44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 7:19:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the state of the current emergency, the member talked about the temporary nature of it and that it is going to last for 30 days. If all of the circumstances surrounding this seem to have levelled off and we are in a state where we can get back to some normalcy, would he support the revocation of the act?
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:22:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, right off the hop, I want to acknowledge that it is Family Day here in Saskatchewan, and I hope the residents of Battlefords—Lloydminster, despite the cold weather, are able to go out and enjoy some activities, since Saskatchewan has lifted almost all of its restrictions.
We know that the invocation of the Emergencies Act is not only unprecedented but also extreme. While the Prime Minister has declared a public order emergency throughout Canada to justify this, there is no evidence that there is a public emergency to necessitate these broad, sweeping powers. I have listened closely to the comments from the Prime Minister and his government in the House and what they have told Canadians. I have yet to hear a legitimate justification for the implementation of this act.
The reality is that our country is hurting right now, and it is disheartening. The current state of affairs is a direct consequence of the Prime Minister's failed leadership. At a time when we need leadership to bring Canadians together, the Prime Minister is acting like the Liberal Party leader, not the Prime Minister of Canada.
At the very onset, before the “freedom convoy” even rolled into Ottawa, the Prime Minister publicly insulted Canadians and dismissed the genuine concerns being raised, doubling down on the division that his government's rhetoric and policies have sown into this country throughout the pandemic. Whether it be hubris or stubbornness, the Prime Minister has refused to make even the smallest of efforts to demonstrate to Canadians that he has listened to, heard and understood their concerns.
As we know, this past week, the Conservatives presented the Liberal government with an extremely reasonable opportunity to do just that. The House voted on a Conservative motion that would have compelled the government to table in Parliament, by the end of the month, a plan, just a plan, to bring an end to the federal mandates and restrictions. This was a very reasonable motion and, at the very least, would have helped to bring some resolution to the growing frustration. It would have also given all Canadians some clarity, which, quite frankly, they are owed. Shamefully, we know the Liberals rejected the motion.
What has been even more troubling is that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have refused to tell Canadians what metrics are being used to justify the continued enforcement of federal mandates and restrictions. Is it vaccination rates? Is it case counts? Is it hospital capacity? Is it simply Liberal ideology? Canadians do not know.
Provinces across the country have presented plans to lift restrictions under their jurisdictions. Countries around the world with lower vaccination rates than those of Canada have lifted their restrictions. Canadians cannot be expected to live with federal mandates and restrictions indefinitely. We know this because I have heard from my constituents and I know every single member of the House has heard from constituents.
Canadians have sacrificed so much over the past two years and they deserve answers from the Liberal government. However, instead of answers or plans, the Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. What is it for? Is it to crack down on protesters and those who have supported protests? To be clear, the rule of law is a fundamental principle in our Canadian democracy. Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to enforce the law and we expect them to do so, but we know that they do not need the Emergencies Act to enforce the law. This extreme suspension of civil liberties is not about public safety or restoring order or upholding the rule of law.
The Emergencies Act is clear in its definition of a national emergency that would give grounds for its implementation. The act defines a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation” that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. There is no such situation.
Even in his own words, the Prime Minister has said that the Emergencies Act should not be the first or the second resort. The start of the clearing of illegal blockades at our borders, whether it be the Ambassador Bridge or the Coutts, Alberta, crossing, perfectly demonstrates that law enforcement agencies already have the necessary tools at their disposal to enforce the law.
That said, this really becomes about the Prime Minister granting law enforcement and financial institutions extraordinary powers to punish Canadians who support a cause that does not have his approval. Through this proclamation of a national emergency, the government has given itself the right to freeze the personal and business back accounts and assets of Canadians. There are so many unanswered questions about this draconian measure and how the government intends to apply it. This is a very dangerous precedent. At every turn, the Prime Minister and his ministers have failed to give any straight answers. I have not seen justification for this overreach. This is not how the government should operate in a free and democratic society.
It is also evident that there is no consensus among the premiers to support the Liberal government's extreme response. We know there is a duty to consult built into this act, and we know that with the Liberal government, there is rarely, if ever, a collaborative process, let alone a transparent process.
