44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 8:02:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. There is nobody in this House who supports the unlawful overthrow of the government. We live in a democracy, after all.
At the end of the day, the issues we are hearing about have to do with people who feel like they are not being heard by the government. They feel abandoned by the government, so they came to Ottawa to protest. We have seen protests pop up across the country. Unfortunately, we have seen blockades of critical infrastructure that have led to the loss of millions of dollars to the economy. That is definitely unfortunate.
Thankfully, the RCMP, without the use of the emergency measures act, was able to step in to get the job done, open the borders, open the crossings back up and restore our commerce.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:46:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for some of the things he said, especially his appreciation of the work done by the police. I fully agree with him: they did fantastic work.
I would like to ask a question about the authorities and the police. I heard him say that public safety, jobs and businesses were very important to him.
We know that the siege lasted for over three weeks. Is my colleague telling us that the government could not deploy the 1,800 RCMP officers that the City of Ottawa was asking for in order to take action?
Does the emergency measure that made it so what happened a few days ago—
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:25:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, more than two weeks ago, the City of Ottawa requested 1,800 RCMP officers to ensure an adequate police response to the crisis. The events of last weekend proved that was indeed the solution. I would hope the Prime Minister was not even contemplating invoking the Emergencies Act two weeks ago.
He will not invoke the act every time there is a protest—I hope he will resist that temptation—so is he now prepared to revoke the Emergencies Act?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:32:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to just highlight how instrumental the Emergencies Act has been in allowing us to address, very effectively but in a manner that is consistent with the charter, the illegal blockades. I too want to take a moment to express my profound gratitude. I hope all members in the chamber will give thanks to the RCMP and all members of law enforcement who, in a very professional, measured and restrained manner, have restored order to the streets of Ottawa and have ensured we made progress at our borders.
We will only use the powers of the Emergencies Act as long as necessary.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:33:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have seen significant progress in Ottawa over the past few days. Our borders and downtown Ottawa are free of blockades, and our borders are now open.
I want to thank the RCMP and all law enforcement agencies for their professional and measured response. The Emergencies Act was instrumental in making this possible, but we want to be done with it as soon as possible.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:42:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the integrated command team, which is composed of the Ottawa Police Service, the OPP and the RCMP, has been clear and unequivocal. The authorities that have been provided to them under the Emergencies Act have been essential to the progress they have made in getting the situation under control. We have also heard from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which is all the chiefs, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and even the Canadian Police Association, representing the rank and file. All have been clear and unequivocal that these measures were essential and have been helping them restore order in this country.
107 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:43:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while some MPs are claiming that the threats are now over, Canadians are still living with the impacts of the ongoing convoy crisis. In B.C., the Pacific Highway crossing had to be pre-emptively closed this weekend, blocking commuters, essential workers and goods. The RCMP arrested 16 people, while other unlawful activity could not be addressed on the spot due to lack of resources.
After weeks of failed leadership from the government, will the minister assure Canadians that it is now acting with the urgency needed?
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:44:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what happened in Coutts, Alberta, is unprecedented. The Conservatives are downplaying the severity of what is happening and are pretending that the threat is over.
There was a plot to murder RCMP officers by dangerous extremists. Millions of dollars are still coming in from foreign sources to fund these hate groups—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has now heard on several occasions, the tools we are using under the Emergencies Act are very practical, very targeted and very measured. We are talking about designating secure zones. We are talking about choking off illegal funds that could be used to aid and abet the illegal blockades. We are talking about rapidly deploying the RCMP so that we can restore public safety here in Ottawa. It is all of these things.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has supported this. The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has supported it. The Canadian Police Association, which is for the rank and file of police and frontline responders day in and day out, supports the Emergencies Act.
When will the party of law and order actually support the opinions of the law and order?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 2:59:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for the last three weeks, law enforcement partners have been coordinating their efforts to end illegal blockades and disruptions in Ottawa and at border crossings. The RCMP have assisted municipal and provincial forces when requested, helping to stop unlawful protesters and restoring the freedoms and livelihoods of all Canadians.
Why is the continued use of the Emergencies Act necessary to ensure Canadians' livelihood and quality of life are protected?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:06:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and all her hard work.
Over the past few days, we have seen significant progress in Ottawa and at our borders. Downtown Ottawa is free of blockades, and our borders are open. I want to thank the RCMP and all police forces for their good work.
All the measures mentioned in the Emergencies Act are very practical, very targeted and temporary. They were all implemented in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government will sunset the Emergencies Act as soon as possible.
95 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 5:57:54 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
The blockades had been cleared. The Liberals did not need the emergency powers for that.
When it comes to Ottawa, the police have also cleared that out. However, we consistently hear ministers and members from the other side say that they need these emergency powers to end the unlawful blockades in Ottawa. That is what we keep hearing and yet, when we look at the RCMP list that was published on its website, which was retweeted by the Minister of Public Safety just a few days ago, with respect to the laws of the Emergencies Act that the police used, none of them were to clear the unlawful protest. It was the banking power that the RCMP claimed it needed. That is the only power the RCMP has cited.
