44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 3:52:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to many of the points the member laid out. I find that we actually agree on many of these points, but one point I would like the member to elaborate more on is the connection between populism and extremism. It is true that there is an element of both of these things within this movement? We have seen it from folks such as Pat King and organizers at Canada Unity.
Would the member please elaborate on the dangers of populism and extremism?
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:53:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, all rebellious movements that are driven by anger and resentment are dangerous. The populism that we are seeing today is very clear for the left. It is easy to identify. We hear a lot about it, especially south of the border. I am especially worried about my colleagues in the west. Perhaps it affects us less in Quebec, but there is also left-wing populism on identity issues, where people are ready to label anyone who tries to give weight to their collective identity and who presents themselves as a Quebecker. There are now attempts to present that as spontaneously racist. That is also a type of populism that must be condemned.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:54:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government has proclaimed a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act. The question before us today in the House is whether the proclamation is consistent with the law.
For a public order emergency to be proclaimed to deal with the blockades here in Ottawa and across the country, three criteria must be satisfied.
First, there must be an urgent, critical and temporary situation where there is serious violence or the threat of serious violence against people or property for the purpose of achieving an ideological, religious or political objective.
Arguably, the government has met this first criterion. The RCMP raid in Coutts, Alberta, resulted in the seizure of high-powered guns with scopes, handguns, ammunition, high-capacity magazines and body armour decorated with patches associated with white supremacist and other extremist groups. Thirteen people have been charged in connection with the seizure, including four with plotting to murder police officers. The RCMP says that these individuals were organized, highly armed and dangerous. In addition, some of the organizers of the blockade here in Ottawa used language that suggested they were ideologically motivated and willing to use force to achieve their ends.
The second criterion that must be met is that either the situation endangers the lives, health and safety of Canadians, and is of such proportion or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or the situation seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
The government can make the case that either or both of these elements have been satisfied. It is clear the blockades endangered the lives, health and safety of Canadians in downtown Ottawa. The diesel fumes, the constant and ear-shattering noise, the fireworks and so many other things hurt the 12,000 Canadians living around the Ottawa blockade. The Province of Ontario supported the invocation of the Emergencies Act, implying that the blockade exceeded the province's capacity to deal with the situation.
The government can also argue that the situation seriously threatened its ability to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. The control of an international border is the hallmark of a sovereign state. At one point, four Canadian border crossings were blockaded: Windsor, Emerson, Coutts and Surrey. The blockade in downtown Ottawa, the seat of our government and our national legislature, was also arguably a threat to the sovereignty and security of Canada, as was the call by some convoy organizers for the overthrow of government.
The third criterion that must be satisfied is that the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It is important to note that the act uses the word “effectively” rather than “ideally”.
The government made an announcement about the public order emergency on the afternoon of February 14, but the promulgation of the three orders in council effecting the powers took several days. The blockades ended in Windsor on February 13, in Surrey on February 14, in Coutts on February 15 and in Emerson on February 16. It is clear that the border blockades were effectively dealt with under the existing laws of Canada and not under Emergencies Act powers.
Here in Ottawa, while Emergencies Act powers were used, they were not needed. Chris Lewis said exactly that yesterday. He said that there was a lack of law enforcement and a lack of police officers, but not a lack of laws to enforce. He said that making arrests, seizing trucks, towing, cordoning off the city, putting up checkpoints and getting thousands of additional officers to assist the Ottawa police could all have been done under the existing laws of Canada. He is a former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police: the largest police force in the province of Ontario.
Furthermore, it is clear the Emergencies Act powers allowing the government to seize financial accounts could have been done under existing law. Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey did exactly that on February 10, when he obtained an order under section 490.8 of the Criminal Code to freeze access to millions of dollars donated through the platform GiveSendGo.
Lawyer Paul Champ also did exactly that on February 17, when he obtained a Mareva injunction under existing common law that froze millions of dollars, including cryptocurrency, raised for the convoy protests.
These actions by the Ontario Attorney General and Paul Champ were done under existing laws, and were also done with court approval, unlike the Emergencies Act powers to freeze accounts without court approval that the government has now claimed for itself. These emergency powers may not pass the Oakes test with respect to proportionality or the requirement to minimally impair rights and freedoms.
