So V ote

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Feb/21/22 7:23:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a century ago, Viscount Haldane created the emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government clause of the Constitution. At the time, he indicated that in peacetime, when that clause was used to create legislation, the onus was on the government to justify the use of that extraordinary power. Justice Laskin, in the Anti-Inflation Act reference case, seemed to suggest the same. Does my hon. colleague feel that this jurisprudence applies to the CCLA court case that is currently working its way in front of the court? The Canadian Civil Liberties Association—

97 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Feb/21/22 6:44:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, three days ago, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association filed an application for judicial review in Federal Court to quash the emergency proclamation, the emergency measures regulations and the emergency economic measures order. If the court quashes these three emergency measures, does the member believe that the government will accept the court's remedy or will the government appeal the court's ruling?

64 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 4:08:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue here is a failure to uphold the rule of law that has been years in the making. Two years ago the blockades on the CN main line and in western Canada at the pipeline were allowed to continue for weeks. People who tear down statues in front of provincial Legislatures and in other public squares in this country suffer no consequences. I think we have a failure here to uphold the rule of law, and that is what is needed, rather than the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

92 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 4:06:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue here is not a lack of laws to effectively deal with the situation either here in Ottawa or previously at the four border crossings; it is a lack of law enforcement. As the former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police said yesterday, the power to make arrests, seize and tow vehicles, cordon off the city, put up checkpoints and get thousands of additional officers in to assist the Ottawa police already exists in the existing laws of Canada. In fact, he said that it is used practically every Canada Day in this city. It is used practically every Remembrance Day. Clearly the emergency powers were not required for the clearing of the blockades at the four border crossings, because in some cases they were cleared prior to the invocation of the public order emergency and in some cases before the orders had really taken effect.

149 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 4:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, three of the safeguards that have been put into the act are the three criteria that the government must meet in order to trigger a public order emergency. The first is a threat or the actual use of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological objective. The second is a threat to the health, safety and lives of Canadians that is beyond the capacity of a province to deal with, or alternatively that there is a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity or security of this country. The last is that there is no other law in Canada, federal or provincial, that could effectively deal with the situation. Those three criteria are safeguards in preventing intrusions into civil liberties.

122 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

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

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Feb/21/22 3:01:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I asked a serious question earlier, which the Attorney General did not answer. I asked whether or not the Attorney General or the Department of Justice had rendered a legal opinion regarding the public order emergency powers and the charter. Surely his answer to my question was not the sum total of that legal opinion, if it exists. Therefore, I will ask the question again. Is there a legal opinion, yes or no? If there is, will the government release it to the House ahead of this evening's vote?

92 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Feb/21/22 2:34:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, has the government received a legal opinion from either the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as to whether the emergency powers granted under the Emergencies Act, particularly the power to freeze financial accounts, are consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If so, will the government release the legal opinion to the House before this evening's vote?

63 words

All Topics

Feb/7/22 9:17:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I believe that the blockades are illegal. I believe that the blockades here in Ottawa and at the international border crossing in Coutts, Alberta, are illegal. I believe that it is up to law enforcement to uphold the law and ensure that these blockades are taken down at a time and choosing of law enforcement. Governments and cabinets in this country do not direct law enforcement as to their actions. We empower them with delegated authorities to enforce the law. Whether it is arson, harassment or violence, we have to ensure that law enforcement has the tools and resources necessary to do the job. I have confidence in the premier of the Province of Ontario. I have confidence that the law enforcement agencies and the institutions of the federal government will do their jobs and put an end to this crisis.

145 words

Feb/7/22 9:15:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and comment. I believe that it is very important for everyone to obey the law. This responsibility is incumbent upon all citizens of Canada, because all Canadians are subject to the law. The police are responsible for enforcing the law. If someone does not obey the law, the provincial and federal governments also have the authority to make people obey the law. That is a hallmark of our democracy.

78 words

Feb/7/22 9:13:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should encourage all Canadians to get vaccinated. Vaccines are a miracle of modern medicine. They are safe and effective, and they are a critical tool for emerging out of this pandemic. We should encourage Canadians to get vaccinated through nudges and encouragement, not by demonizing them and singling them out. I think that is the leadership we need from the current government as we go forward to emerge from this pandemic.

77 words