 1939 because of the Second World War.
The third time the government invoked this law—we still remember it in Quebec—was during the October crisis in 1970. Immediately following the adoption of an executive order issued during the night at the request of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, the army took to the streets of Montreal in large numbers, striking terror and fear in the hearts of all Quebeckers. That was when their rights and freedoms were trampled on. In total, 497 Quebeckers were arrested and thrown in jail without reasonable cause or recourse. It happened before I was born, but the people have certainly not forgotten: “Je me souviens”.
In 1988, the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The new act changed the way the federal government can use extraordinary powers in times of crisis. Since it was passed, the government has never invoked it, so why now?
To answer that question, let us look closely at the present situation and the invocation criteria for this act. To have the right to invoke the act, the government must prove two things: first, that a dangerous and urgent situation exists; second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation with any other existing law.
First, is the current situation dangerous and urgent? The government does not meet this requirement for the unilateral application of the act. Allow me to demonstrate. On January 15, 2020, proof of vaccination against COVID‑19 became mandatory to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Two weeks later, on January 29, a truckers' movement opposed to this measure decided to gather and protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. So far, it all seems reasonable, because the right to protest and freedom of expression are guaranteed by both the Quebec and the Canadian charters of rights and freedoms.
The protest that was supposed to last a few days at the most turned into an occupation of the downtown area. At that point, the government should have dealt with the situation. Instead of taking action, the government washed its hands of it, claiming that crisis management was the Ottawa police's responsibility. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and the next day, on February 7, the Ottawa police force requested assistance from the federal and Ontario provincial governments. On February 11, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency, granting additional resources and powers to law enforcement services. The federal government continued doing nothing, except to polarize the public with inflammatory statements.
Let us keep in mind that in addition to the Ottawa siege, border blockades were set up in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, in such places as Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia.
However, these situations were resolved through existing laws. The same was obviously true for the protests in Quebec City.
As to whether this was an urgent and critical situation, if the situation was cause for concern, that was only true in Ontario, specifically in Ottawa, and nowhere else, especially not in Quebec. The Emergencies Act was to be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner, as the government had announced. That is clearly not the case.
The Liberal government's lack of leadership caused to the situation to deteriorate. Each day of inaction strengthened the protesters' position. Each day required more effort to enforce the law and each day the Prime Minister refused to take action, choosing to throw fuel on the fire with disparaging statements. As a result, the offenders were allowed to organize. They were allowed to set up tents, toilets, kitchens, cafeterias, a stage and barbecues. They even let them install a hot tub. A hot tub impeded the smooth functioning of democracy in a G7 nation.
By allowing the situation to fester, the Prime Minister gave the protesters time—time to fortify their position, time for radicals to get from one coast to the other or to cross the border, and time for foreign elements seeking to destabilize democracy in Quebec and Canada to raise funds in support of the offenders. Had action been taken earlier, we would not be here in Ottawa on a Sunday. We would be home with our constituents, which is where we should be.
Invoking the Emergencies Act is a massive smokescreen, a diversion to trick Quebeckers and Canadians into looking elsewhere so they will forget how things got to this point. It is unnecessary, dangerous and disproportionate. To be clear, the January 29 protest no longer has anything to do with the die-hards who decided to place the House under siege. Those who continue to resist, if any, are extremists who should have been contained by law enforcement long ago.
Now let us turn to the second criterion for invoking the Emergencies Act. The situation must be such that ordinary laws cannot address it.
Could the crisis have been addressed with existing laws? The answer is yes.
These protesters had been breaking the law for weeks. All the police had to do was enforce the laws already in place, and the whole thing would have been over in two days. The government had plenty of options. The Criminal Code is full of offences that were committed by the protesters.
Subsection 63(1) talks about “unlawful assembly”; section 64 defines the term “riot”; section 68 deals with people who fail to peaceably disperse and depart from a riot; section 430 talks about “mischief”; subsection 181(1) describes “common nuisance”; subsection 423.1(1) talks about the intimidation of a journalist; and section 129 talks about the obstruction of public officers or peace officers.