The government has not met the requirement of the act that the situation cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Therefore, I cannot support the motion. I would add that if the House supports the motion, it would be giving the government powers it likely does not lawfully have under the act.
While I cannot support the motion, it is clear that the blockades in Ottawa and at the border were unlawful, illegal and, in many aspects, criminal. It is also clear that the existing laws of Canada did deal, and could have effectively dealt, with the situation. A lack of timeliness in law enforcement, and a lack of federal-provincial co-operation and other operational deficiencies, cannot be dealt with under the Emergencies Act, nor under the emergency doctrine of peace, order and good government.
The failure to uphold the rule of law is the issue here, not a lack of law to effectively deal with the situation. In a free and democratic society, the rule of law is essential. Without the rule of law there can be no freedom, because liberty without lawful limits, taken to its logical conclusion, is anarchy. Without the rule of law, there can be no democracy, because democracy without our most basic law, our Constitution, is nothing less than majoritarian mob rule.
It is clear we, as a country, have not been serious about the rule of law, and because we have not been serious about the rule of law, thousands of Canadians thought it appropriate to unlawfully and illegally blockade four international border crossings and our national capital for more than three weeks.
We have not been serious about the rule of law when a person’s race, religion or creed determines whether or how the law is enforced, such as when the CN mainline in Ontario and pipelines in Western Canada were blockaded for weeks on end two years ago, and when the lawlessness continued last week. We see this when a mob violently tears down statues in the public square with no consequence, when dozens of Canadian churches were vandalized or torched in the past year, and when, in this place, the Prime Minister violated the Shawcross doctrine of the Constitution by pressuring the Attorney General to drop the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, something for which he was never censured or held in contempt. We saw this last year when the government defied four orders of the House and its committee for the production of the Winnipeg lab documents.
If flagrant disregard for the rule of law is tolerated, things will fall apart. The centre cannot hold and anarchy is loosed. What is needed now is not the use of the Emergencies Act, but rather ensuring that the rule of law in this country is upheld.
1273 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:03:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my learned friend a very specific question with respect to the safeguards that exist within the Emergencies Act. I know it was invoked on February 14. We are debating it today. The order was presented two days after the invocation. There are other measures that are forthcoming.
Can the member speak to the safeguards that are in place to ensure that we protect the rights of all Canadians? These emergency measures are temporary, measured, and they ensure that they are in compliance with the charter.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:04:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, three of the safeguards that have been put into the act are the three criteria that the government must meet in order to trigger a public order emergency.
The first is a threat or the actual use of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective. The second is a threat to the health, safety and lives of Canadians that is beyond the capacity of a province to deal with, or alternatively that there is a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity or security of this country. The last is that there is no other law in Canada, federal or provincial, that could effectively deal with the situation.
Those three criteria are safeguards in preventing intrusions into civil liberties.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:05:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I often enjoy listening to his speeches in the House and I respect that he presents a calm and often rational approach.
My question is simply this. When we see this discombobulation of democracy, when we hear the chief of police in Ottawa—the interim one, granted—say very clearly that they would not have been able to take action in the way they did here unless they had these resources, when we hear from the organizers their plans to continue these things—they are retreating right now, but talking about moving forward later on—and when we see this increased instability across the country, how does the member reconcile that position with what we are all seeing and experiencing across Canada?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:06:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue here is not a lack of laws to effectively deal with the situation either here in Ottawa or previously at the four border crossings; it is a lack of law enforcement.
As the former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police said yesterday, the power to make arrests, seize and tow vehicles, cordon off the city, put up checkpoints and get thousands of additional officers in to assist the Ottawa police already exists in the existing laws of Canada. In fact, he said that it is used practically every Canada Day in this city. It is used practically every Remembrance Day. Clearly the emergency powers were not required for the clearing of the blockades at the four border crossings, because in some cases they were cleared prior to the invocation of the public order emergency and in some cases before the orders had really taken effect.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:07:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if I were a senior member of the NDP, such as the MP for Windsor West, I would be ashamed that my leader threw the local police under the bus, as he did in the House last Thursday. I would be doubly ashamed if my leader whipped my vote on the Emergencies Act.
Once again, the NDP are poised to prop up the Prime Minister so as to not hold the Prime Minister to account. The very fact that the standoffs at the Windsor-Detroit and Coutts borders were ended peacefully, clearly demonstrates that the Emergency Act was, quite frankly, unnecessary.