The Prime Minister certainly does not have the support of Saskatchewan's premier. Premier Scott Moe has clearly stated that Saskatchewan does not support the Liberal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. He has gone on to say that the Prime Minister has gone too far with the use of this act and has called on all parliamentarians to stop this abuse of power.
Premier Scott Moe has been very vocal in his opposition to the use of this act, but he is not alone. The Premiers of Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have all expressed their opposition to the Prime Minister's actions. Therefore, in addition to encroaching on civil liberties without clear justification, the implementation of the Emergencies Act is also encroaching on provincial jurisdiction without their expressed consensus, which seems to be a trend for the government. It does not seem to care about what jurisdiction it is encroaching on. Again, this debate is not to be taken lightly. This is a matter of principle with the very high stakes of safeguarding our fundamental freedoms.
It is also worth noting that it is clear the world is watching Canada at this moment. In considering the validity of the government's action, members of the House must decide whether the high threshold set out in the Emergencies Act to justify its use has been met. If the House gives the Prime Minister these unprecedented and extreme powers without the legal and moral justification to do so, Canada loses credibility on the world stage to criticize abuses of power.
I want each and every member of the House to think which side of history they want to be on. The actions of this place have long-lasting consequences. Either the threshold needed to implement the Emergencies Act has been met or it has not. Any doubt in that threshold should be enough to warrant opposition to it, because the personal cost to Canadians and to our fundamental freedoms is too high to get it wrong.
I will not be supporting this motion. I do not believe that the necessary threshold has been met to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. The government has not provided sufficient evidence that we are in a national emergency. There is no proof that law enforcement agencies need additional and far-reaching powers to enforce the law. Canadians should not face harmful financial penalties for opposing government policy.
We cannot sidestep the simple fact that this really is a crisis of failed leadership. There has been no effort made by the Prime Minister to bring a peaceful resolution to this impasse. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Prime Minister has been purposeful in his words to divide, to stigmatize and to insult Canadians with whom he does not agree.
It is time to reject the Prime Minister's divisive politics and abuse of power. The Emergencies Act must be revoked and we need to—
1396 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:06:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I join this debate with great sadness and disappointment in my heart this morning. Please make no mistake: It is always an honour to be the voice of the residents and citizens of Chatham-Kent—Leamington in this chamber, but I am sad because of the toll that the current situation continues to have on Canadians and the fact that so much of this is unnecessary and avoidable.
The fundamental question that the government has put before us today is this: Do we believe that the public emergency act is the right tool for right now? Has the rightfully high threshold for a public order emergency been met? If the question is how we remove the protest, the blockade, the occupation that was encamped outside these doors, then should the question not be to ask what enforcement tools current legislation lacks to address the illegal activities outside this House?
Let me be clear: Illegally parking a semi, excessively blowing horns and harassment all contravene bylaws, but these violations are subject to fines, towing, injunctions and existing remedies under existing laws, provincially and municipally, and under existing law enforcement. They can be reinforced with help from federal police forces without invoking this act. After all, is that not what cleared the illegal blockades in Surrey, Windsor, Emerson and Coutts? I am very thankful for law enforcement intercepting truly dangerous elements caught with illegal guns and ammunition near Coutts. Therefore, I thank our “un-defunded” police forces.
Does a basic interpretation of the Emergencies Act determine that its threshold for invocation has been met, or are we more concerned that we are being asked to give the Prime Minister great powers, given his history of deception and his disrespect for the law?
The Prime Minister asks us to trust him, to give him unlimited authority to implement “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.” He is the only Prime Minister convicted for ethics violations, not once but twice, and he avoided a third conviction due to lack of evidence, not lack of intent. He is the only Prime Minister ever to sue, Madam Speaker, your office, to keep from this very House documents ordered released by Parliament with respect to the Winnipeg virology lab. He now asks that we trust him with power never before invoked or confirmed by this House under this act. It seems that when faced with difficult situations, the Prime Minister's go-to response is to grab as much power as he can.
Let us just think back to immediately after the declaration of the pandemic in March 2020. The Prime Minister responded by attempting to give the government unlimited, unfettered taxing and spending powers without parliamentary oversight. His instinct was not to come to this House and enter into dialogue to determine the path forward. Yes, Her Majesty's loyal opposition sits on this side of the chamber and might not have immediately agreed to every point put forward, but he was forced into dialogue and debate with us and we demonstrated through our subsequent actions that we would support emergency measures when properly engaged.
