Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. We are not proud to support these measures. We do so reluctantly. The fact that we are now in this situation is a glaring example of the government's failure. We are very reluctant to support it.

We will remain vigilant to ensure that these measures are not applied where they are not needed. However, we are in a national crisis and we must act. The fact that all levels of government failed to take action shows a failure of leadership.

We want to resolve this crisis immediately, but we reserve the right to use every available tool to withdraw our support should the powers be used where they are not needed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we had the lowest death rate in the western world and the highest level of vaccination. The solidarity of Canadians was incredible, yet there was an absolute failure and exploitation of fear by members in the House. The Leader of the Opposition said they wanted to exploit this. There was a failure of the Prime Minister to stand up and show vision, and a failure of police to defend people in the streets. We should never have been at this moment. We are looking like a failed state.

What steps will the leader of the New Democratic Party take to hold the government accountable? It has failed us at every step of the way in this crisis. How can we trust it at this point? How can we say to Canadians that we will make their streets safe and return the rule of law, but we will make sure the Liberals are accountable? How will we do that?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear to Canadians that we take this step with a lot of reluctance. We are not in any way proud that we are at a point in our country's history where the Emergencies Act has to be implemented. We think a failure of leadership got us to this point. It was a failure of taking the convoy seriously. People were abandoned. Workers were abandoned and residents of Ottawa were abandoned. As a result, we are in this crisis.

We are going to support this measure, but we are going to do so with a lot of vigilance. We are going to pay close attention to the implementation of the Emergencies Act, and we are prepared to withdraw our support at any moment that it becomes clear that there is an abuse of power. We have the power to do so. There are a number of tools at our disposal, and we will be paying very close attention to the way the Emergencies Act is used. We want to make sure it is used only for the goal of dealing with the convoy and the national crisis, so that Canadians can have restored confidence in the ability of this country to function properly, to protect them and to keep them safe.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the leader of the NDP's comments about the real story. Over the last couple of years, there have been so many heroic moments that we have witnessed where people from all regions of the country have stepped up. That really needs to be acknowledged right up front.

It is an unfortunate situation that we find ourselves in. Not that long ago, a week ago, we had literally half a billion dollars' worth of trade between Canada and the U.S. being held hostage by convoy blockades. This had a very negative impact on issues such as jobs. We had some opposition parties being inconsistent with their messaging, which also caused some issues.

Could my friend provide his thoughts on how important it is? Yes, we recognize how Canadians have contributed, but at this point in time we have to do things to protect our families, businesses and economic trade lines.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question gives me an opportunity to talk about the incredible sacrifices of so many people. I think of all the frontline workers who kept us going through the most difficult parts of this pandemic, the retail workers, logistics workers, truck drivers and frontline health care workers, and how it has been so difficult for these frontline workers. In a lot of ways, these frontline health care workers and frontline workers were abandoned as well. They were the most important workers, and in some cases they were paid the least. We fought to make sure that they were recognized not just for their hard work and sacrifice, but with fair compensation. That has to continue. Health care workers right now are struggling. They are on the brink. Nurses have told us about the crisis in health care, so we have to make sure we are supporting them with real investments.

We are in a real crisis. The fact that one of the busiest borders in North America could be shut down, causing thousands of workers to lose their wages, is unacceptable. It is wrong. We need to make sure workers are protected. That is why we reluctantly support this measure to make sure the convoy is ended, that workers and people are protected, and the residents of Ottawa are supported. We stand with them.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. It is interesting that the hon. leader of the NDP has spoken about the division of the government, yet he has consistently propped up the government that has chosen to divide.

He spoke about the fact that the Emergencies Act should not touch on Quebec, yet he is supporting legislation that theoretically could freeze bank accounts in Quebec. Will he support that aspect of the act, yes or no? It cannot be separated from the remainder.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that the act is used in a way that stops the convoys and is not used where it is not necessary. I want to be very clear about division. I certainly have said that, in the House, divisions have inflamed issues, and the story of this pandemic is one of solidarity. I want to be clear. Conservatives have purposely tried to use this convoy as an opportunity to score points and cause problems for the Liberals. The Liberals have also looked at this as an opportunity to divide and wedge. I am saying it is wrong to do that. We cannot be wedging people on a thing that is not partisan. This is a crisis that we have to come together on. The pandemic is one we all have to tackle together. It should not be something to score points on.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness.

I am pleased and honoured to rise today to speak to the invocation of the Emergencies Act by our government and to the motion in this House to affirm the government's decision, but I also do so with a deep sense of obligation.

