44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 11:18:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the story that was just told by the Liberal member in trying to perpetuate the myths the Liberals are putting forward, the myths that there is no charter infringement, there is nothing going on here and people are not losing their freedoms.
The government said it needed this act. Coutts got rid of the blockades without using the Emergencies Act. Surrey got rid of the blockades. Windsor got rid of the blockades. If the member does not think that individual Canadians are losing their freedoms, does he believe that the freezing of 73 bank accounts by the government is not a loss of freedom in Canadians' eyes?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for that key question we should be asking ourselves. I reiterate that the Emergencies Act is fundamentally subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These measures are targeted. The time is limited as well. There is a 30-day sunset clause. At any time, Parliament can vote to reduce the timing of it. There is also a joint oversight committee that has to be struck, which oversees the enactment and operation of the Emergencies Act. There are many safeguards in place to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That is the fundamental question we are debating here today.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:22:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand here on behalf of Canadians to protect their freedoms.
I wonder, if it is okay to restrict travel, collect cellphone data, use military propaganda domestically, enact an Emergencies Act and restrict financial transactions, is it really democracy? I guess that is the point I would like to make here.
The crazy verge we are going upon, the precipice that the House is trying to prevent us from going towards, does appear to be a very partisan issue. I am really very unsure how the member opposite could call it a non-partisan issue when we have two parties who have clearly been, even before any debate, calling this a non-partisan issue. That does not make any sense to me.
I do not have a question, just a comment.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:12:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I rise to speak in a moment when we are called on to do what is right, to choose to defend our democracy and the fabric of our country.
I am the child of immigrants who were part of freedom movements that saw the overthrow of oppressive colonialism in East Africa. Members of my family experienced the violence of a dictatorial xenophobic regime in Uganda that used its powers to harm its citizens. I know all too well what happens when a government overuses its powers.
My family came to Canada to seek safety, prosperity, peace and order. To this day, my family is grateful for the freedoms they have as Canadians, freedoms that they have had and continue to have through the pandemic, freedoms enshrined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When they became Canadians, they also accepted the responsibilities that come with citizenship, responsibilities that I have come to realize many of us who were born in this country may have forgotten.
Our citizenship is not just about rights but also about responsibilities. It is our responsibility to protect one another's safety, to stand up in the face of hatred, to make sacrifices for the greater good, sacrifices like the ones Canadians have made throughout the pandemic because they know that is how we take care of each other. It means sacrifices like those being made by health care workers in my riding of Vancouver Granville, who continue to fight hard to keep us safe and healthy in the face of anger and threats.
Let us talk about where we are today. The illegal blockades in Ottawa, in other cities and at our borders is not about Canadian truckers. The vast majority of Canadian truckers are out there doing their jobs, keeping the Canadian economy going. They are, and continue to be, unsung heroes, and we thank them. They are not trying to hold Canadians hostage or encouraging violence against government or costing Canada billions of dollars.
The invocation of the Emergencies Act is in direct response to those who are trying to harm Canadians and the Canadian economy and those who are financing these efforts. It is not a decision for any government to take lightly. It is an instrument of last resort, and one that is subject to and upholds the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let me be clear: The right to peaceful, lawful protest is a right Canadians have, and it is central to our democracy. We hold this right dearly, and it is one that we defend at all costs. However, that is not what we have been dealing with over the last three weeks. From its first day, this occupation was illegal. It was allowed to go on for 21 days in the hope that it would come to an end. Occupiers were warned repeatedly. They chose to ignore every single request to leave by the federal government, by the province, by the City of Ottawa and by the citizens of Ottawa themselves.
The members of this occupation and the blockades actively chose to weaponize their misguided notions of freedom against our collective national interest, the Canadian economy and indeed Canadians themselves. Choking off cities, blocking off supply chains, shutting down borders and interrupting trade with a deleterious impact on the Canadian economy are not forms of legal protest. The participants in these illegal blockades are not free to take the law into their own hands, which is what they tried to do.