Some police authorities claimed recently that the only solution was the integration of the various police forces involved. However, there is no need for the Emergencies Act to request reinforcements and coordinate efforts. The RCMP, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the OPP, municipal police forces from neighbouring cities and even the Sûreté du Québec were already working together, and this legislation was not required.
As for the claim that the occupation could not be dealt with using ordinary legislation, as I have demonstrated to the House, the Criminal Code was already more than adequate to deal with the threat.
The government decided to use legislation by proclamation, in other words without consulting the opposition parties or allowing the smallest amendment. By ignoring those who were elected by the majority of the voters, this minority government is undermining its legitimacy and proving its detractors right. The Prime Minister decided to ignore the verdict of the voters, who gave him a minority mandate. He is acting as though he was granted all the power. That is not what the voters chose.
The government could use the act in specific locations, when the provinces request it. Quebec made it clear to the federal government that it wanted absolutely nothing to do with its emergency measures. Several Canadian provinces did the same. Rather than consult the provinces and Quebec, the Liberal government chose to impose an act that applies across Canada.
This law therefore cannot be limited. It is foreign to the reality of Quebec. It should not apply to Quebec.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, I need to clarify something. The Emergencies Act was assented to on July 21, 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act. I would agree that there are important, not to say fundamental, differences between them. However, both acts set out the manner in which we wish to articulate our interventions and responses to the worst situations, namely a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. There is nothing ordinary or trivial about this act. It is the heavy artillery of legislation. It must only be invoked sparingly and with the utmost prudence.
Today, we must decide if using this act in the current situation is appropriate. Are we in a state of emergency? If the answer is yes, does the seriousness of the situation justify invoking the Emergencies Act? If so, as provided for in subsection 17(2), what area is affected by this state of emergency?
Subsection 17(1) of the act provides for the Governor in Council to declare a state of emergency after holding consultations under section 25. Pursuant to section 25, this means that “the lieutenant governor in council of each province...shall be consulted”. This exercise should usually make it possible to determine, with a modicum of reliability, if a situation exists in a province that requires us to invoke the Emergencies Act.
In the interest of being thorough, subsection 58(1) provides that the report on the consultations must be provided with the motion for confirmation of the potential proclamation. The Governor in Council's proclamation, dated February 15, 2022, states that the consultation under subsection 25(1) did take place, and it “declare[s] that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures”.
What does that mean, exactly? Like all the other members of the Bloc Québécois caucus, I think that ratifying this proclamation at this point in time would be a grave error that could have worse consequences than the situation it seeks to address. Even setting aside the fact that no end date is given for the allegedly temporary proposed measures, there are plainly at least two big issues with the proclamation. First of all, and this is no small matter, it is clear that there is no state of emergency as defined in the act, which I think nullifies any argument for authorizing the proclamation under section 17(1). The definition of a public order emergency is set out in section 16 of the act and requires “a national emergency”. This national emergency is itself defined in section 3 of the act, which states that the situation must be such that it “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It also states that the situation must “exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”.
However, the protests and the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada have all been dealt with. The blockades have been removed and the offenders punished without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act. The existing laws and provincial and municipal powers to intervene were clearly sufficient. Moreover, the majority of premiers consulted by the Prime Minister confirmed that they did not need this act and made it clear that they were opposed to using it. In fact, of the 13 premiers consulted, only three said they supported invoking the act. How then can anyone seriously argue that the whole country is in a state of emergency?
The Premier of Quebec even said as much to the Prime Minister. Page 5 of the report attached to the proclamation says that “municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation”. It then says that “the use of the Act would be divisive”.
The least we can conclude from that is that the national emergency, which the act states is a condition for declaring a public order emergency, simply does not exist.
Furthermore, in the worst-case scenario, the report on the consultation with the provinces under in subsection 25(1) of the act would only justify the declaration of a public order emergency in the three provinces that were affected and that supported the declaration, namely Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia.
