44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 11:40:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I join the debate today. I feel that we should not have gotten to this place where we are debating whether or not to use the Emergencies Act. I believe so many steps should have been taken before we got to the point where a government can freeze Canadians' bank accounts if they do not believe in its political ideology. It is not with great joy that I stand on my feet today, but it is always an honour to represent the people of Regina—Lewvan. I want to do that because I have had countless phone calls and hundreds of emails on what we are talking about today in the House of Commons.
I have constantly heard from the other side about the threat to democracy in Canada, but over the last three weeks, we have all been in the chamber, day in and day out, doing our jobs. We have been to committee, doing our jobs. Not once have I heard a Liberal member tell us what the threat to democracy is, because we have been here doing our jobs.
Our leader is a member of the Privy Council, and if there were imminent threats, they could have taken her in, briefed her and talked about what those imminent threats were. The only other group that is carrying the same narrative about a threat to democracy is the CBC. I would love to see the proof from my hon. Liberal colleagues about what is and what was the actual threat to democracy.
It seems that everyone on their feet today is trying to litigate the protest outside, which does not exist anymore, or trying to litigate whether the blockades were illegal. They were illegal, but they are over. What we are talking about is a government that never has the ability to look forward. This Monday, we asked the Liberals for a plan to get rid of mandates and restrictions and they voted against that because they did not have a plan to put in place.
When I stand on my feet today, I am not going to litigate the protests, nor whether the blockades were illegal, because they were illegal and they were removed. What I am going to talk about is whether the Emergencies Act, formerly the War Measures Act, is needed going forward. Does the government still need that power? Does the government still need the ability to freeze the bank accounts of people who donated to the “freedom convoy”? Does the government need the ability to freeze the bank accounts of people who have put pro-Donald Trump comments on their Facebook pages? Is that something that we believe as Canadians a government actually needs? Does the NDP believe that this is a power the government needs going forward?
These are the questions that I think everyone in the chamber should ask. The Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act and used it to get rid of the protesters and the trucks on Wellington. They are not there anymore, so the question is, moving forward as Canadians, do we want to give the current Prime Minister these powers?
I have the order in council right here, and it is one of the reasons I could never support this act. The order in council, in item (c)(vi), says:
other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.
Canadians do not want to give more power to the Prime Minister and his cabinet given not only what is in the act, but what is not even known yet about what they might use this power for. When I go back to Regina—Lewvan for door knocking and to talk to constituents, they are going to ask if I voted for this. I am going to be proud to say that I absolutely did not.
There are so many other measures the government could have taken before we got to this point. It was unnecessary. We saw the illegal blockades at Coutts, Emerson and Surrey removed without this act. Going forward, when there are no protests and no trucks on Wellington, why would we ever approve this power? Not one Liberal has explained that to me. I hope that in questions and answers one of them does try to explain, first of all, why they need these powers going forward, and second of all, what the imminent threat to our democracy is. We are here. We are doing our jobs. Why would this power be needed going forward?
I had the experience, as many of my colleagues did, of staying downtown in a hotel and walking here and back over the last three weeks. My family was in town for the weekend. My wife, kids and I walked around and talked to some people who were from Saskatchewan. We had conversations and we never felt threatened.
The member for Whitby talked in his speech about downtown residents of Ottawa feeling terrorized by horn-honking and big trucks. I know one resident of downtown Ottawa who feels terrorized right now and her name is Tammy. She runs a gelato café.
Her bank account was just frozen because she has a big heart and she cares for people. She donated $250 for the truck convoy and now her bank and business accounts are frozen. That is one citizen of Ottawa who is feeling terrorized by not the protesters, but by their own government right now. That is what we are talking about.
Citizens around this country are now feeling traumatized, stigmatized, divided from their government. What would my colleagues across the way have to say to Tammy? Do they think it is fair? She said in an interview that she has a big heart and cares for people, but her bank account was frozen. Do they think she is a domestic terrorist? Is that the type of people that now we are trying to protect other Canadians from? I would ask my friends on the NDP side to think about some of these statements because they are going to have to answer to their constituents as well.
I am from Saskatchewan, home of the CCF, home of Tommy Douglas. I guarantee if Tommy Douglas were in the chamber today, he would not be voting in favour of the Emergencies Act. He is the founder of the NDP. He built the principles that the party is supposed to stand on. I believe his comment was “using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut”. Do the New Democrats still have those same principles? Do they believe in the Civil Liberties Association of Canada that is suing the government now saying this is a step too far, this is unconstitutional?