I am wondering if the member would agree that the greatest emergency in Canada today is that the NDP continues to prop up this power-hungry Liberal government and today will vote with the Liberals to allow—
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
We have to allow five to 10 seconds to the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills to answer.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:08:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the issue here is a failure to uphold the rule of law that has been years in the making.
Two years ago the blockades on the CN main line and in western Canada at the pipeline were allowed to continue for weeks. People who tear down statues in front of provincial Legislatures and in other public squares in this country suffer no consequences. I think we have a failure here to uphold the rule of law, and that is what is needed, rather than the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:09:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today marks one week since the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act. This has been a long, emotional and distressing week for all Canadians, no matter one's political stripe, and it is not difficult to understand why.
The Emergencies Act has never been used in Canada. It is meant to be a measure of last resort, something to sombrely consider only if all other attempts at resolution have been exhausted and only when there are no alternatives remaining. It requires the government to legally justify why it is necessary. Unfortunately, the government has failed to give the critical justification needed for this unprecedented decision.
The onus is on the government to justify every single line of the regulations it is invoking under the Emergencies Act. The Liberals need to convince Parliament why these measures are needed, rather than the opposition to explain why they are not. The onus is on the government to specifically outline how the existing laws of our provinces and nation could not deal with the protest and the onus is on the government to lay out all its evidence on how the existing Criminal Code and intelligence gathering have failed and why it needs these sweeping new powers. The onus is on the government, and Canadians are left wanting.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation said, “The high threshold for declaring a public order emergency in the Emergencies Act has not been met.”
The BC Civil Liberties Association said, “Canada has not met the legal threshold for the Act’s invocation.”
Our entire legal system is based on the notion that even in the most trying of circumstances, there is due process. To oppose the invocation of the Emergencies Act, one does not need to condone the actions of all the protesters. What we need to do is step back and review what powers we as parliamentarians are being asked to approve. In doing so, we must determine if there is legal justification. Let me remind my colleagues that political justification does not always equate to legal justification.
If we review the government's proclamation declaring a public order emergency in the Canada Gazette, we will find that almost every one of its justifications was aimed at the border closures. It is important to note that the border closures had all ended, as my colleague just said, by the time the Prime Minister spoke in this House.
There is no disagreement that blocking critical infrastructure such as railways, bridges, highways and border crossings should never be allowed. In the spirit of the agreement on that point, I hope there will be unanimous support from all parties for eternity.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: What made the government determine these specific blockades were threats to national security when previous protests were not? Was it the size and scope of their economic impact? Was there intelligence suggesting they would prolong, or were there other considerations that made these protests different from previous ones that also had shut down large parts of our economy and put communities at risk? I do not ask these questions to be rhetorical but to determine the threshold the government is using.
The government is being taken to court by constitutional and civil liberties associations for this very reason. They too are concerned about the precedent being set by invoking the Emergencies Act. They fear that sometime down the road, using the same economic or security risk justifications, some future government will do the same.
To invoke such sweeping powers, the government must be able to articulate a much stronger and definitive rationale. While this is a place normally full of platitudes, it would be wise for all of us to focus on the details of the regulations.
After careful review of the Prime Minister's speech in the House, I see that not once did he get into the details of how the specific new powers will be used, nor did he lay out any argument whatsoever on why the current laws were not sufficient. If his intent was to persuade the members of this House, he was short on details and he failed to make a convincing argument.
I have many concerns, but I first want to push back on the Prime Minister's comment that the scope of the Emergencies Act is “targeted”.
Within the regulations, the Minister of Public Safety is given an incredible amount of latitude to designate geographic areas where the Emergencies Act will be used. In fact, the regulations give the minister absolute power to decree that the act can be used for “any other place as designated”. Forgive me in advance for not being willing to support something that gives one minister such extraordinary powers.
According to the emergency preparedness minister, the government intends to continue exercising the far-reaching powers of the act for “as long as they are required”. Does that mean for the totality of the full 30 days?