The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec all said that they had the situation under control and did not support the invocation of this act.
Unless the government has no regard for these premiers, it certainly cannot claim that there is a national emergency in these seven provinces as required by the act.
As for the premiers of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the report merely states that they have not issued public statements. It would be pretty difficult to interpret that silence as a call for help or as approval to invoke the Emergencies Act.
As for Quebec, I will simply read the quote from the report on the consultations regarding the proclamation. It takes up just three short lines in an eight-page document:
The Premier of Quebec said that he opposed the application of the Emergencies Act in Quebec, stating that municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation, and arguing that the use of the Act would be divisive.
Under subsection 17(2) of the Act, the emergency, if it existed, was in only three provinces, so the proclamation should have stated that there was a situation in the provinces of Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia, rather than indicating that a state of emergency exists throughout the country, as appears in the third paragraph of the declaration.
The government's claim that the lieutenant governor in council of each province and the commissioners of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut had been consulted and that it had therefore concluded that a state of emergency exists throughout the country inevitably suggests either a serious lack of judgment or equally serious wilful blindness. As the Premier of Quebec rightly said, this is not an inconsequential mistake, but a potentially divisive act. Do we really need this?
Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. This kind of law constitutes a serious argument to convince anyone that the Government of Canada has the power to control its territory. Invoking it on a whim anytime an unexpected situation causes headaches and creates major policing challenges actually weakens its impact. The most powerful weapons should be used only as a last resort. They tend to be more effective as a deterrent than when they are put to use.
Let us be clear. The situation that has been happening on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks is unacceptable in a democracy and should never have been tolerated this long. In a democracy, the right to express disapproval of our leaders' decisions and the right to assemble are sacred.
However, we must bear in mind that each individual's rights end where another's begin. Abuse of those rights is a violation that can and actually should always be punished. Have we reached the point of bringing out the heavy artillery? I do not think so. It might happen one day. We cannot rule it out. As I see it, this act should be delayed for as long as possible and be used as rarely as possible—ideally, never.
In conclusion, the invocation of the Emergencies Act at this point could be seen as a clumsy or perhaps desperate move on the part of a beleaguered Prime Minister trying to make it look like he took action to deal with a situation that is unacceptable in a democracy. Either way, it is a serious, dangerous move whose consequences will not be fully understood for years.
It is therefore my intention and that of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus to vote against the confirmation motion, and I urge my 306 colleagues, be they NDP, Conservative, Green, Liberal or independent, who also care about democracy and the rights we enjoy because of it, to reject this motion.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:53:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I completely agree with her. The situation has been resolved, as I said in my speech.
It is a difficult situation, we agree. It is unacceptable. People cannot block off streets like that. If there had been a fire or if someone had fallen ill on Wellington Street, it would have been impossible for an ambulance or the fire department to get there. I agree that this is unacceptable.
That said, the situation was resolved through the police. It was almost nice to see the various police forces supporting each other. That is how the situation was settled.
The Emergencies Act needs to be kept for real emergency measures, otherwise we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. It is much like the story of Peter and the wolf. We cry wolf when there is no wolf. At some point, there will be a wolf, but our cries will not be heard.
I am urging us to show restraint. The Emergencies Act should be invoked when there are emergency measures to be taken. If there are other ways to deal with a situation, we should use them. If the act is to be invoked, it should be done sparingly and judiciously, selecting the places where it applies. It was only three provinces, not the ten provinces and three territories, that asked for it.
232 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:06:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to be crystal clear. I do not support the government with respect to these emergency actions. My office has never been so busy. This is the busiest it has been since 2019, when I was first elected, with emails and phone calls. My constituents are disturbed by their Prime Minister and what he has said. A lot of these people who are calling me are Liberal supporters.
My question for the member is this. Do you apologize for the Prime Minister's comments on racism and misogyny when you get calls, and what answer do you give?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:12:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although it is an honour today to rise in the House of Commons to discuss and debate imposing the Emergencies Act, I do so with a heavy heart. I am fiercely proud to be Canadian. I love our country and everything about it. That is why I am here today. It is a big part of why I ran and had the courage to put my name on a ballot, and that is why I must use my voice today as we take these historic measures. Undeniably, this is one of the most important debates that we will have in the House.