Canada is a rule-of-law country. By declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law and we are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for a public order emergency to be declared. Our government believes those conditions have been met and that those same conditions required the Government of Canada to act.

The Emergencies Act was enacted in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act. There are two significant differences between the two acts. One, the Emergencies Act contains a number of limits and safeguards, including a parliamentary review. Two, the measures taken under the act are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to reiterate this point. The preamble to the Emergencies Act states, “And whereas the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency”. Any and all of our government actions will be subject to the charter, and it is my job as Attorney General to ensure this. I take that responsibility incredibly seriously. There is, therefore, a further check in the parliamentary oversight process as well.

The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in specific serious circumstances that amount to a national emergency. In order to meet the threshold for a national emergency, three conditions must be met: First, we must be in a situation that either “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians... [and exceeds] the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”. Second, the provinces' and territories' capacity to handle the situation must be considered insufficient or show gaps. Third, we must conclude that the situation cannot be handled adequately under any other Canadian law, including provincial or territorial laws.

Our government believes these conditions were met, and yesterday we tabled an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, as required by the act. We also tabled yesterday, as required, a report on any consultation with the provinces with respect to the declaration. I would especially like to highlight the support of British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as noted in the document invoking the act to respond to this national emergency.

Once an emergency is declared, the Emergencies Act allows the federal government to make the necessary orders and regulations to intervene.

Our government respects Canadians' rights and freedoms, which are protected by the charter. We intend to use only necessary, reasonable and measured powers to resolve this crisis quickly and safely, in accordance with section 1 of the charter.

As members have seen, our government has introduced targeted orders under the act. While the act technically applies to all of Canada, we have been very careful to tailor orders to be as focused as possible, and only in those places affected by blockades and illegal occupations will we see any change at all.

We have introduced measures to bring the situation under control. They include temporary regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest; the situation in Ottawa and blockades at certain border crossings have gone far beyond lawful protest.

They also include temporarily designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. These places could include borders, approaches to borders, critical infrastructure, hospitals and democratic institutions.

These measures also include temporarily directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. These persons could include tow trucks and their drivers—for compensation, of course.

The measures include temporarily authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services to relieve the impact of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund or support the blockades.

They include temporarily enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws and provincial offences where required, and finally, temporary imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of any order or regulation made under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.

These are extraordinary times. The Government of Canada is committed to respecting and protecting individual rights while maintaining public order. This includes all of the measures taken by the Government of Canada in accordance with the Emergencies Act, including any orders, regulations or actions of government representatives.

I want to repeat what I previously stated: It is my responsibility and my commitment as Attorney General of Canada to ensure that all steps taken by our government are consistent with the charter, as required by the act.

The Emergencies Act also contains a number of significant limits, checks and safeguards. As required by the act, on several occasions over the past week, the Prime Minister and members of cabinet consulted with the premiers and members of their respective governments. Having now declared a public order emergency, we tabled the declaration in Parliament, as required, within seven days. In fact, we did so as quickly as possible, well before the seven days, tabling the declaration yesterday for discussion today so that Parliament could perform its important oversight role.

In the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while the emergency is in effect. This declaration only lasts for 30 days, unless renewed. However, we can revoke the emergency much sooner, and we sincerely hope to do so.

Parliament has the power to revoke an order, which ensures that any measures taken will be responsible and measured and will comply with the established limits.

Orders must be tabled in Parliament within two days for review by parliamentarians, as was done yesterday, and Parliament has the power to amend or revoke any order made under the act.

In closing, I want to address two critiques of the official opposition. They say this declaration is unnecessary, that the illegal blockades and occupations are ending. I say to look outside. They are not. I say look at the streets of Winnipeg. The ones that have ended did so after the Prime Minister announced we were moving to declare a public order emergency. We are achieving what we intended to achieve with these measures and we are doing it in a most measured and responsible way.

We have seen, further, how fluid the situation is. Since we declared this emergency, we have seen other potential blockades stopped. We want law enforcement to have the necessary tools for a limited time to ensure we do not have a repeat of any of the blockades.

The official opposition is talking about rights. On this side of the House, we take rights seriously, and so did the Progressive Conservative government that introduced the Emergencies Act and ensured it was charter compliant. That was the right thing to do.

We are invoking this act to end illegal blockades and occupations. We are invoking it to restore the rights of those who cannot walk safely on the streets of downtown Ottawa. We are invoking it to protect the rights of workers to earn a living, of businesses to serve the public, of people to move freely across international borders.