If we look outside this very chamber, we will find that the trucks are gone. The obvious question is this: When can everyday Canadians return to Parliament Hill? Let me be very clear. I am not talking about on the streets or sprawled out around downtown; I am talking about on the snow-covered lawn. What information or intelligence is the government using to determine this decision? This is not a rhetorical question; it is valid and must be answered. The public cannot even come to support or oppose the very matter we are debating today. While the Prime Minister has said the government is not currently infringing on the charter rights of Canadians, such as the right to peaceful assembly on the lawn of Parliament, I beg to differ.
On the issue of the Emergencies Act prying into the personal bank accounts of people, I believe it is the most constitutionally shaky of all the government's new powers. Anyone who is downplaying the severity of the government giving financial institutions the power to freeze bank accounts has lost sight of the forest for the trees. There are reports that people who made donations before the government ever shut down the crowdfunding websites have had their bank accounts frozen. As confirmed by finance officials, the Liberal government is giving banks the absolute power to make their own decisions on whose accounts are frozen. Let me remind this House what that means: It means freezing bank accounts without a court order, without any checks and balances or any direct and immediate oversight.
I want to highlight what one law firm had to say about these regulations. Stikeman Elliott wrote:
...leaving it to financial service providers to investigate their customers or to rely on lists of names, not set out in any law, that are provided by law enforcement or other government agencies is extraordinary, particularly given the potential to be prosecuted for dealing with such persons.
I would say to my NDP colleagues that the Liberals just gave the banks the power to be both judge and jury.
Moreover, the regulations state that the banks must disclose financial information to the RCMP and CSIS if they have reason to believe an individual was involved in the protests. A “reason to believe” is a very low bar for handing over personal banking information. I fail to see how a “reason to believe” does not infringe on section 8 of the charter, which guarantees that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.
Also found within these regulations is that banks are immune from civil proceedings for compliance with this order. Regardless of ill intent or error, any individual negatively impacted has zero legal recourse.
In closing, if the government had approached this House with other options before what is in front of us today, perhaps it would have found more receptive audiences. For example, if the RCMP needed parliamentary approval to operate outside its normal jurisdiction when requested to do so by a provincial government, I see no reason why that could not be done. The Prime Minister should have accepted our leader's invitation to work with other parties to see where we could have gone from there.
I simply cannot in good conscience vote for this motion for these reasons. The powers are too sweeping, the justification is too lacking and the precedent is too dangerous. I want nothing more than for the government to show compassion and leadership for all Canadians. Moreover, I do not want to see anyone blockade or stop the movement of Canadian families or businesses as they go about their day. We must remember that we are all citizens and will remain so after this. We cannot continue to just talk past each other. Let us lower the temperature and begin the essential work of bringing Canadians back together.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:19:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his comments today. I have listened to some very thoughtful speeches from members of the Conservative Party during this debate. I have also listened to some that I found quite upsetting. I appreciated his comments at the end of his speech about bringing the temperature down.
One of the member's colleagues said on Twitter that passing this Emergencies Act would take this government another step towards dictatorship. I find that kind of language quite disturbing and not helpful in engaging in very civil discourse. I am wondering if the honourable member could comment on that, please.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague rightly said, in my closing remarks I said it is time to get together to come to a solution on this.
Are we going to leave the Emergencies Act in place for 30 days, when there are no trucks left on the streets of Ottawa? My colleagues have mentioned that in the House a number of times today. I believe there is as much peace on the streets as we have seen in over a month, and more so, and I believe there is an opportunity for us to get together.
We have to remember, as well, why this started in the first place. It was because the Prime Minister decided to take a sector that was already 80% vaccinated, and force a vaccination mandate. That was fine when COVID first broke out. When he saw omicron numbers already going down for two weeks before he made the decision to ask for double vaccination for these truckers, he did it to divide Canadians. There can be very few other reasons for it.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:21:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act is the ultimate action a government can take. By making this evening's vote a confidence vote, is the Prime Minister not injecting partisanship into a vote that should reflect the conscience of each member of the House?
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:21:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is a very important one. Holding a vote as a confidence vote is a very serious matter. I have heard others in the House make comments on this during question period and in their speeches today as well.