The debate is about a solution to a very big problem. It is a problem that we have seen exceed the ability of the Ottawa police force and other police forces across the country to address on their own. It is multifaceted, it is menacing and it is an attack on our democracy. The protesters here in Ottawa just outside this building, the seat of our federal government, stated that their goal was to take down the government: to overthrow this democratically elected government. This certainly raises alarm bells in my head.
As we know, on Friday, all parties agreed to cancel the debate in the House on the Emergencies Act because of the emergency that was happening just outside this building. It was not considered safe for us to come to this building to debate the Emergencies Act. Let us all pause on that. I would say that when the elected representatives of this country are unable to safely debate in the House, it is an emergency of national significance.
I have received many emails, phone calls and messages from residents in my riding of Kanata—Carleton about these measures. I have been actively participating in and listening to this lengthy debate, and I would like to use my time today to share my view and to provide answers to the questions that many people seem to still have. I would also like to clarify that it is my job to represent the residents of Kanata—Carleton to the best of my abilities. This is not about partisan politics, and it does not matter what stripe of politics I believe in. It matters that I rise and represent the will of my residents. That is exactly what I am here to do today.
Why did we invoke the Emergencies Act? Canada is a rule-of-law country. By declaring a public order emergency under the act, we followed the law and we are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act for a public order emergency to be declared, and these conditions have been met. Everyone in this chamber knows that the situation, particularly here in Ottawa, grew in intensity and in level of threat over the past 25 days. The threats at our land borders have mostly been managed to date, but with the benefit of planning and experience. The financing of the illegal occupation here in Ottawa has, as has now been exposed, required additional legislative powers to end it. The Ottawa Police Service acknowledged days ago it did not have the capacity to deal with this situation as it evolved over the last—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
554 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
Madam Speaker, there is indeed an emergency in this country. Indeed, there are a series of emergencies.
There is the emergency of the family whose 14-year-old daughter has attempted suicide after two years of isolation from sports, social interaction and other healthy activities that sustain a happy and heartful mind. There is the emergency of the federal public servant who, for unrecognized medical reasons, cannot get vaccinated and is now deprived of an income and a job. There is the emergency of the trucker who was hailed as a hero while driving our goods and services across international borders unvaccinated for over two years, who suddenly was declared a public health threat and deprived of his job as well. There is the emergency of the 32-year-old still living in his mom's basement, because under the pretext of COVID, the government printed so much money that it now costs $836,000 for the average house. There is the emergency of the single mother trembling as she walks down the grocery aisle because she cannot afford a basket of affordable goods, because the government has inflated her cost of living. There is the emergency created by the regulatory gatekeepers who keep people in poverty by blockading first nations people from the ability to develop their own resources and blockading immigrants from the ability to work in the very professions for which they are trained and qualified.
These are the emergencies we should be addressing, but instead the Prime Minister has created a new emergency. What is his motivation? Of course, it is to divide and conquer. How did this all start? Let us remember that the Prime Minister suddenly imposed a brand new vaccine mandate on the very truckers who had been free to travel across borders without a vaccine, and he did it at a time when provinces and countries around the world were removing vaccine mandates. He did it to a group of people who are by far the least likely to transmit a virus, because they work and sleep all by themselves 22 hours a day.
Media asked his health minister and his chief medical officer for evidence supporting the decision. Neither had any. In fact, the medical officer said it was time to return to normalcy, yet the Prime Minister, in spite of all these facts, brought in this new mandate to deprive people of their living, because he knew that it would spark in them a sense of desperation. If he could deprive them of their incomes, they would be so desperate that they would have to rise up and protest, and then he could further demonize them, call them names, attack their motives, belittle them and dehumanize them in order to galvanize the majority against the minority.