Similarly, the Prime Minister did not engage in dialogue with Canadians involved with this protest. He does not have to agree with them but he does, or he should, have to listen. This very process of listening and engaging de-escalates any situation. It is the hallmark characteristic of leadership. Name-calling, dividing, stigmatizing, traumatizing and grabbing for power escalate any situation. They are hallmark characteristics of what? Members can fill in the blank.
If the question is how the Prime Minister tries to cover up his record of governing mistakes and whether this attempt to redirect public attention will work, clearly the answer is no. Inflation will not be reduced. Our debt will not be addressed. Interest rate rises will not be blunted. Immigration backlogs will not be addressed. Labour shortages will not be alleviated. Housing prices will not drop, and budgets will not balance themselves.
If the question is how invoking this Emergencies Act fits into the government's overall plan to get us from a pandemic to an endemic situation, again, for this question, there is a very clear answer. No, it does not do that, because there continues to be no plan.
History will show that we got into this crisis, this situation in our nation’s capital, because the government did not have a plan to transition from a pandemic to an endemic situation. The government’s lack of a plan by which businesses in Chatham—Kent—Leamington or anywhere in the country could more predictably manage their staff, their business and their investment decisions continues to cause unnecessary hardship and failure. The failures are not theirs; it is the government’s problem, the government's failure to plan and its lunging from problem to problem with no coherent plan that could better multiply our effectiveness through our collective capacity.
Farmers, greenhouse operators and small businesses in my riding and across Canada continue to live with the uncertainty of labour supply, border access and supply chains. They want to see a plan. Our health care system wants to see a plan for surge capacity. It is not the bricks and mortar that are missing; it is the human resources and the people for whom the government did not plan to resource.
The government’s lack of a plan is evident in the fact that we are so late in acquiring sufficient rapid tests; we are so late in developing domestic vaccine manufacturing capacity, and we are so late in coordinating coherent, integrated, science-based messaging, from our health care leaders to our political leaders.
It has been more than two years since the pandemic came to Canada, and we still have no plan for living in an endemic state. Canadians did what was asked of them. They got vaccinated, they stayed home, they safely distanced and they agreed to forgo family gatherings, travel and basic but essential human contact, all to do their part. What has been the reward for the constituents of Chatham—Kent—Leamington, or for any Canadians, for what they did? It is more divisiveness, greater stress, more lost jobs, out of control inflation, economic uncertainty and still no plan.
Like all of us here, I have friends on both sides of the challenge before us. Something has happened in our country that may never be replaced. The capacity for kindness that Canadians are known for has been strained by our nation’s leader, who has used the politics of division rather than co-operation and understanding. There is a sadness that comes when Canadians are pitted against Canadians.
There is more than enough blame to go around. Was the City of Ottawa woefully unprepared and did it make serious mistakes at the beginning of this situation, despite the many days of notice that the convoy was coming? Many people would say, “Yes.” Was the province slow to table resources? Again, many people would say, “Yes,” but here, in the centrepiece of our nation's capital, the question before us today is twofold.
The first question is, where is the plan forward? Even when the crisis outside these walls is resolved, we will simply return to this question and the need for an endemic plan to return to normalcy. The second question is the legislation before us today. Simple common sense tells us that if we take the total of what the Prime Minister expects the Emergencies Act to bring and subtract from it what is already covered under existing laws and resources, then I respectfully submit that the difference we are left with pales in comparison to the constitutional precedent we are asking the House to confirm.
I must vote against these measures. The Emergencies Act is not a substitute for leadership, but rather a consequence of the lack of it. The Prime Minister loves telling Canadians he has our backs. He uses the approach of trying to hide behind us while pointing at those he believes are to blame. Leading cannot be done from behind. Leading means engaging in conversation, even with those with whom one disagrees. The only good thing that may come from enacting this act is that there will be an inquiry, an accountability review, which will no doubt expose and document for history that when Canada was at one of its greatest challenges, the response from the government was a grab for power through the tactics of division and the lack of any plan forward.
Let us get on with responsible endemic living. Canadians have done their job; now let us do ours.