Is the Prime Minister doing this because he wants to force the NDP to vote with him, or is he doing it to cover some of the dissension within his own caucus? I think that may be part of the reason he has decided to make this a confidence vote tonight: He is very afraid of losing it.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:22:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we can agree, my colleague and friend and I, that all levels of government had failed here in Ottawa. The occupiers had been asked to leave. They were asked to leave by the Anishinabe and Algonquin people. The City of Ottawa and the Conservative Premier of Ontario had also tried to use their tools to move the people from Ottawa. Even a court injunction could not end this occupation.
We have heard from the former defence minister and justice minister from Stephen Harper's government, Peter MacKay; former Ottawa police chief and current Conservative senator Vernon White; and the former security adviser to Stephen Harper, that this meets the bar. They support using this act to take action right now.
What does my colleague say to his fellow Conservatives, including the Premier of Ontario, who has asked us not to abandon him and not to abandon the people of Ottawa? New Democrats will not do that. In light of all the things that were used, even a court injunction, what does the honourable member say to his former Conservative colleagues and to current Conservatives who support our moving forward with this?
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:23:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a huge difference. I mentioned in my speech the low bar for this emergency measure being used. All other border crossing situations were already solved before the Prime Minister stood up in the House. Those border crossings, which I completely believe should never have been closed, were opened peacefully, albeit there might have been some altercations that were not above board. Those were cleared up without the Emergencies Act put in place, and before the Prime Minister stood up in the House.
The public safety minister, who wants to direct and work with the provinces, gave them no direction. He allowed the protestors to stay in Ottawa. They were actually invited to be here for three days, and—
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:24:50 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:25:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time today with my colleague from Louis-Hébert.
It is an honour to join this important debate in the House of Commons. We meet at a time heavy with history and laden in legacy. Today I wish to share with the House what the invocation of the emergency measures act is, and also what it is not. I will also provide insights into the financial measures included in the invocation.
Our government has taken the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to restore peace and order across the country, and to hold that peace. The measures are temporary, geographically specific and proportionate. They are designed to respect people's rights, to address the crisis at hand and to comply with parliamentary oversight.
Let me be very clear. The Emergencies Act is not a blanket suspension of civil liberties. It is not a suspension of the charter, and it does not represent our government's first action in dealing with the multiple threats to peace and security taking place across the country. We got to this point due to the actions of a small group of well-organized but not well-intentioned people who could not accept the results of the 2021 election, an election where the issue of how to continue the fight against COVID-19 was front and centre, and where each of the parties put forward their platforms and Canadians made a choice.
Since that election, we have come together in this House, in person and virtually, to debate and shape, to push and pull the policies, programs and priorities of a nation. When we are not in the chamber, we continue to hear from and engage with our constituents. Every member in this place and in the other chamber, day in and day out, receives and responds to letters, emails, tweets, messages, direct messages and more on these and other substantive issues. We engage; we listen; we respond. All of these are indicators and proof of the democratic system at work, but that system was not good enough for a tiny group of people, frustrated because they did not get their way. They planned and they plotted to tear down our institutions.
While the public face of these illegal occupations was a demand to end vaccine mandates, which are regulated by provincial and territorial governments, the core of this movement was not one of bouncy castles and Friday night street parties. Its stated goal was to overthrow a duly elected national government, to weaken our democratic institutions, to spread discord and disinformation, to foster fear and, in the worst possible scenario, to foment violence. As evidenced by the discovery of the weapons cache, subsequent arrests and charges laid against individuals at Coutts, there was apparent readiness by some in this movement to murder police officers and any Canadian who would stand in their way.
These occupations were not developed to end vaccine mandates. They were designed to be an arrow aimed at the beating heart of our democracy to appropriate our freedom and our flag while robbing fellow citizens of their ability to walk to work, to open their business, to get groceries, to drive to the pharmacy and to simply sleep in peace, quiet and security.
That arrow has missed its mark. Canadians will not be fooled or divided. We are resolute in the face of this attempt to destabilize our democracy and to cause lasting harm to our economy and to our international reputation.
The illegal blockades caused serious harm to provinces, to communities and to the country. They threatened businesses, big and small, put Canadian workers at risk and robbed our economy of billions of dollars. For example, the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge affected about $390 million in trade each day; in Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade was affected, and in my province, at Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million a day in daily trade was affected by the blockades.
The illegal actions that have been taken have shaken international confidence in Canada as good place to invest. Canadian jobs and Canada's prosperity are at stake.