This must be the political opportunity his Deputy Prime Minister spoke about when she described what COVID represented to the government. The Liberals have attempted to amplify and take advantage of every pain, every fear and every tragedy that has struck throughout this pandemic in order to divide one person against another and replace the people's freedom with the government's power.
At the beginning of the pandemic, it started immediately. The government attempted to ram through a law that would have given it the power to raise any tax to any level for any reason without a vote in Parliament. It tried to pass Bill C-10 to strip away free speech online. Thankfully, Conservatives blocked it from doing so. The Prime Minister's authorities have said they want to track Canadian cell phones for the next five years. Now this, the Emergencies Act, is the latest and greatest example of attacks on our freedom.
Ostensibly, it was meant to stop blockades, which had already ended before he even brought forward this legislation. In Alberta, in Manitoba and at the Ambassador Bridge, those blockades were ended peacefully, in some cases with protesters hugging the police officers and bringing the matters to a successful close, so that goods and services could resume.
Instead, in that context, the Prime Minister brought in a law that not even Jean Chrétien brought in after 9/11 killed dozens of Canadians in a terrorist attack, that not even former prime minister Harper brought in when a terrorist murdered a Canadian soldier at the war monument and came running into Centre Block spraying bullets in all directions, and that not even the current Prime Minister brought in when blockades by first nations were standing in the way of those who were attempting to build the Coastal GasLink pipeline. For the first time in this law's three-decade history, the Prime Minister brings it in to address what he says was a protest in front of Parliament Hill.
Ironically, this power goes beyond any of the protests and/or blockades the Prime Minister claims to want to address. For example, it would allow governments and banks to seize people's bank accounts and money for donating to the wrong political cause. One journalist asked the justice minister if small sums donated, for example, to support an end to vaccine mandates could get someone's bank account frozen. The minister did not deny it. Instead, he said that people who make donations of that kind should be very worried.
To freeze people's bank accounts is not just an attack on their finances but on their personal security. If their bank accounts are frozen, they cannot buy food, they cannot buy fuel, they cannot pay their children's day care fees and, under this law, they can face this personal attack without being charged with a single, solitary crime.
The Prime Minister says that this is time-limited, yet his own finance minister said she wants some of the tools to be permanent. He said it will be geographically targeted, yet his own parliamentary secretary for justice said that “the act technically applies to all of Canada”. The rules apply everywhere and indefinitely.
Finally, there is nothing in the act that limits the kinds of financial actions that could lead to people's accounts being frozen, and if they are frozen unjustifiably, the act specifically bans people from suing either the bank or the government for that unjustifiable treatment, opening the door for people who have nothing whatsoever to do with either the blockades or the protest having their bank accounts frozen without cause.
The Prime Minister says he wants to do this to remove the blockades, blockades that have already been removed. He says he needs these unprecedented powers in order to bring our country's order back to the pre-protest period, although across this country that has already occurred.
I say to the House that I oppose this unjustifiable power grab and, as prime minister of Canada, I will ensure that no such abuse of power ever happens again.
However, I say that we should end some of these blockades. Let us—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:39:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I share his point of view for the most part. He listed a series of emergency situations that warrant being addressed by the government and rightly so.
Would he agree that both this list of emergency situations and the events we have been experiencing on Parliament Hill over the past three weeks are situations that could be resolved if the government addressed these problems immediately, instead of breaking out the heavy artillery, like the Emergencies Act, every time a situation presents a challenge?
Would tackling the problem of the protests from day one—especially as they shifted from a demonstration to an occupation of Wellington Street in Ottawa—not have resolved the problem and prevented the use of the act before us today?
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:07:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I liked the tone of the speech given by the member, my former colleague on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, with whom I have had the opportunity to share many thoughts.
Nevertheless, I will ask him the same question I asked my other colleague earlier. Where and how do these emergency measures give police rights and powers that they did not already have?
Before these emergency measures were invoked, were police forces from different municipalities not allowed to work together?
Could police officers not issue fines?
Could police officers not enforce court orders?
