44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 7:32:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, does the hon. member think that the letter the Alberta government sent to the federal government seeking assistance with the blockade in Coutts could undermine the Alberta government's upcoming challenge to the Emergencies Act in court?
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:18:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a few moments ago, I heard that there is still a lot happening at the Ambassador Bridge.
Knowing that the blockade atthe Ambassador Bridge was dismantled before the act was invoked, does my colleague believe that the act, which is in force at this time, will be essential to completing the efforts, that is to continue ensuring the safety and peace of people in that area?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:18:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the member stated, the blockade and occupation at the Ambassador Bridge were cleared prior to the invocation of this act. They were cleared with the co-operation of our various police forces. I condemn the ongoing situation there, but it is able to be cleared with existing forces. It is the draconian imposition of this act, and all that it entails and all its precedents, as I mentioned in my remarks, that are of great concern to this side of the House. We support law and order. We condemn the illegal occupation and blockades, but as so many of my colleagues have pointed out, resources exist to address the issues without resorting to resources that are not required.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:21:12 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
I rise today to speak on this important motion. The decision to invoke the Emergencies Act is being taken with much consideration. This debate is crucial and necessary.
For weeks now, the unlawful occupation and illegal blockades have disrupted the lives of Canadians, harmed our economy and endangered public safety. We have witnessed intimidation in our communities and at our borders.
The Emergencies Act has been invoked to supplement federal, provincial, territorial and municipal authorities to address and resolve these issues. The impacts of these blockades are significant. Over three weeks, they caused serious harm to our economy, our livelihoods and our way of life. They threatened our democracy and marred Canada's international reputation. These measures are being implemented in part to halt the illegal actions of those whose intention is to overthrow our democratically elected government, and to stand up to those who wish to extort change by intimidation.
The measures implemented in the Emergencies Act are not broad or overreaching. They are specific and targeted. They are not permanent. They are temporary, and set for 30 days or less. They are not heavy-handed. They are proportionate. The level of proportionate response is dictated by co-operating levels of law enforcement, not the government.
These short-term measures have allowed law enforcement at all levels of the government to work in ways they could not have previously. The Emergencies Act spells out a clear process that must be followed once the act is invoked. The specific measures of the act are subject to numerous checks and safeguards, including the oversight of a parliamentary committee.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is enshrined in this act. By invoking the act, a public review will automatically be triggered. The review ensures transparency and oversight. I have heard from some who have concerns that invoking this act will set a precedent. I am confident the criteria to invoke the act have been met.
The precedent I will not stand for is to give in to lawless occupations and blockades by those who demand that governments negotiate with them or be undemocratically replaced.
All actions under the act will comply with our charter. That requirement is built into the legislation. Canadians expect us to act within the bounds of the charter, and we will live up to these expectations. Despite the misguided efforts of a few, our democracy remains strong. However, we cannot be lulled into a sense of complacency.
Attempted blockades have persisted. Because of the act, additional attempts have been thwarted. These are new powers we used as recently as a few days ago to prevent the resurrection of a border blockade. This problem is clearly national, and it is still a threat.
The unfortunate radical populism that fuels people to block supply chains and disrupt daily lives has not gone away. The pattern of rhetoric that can be linked to far-right extremism is well documented. We must not minimalize the reality of this threat.
What has emerged is an entrenched, organized movement that is being motivated by toxic ideology. These are groups that do not believe in the legitimacy of the government. They knew where to hit Canadians: our borders, supply chains and communities. The Emergencies Act leveraged tools to end these disruptions and prevent future ones.
The act has allowed law enforcement to restrict access to Ottawa's downtown core. By creating a secure zone, authorities were able to stop an influx of more people in vehicles, preventing them from becoming entrenched in the capital.
It is important not to confuse illegal blockades and occupations with legal protest. Canadians can continue to teach their children about the democratic right to assemble peacefully and legally. It is an important part of sharing our values.
This is different. Let there be no mistake: bouncy castles, toboggans and hot chocolate do not make an illegal protest a safe place for children. This was a dangerous situation, yet parents continued to bring their kids to the front line of these unsafe scenes. This act seeks to protect children, such as those who have been used right outside these doors as human shields for the adults who were supposed to keep them out of harm's way.
