44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 9:57:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I truly want to thank the hon. member across for his honest and heartfelt remarks in the House. We have heard a lot of rhetoric here over the last few days and I know I have certainly been impacted by it, exhausted at the end of the day and taken down by it.
Often, the former leader of the NDP has been named in the House and used against us to create division, so I thank him for quoting Jack Layton just now, in terms of saying that Canada needs to be a place where no one is left behind. That provides me with a lot of hope.
I agree that this is beyond something that is just about vaccine mandates. This is about the economic divisions we have in our country and the fact that people are terrified that they do not know how they are going to pay for the food they need for their kids, or their mortgage. I simply want to say that I stand ready to work with him to make this a better place for Canada and I hope we can continue to work together in that fashion.
196 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 1:56:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to rise today to talk about the Emergencies Act. I think the question a lot of Canadians are asking, and I know most of the parliamentarians here today have talked about it, is how we got here and why we are here.
It has been almost two years to the day, and we are in a time when provinces are lifting their COVID mandates, virtually across the country. In my home province of Ontario, for example, Premier Doug Ford has announced his plan to lift COVID mandates, and on March 1 a significant one will be that he is lifting the vaccine passports. That is very significant for the province, and for people who are vaccinated and unvaccinated.
About 10 days ago, the Conservative Party brought a motion to the House and asked for a plan that the Prime Minister and his team would give Parliament and Canadians on how we can move forward, how we can lift the COVID mandates federally and allow everybody to move on, and how we can unite the country and move together.
We are a very divided country, despite what the Liberals may say. We are a very divided country at this time, and we need to move forward. There was a vote a week ago, and the Liberals defeated that motion, failing to give Canadians a plan to move forward. My point is that if the premiers were not doing anything and lifting mandates, it might make sense for the Prime Minister to double down and continue on with his divisive comments and everything else, but when we are looking at the facts, the facts are that mandates are being lifted not just in Canada, but around the world. Today we saw in England that Boris Johnson has virtually lifted all restrictions, and the Prime Minister is continuing to double down.
To my mind, that is how we got to where we are. If he had listed a reasonable road map, I do not believe anybody would have come here. I do not believe we would be talking about this today, and I think everybody would have a path forward. We could start to heal this country and move forward.
This morning I listened to a long-time friend of mine. He has been a colleague for many years. He is the member of Parliament for Oxford. He was the first elected police chief in Parliament, and he is a very wise individual. He and I served on the public safety committee over 10 years ago together, at a time when we were reviewing the outcomes of the G8 and G20 summits, but specifically the G20 summit. No one would believe who the police chief was at the time. I know most people in here know this, but it was actually the Minister of Emergency Preparedness. That chief was there to tell us about what he did at the G20 summit.
They had an integrated security unit at that time. I made a note of what they called it. They did not need to invoke this act.
522 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:21:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, how the Liberal government and Prime Minister have fallen.
Twenty months ago, we went from, “wash our hands and stay home so we can flatten the curve” to vaccine procurement bungling. Then we went to, “get vaccinated or we can't travel”, to “get vaccinated and still spend two weeks in a hotel against our will when we return to our home country”, to “get vaccinated or lose our jobs”, to “get vaccinated or we don't even get employment insurance”. Now there is the imposition of this act for the government to hunt down and seize the assets of Canadians based on intelligence from illegally hacked data sources of financial transactions.
This is a gross overreach of power. It is politically—
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