In going home to our ridings, I believe my colleague and friend from Lambton—Kent—Middlesex was exactly right. This will be remembered throughout history. This speech is something that people will look back on and decide who was on the right side of this. The trucks are gone. The blockades are gone. Now we have to decide whether or not we want to be on that side.
I know my Liberal colleagues thought I was going to be up in arms in a very passionate speech, but it is something that is coming from my heart and from what people are telling me. The member for Winnipeg North is always on his feet and says a lot in the chamber and he is going to have to make a decision on how he is going to vote. I know some of his constituents are asking how he is going to vote on this because some will not want him to and he is ignoring his community.
I have some really good friends, Derek, Ryan and Mike, who drove here to to see what was going on. It is 30 hours from Saskatchewan. We walked around the other night and talked with people and they did not feel threatened. A couple of them started to tear up and these are grown farm kids when they saw what was going on in our country. They said is this what Canada looks like now? Is this the type of Canada we want to leave for our children? Police in riot gear and horses on the street. I remember the 2006 election campaign the Liberals said Stephen Harper was going to have police on the street. Well, the Liberals are actually fulfilling that prophesy. They brought in many armed riot police to make sure that Canadians were dispersed. There was not a lot of violence.
Why is no one talking about the violence that happened at the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, where 20 people with axes attacked police officers, did tens of millions of dollars worth of damage and there was not a peep from the Liberal side. Why is that so different from what is going on here? They tried to light a car on fire with people in it. I am troubled. What is the difference?
One of the things I want to get on the record is that the Liberals did not do the steps to make sure the protesters left before three weeks. They sent the Minister of Indigenous Services to talk to some of the protesters in 2020. They sent the Minister of Northern Affairs to talk to protesters at the Mohawk blockades. Why did not one of the front-benchers talk to the protesters and listen to what they had to say?
I will represent my people well. I will be voting against the Emergencies Act. There is no emergency. There is no threat to our democracy and it is a shame that the government has not pulled this bill.
1644 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 1:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.
I agree that we need to see a way out of the pandemic. I agree that we are in need of hope. Inuit, Métis and first nations were given hope by the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, when he gave an apology to former students of residential schools in 2008. That same government, the Conservatives, made cuts to important initiatives like the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
Is this the same hope the Conservatives are aspiring to give to Canadians?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:18:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, instead, members of the opposition have stood with, encouraged, supported and even broken bread with the very people who have terrorized the citizens of Ottawa and threatened the lives of law enforcement officials.
The organizers of this movement have led blockades that have cost the Canadian economy billions of dollars. Many of the organizers are not interested in protecting the rights of Canadians; they are interested in overthrowing a democratically elected government. They have told us this repeatedly, so we must take them at their word. This is precisely why we need the Emergencies Act.
Last week Richard Fadden, the former national security advisor to Stephen Harper and the former director of CSIS, agreed that it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly referencing the federal banking measures as a clear example of where no other jurisdiction could intervene. He said, “I think it's pretty clear that there have been instances where the provinces, whatever they have done, have not had the necessary constitutional authority to make a difference.”
The invocation of the Emergencies Act was absolutely essential for many reasons, and it allowed the federal government, in partnership with other jurisdictions, to implement a multipronged approach to address this national crisis. Here are some examples.
First, right here in Ottawa, it allowed the City to bring in police forces from outside jurisdictions and authorize them to get to work immediately without the need to be deputized, a process that would have further delayed clearing the occupation. I was particularly proud to see members of the Vancouver Police Department joining their colleagues from across Canada to defend our democracy.
Second, the act allows us to stop the financing of these illegal blockades. Further, it allows the City of Ottawa to seize and sell vehicles used in the illegal blockades and use the proceeds to offset the millions of dollars of losses incurred by the City of Ottawa.
Third, it prohibits the use of certain property, including goods, to support blockades. These are some examples.
While Ottawa has been cleared, thanks to the hard work of our police forces, there is still work to be done to bring this crisis to a conclusion. Like all in the House, I want this act to come to an end quickly, but we all know that there are credible threats that ultra-right-wing extremist forces continue to organize and are redoubling their efforts to disrupt Canadian society, our economy and our freedoms.
An example is what happened in Coutts. Weapons were found, along with body armour, machetes and oversized magazines. There were confirmations that some of those sought to kill RCMP officers if they tried to take down the blockade.
Let us not kid ourselves. This is not about their dislike of a Liberal government or a vaccine mandate, nor is it about freedom. This is about a fundamental opposition to, and a repudiation of, our democratic system of government, which values the voice of every single Canadian, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, identity or religion.