The Emergencies Act prohibits parents from bringing children under the age of 18 to an illegal occupation. It does not prohibit children from attending peaceful and legal protests with their families.
Recent events here in Ottawa and at multiple border crossings demonstrated that the ordinary mechanisms in place at multiple levels of jurisdiction were not sufficient. The subsequent inquiry that is mandated will help uncover the reasons why other measures were not effective. These measures that were enacted are already working, and we are already seeing results.
We are restoring the rights and freedoms of those who have been deeply affected: the rights of citizens to safely walk the streets, the rights of workers to earn a living, the rights of businesses to stay open and serve customers, and the rights of people and goods to move freely across international borders.
The debate we are having now, and the review process that will follow, will allow us, in a transparent and democratic way, to strengthen the gaps that allowed this situation to happen. This will ensure that we learn and adapt so we will not have to mobilize the Emergencies Act in the future for the same reason. In that way, the Emergencies Act is a self-correcting piece of legislation.
These measures have not been enacted because of the ideology of the people protesting. That is not the case. This act was invoked to put an end to illegal blockades and unlawful occupations. The city of Ottawa is recovering. Businesses are starting to open, and people are starting to get back to their lives. I believe that crisis reveals character, and I am certain Canadians have the capacity to heal the damages done with dialogue, compassion and respect.
I want to commend the professionalism, and controlled and proportionate response, of the law enforcement officials of jurisdiction over the past few days. I also want to commend journalists and reporters for the important role they played throughout the crisis. Their work, in very difficult circumstances, has been remarkable. The violence and harassment they were exposed to is unacceptable. We need to stand together, all of us in the House, and condemn the hate speech and harassment that we are seeing. Doing or saying nothing about the attempts to intimidate journalists is the same as supporting what is being done to them. Not condemning it is condoning it. I ask my colleagues to consider that as they see members of the media being threatened by angry mobs.
I would like to address my constituents, the residents of Kitchener—Conestoga, and thank them for taking the time to reach out to me. There has been a diverse range of sentiments, and I have listened to their views very carefully. The conversations, the emails and the messages I received all weigh into this decision. I was elected to be the member of Parliament for all constituents in my riding, not just those who share my views. I understand and I take seriously my obligation to hear everyone's views and to listen. I strive to respect and value the opinions of others.
The impacts of the border blockades have been felt in our riding, as people were laid off at local plants. Toyota, one of the largest employers, was idle, which impacted many families in our community. People I spoke with at local feed mills and other businesses in Kitchener—Conestoga said they were not able to get goods across the border. I send a big thanks to the truckers and trucking companies in my riding who kept going despite those blockades.
I understand the magnitude of this vote. The research I have done, the briefings I have attended, the debates I have been part of in the House and the conversations I have had with constituents have brought me to this moment, which is not an easy one. However, I did not become a member of Parliament to do the easy things. I became a member of Parliament to do the right things. Invoking the Emergencies Act is the right thing.
1403 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:00:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member's son-in-law found a great place to live with a good member of Parliament.
Having said that, I am concerned that the Liberals are using this act as a sledgehammer. I have worked with police officers across this country. I know that in Windsor, for instance, they were able to clear that blockade with the help of the RCMP and the OPP, and they existed before this act came in.
In Alberta and across the country we are seeing that Canadians are thoroughly upset with the Prime Minister. He does not listen and just does not pay attention.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:27:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I look forward to talking to my colleague in French.
To answer her question, the point has just been proven. Removing the Ambassador Bridge blockade was possible because law enforcement took the bull by the horns and agreed on a strategy that could have been used in the early days of the blockade. Law enforcement coordinated their efforts and dismantled the blockade.
Was it because the Emergencies Act was invoked? The answer is no.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:41:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been raising the issue of the Ambassador Bridge. The blockade there required extensive supports, and city of Windsor residents are on the hook for those right now.