Their actions have negatively impacted the rights of workers to earn a living. They have harmed businesses already hit hard by COVID, and they have obstructed people's right to freely cross the border. These acts are illegal.
That is why the Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, asked for federal assistance last week. He said, “But we need to do what it takes to restore law and order in our country. Blocking billions of dollars of trade, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line, and continuing to disrupt the lives of everyday Ontarians cannot continue.”
That is why even Jason Kenney's Conservative government acknowledged, in reference to the Coutts blockade, that local and provincial efforts to clear the blockade had failed. In a letter, Ric McIver, Minister of Municipal Affairs, wrote “In order to ensure a return of free movement of people, vehicles and goods and services...we are seeking federal assistance in removing obstructions from the highway.” He added, “We are looking to the Government of Canada for assistance.”
We cannot and must not make this a partisan issue, yet sadly, the opposition has chosen to do just that. It surprises me that the Conservative Party, the authors of this very act that we have invoked, the party that has claimed to be the party of law and order, that claims to be on the side of law enforcement, is opposed to restoring law and order. Instead, the Conservative Party has stood with, supported—
843 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:09:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As he knows full well, the Emergencies Act must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must also be transparent about everything that goes on in Parliament. Lastly, we will be able to revoke the act at any time we deem it is no longer needed.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 3:24:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really important to understand that when we see a Nazi swastika, we cannot dismiss it as a few bad apples. One flag is too many.
Let me be clear that the measures we are discussing today are targeted, temporary and proportionate. They are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subject to democratic debate, which we are having now through this very weekend, and subject to a vote.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:39:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Unfortunately, I think it was necessary to invoke this act. The specific measures set out in the Emergencies Act are limited, subject to many checks and balances, and guaranteed by Parliament, hence this debate. The measures also have to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The police have all said that they could not have overcome these obstacles without this act.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:52:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the problems I had with the member's speech is that he seemed to assume that the implications we are dealing with in respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its relationship to the Emergencies Act have somehow already been tested.
I would encourage the hon. member to look at the Debates from April 1988, when MP Blackburn, a former NDP member from Brant, stated that Japanese Canadians who had been interned under the War Measures Act were very concerned that the Emergencies Act would not actually protect charter rights. To this day, there has been no reference to the Supreme Court on the application of the Emergencies Act.
To have it on record, is the member okay with that?
Second, I would hope that the member agrees that—
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:36:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We agree that the situation deteriorated and got way out of hand because of the Prime Minister's inaction.
As for the act itself, is my colleague not reassured by the fact that its application is limited to 30 days, that fundamental freedoms are upheld and that 20 members can call for its revocation and trigger a vote in the House?
The chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that these measures were necessary because they helped end the illegal occupation, including by increasing the fines, preventing people from being inside the perimeter without good reason, and forcing certain tow truck operators to remove the trucks from the streets. The chief of the Ottawa Police Service seems to think it was useful.
Does my colleague not agree with him?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:38:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has cited a public order emergency throughout Canada as its justification to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is wrong.
In this chamber, the Prime Minister said he invoked the Emergencies Act because the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada. That is false. The leader of the NDP talks about tools available, should the government abuse the power provided within this act. However, he has missed a critical point, which is that the abuse has already happened. Neither of them is listening to Canadians; they are instead choosing a path of divisive policies, distinctly separate from democracy and the voice of Canadians.
Freedom is at the heart of democracy, and the right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Let me say that again: The right to choose is at the heart of freedom. Freedom is what so many hundreds of thousands of Canadian women and men have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend.
A Métis man in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia wrote me this week to tell me a story of his father's and his family's commitment to preserving and securing democracy, and his concern about the current government actions. He told me the story of his great-grandfather, who was wounded in the First World War. He holds tightly, as a reminder of how he came to be free, the very bullet that tore through his great-grandfather's leg. He also told me that his grandfather fought in the Canadian First Infantry Division, which made its way through Ortona, Italy to stop Hitler's advances through Europe.
These are but two examples of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have sacrificed for our freedoms, the very freedoms the Liberal government has restricted.