The role of Her Majesty's loyal opposition is to hold the government to account, and it must do this, but it must also remain loyal to Canada and its laws, and indeed to its democracy. In that spirit, I ask all members of the House to reflect on what we want to say to the world. Are we a country where a small, violent minority should be able to disrupt government, attack law enforcement officials with impunity, shut down trade routes and take over our capital for weeks?
I will say to the House that these threats to our pluralistic democracy are real. The Canada that has been built by Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats and others is at risk. This is not the time to side with the extremists, nor to grant legitimacy to those who seek to undermine our democracy or our values. This is the time for all of us to stand united in our defence of peace, order and good government.
675 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:18:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. Both a Conservative, Stephen Harper-appointed senator, who used to be the chief of police for Ottawa, and Peter MacKay, a former strong Conservative leadership candidate, have been very clear in saying that we should in fact be voting in favour of this legislation and passing it.
Does the member have any thoughts as to why he believes those two individuals would have taken that position, given that the entire Conservative caucus has made the decision not to?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:09:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when historians write this chapter of the Canadian story, what will they say about the protest? I do not question that for some it was about vaccine requirements for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border, nor do I question that others came here earnestly to protest pandemic restrictions and the disruption these public health measures brought on all of us. Although I do not share their views, vigorous debate and peaceful protest make Canada's democracy stronger. However, for more than a few and for many of those making up the core of organizers themselves, who sat atop a chain of command throughout this three-week occupation, the purpose was something far more sinister and one that betrayed the earnest initial intent of the others. These individuals came to upend the democracy upon which our country is found. They had their demands and soon resorted to intimidation, lawlessness, force and even sedition to see them met, regardless of whether those demands were wise or even fell within the jurisdiction of the federal government at all. Thwarted by the incoherence of their own demands and frustrated by our resolve, they laid siege to our capital with the stated intent to overthrow the democratically elected government and install themselves in our place.
Today, it is evident that they have failed. With the powers of the Emergencies Act, law and order have returned to the streets of Ottawa. Our democratic system, as well as the rights and freedoms that it provides, carries on. Members of Parliament, duly elected, continue debate on the Emergencies Act, invoked in the spirit of peace, order and good government.
Today, it is evident that this measure was necessary, so let me speak to why I will be voting in support of invoking the Emergencies Act. I have the benefit of addressing the chamber following this week's police operation that finally brought the occupation to an end. What we saw was a methodical, orderly and restrained operation by professional police from across the country working as one.
We know now just how integral the powers of the Emergencies Act were to the success of that operation. When asked if the Emergencies Act was necessary, the interim chief of the Ottawa police, Steve Bell, could not have been more clear: Police could not have done the job they did the way they did it without the powers provided by the act. That comes from the senior commanding officer for the operation.
He is not alone. Many more academic, legal and security professionals have come to the same conclusion, including a Harper-appointed senator, Vernon White, a former Ottawa police chief himself, and security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, whom I know to be a respected voice by many in the chamber, including my Conservative colleagues. It is, of course, worth noting that a recent poll indicated that two-thirds of Canadians support this measure as well.
Specifically, the Emergencies Act provided these key powers that were absolutely critical. One, it allowed police to establish a secure perimeter around the downtown core, preventing additional trucks or groups from joining the occupations. Two, it allowed Canadian financial service providers to immediately freeze or suspend accounts of an individual or a business affiliated with these illegal blockades until such time as that illegal activity was ceased. Three, it compelled private companies to provide towing services, fully compensated, to remove trucks and other vehicles from the occupation zone. It also allowed for the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, among other important measures.
Some have asked, which is responsible, whether the Emergencies Act is an overreach. In fact, that is the essential question before Parliament today. It is a minority Parliament that will make a determination on the matter and revoke the measure if it not agreed to by the House. It is an excellent example of the oversight built into the legislation written by the Mulroney government. With due credit to the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, other accountability measures include a special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate to review the government's actions under the act on an ongoing basis, a 30-day sunset clause to make sure that these powers do not extend longer than necessary and an inquiry after one year.
Importantly, the Emergencies Act does not limit charter rights; rather, it is subordinate to those rights. Still, a common refrain from the occupiers is that the Emergencies Act and the police operation to end the lawlessness in our capital trampled on their charter rights to peaceful assembly. That is simply false. The charter protections extend only to assembly that is peaceful. The charter does not protect one's right to seriously disturb the peace, as the occupation of Ottawa has done over the past three weeks. It also does not provide cover for illegal activities carried out during a protest, like the flagrant disregard for the law that has been well documented in the streets of our capital throughout the occupation, with hate crimes, misogyny, arson, vandalism and intimidation. The list is long.