Protesters against vaccine mandates do not set out to make Canada poor, but people who seek to undermine our democracy do. No responsible government could, under these circumstances, let the safety of its citizens, the health of its economy or its international reputation as a reliable trading partner be harmed in such a manner and to such a degree.
Our government took action, which is how we arrived at the decision to declare this national emergency and to invoke the act. The emergency economic measures order has allowed the government to take concrete action to stop the financing of these illegal blockades. The measures have allowed the federal government to take a coordination role in what would otherwise have been beyond our normal jurisdiction. Specifically, they were aimed at crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers, as well as at Canadian financial service providers.
In response to a question consistently raised by the opposition over the course of this debate, I would note that crowdfunding platforms and some payment service providers are not ordinarily subject to the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. It therefore stands to reason that they could be used to finance unlawful activities, such as illegal blockades.
To address this, the order extended the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers. Specifically, the entities that are in possession of any funds associated with illegal blockades are now required to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, and to report suspicious and large-value transactions of persons involved in the blockades. This is mitigating the risk that these platforms could be used to receive funds from illicit sources or to finance illicit activities.
With respect to financial service providers, the order directs them to intervene when they suspect that an account belongs to someone participating in illegal blockades. This means that banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers must now temporarily cease providing financial services, including freezing their accounts, when they believe an account holder or client is engaged in illegal blockades. The order applies to all funds held in a deposit, chequing or saving account and to any other type of property. This also includes digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies.
Of course, these service providers are required to unfreeze accounts when the account holder stops assisting or participating in illegal blockades.
With the emergency economic measures order, the government is also directing Canadian financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved in the illegal blockades. The order also gives federal, provincial and territorial government institutions new powers to share any relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if that information helps stop the funding of the illegal blockades and unlawful activities occurring here in Canada.
The vast majority of Canadians, those who are law-abiding and not involved in these illegal blockades, will see absolutely no difference. These measures are temporary. They will apply for 30 days and are aimed at individuals and businesses that are directly or indirectly involved in illegal activities that are hurting our economy.
The emergency measures we have declared were designed, as was the act itself, to respect the charter and to ensure the protection of charter rights. We treat the rights protected by the charter with utmost seriousness, as we do the safety and security of all Canadians.
Like so many others in this place and across the country, I am worn out from that persistent, nagging, daily battle against the relentless, heartless and invisible foe that is COVID-19. No one asked for this virus. We simply had to respond to it the best we could, together.
I was not a sitting member during the first two years of the pandemic, and I take this opportunity to salute and thank members of all parties, Greens, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, Conservatives, Liberals and independents alike, for their heroic handling of a once-in-a-century challenge, with $511 billion invested in the lives and livelihoods of Canadians so that we could get through the worst of the pandemic. However, while we may all be done with COVID, COVID may not yet be done with us.
As we head into a new phase of living with the virus, let us remember who we are as Canadians, what we have built here, north of the 49th parallel, who we are on the world stage, and what we can achieve when we work and pull together. There are forces at play that would love nothing more than to see us fail. We will not succumb to such elements. We will prevail. It is in our very DNA to do so. In the face of this national emergency, our government has taken specific and targeted action, and we have, by law, promptly submitted those actions to parliamentary approval, to committee oversight, and to the critical observation of the media, academics and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
The debate will continue. Thoughtful commentators, thoughtful critics, the media and civil society will weigh in with concerns and observations. All of this is as it should be. In the final analysis, we have stood for the rule of law. We have been careful to limit the extent of these measures, and we acted in the defence of our economy with a solemn commitment to peace, order, good government and the health of our society. As we submit these actions for the democratic approval of this chamber, we know that brighter days lie ahead.
1630 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:34:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member from across the way made mention that the protests that took place in Ottawa could be traced back to organized crime groups or terrorist-like groups, as he accused them of being. However, he did not offer any evidence for this, and the minister just a few days ago made the same types of accusations when he was doing a media press conference. The media followed up with a number of questions in that regard. When the media asked him if he could provide evidence, he was not able to. The media then asked if it seemed like more of a hunch, or whether it was substantiated. He had to admit that it really was just a hunch, something that he felt might be a tie.
I am wondering if the hon. member has evidence that he would like to present to the House of Commons that this is in fact a terrorist-like organization and a large organized crime group.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