Currently, the blockade has been moved to cut off city streets, including a 300-year-old Francophonie community that has been very important for this area. It is also impoverished. Lastly, the Ambassador Bridge is owned by a private American billionaire, who now gets the benefit of the barricades funnelling all the traffic to his coffers.
I would like the hon. member to understand and reflect on this. Who should be paying for this? Is it the city of Windsor's residents and the Francophonie culture here, or should it be the provincial and federal governments? Right now we are on the hook.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:27:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for her speech.
I would like to pick up on the part where she talked about the Ambassador Bridge. Several people have talked about it this morning.
She said that there are still protesters a few blocks away from there. To be clear, these are protesters, not occupiers. This is not a siege. The Ambassador Bridge blockade was dismantled before the Emergencies Act was invoked. There was no need for the act. The situation was dealt with.
Why adopt a draconian measure when the authorities already have everything they need to take action?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:28:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work on the industry committee as the former chair. It was very much a collegial environment.
As I have noted several times in interventions, the Ambassador Bridge blockade has moved from Huron Church Road and is now along city streets. A couple of convoys have been intercepted since the act has been in place.
Does the member find it ironic that a private American billionaire now benefits from traffic being quickly rerouted, when small businesses and their employees cannot work because the blockades and cement barriers are now preventing people from getting to their businesses along the corridor?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:42:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sorry. I definitely know better.
The article states:
Premier Heather Stefanson pleaded in a private letter to [the] Prime Minister...to intervene at the Emerson border blockade just days before she publicly opposed his decision to enact the federal Emergencies Act against protesters.
In a Feb. 11 letter obtained by the Free Press, Stefanson asked [the Prime Minister] to take “immediate and effective” action as she pleaded for “national leadership that only you and the federal government can provide.”
The Province of Alberta asked for Ottawa to help and to bring in some tow trucks. The Premier of Ontario supports this initiative. The interim Ottawa police chief supports it. It seems to me that it is the extreme Conservative right that is playing politics, and there is ample evidence of hypocrisy.
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Ambassador Bridge is open right now. A private American billionaire owns that, however now the blockade is along the entire corridor. Under the Emergencies Act right now, it is being protected by municipal forces somewhat, but also by OPP and RCMP. Without that, it would be left to municipal resources alone.
I am wondering this. Does the member feel that is fair? If we do not have those types of supports, then there is a threat to the rest of Ontario and Quebec. For that corridor of 10,000 trucks a day to be susceptible and only be protected by municipal forces right now would be absurd.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:42:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wanted my colleague's comments on the weaponization of motor vehicles as, in effect, they are perfect instruments to intimidate citizens and the public. They are huge, people can sleep in them, they can get supplies and they can be eaten in. In fact, the police were afraid of what might be in those trailers, and it was not until the Emergencies Act was placed on the Order Paper that the police were able to get the resources and have the ability to end the blockade, which went from the Supreme Court of Canada all the way to—
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:21:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is very simple. He talked about the still ongoing illegal blockades. Could he just provide one instance in Canada, ongoing right now, of a current illegal blockade and why the Emergencies Act is still required going forward?
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:26:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question before us is whether we ought to confirm the government's declaration of an emergency pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act. I have really struggled with the answer to that question, and I will get to that.
The first question we should all reflect on is a more basic one: How did it even come to this? Some Conservative colleagues have made the case that we could have ended the illegal blockades if only we had ended federal vaccine mandates, a Neville Chamberlain approach to pandemic management. Appeasing illegality is an affront to the rule of law, and we should put public health before politics.
Mandates will not be with us forever, and yes, we need to re-evaluate their use. However, it is also true that NACI has yet to confirm whether a third dose is properly a booster dose or should be considered part of the primary series. We should proceed cautiously as we lift measures that helped save lives.
Of course people are tired of pandemic rules. I was furious when Ontario's schools closed yet again to in-person learning in January. Protest is to be expected, and everyone has the right to peaceful protest, but that right does not extend to blocking highways and bridges. It does not extend to the intimidation, harassment, threats and the endless and deafening noise we have seen in our national capital. These are crimes, and they are quite obviously crimes.