1475 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:45:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously, these emergency powers are important to keep law and order. Let us be clear. We have had the support of the Canadian chiefs of police, the interim chief of the Ottawa police and also Premier Ford, the Conservative Premier of Ontario. They are indicating that these measures are important to restore law and order in the community. As we move forward, we will need to evaluate. It was clearly identified that this was an illegal occupation and that people needed to leave. People did not leave and there are consequences for their actions. We will continue to monitor the situation as we go forward.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:50:06 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.
Canadians across the country are gravely concerned. The Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act for a crisis that he created. He is attempting to use a tool at the government's disposal that was created with the intention of rarely if ever being used. The Prime Minister is using this last resort tool to clean up a crisis of his own creation.
The Emergency Measures Act gives extraordinary powers to government, powers that should only be used when every other effort has been exhausted. Enacting these measures should not be the first or the second thing the Liberal government does to resolve a crisis. We have not seen any action by the Prime Minister to avoid jumping to this extreme measure.
As a former police chief, I have had enough thorough experience in dealing with crisis situations and the de-escalation of such crises. The first step in de-escalation is not to bring in a sledgehammer. The Prime Minister could not even take the first step everyone should use in de-escalation. That step would be listening. The Prime Minister refused to meet with the protesters to listen to their concerns. These are his fellow Canadian citizens, whether he agrees with their opinions or not. He is the Prime Minister of Canada and a good leader listens to his fellow countrymen.
The Emergencies Act specifically states part of the criteria for enactment is that all other measures have been exhausted in attempting to resolve the crisis. How can we possibly vote in favour of this act when the Prime Minister has not even attempted to use the most basic measure of resolving any crisis. Instead, the Prime Minister has inflamed the situation, almost as if he wanted to get to this point. It is quite evident the Prime Minister is not capable of first steps in any crisis he faces. It is in his ideological identity to squash anyone who does not agree with him and unfortunately Canadians from all walks of life know this all too well.
Earlier this week my Conservative colleagues proposed a possible step to end the crisis. We proposed the government provide Canadians with its plan for ending the various federal COVID-19-related mandates and restrictions. This is an example of one of the many actions that was available to the government before deciding on this drastic measure. Providing Canadians with an end plan is not a controversial decision. Many of the provincial governments have already done the same. Many Canadians including many participating in the various protests would have welcomed this action as a sign the government is hearing the wishes of Canadians or some direction or evidence of an end plan. Instead, the government jumped to ignore this measured action and is all too eager to get to this extreme point that we see ourselves in today.
While the Prime Minister has failed to present enough evidence to support the use of the act, I can think of numerous examples when this country has faced a crisis and managed to come out of it without implementing the act. Just last week we saw these protests at several Canadian-U.S. border crossings. These protests created grave economic consequences for the country, including my riding of Oxford. As Oxford has strong ties to the automotive manufacturing section, I had a first-hand account of the consequences of the protest in Windsor. Many automotive manufacturing plants had to slow down or completely shut off production.
My office received numerous messages from constituents who were being laid off due to these shutdowns. The Windsor border blockade was a crisis for many of my constituents. What did not cross my mind or theirs was that the Emergencies Act would need to be invoked to solve the crisis, and in fact it was not. We saw officers peacefully remove the blockades to allow the border to reopen. They did this without the use of the Emergencies Act.
A similar situation occurred in Coutts, Alberta. Again, RCMP officers were able to clear the blockade without any tools from the Emergencies Act. There have been numerous examples throughout Canadian history when a crisis such as this one, or I may say worse than this one, have arose, many of them being of a much more dangerous nature than the current situation.
Another that comes to mind is the crisis we all saw with 2010 G20 riots in Toronto. Some members of the government would be very familiar with this crisis, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness especially as he was the Toronto police chief at the time. Maybe some forget what we saw during that crisis. We saw a bank just down the street from parliament being firebombed. We saw police cars in flames in downtown Toronto. We saw hundreds of businesses damaged by protesters. The Emergencies Act was available to our government at the time. It was not used in that crisis. Why? It did not meet the criteria outlined in the Emergencies Act.
Flaming vehicles and destroyed businesses are what the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, the acting Toronto police chief, was facing at the time. If flaming banks and police cars do not constitute a reason for using the Emergencies Act, I find it very hard to see how road hockey games and bouncy castles do. The Minister of Emergency Preparedness knows very well that the police officers we have here have all the tools necessary to defuse this situation if needed. The Emergencies Act was not needed in Windsor and Coutts, Alberta.