How do these emergency measures give the police new powers?
What are the new powers?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.
The purpose of this conversation, this debate, is not to target anyone or point fingers at anyone. As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to lead by example. I have to say that what I have seen so far, from all parties, is unacceptable.
In response to the member's question, I would point out that I mentioned the issue of outside financing in my speech. This power cannot be granted under the current legislation. The police chief of the City of Ottawa mentioned that he had used the powers that he had obtained.
I am a member from Ontario, and the Premier of Ontario supports our decision to have declared an emergency. Personally, I will side with the Premier of Ontario.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:37:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by the member's answer to the question before, but also by the speech because it is a blank cheque that the member has given. This is not the NDP of Tommy Douglas, who said that the Emergencies Act is a sledgehammer on the peanut of what is going on right now.
If this is not a blank cheque, then when should these emergency powers end? What is the view of the NDP? What is the member's view? When should these powers be gotten rid of? That is the question I am hearing from my constituents. They are panicked. They want to know when the NDP will stop supporting these measures.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:42:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am struck today by the importance of this moment and also by the immense responsibility that we hold as members of Parliament. As people across the country deal with the impacts of the global pandemic, we are tasked with creating the laws that will best help them deal with the challenges they face, keep them safe and healthy and provide the supports they need.
In this already unparalleled moment in our history, on top of everything else, we have witnessed the occupation of our nation's capital. We are now tasked in this debate with examining and deciding on the use, for the first time ever, of the Emergencies Act. This is not a moment any of us should take lightly.
As someone who came to this role through community activism, attending countless protests, standing in front of trucks filled with contaminated soil, delivering food to tree sitters, protecting fragile ecosystems and organizing climate demonstrations, protest, dissent and social movements are vital elements of our democracy. We need to ensure that non-violent civil disobedience remains a protected and valued part of our society.
We also need to ensure there is effective oversight of any additional powers given to government. The Emergencies Act itself has provisions that require, after the emergency is over, an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken. This should also include a public inquiry into the role of law enforcement in these occupations, the reports of officers supporting the occupiers and police refusing to enforce the law. It is clear there needs to be a sober examination of policing in Canada. The difference between how occupiers were treated by police versus how indigenous and racialized people have been treated is stark. This disparity is unjust and also undermines the trust of Canadians in law enforcement.
I have been contacted by many people who are concerned about the use of the Emergencies Act. Many are concerned that we should not set a precedent of cracking down on protests. It is important to note that what we have seen over the past 24 days has not just been a protest. It has not been peaceful.
The core organizers of this occupation were very clear from the outset that their goal was to overthrow a democratically elected government. I have to admit that I laughed when I first read their aim. Like most Canadians, to me it sounded preposterous. They could not seriously think the Governor General and the Senate could just remove the Prime Minister or that it would be possible in Canada to hand over power to an unelected group of occupiers, but these organizers, many of whom are well-known far-right figures, who have espoused Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-indigenous and other hateful views, published their goal to take down the government in a manifesto.
To quote Maya Anjelou, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them”. This illegal occupation raised millions of dollars, had significant foreign involvement and was explicit in its goal to undermine our democracy. We have also witnessed instances of organized militia-style activity, weapons seized, body armour with white supremacist insignia and thousands of rounds of ammunition. In January, as the convoy initially rolled across the country, there were supporters who went on TV to say they had guns and would stand up and bring them out. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them.
While all of this was happening, a number of Conservative MPs were welcoming the convoy to the city, handing out doughnuts, making excuses for the deplorable actions at memorials and encouraging the convoy participants to stay. The member for Carleton said that he was proud of the convoy and stands with it. Convoy participants occupied the city, making it unbearable for residents. They harassed journalists and health care workers. There were reports of attempted arson, bomb threats to hospitals and plans to block airports and railways. Our borders were shut down. Weapons were seized. There were attempted murder charges laid. The member for Carleton, who wants to be the prime minister of Canada, stands with them. When people tell us who they are, we should believe them.