We cannot paint every protester with the same brush, but we can judge people by the company they keep and we should never platform the language of treason, medical experiments, the Nuremberg Code or support for white supremacy, all of which we saw on our democracy's doorstep.
My genuine plea for those listening, for those who dislike the Prime Minister, for those who dislike public health measures and especially for those who sit in the Conservative caucus is to just remember that democracies are fragile. Encouraging lawlessness and emboldening anti-government, anti-democratic voices is a disservice to our country, no matter how much hatred they have for their opponents. If they do not stop fanning the flames, I am not certain we will be able to put out the fire.
Reflecting on my own side of the House, if we are so fearful of polarization, then we ought to be especially careful not to contribute to it ourselves. We are each sent here to represent our constituents, of course, but our obligations extend beyond any parochial interest. We are the trustees of our democracy; the rule of law; civil liberties; and peace, order and good government.
The illegal blockades represented an attack on these core ideas. The greatest criticism of how the blockades were removed is that they were not removed more quickly. The failure to enforce the law in Ottawa and the acquiescence to occupation emboldened similar blockades across the country at Emerson, Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Against a failed municipal and provincial response, a strong federal response was warranted. Therefore, I suffer no sympathy for those who shut down our border crossings and inflicted harm on the residents of Ottawa.
However, in the interest of disappointing everyone in my audience, I do have concerns with the invocation of the Emergencies Act in the circumstances. One constituent I trust a great deal wrote to me that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. She is unquestionably right, but the law also remains the law, so let us turn to it for a moment.
Section 16 of the act defines a public order emergency as “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”. The shoe arguably fits, with this general definition in mind, but the act goes on to define two terms with great specificity.
First, and again in keeping with section 16, “threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.” In turning to the CSIS Act, we see four possible meanings: espionage, foreign influenced activities, activities akin to terrorism, and the violent overthrow of the government. These are incredibly high standards.
In the order in council, the OIC, the government relies on activities akin to terrorism or, as the Minister of Justice said in the House, “We took measures that had been applied to terrorism and applied them to other illegal activity”. The specific section requires that there be activities in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective. It is obvious enough that the latter element is met, as warped as the ideological objectives may be, but have there been threats or acts of serious violence that themselves amount to a national emergency?
We know that dangerous and extremist elements are embedded within these protests and blockades. In Coutts, for example, we saw conspiracy to commit murder charges, with two of the accused connected to a far-right extremist group. We also saw the police seize a cache of guns and body armour, and in Ottawa we saw major intimidation of local residents and threats against the police if they enforced the law. As a parliamentarian, I acknowledge I am not privy to all of the information in the hands of the executive, and there may well be even more dangerous and coordinated elements at play.
It also strikes me that these serious threats are ancillary to the blockades, and it is the blockades that constituted the emergency. A national emergency, after all, is also a defined term within the act. It means:
an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that
(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or
(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.
There is an additional requirement that no other federal law be sufficient to meet the emergency as well. It is frustrating that the government has not clearly articulated which ground it relies on here, and it appears that it likes to rely on both. When we look at the illegal blockades and the negative impact they wrought on so many lives, I do think there is a fair argument that they meet the definition of a national emergency as long as we understand “capacity” to mean both whether a province could act in theory as well as the reality of their action.
Again, if the blockade is at issue, when we look at the threats of serious violence, the violence that must itself constitute the national emergency at issue, it is unclear how the definition is met. To meet the act's requirements, it seems apparent to me that we need to re-interpret “serious violence to persons or property” to mean economic harm. I am often in support of large and liberal interpretations of the law, but I am not convinced we want economic harm to trigger the act, unless we would be comfortable with the act being used in other instances of economic harm, the most recent one in memory being the railway blockades in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en.
This is all perhaps too lawyerly, too technical an objection. Other levels of government had failed to act or acted too slowly. Legal gaps certainly exist in addressing foreign funding and foreign influence operations and crowdfunding for illegal domestic activities, and the emergency measures seem to have worked.