Instead, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said he was proud to invoke this act. I find it extremely disappointing to hear this coming from a fellow former police chief. No one in this House should be proud to use this act. However, it seems the Prime Minister is all too eager to use it.
Another similar crisis, again during the Minister of Emergency Preparedness’s time as police chief, occurred a year before the G20 summit. In 2009, we saw many Tamil Canadians upset with what they were seeing happening in the Sri Lankan civil war. Canadians shut down northbound and southbound lanes of University Avenue in Toronto for four days. They blocked the U.S. consulate in Toronto and illegally blocked traffic on the Gardiner Expressway. Again, it was not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. In fact, use of force by police officers was not necessary. The Toronto police chief, the current Minister of Emergency Preparedness, used his training in community policing to help facilitate a peaceful end to the crisis. The police chief even received an award from the Tamil Canadian community for his leadership during the protests.
Again, I fail to see why the government sees it necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act now when it was not necessary in 2010 or even last week. Why were we able to see those crises resolved without such extreme measures? We have several precedents for why this Emergencies Act should not be invoked and we have no reasons for why it should be, yet here we are in this debate.
Let us talk about a time when the government had to react to a similar crisis. It was during the October crisis in 1970. While the War Measures Act was a different act, it did possess many similarities to the one being used today. It is important to compare the crisis of that time to what we are seeing now. In the lead-up to the October crisis, we saw a terrorist organization robbing and bombing several institutions in Quebec. That crisis reached a climax with several kidnappings and the eventual horrendous murder of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre Laporte.
That was the context of the last time a Canadian government used such drastic actions to restore order. It does not take much effort to realize that while we may be experiencing a crisis of our own, it pales in comparison to what the government of the day faced the last time an emergency act was implemented.
Invoking the Emergencies Act now, for the purpose of trying to cover up the mismanagement and poor leadership of the Liberal government, would be creating a dangerous precedent for any future crisis the government may face. What is to stop the government from implementing this act every time it has a group of fellow Canadians who disagrees. We have heard members of the government tell us that this Emergencies Act is necessary to dismantle these illegal protests and blockades. I again ask how it was possible that the illegal protests and blockades in Windsor and Coutts were dismantled if they did not possess the required tools.
Furthermore, the act states that the nature of the emergency is one that seriously endangers the lives of Canadians. If we are in such grave danger from these protesters such as those in Ottawa, why would members of the House even have been allowed to convene in the House? The threshold for this act has not been met.
We have heard the Minister of Justice brag about how the mere mention of using the Emergencies Act resulted in protesters in Coutts, Alberta, dispersing from their blockade. The minister was bragging about using the most powerful tool available to the government. He should be ashamed that it has come to this point. He should be ashamed because it means the government has failed miserably.
All Canadians should be ashamed that the Prime Minister has failed them.
1602 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:03:14 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, uqaqtittiji.
I would like to ask the member if he has reviewed the emergency measures regulations, paragraphs 1(a) to 1(f), if he has looked at the places that are to be protected and if he has not seen the dangers that have been placed in those places.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:28:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his very relevant question.
Indeed, we are waiting for the government to demonstrate that.
When a motion is moved to invoke the Emergencies Act, there must be an emergency, a danger to the public or a public health problem. Canada or its public health must be facing some sort of danger.
As I demonstrated in my speech, there have been so many other events with more serious repercussions on our society. How is it that after all this time, after three weeks with very little action, we decide to get out the hammer and go all out?
No, there is no need to invoke this act.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:10:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I look forward to having breakfast with the hon. member again when the restaurants open. We have had some really good discussions over bacon and eggs, and I am sure there will be more to come when we are allowed to get back into the restaurants, once the health restrictions are lifted.
Since the emergency powers have been granted to police forces, we have seen the police forces working within their own governance. They are not going into the streets and exercising full powers, just the powers that are needed to restore law and order. As we are seeing borders again being put under siege out on the west coast, we do still need the Emergencies Act so police forces can use their discretion in using the powers they have. Hopefully, they will always do so in the professional way they are entitled to.