If the Conservative members truly stand with truckers, they should stand with the 90% of truckers who are vaccinated and the truckers who have been profoundly negatively impacted by border blockades. They should listen to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which put out a statement saying that it applauds the use of the Emergencies Act to help end the illegal blockades.
In those initial weeks, while Conservative MPs encouraged the occupiers, the Liberal government stood idly by. As the convoy rolled toward Ottawa, as the far-right rhetoric rose in the truck convoy, as foreign funding poured into a movement that aimed to undermine our democracy, the government did nothing. It should have never come to this.
The use of the Emergencies Act is an acknowledgement of a failure of leadership. The government has allowed things to escalate unchecked and could have addressed this crisis early on but failed to. After over two weeks of turmoil and chaos, the Ottawa Police Services Board chair stated, “Frankly, the response to this crisis so far has been ineffective.” She said that police have been “unable to adequately enforce our law and our residents continue to be terrorized.”
In this debate, we are being asked whether the Emergencies Act is necessary. It has been clear that for the past three weeks the municipality and a number of provinces were not able to maintain security in our nation's capital and at our borders. This is one of the key reasons why the situation meets the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act.
Once the Emergencies Act was enacted, the interim Ottawa police chief made it clear that without these additional powers, they would not have been able to make the progress that they have made. Over the past week, we finally saw police taking appropriate and measured steps to remove the occupiers.
The act allowed the RCMP to direct tow truck drivers to tow vehicles. In addition, without the Emergencies Act, the RCMP and financial institutions could not quickly freeze funds that were fundraised with the explicit intent to destabilize our elected government.
We know there has been significant foreign funding. When the convoy's GoFundMe site was shut down, they started using GiveSendGo, a Christian platform infamously known for being the platform used by many of the groups involved in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and also for raising millions for the Proud Boys, a listed terrorist entity in Canada. A recent data leak identifying GiveSendGo's donors to the convoy campaign showed that over half of the donors were from the U.S. and less than a third of the donors were Canadian.
The Emergencies Act also gives the power to prohibit bringing children to unlawful assemblies. Many of us watched in horror as occupiers brought their children to block the border crossing. We heard reports of occupiers keeping their kids near the police line, using them as shields. As a parent, it is hard to wrap my head around the choice to bring children into such dangerous situations.
The powers granted by the Emergencies Act were needed as they did help secure our national capital. Yesterday, the occupation was still happening and there were still border closures happening in Surrey because of the convoy protest. Today, things are quieter. New Democrats have been clear that we are ready to withdraw our support at any time. If the situation is actually under control, then the government has to provide a compelling reason for why it still needs these emergency powers. If there is not one, then we have said all along that we will withdraw support.
We have heard again and again comparisons to the War Measures Act, but we know this is not the same law. It is not even close. Under the War Measures Act, there is no Constitution, no Bill of Rights, no provincial constitutions. The government would have the power to do anything it wants to intern citizens, to deport any citizen, to arrest any person. We can all agree that is unacceptable.
That is why Tommy Douglas and other New Democrats voted against it. The War Measures Act suspended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is why, in 1988, the act was repealed. The Emergencies Act, the act that replaced it, is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is subject to the Canadian Bill of Rights.
There is a still a valid concern that the government could misuse the powers in the Emergencies Act. This is why New Democrats have been clear that if we vote in favour of the government's request, the government must stay within the established powers or we will withdraw support.
We will protect the right to protest. We must continue to hold dissent and non-violent civil disobedience as sacred, as integral parts of our democracy.
I want to close my speech by speaking to the vast majority of Canadians who have been following public health orders, who banged pots to show support for health care workers, who have been helping out their neighbours, who have made great sacrifices in order to keep their loved ones, their families and their communities safe.
As mandates and restrictions begin to lift, they should know that it is because of their acts of solidarity and the fact that they got vaccinated, and the convoy participants, while they might not realize it, owe the majority of Canadians a great debt of gratitude. The vast majority of Canadians have not only saved lives, but they are also the reason we are going to get through this together.
1656 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