It is also true, as I say, that I do not have all of the intelligence information that the executive has. My answer to that is a simple one, and I know many will find it inadequate, but contorting the application of the law in order to defend the rule of law is not a position I find comfort in.
Expert Wesley Wark wrote recently that the Emergencies Act was unusable because of the high threshold in section 2 of the CSIS Act. However, he subsequently came around to the idea of shoehorning the law to fit, because of his perception of the nature of the threat and the missing response from other levels of government.
Expert Leah West recently wrote:
As someone who fervently believes in the rule of law, I’m desolated by what we’ve witnessed this month: a failure to enforce the law by 2 levels of government created a crisis that the 3rd had to contort the law to end.
That is a fair summation.
Now, whatever one thinks of the legal contortion, and the ends may well justify the means and the courts will weigh in on the law, let us return to the role of Parliament.
In the coming months, we will need to address the shortcomings in the laws, perhaps to better protect critical infrastructure and most certainly to better follow the money of foreign influence operations and crowdfunding for illegal activities, but with proper due process. Assuming the threshold question is met here, it is still not at all clear to me whether the government continues to need the ability to freeze bank accounts without due process, if it ever did. Usefulness and effectiveness are very different standards as compared with necessity and proportionality.
Now, where does it leave us for tonight’s vote on the invocation of the Emergencies Act and section 58?
Putting aside my concerns around the threshold or due process, the effect of section 58 is that a yea vote extends emergency measures while a nay vote simply revokes the powers as of the day of the negative vote. A nay vote need not mean impugning the actions of the government over the last week. Whatever one thinks of the necessity and proportionality of the emergency powers at the time they were invoked, whatever one thinks of the threshold that triggers the act in the first place, the question before us is whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate to the circumstances today.
I appreciate the federal leadership over the last week. This is not the War Measures Act, as this particular legislation highlights the role of the charter and provides for a significant amount of independent and parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am skeptical that the strict legal test was met for the act's invocation, and I am not convinced that the emergency measures should continue to exist beyond today.
I would vote accordingly but for the fact that it is now a confidence vote. My disagreement, the disagreement I have expressed here, does not amount to non-confidence, and I have no interest in an election at this time.
1830 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:22:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the right of Canadians to express their opinions and the right of Canadians to protest peacefully and to disagree with their government are something we will always stand up to protect and uphold. Even with the implementation of the Emergencies Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply.
Quite frankly, continuing to demonstrate the way Canadians are there for each other, not harming their neighbours, not occupying cities but being there for frontline workers, being there to support each other, that has been the story of this blockade and this pandemic.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:40:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said at a press conference this morning, “For anyone who is concerned that their accounts may have been frozen because of their participation in these illegal blockades and occupation, the way to get your account unfrozen is to stop being part of the blockade and occupation.” The blockades have ended, but concerns over frozen accounts have not.
What mechanisms are in place today to help those who were accidentally caught in the government's dragnet?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:06:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Ambassador Bridge blockade cost over $1 billion in economic losses. The bridge is now open, but new barricades are blocking local business. We have cancellations of doctor and health appointments and continued job losses. Since the Emergencies Act started, further convoys have been turned back and resources have been invested to protect this national route, even when we just recently faced a bomb threat.
The government has offered support for Ottawa businesses affected by the occupation, and that is good. Will this government ensure that it is helping all the border municipalities and the workers who were harmed by the convoy crisis, because it still carries on?
110 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 6:20:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would just politely point out some confusion. The member talks about leaders seeking political advantage, when it was the interim leader of the opposition who actually emailed her entire caucus to say that political advantage should be sought by not discouraging the blockades. That was on day four.
We have heard from many Conservative members about the threat having abated, but I will ask the member, when we have illegal protesters who have been removed from outside this building, but are staging 30 kilometres away; when we have a blockade that was attempted at Windsor on February 16; when we have a blockade that was successfully reinstalled in Surrey on February 18; and when we have an investigation into a hate group that was at the Coutts border, in his very own province, and the investigation into links between that group and what is happening here is still ongoing, would he agree with me that there is still an ongoing threat to the safety and security of Canadians that needs to be addressed through this legislation?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
