44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 7:37:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the House of Commons has been called upon many times to pronounce its judgment and to vote: to vote on legislation, to vote on amendments, to vote on estimates and to vote on motions. In the parlance of parliamentary procedure, when the House of Commons votes, it divides. When a recorded vote is requested and we are asked to stand and be counted, it is called “a recorded division”. There are times in this House when votes are decided “on division” without a roll call. At Westminster, recorded divisions are conducted through “division lobbies”.
The House “dividing” is not new. The House has been dividing on subjects great and small since the first session of the first Parliament, on November 6, 1867. We have been dividing for nearly 155 years. This is what we do. This is what we are sent here to do, to serve on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the people of Canada. We make decisions on behalf of the people we serve. We vote yea or we vote nay. There is no grey zone in between. There are no asterisks appended to our votes. There are few explanations as to why or how or for what reasons we came to a decision on any particular matter.
At 7:30 p.m. this evening, the division bells will ring, and the House of Commons will be called upon at 8:00 p.m. to divide on the matter of whether to confirm the government’s declaration of a public order emergency pursuant to the Emergencies Act. Forever in Hansard and in Journals, our names will be listed as having divided one way or the other on this very motion before us today.
Divisions in this House are normal. Divisions in opinions, thoughts and ideas are normal. Different views represented in this place and elsewhere are normal and are signs of a healthy democracy. What is not healthy are the divisions in our country and the divisions in our communities. In recent weeks and months, I have never seen such division in our country, such anger and frustration. We are one country, but we are a country that sadly has grown more divided.
Each of us can play a role in reducing this division, but it requires work. It requires us to refrain from throwing more fuel on the proverbial fire and to listen to one another rather than talking past each other.
Let me be clear. I will be voting against the use of the Emergencies Act. However, my vote is far more than a simple nay. It is more than a monosyllabic answer, and it requires more than a 140-character tweet of an explanation. It is possible to add some grey to a black and white explanation.
In Canada, it is possible to disagree with, to condemn and to call for the removal of illegal blockades, while also suggesting that the government use measures short of the Emergencies Act to achieve that. As Canadians, we can call for and reinforce the need to be a country of law and order, while also arguing that the tools of the Emergencies Act are an overreach. We can and we must call out and condemn those who would use anti-democratic and nonsensical MOUs that call for the overthrow of a democratic government, while at the same time listening to the concerns of individual Canadians, business owners, truck drivers and entrepreneurs who are concerned about how rules have impacted their businesses, livelihoods and families. We can and we must call for the peaceful resolution of situations, while at the same time disagreeing with efforts to debank or freeze the assets of Canadian citizens.
The question that confronts us today is whether this act and the provisions included in the order in council are appropriate at this time and in these circumstances.
On October 16, 1970, the House of Commons convened to debate the declaration of the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Of the speeches given that day, none was as clear as the clarion call of the gentleman from Prince Albert, the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker. In this House, at that time, he said, “Mr. Speaker, this is one of those occasions when Parliament has the opportunity of dealing with the question of freedom which, above everything else, is the mandate of Parliament and the reason that Parliament exists.” Today, 52 years later, Parliament is called upon once again to deal with the question of freedom.
When the government places limits on the rights, freedoms and privileges of Canadians, it is the government, and the government alone, that must justify it. It is the government that must show to Canadians that the limitations are reasonable. Indeed, the Emergencies Act itself requires it.
The Hon. Perrin Beatty served as Minister of National Defence in 1987 when he introduced Bill C-77, An Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, the short title being the Emergencies Act. Mr. Beatty, I might add, was the member of Parliament for parts of Wellington County that are now within my riding of Perth—Wellington.
In an interview last week with The Wellington Advertiser, Mr. Beatty was asked whether the act was being used appropriately:
Without being privy to government intelligence, he said flatly, “I don’t have enough information.”
“All of us are inclined to give [the government] the benefit of the doubt,” he added, saying the onus falls on the government to prove its case.
Beatty did, however, point out blockades afflicting Canada’s trade routes were resolved without reliance on the Emergencies Act, which was intended to be used “when everything else had failed.”
This is a good point to emphasize. The blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the Coutts border crossing were all resolved with police enforcement rather than relying on the Emergencies Act.
There have been arguments that law enforcement used different measures that were granted to it through the Emergencies Act, but that is not the question that faces us. The question that faces us is whether other measures were available short of the Emergencies Act.
In an interview on Sunday with CTV's Question Period, no less an authority than the former commissioner of Ontario Provincial Police confirmed that he saw no need for the Emergencies Act to undertake the actions that were taken in downtown Ottawa. He said, “It was a lack of bodies, a lack of officers to do what we saw done yesterday. This could have happened [on] day two or three if they could have amassed the number of officers they had.”
In fact, section 21 of the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act already provides for the provision of emergency police services from any province or from the federal government, so when the government says that the Emergencies Act was not the first or the second step, the question hangs in the air of why this act was not used before the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act.
Others have suggested that this act was needed to compel tow trucks to assist in removing the trucks in downtown Ottawa, but again, there are other provisions that could have achieved this. Paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code gives police the option to require anyone, “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”.
Frankly, it would appear that the only tools employed by the government that were not previously afforded to it were the financial powers, and these are the powers that have concerned so many people. Being debanked, even for a period of 30 days, could have serious impacts on an individual, and not just for 30 days but for 30 years to come. That the government is actually considering making some of these tools permanent is even more concerning for all Canadians. When temporary powers become permanent powers, the concern for all Canadians is great.
I will conclude with the words of former prime minister John Diefenbaker: “Parliament is more than procedure; it is the custodian of the nation’s freedom.” May we all live up to that duty today.
1418 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:48:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge talks about this being a useful tool and measure, but I go back to my rural roots. As a farm kid growing up, yes, it would be nice to have that John Deere S series combine to get the job done, but we have spent a lot of years using the old John Deere 4400 combine, and it combined a lot of corn and soy beans. It got the job done.
The fact is that, in this matter, there are a lot of tools available to the government that it simply did not employ. It went to the sledgehammer approach and used the Emergencies Act, when it could have used so many other acts and tools, short of the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:49:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
Indeed, the government could have done much more before resorting to the Emergencies Act. The government could have collaborated with the provinces and the police forces across Canada before using this legislation. It is incredible that the government allowed this occupation to go on and did not take any other measures before opting for the Emergencies Act.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:51:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say that, yes, different police forces have been able to use the Emergencies Act, but that does not mean that it was the only tool that was available to them. There are many measures the government and police forces could have used, short of using the Emergencies Act. I think that is the issue we are facing here today, the use of the sledgehammer of the Emergencies Act, when other tools and pieces of legislation were available. They have been more cumbersome, but when we are dealing with the rights and freedoms of Canadians, sometimes that extracumbersome process is needed.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
