Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, the question we are being asked to consider is this: Did the events here in Ottawa over the last three weeks meet the threshold for this extraordinary imposition of the Emergencies Act?

Today, the following question remains: Why is it still in place? The emergency has been met. The blockade is gone. Surely, the authorities will not be caught so flat-footed ever again. Therefore, the threat that the protesters may come back in force seems unlikely. Intelligence operatives and police have surveillance and investigations under way to deal with crimes in the making, plots or new actions.

They had those powers before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

In a letter sent to parliamentarians from Advocates for the Rule of Law, a non-partisan think-tank, argued the following:

The failure of the government and police to enforce existing laws and court orders is not a sound basis to expand state power with a declaration of a public order emergency, when no such emergency has been proven to exist. One rule of law failure should not beget another.

The letter goes on to state:

. . . it risks a gradual erosion of Parliament’s role in favour of executive power; and it amounts to a damning admission of a failure of state capacity. If Canada is to remain a functional and free democracy, then it must be able to solve problems using existing laws and established institutions, and without resorting to the most extreme measures except where absolutely necessary.

So I think we can all agree on both the importance of the rule of law in Canada and the objectivity of the courts, which together form the foundation of a just society. The Emergencies Act asks Canadians to forfeit this most basic tenet of our democracy.

In fact, what we actually witnessed was a colossal failure of leadership at all levels. I think it’s fair to say that the convoy protest became an encampment due to the failure of planning and the inability to react.

There was not a single barricade. Protesters were actually directed to Wellington Street, the main access to Parliament. There were existing laws to move trucks and do something about horns, diesel fumes or clogged streets. But those laws were not employed. So it’s difficult to accept now that bad decisions and inaction justifies using an act reserved for the most dire national security crises.

This act is meant to be used — well, never. Here is why: Its application is a judgment call, and judgments are political by definition when the government of the day substitutes itself for Parliament or the objectivity of the courts. The act comes first, then permission is sought. Invoking the Emergencies Act in this context has made the law a subject of partisan contention, and when the Prime Minister made this, for all intents and purposes, a vote of confidence in his government, it only further illustrates the problem.

This is at the core of why emergency legislation is so risky and so dangerous. The ability in a free and democratic society to protest requires the blind application of the law. The Prime Minister deemed some protests in Canada to be acts of democracy and even participates in some. No action was taken against church burnings or topplers of statues. That was called understandable. But the Prime Minister declared the trucker protesters here in Ottawa to be racist, White supremacists, misogynists, people he didn’t like and would never talk to.

But does being frustrated, angry or critical of government actually make you an enemy?

Therefore, the issue is this: Who should decide what is lawful advocacy and what is an illegal protest or occupation? Who is to decide to whom laws apply or whose actions can trigger the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

That is why we have the rule of law and the obligation to make your case for extra powers to a court and not leave it to the judgment call of the government of the day.

So why the Emergencies Act now? We did not see it invoked at the G10, at Oka or when Parliament was attacked in 2014. We did not even see it during 9/11. I lived in New York then and witnessed the fear and genuine crisis that unfolded, and even during those extraordinary times, there were fierce debates over what was called a ticking time bomb situation. How far can and should you go to fight terrorism? One argument was, for example: Can you waterboard someone to get information to defuse the ticking bomb?

History teaches us that too often actions taken in the heat of the moment, even in the face of actual terrorism, prove to be ill‑considered and were rejected once they became known, but that was months, even years, after the fact.

One issue today that I find particularly troubling here is foreign involvement and financing being used as a justification. Foreign money has been flowing into this country for years to support or oppose a variety of political causes and issues: stop a pipeline, save a whale or support a truck convoy. So why is it okay for some causes to be funded by foreign supporters but not others?

The Finance Minister stated that new FINTRAC rules, expanded under the new act, will allow for greater financial reporting obligations of crowdfunding sites and crypto-currency platforms and will be made permanent with legislation. I agree FINTRAC, as it stands, lacks the necessary teeth needed to track the finances of criminals or extremist groups, but to use this as an opportunity to test out new laws is deeply unparliamentary and takes advantage of this situation to advance policy and perhaps even political goals. If you want FINTRAC 3.0, then present it, defend it and vote on it. Again, we see the extraordinary powers before a parliamentary vote.