Why did the Prime Minister go directly to invoking the Emergencies Act? He had numerous opportunities to address the situation peacefully over the past few weeks, yet he chose to do nothing. I can think of four reasonable actions that would have allowed us to avoid the difficulties we have faced. The Prime Minister could have sent a delegation. The Prime Minister could have sent the public safety minister or the emergency preparedness minister. The Prime Minister could have met with opposition leaders, like the Conservative leader requested. Finally, the Prime Minister could have met and listened to these Canadians himself. Of course, the government could have removed COVID restrictions and vaccine passports at our border crossings and airports.
However, listening, the one thing that would have helped de-escalate, is the very thing he did not do. Having a significant background in law enforcement, I know that the basic rule of law is to listen to concerns and work towards a peaceful resolution, not to enter into a fight first. I cannot imagine what would happen if every police officer went to a call and did not listen to the issues first. Dialogue is significantly more productive than the Emergencies Act.
Instead, what the Prime Minister decided to do was further rachet up, escalate and divide Canadians with hurtful rhetoric. Canadians are not buying divisive rhetoric. The Prime Minister no longer has footing rooted in democracy, and all members of the House have a simple choice to make. Do they side with freedom and the institutions of democracy, or do they side with the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP, who want to seize the bank accounts of Canadians with whom they disagree? Apparently, accounts have already been frozen. This sets a precedent that for all illegal blockades of roads, logging sites, pipelines or railroads, the future funding is subject to this process.
Going back to the Emergencies Act, I choose freedom. Let us not be so foolish as to water down the significance of this movement, our obligations to those we serve and the impacts this will have on generations that follow. The decisions we make in this chamber on this issue will reverberate through the walls of history, and we will be held to account. The choice is simple: Protect and defend democracy or tear it down. I will be voting to defend it.
We must not accept a situation where it is up to a prime minister or any member of the government to decide, outside the laws created in this chamber, which protests are legal and which are not. We surely must not tolerate a scenario where families are separated because their ideas or beliefs are different from those of the prime minister or the government of the day.
Kootenay—Columbians see this as being about a Prime Minister's ego, about a lack of leadership and weakening precedents. I would like to take this moment to speak to those members of the Liberal caucus who are feeling uneasy about being whipped to a vote they know to be wrong. Their country needs them to uphold the values of democracy and freedom. Our country will be strong and free long after we leave this place, and it is our responsibility to ensure it is so.
The Emergencies Act was not invoked during fears and protest around the Spanish flu, which took 50 million lives around the world. It was not invoked during the Great Depression and the workers strikes in the 1930s. It was not invoked during the crises of Oka or Ipperwash, or in the aftermath of 9/11.
During my time in law enforcement in British Columbia, the act was not invoked to solve the riots in Penticton and Kelowna, where downtown storefronts were destroyed. It was not invoked to address a month-long illegal standoff at Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest in the history of the province. There were RCMP members shot, helicopters taking rifle fire and landowners unable to go home. I was at this event and can say with certainty that it was much like a war zone, in British Columbia, Canada, and there was no Emergencies Act invoked.
Currently, there is an illegal blockade and protest at the Coastal GasLink drill site on the Marten Forest Road near Houston, B.C. On February 17, there was an attack on a number of CGL employees and RCMP, and a member was physically injured in the attack. Initial damage to equipment and buildings is estimated at over $10 million. RCMP are investigating mischief, assault, criminal harassment and man traps set purposely to injure police. This appears to be a violent, illegal action that the Emergencies Act would support law enforcement in, especially given that its financial support, from GoFundMe.com, has financing from outside Canada.
Where other methods and authorities exist to deal with disagreements, governments should use these methods and authorities. Governments should not subject free people to abuse of wide-ranging, freedom-altering overreach. I stand before members today on behalf of the people I represent and the thousands of phone calls and emails from individuals concerned about their charter rights and freedoms. I stand in this chamber, after a lifetime of experience within the RCMP, to explain to the Prime Minister and his colleagues in this House that he is wrong in his actions. Police agencies have the tools they need, but it starts with dialogue.