Could the hon. member comment on having that power available, and the importance of having oversight—
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:13:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the premise of the member's question. It is obviously an argument I do not agree with, but to the argument on the government side that the Emergencies Act was necessary to remove the protest.
What we can see now though is that it has gone. I think the emergency has been dealt with. I would ask all members to consider whether or not the Emergencies Act is still needed at this time.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:25:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the tone of her speech. We are here to have debate and discourse, not necessarily to agree but to get to the root of the issues.
The real point I want to get to is this. Does the member believe there is still justification for this act? She hinted at some of her concerns. The Emergencies Act is by far the most draconian and powerful piece of legislation the federal government has, so we cannot use it just to protect against a potential threat; it is there to deal with a national emergency that we are dealing with right now. I would like her comments on whether she thinks it is justified to still have this act in place now.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:43:37 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. In my previous question, I asked the member for Oxford, who also happens to be on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, if he had read the emergency measures regulations, to which he said that he had not.
Could the member confirm whether the places listed in subsections 1(a) to 1(f) of the regulations, such as airports and international bridges, have been under threat, which necessitated the declaration of the Emergencies Act? Indeed, do they continue to be a security risk? Qujannamiik.
89 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 2:19:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives, along with others, do not believe that the Emergencies Act was necessary to clear the protests and blockades. Many experts, including people like Chris Lewis, former commissioner of the OPP, are saying the government had all the tools it needed and the Emergencies Act was an overreach.
The Prime Minister reported this morning that Ottawa is clear, the trucks are gone and the borders are open, but he says that an emergency remains. Can the Prime Minister tell us: What is the criteria for this emergency to be declared over, and on what date will he end these unprecedented and invasive measures?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:22:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us take the Prime Minister at his word.
This morning, the member for Beaches—East York stated in the House that he was not convinced that the emergency measures should remain in place after today. He also said that he would vote accordingly, but that it is now a vote of confidence.
Is it true that the Prime Minister, after appealing for unity, is threatening his backbenchers with an election if they do not vote in favour of these emergency measures?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:23:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Measures Act provides for essential measures that can be used to put an end to these illegal blockades and to prevent another occupation.
Chiefs of police, security experts and municipal and provincial leaders told us that this act was essential for the operations being conducted by police.
I clearly indicated that these measures will only be applied if deemed necessary. These tools are being added to local resources. We will cancel these measures as soon as they are no longer necessary. That is the responsible way to manage the situation.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the situation remains precarious across the country. We are very pleased with the work our police forces did this weekend in Ottawa and Gatineau to keep the people of the region and the national capital safe. We also saw interventions across the country to prevent more convoys from going to places where barricades could form. We must continue to be vigilant, but of course we all want to announce the end of these emergency measures as soon as we can. We will assess the feasibility of doing so on a daily basis.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:27:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I greatly appreciate the commitment of the Leader of the Bloc Québécois to coming up with additional measures that we could debate in Parliament once the emergency has passed in order to ensure that our police forces and authorities all have the responsible and legitimate tools to address illegal occupations or crimes such as these. For the time being, we are still in a state of emergency, but I know that, like all Canadians, we want to see the end of these emergency measures as soon as possible. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:30:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Beaches—East York said today in the House, “I am not convinced that the emergency measures should [extend] beyond today. I would vote accordingly, but...it is now a confidence vote”.
It would seem that the Prime Minister is strong-arming his back bench and the NDP to vote in his favour by threatening an election. Is that not true?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:31:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the blockades have ended. Downtown Ottawa has been cleared. If there was ever a national emergency, which remains in doubt, it is over. There is no need for the Emergencies Act vote tonight. It would seem then that this vote tonight is about far more than the blockades and the protesters in downtown Ottawa. It would seem it is only about power, about the government having the power and setting the precedent for the bank accounts of political dissidents to be frozen.
Is that not right?
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:32:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it became clear this weekend that Canada did not need emergency measures to resolve the situation in Ottawa. Thousands of police officers from across Canada joined forces to resolve a specific situation. This is not the first time that has happened.
Nevertheless, this government still wants to impose the Emergencies Act, which has no place in this context, in our view. The border crossings were cleared without this legislation. The Ambassador Bridge was cleared without this legislation.
Why does the government stubbornly insist on implementing a law that Canadians do not want?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