That makes sense because we know police do not need the emergency powers to clear an unlawful protest. They do not need them to suppress a riot. They do not need them to clear a bridge or a piece of critical infrastructure. All of those powers were readily available to the RCMP and other police forces and to governments, yet they were not used. We are not sure why that is. We have yet to receive a clear answer on that. All we have heard is they needed these emergency powers, these unprecedented powers. As I said, the RCMP only quoted the financial measures.
I want to talk quite a bit about the financial measures because to me this is the most critical piece of the Emergencies Act. We are talking about providing the federal government the power to freeze people's bank accounts if the government does not agree with their political opinion. We heard that first-hand from the Minister of Justice on national television last week. He said that if someone supports a political position he does not like, they should be very concerned. He said that. People can look it up.
Is that really what we are going to do in this country? If there is a protest or some sort of demonstration that the government does not agree with, it can freeze their bank account, or, sorry, it can order the RCMP, who orders the bank who orders them. That is what the Liberals have been saying. It is not them; it is the hands-off.
We are voting on the power to freeze bank accounts of political dissidents today. This is why it is so shocking to me that the NDP, the party of protests, is looking to support the Emergencies Act today. It shocks me. In any social media feed of NDP members of Parliament, we see they have gone to countless protests, yet we see that the New Democrats are supporting the government's ability to freeze bank accounts.
I want to talk about the human impact of freezing someone's bank account. What does that really mean? It means that when they go to the grocery store to buy food, their debit card does not work. When they go to the gas station to fill up their car to get to work, their credit card does not work. When they go to an ATM to pull out some cash to take their spouse out for dinner, no money comes out. When their mortgage payment comes out, when their gas payment comes out, when their MTS bill, if they are in Manitoba, comes out, there is no money in the account. It is frozen. The government can freeze all of someone's assets. That is how significant this authority is, which may be given to the Liberal government today.
It is very unclear. I have received so many emails about this. We know this began as a peaceful protest, one of the largest, if not the largest, pan-Canadian demonstrations we have ever seen as it rolled across the country. Thousands of people turned out to show their support. Estimates say there were 15,000 people on Parliament Hill that first Saturday. Thousands of Canadian families donated small sums of money to voice their support for a political movement that was fighting for their right to bodily autonomy, to make their own medical choices and to hold a job regardless of their health choices. There were thousands of people.
When this was announced one week ago today, the finance minister explained how the government can freeze bank accounts. Do members want to know the terror and the anxiety felt by those thousands of people who participated in a lawful protest that very first day and people who gave $50 three weeks ago to a convoy? Do members want to know what kind of terror that brings to someone?
I have constituents saying they are pulling out tens of thousands of dollars from their bank accounts. I have a veteran, a very dear friend of mine, possibly the sweetest older man people will ever meet, who served our country valiantly for 28 years. Although he is very pro-vaccine, he supports the right for others to choose, so he gave the convoy $50 two weeks ago. He cancelled his credit cards because he is so terrified the government is coming for his money. I have constituents who are hiding cash under their beds. That is how terrifying this power is.
The lack of clarity has been astounding. It was just today, seven days after that initial announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister about freezing bank accounts, that she finally clarified that if it was before Tuesday, February 15, there was nothing to worry about, as it was not retroactive. It was just from that Tuesday.
Why did it take her seven days to make that public declaration? What kind of sadistic pain were the Liberals looking to inflict on people who innocently supported something that they believed in and has given them more hope than anything else in the past two years? It is shameful.
What is really shocking is that there is no due process in this. There is no court order. It is only if someone has been suspected. The CBC reported that today. If someone is suspected of supporting the convoy, they can come for that person's bank account. This is unbelievable.
It is interesting, because the Liberal government is in power now, but there are going to be other parties in power. Do we really want the federal government to have the power to say, “We don't agree with your protest. You can't go buy groceries. We're going to freeze your bank account.”
How many demonstrations are from environmental groups or social justice groups? Let us really think about this. Peaceful protest is one of our rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I stand by every peaceful protest. I stand against illegal blockades, and we have been very clear about that all along. Those have to end, but people have every right to peacefully protest, and thousands of Canadians supported this protest across the country when it was perfectly legal, lawful and peaceful.
The Liberals are asking us just to trust them. “Just trust us, there's parliamentary oversight”, as if that means anything. This Parliament asked four times for those lab documents from the Winnipeg lab with all those shenanigans going on with the Chinese Communist Party. We never got them. He prorogued Parliament. He called a snap election both times to get out of scandals of his own making and he thinks that we are going to trust that parliamentary oversight is going to be enough to keep his government in check? I do not think so.
I will end with this. Our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, will be voting with the fullest power of our ability against giving this Liberal government the power to freeze political dissidents' bank accounts. Absolutely, without question, we will be voting against that. Absolutely.
1330 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