If you disagree with the government, can you be excluded from economic activity in this country? Can your finances be frozen or essentially sealed? The remedies for those who have been unfairly targeted require resources because banks and financial institutions have been given immunity from liability under this new act. So appealing to your bank, the police or the courts is probably not going to resolve the matter. It is costly, and if your resources are frozen, then it’s not even an option. Many are caught in this catch-22.

Of course, no one wants our way of life, our democratic rights and freedoms or our system of government put at risk. So what other options are there other than the imposition of a draconian law?

We saw in Coutts, Emerson and at Windsor’s Ambassador Bridge how talking, and more importantly listening, brought blockades and protests to an end. Criminals were charged and arrested. The weapons cache was seized under existing laws.

But that did not happen here in Ottawa. Why? Well, as Emergency Preparedness Minister Bill Blair said, “We cannot leave anyone with the impression that our democracy is negotiable or subject to efforts of appeasement.”

The discussions in Coutts and Emerson and Windsor did not erode trust in public institutions or put our democracy at risk. Talking helped. Listening helped. And it could have been an opportunity to turn the temperature way down, calm the fears and bridge the differences here in Ottawa too.

Colleagues, I come from a part of the country where it’s normal to wear camouflage, drive a semi for a living, bring your kids to events because you don’t have a nanny or be skeptical of almost any government intervention in your daily life, mandates included.

Many truckers have been working all through the pandemic, delivering things we needed or simply wanted. They had no place to eat and were left to use the side of the road. These were folks at the heart of the convoy, not the opportunistic agitators that rose to prominence, commandeered the headlines and in the process became the justification for this bill.

Ultimately, this debate is a litmus test. The result will reflect your own experience, your own beliefs, your own world view. Sitting with colleagues in a restaurant the other night when the House vote was announced, wild cheers broke out. It felt more like a victory whoop at a sporting event than the realization that our country had just made a profound and very risky decision.

Democracy is messy. Free speech is about tolerating speech you disagree with so that you, in turn, are free to say what you believe. Every day we tolerate risks and inconvenience and discomfort to participate in and protect our democracy. It’s part of the price of upholding our rights and liberties.

Emergency powers cannot and must not be normalized, especially at a time when more and more Canadians are losing faith in our institutions.

The defenders of this bill say, “Trust the government. They will not go too far. Just trust them.” Well, “just watch me” gave me no comfort and “just trust me” gives me less still.

The political fallout from the War Measures Act haunts us still. It has shaped and distorted politics for half a century. It had consequences no one could have predicted.

I fear the same may happen, that today those who are rounded up may go silent but not away. That those who have been targeted, disparaged or have their livelihoods threatened will disengage from our civic life. I fear that others will decide that separatism is the only answer. We have seen the precedents.

When people lose faith and trust in our national institution, the ties that bind fray. Canada itself is an act of faith. Our east-west configuration is challenged daily by the north-south pull of common geography, shared interests and trade. If we ignore the reality of political difference, if we pretend smugly that somehow partisan division is an American phenomenon and foreign players are to blame, that is to deny the very basis of our democracy. Opposing the government of the day is democracy. It’s how it works. It’s why we have elections. It’s why we have debates and votes here and in the other place. It’s the very basis of our parliamentary democracy.

To silence criticism or dissent through extraordinary laws is the very action we would decry and denounce everywhere else in the world, and that is why I will vote against this act. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Wallin: The remedies you suggest assume you have resources, which is the problem if your resources are frozen or you don’t have access to them.

The other concern I have is that banks, in an attempt to comply with this legislation — which is both extraordinary and not detailed yet because we have to learn from experience — will have to overreact in order to protect themselves so they are not seen to be exempting someone from this law or not taking tough enough measures. We have seen in many other cases that people overcompensate when the law is unclear. What strategy do you have to combat that?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, my question is for the government leader, Senator Gold. This morning, you said that people who have concerns about what has happened to their bank accounts, be they frozen or that there is some other impact on their economic or financial life, could appeal to their bankers, to other organizations or even to the police. However, it is my understanding that this bill explicitly states that there is immunity from liability for financial institutions.