Importantly, the Emergencies Act is democratic. It is an act of Parliament already debated and passed by both Houses, given royal assent, proclaimed and gazetted some 30 years ago. Its application is now being democratically debated in the House of Commons.
Did the time-limited, targeted and proportionate powers of the act work? For the first time in 23 days, quiet has descended upon Ottawa. The streets of the city have finally been returned to its residents, law and order have been restored and the Emergencies Act has performed its function as intended by the Progressive Conservative government that enacted it in 1988.
Three decades later, we find ourselves in the unexpected situation in which the party of Mulroney opposed invoking the measure, while the Liberals and the NDP support it. Our parliamentary system requires Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is an essential part of the checks and balances that keep our country on a stable footing and ensures that the diverse voices of Canadians are heard in this place. However, when crisis strikes, as leaders we are called to rise above our political divides, for we all take an oath as members of Parliament to act in the best interests of our country.
Sadly, that is not what we have seen from the Conservatives throughout this occupation. Through their actions in the last three weeks, it is all too clear that the Conservative Party has strayed from its origins as a party of principle and accountability. Its proud tradition as the party of law and order lies shattered in the dirty snow on Wellington Street. The Conservatives have put their own political gain ahead of the country's security, prosperity and democracy. As their party clamours for an ever-smaller and more extreme faction of the far right, they abandon the hard-working conservatives who look to them for a credible potential government. Instead, the Canadians they have left behind watch in horror as our police and media are spat on and assaulted in the throes of a lawless occupation that today's Conservative Party has chosen to defend.
With the help of the powers of the Emergencies Act, the occupation has come to an end. The trucks and the protesters have gone home, the people of Ottawa are breathing a sigh of relief and Parliament has resumed its important democratic function. However, something has changed in Canada or has perhaps been uncovered these past three weeks. Some will say the divide has grown wider. As political columnist John Ivison wrote yesterday, “It feels like Canada is splintering into two tribes—the intolerant, authoritarian woke lunatics on the left and the spittle-flecked, hateful lunatics on the far-right.” The optimist in me wants to deny it, but I cannot. At times, that is how it feels. Perhaps that is how it feels to a growing number of Canadians as well after these last two years or after these last 23 days.
We need to log out of social media, put down our phones, stop doom-scrolling and ask why it is that, despite a pretty strong consensus on the effectiveness of the broad pandemic response from all parties and all orders of government, it still feels at times like we are more divided than ever. The answer may lie in the palm of our hands in the devices we carry with us day and night. Our political beliefs and grievances are being fed to us by opaque algorithms that serve a singular function: profit for the massive tech giants that dominate our online realm. These platforms prey on our psyche, weaponizing our emotions to keep us all online all the time and garnering untold fortunes in ad revenue. Disinformation, a tool of foreign influence in the cyber-era, goes unchecked. Division, it turns out, is a money-maker. The scene was set as the pandemic locked us inside, and the very same screens they told us would keep us together served instead to push us further apart.
It is my hope that the joint committee and inquiry required in the Emergencies Act will take a hard look at the fundamental role that online platforms played in stoking the flames of division, anger and disinformation, making it harder for any of us to see the other side, as though we live in two entirely different and separate universes, unrecognizable to one another, with incompatible ideas of truth, media and science. Until we address this, I fear we risk repeating the crisis, and who knows in what terrifying form next time. We must act before a generation of children, our children, online as they are, grow up never knowing that there was a better way to be.
1653 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:33:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was an impassioned speech. I have to admit that I am struck by much of what the member said. In the spirit of thinking through some facts, he mentioned that many people were trampled.
Mr. Philip Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I did not. I said two.
Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed: Mr. Speaker, two people were trampled. News reports say the reporter actually admitted that there was, in fact, no trampling. I just want to make sure we clarify the facts in the House.
I would ask the following question. The other side does not trust the government. Would the members trust the national security adviser to Stephen Harper, and the former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden? He said that it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it related to the federal banking measures, which were not covered under other legislation.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:49:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from the hon. member about common sense and doing what is best for Canadians, and I would love her comment on whether it was common sense for the interim leader of the Conservative Party to be photographed wearing MAGA hats, to talk about making the convoy the Prime Minister's problem and to say we should not be asking them go home. I wonder if she thinks that is common sense.
Speaking of common sense, I will ask the same question I asked earlier. Given that she does not trust the government, would she trust the national security adviser to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who said that it was not only appropriate but necessary for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it relates to the very concerns around financing of this convoy that she seems to want us not to consider?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