The government had numerous other legislative options it could have considered before going to the extreme of invoking the Emergencies Act. The act makes it clear it is only meant to address urgent and critical situations that cannot effectively be dealt with under any other law in Canada. The government wants the public to believe otherwise, but in fact it does have the power to direct the RCMP under section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
The government did nothing for weeks and is now taking unprecedented steps that are not necessary. Regardless of the talking points being used by the government and what it would like Canadians to believe, the fact remains that the Prime Minister's actions represent real limits on our charter rights.
Civil liberties, the rule of law and democratic norms are all principles that require constant vigilance to defend. The measures under the Emergencies Act raise serious questions with respect to the rights of Canadians. Section 2 guarantees our freedom of association and assembly. Section 7 guarantees our right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 guarantees our protection against unreasonable search and seizure. How and why can Canadians be assured the government is protecting our rights with this extraordinary and unprecedented invoking of the Emergencies Act?
The following organizations have now come out publicly against the Prime Minister's overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to opposition from the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Who wholeheartedly agrees with the Prime Minister and the Liberals? The NDP, that is who. Twenty-five votes in this 338-vote House separate the will of Canadians from democracy. As Canadians learn about the Emergencies Act and the NDP support for it, they are sounding alarm bells. The silent majority is awake. Canadians are watching and will not forget the decision we make in this chamber on this issue. Freedom will prevail on Friday, or it will prevail when the government fails. Make no mistake: Freedom will prevail.
However, the current leader of the NDP is supporting the Prime Minister at any cost. We arrive at this unfortunate moment as the direct result of failed leadership by the Prime Minister and his government.
I implore all colleagues to take note: Future generations will read and learn about their actions and their support and abuse of power. It will be recorded in history, written in textbooks and taught in classrooms. This wayward principle has lost control long ago. Opposition to the NDP-supported Liberal overreach is growing. Invoking the Emergencies Act is clear government overreach, and the Conservatives will oppose it.
I want to add that I really appreciate the thousands of individuals in Kootenay—Columbia who have reached out to me, hoping common sense prevails. It is difficult to understand the federal government when so many provinces have eliminated most COVID restrictions. For example, I was in Calgary and there was no vaccine passport. Therefore, why does the federal government continue with vaccine restrictions at federal-regulated locations, border crossings and airports? We would not be here if the government followed common sense and science as its provincial partners are doing. I hope the government starts to listen. We need Canada united and proud. It is time.
1782 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can say it depends, but on a serious note, I have always been that way for rights and freedoms. That is where I have been and, since I have been elected, that is where I will stand.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:49:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will pick up on what the member just stated. At this time we are talking about the Emergencies Act, but think of how much better it would have been to be talking about the heroes of the pandemic. Here we are pushing the three-year mark, and at the end of the day, so much good has taken place.
Moving to his speech, there are a couple of points I would like to highlight. One is the importance and supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have heard the word “freedom” a lot during this debate, and the Emergencies Act does not override any aspect of the charter. Second, as the member made reference to, at any point in time there are four political entities in the House that have more than 20 members. All it takes is 20 members to require a vote on the revocation of the act at any point in time.
If the member could pick up on those points, I would appreciate it.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:38:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
I want to clarify one thing. No one’s rights and freedoms have been suspended. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply while the Emergencies Act is in force.
That said, I would like to know the state of mind of the members of his political party. There is a convoy that came from far away, that announced that it wants to disturb and disrupt our democratic institutions, and that is funded by supporters of Donald Trump. At the same time, his party’s interim leader and his party’s former finance critic are openly supporting these people organized by the far right. They give these people coffee and pizza while they make life miserable for the residents of Ottawa.
How can my colleague explain the actions of some of the key figures in his caucus?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:38:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there were two questions. The first was about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, the Emergencies Act says that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights must still apply, but it is not good enough just to say that. The regulations coming out of the order in council actually have to honour that, and I am submitting that did not happen.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