Let us not confuse illegal blockades and occupations with lawful protests. We know what a lawful protest looks like. It does not look like what is happening on Wellington Street, or what transpired in Coutts or in Emerson. We have declared a public order emergency to help law enforcement deal with these issues quickly and to protect us from having them happen again.

Our goal is to see order restored and to see this emergency declaration lifted as soon as possible.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the act expressly prohibits violation of charter rights. The declaration put forward by the government assumes power to regulate or prohibit private transfers of funds to protesters, including the ability to mandate the reporting of such transfers and the freezing of accounts, all without judicial oversight.

How is this measure compliant with section 8 of the charter rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed this act is compliant with section 8 of the charter with regard to unreasonable search and seizure. It is an extension of procedures and practices that already exist with respect to anti-terrorism financing and money laundering. We are extending these practices and procedures that already exist and are already charter compliant to this other situation—that is, funding illegal blockades and protests—and we are going to do it in a reasonable manner. It will be charter compliant.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

I think that everyone on this side of the House agrees that this is a measure of last resort. However, I do not think we are there yet. There are many other tools that could have been used first. It seems to me that this trivializes the Emergencies Act. I am not a legal expert, but it does not take a lot of research to find tools in Canada's Criminal Code that the government could have used before resorting to the Emergencies Act. Why not press criminal charges against the people who were blocking the bridges? Here, people are no longer participating in a legal protest; they have Ottawa under siege. Why were criminal charges not laid?

I would like the minister to explain to me why he did not use the other tools at his disposal under the Criminal Code before invoking the Emergencies Act.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

From the start of the crisis, we worked with other governments across Canada and with the RCMP. The RCMP worked with other police forces. We saw that there were gaps and that we needed to work together. By bringing in measures that did not exist before, we gave Canada's police forces additional tools to better address and manage their respective situations. We are filling in the gaps.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been here for much of the last three weeks, and what I have seen in Ottawa is a complete failure of civic officials and a complete failure of the police. This should never have been allowed to spiral. In Quebec City and Toronto, we saw that the police did their job. At the Ambassador Bridge, we saw the ridiculous situation of our bridge being shut down for eight days without action.

Now we are having to take these measures. The minister is talking about anti-terrorism measures. Is the government able to tell the House that it has evidence that there is terrorism and extremism that can justify this measure, or do we just have to clean up the mess from the failure of what happened here in Ottawa?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, delivered with his usual passion in this important circumstance.

I mentioned terrorism as part of the financing. This is not a terrorism act. We took measures that had been applied to terrorism and applied them to other illegal activity, but I am not equating this to terrorism. What we have done is declare a public order emergency based on the reasons we gave in the declaration that we have made. They include the very deleterious economic impact to the kinds of workers that the hon. member has tried to protect throughout his whole career. We could think of auto workers in southwestern Ontario or Niagara or beef farmers or pork farmers out west whose supply chains were blocked in trading with our largest trading partner.

We have declared a public order emergency based on those very serious grounds. We needed to act. We had been there from the beginning and we saw gaps. We filled them. Now we have given better tools to the police.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to rise today as the Minister of Emergency Preparedness to speak to the importance and necessity of the motion before the House.

Let me also acknowledge that the fact we are all in this House, that elected representatives from across Canada have come to debate this important measure, is evidence of the strength and resiliency of our democratic institutions. Although the subject of today's debate is a solemn one, I think it is also evidence that should give us strength, resolve and hope.

Let me begin my remarks by acknowledging the impact that these blockades and demonstrations have had on Canadian citizens, particularly the people of Ottawa who have been subject to intimidation and threats. The disruption of the course of their lives is, frankly, unacceptable.

Among the most important freedoms that we covet and protect in this country are freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, lawful peaceful protest. It has also been said that one's freedom to swing their fists ends at the end of another's nose. What we have seen, unfortunately, over the past three weeks is that those rights have been exceeded and abused to the point that it has put Canadians in harm's way.

I also want to speak briefly about the impact of the blockades that were taking place at vital trade corridors in this country, our international borders. When the protesters decided to go to our borders, we need to recognize and acknowledge they were going for the throat. They were going to cut off the supply of goods and services that our country relies on.

When they stopped parts from coming across that border at the Ambassador Bridge, they shuttered factories and they idled workers. They damaged the reputation of Canada as a safe and stable place to invest. They hurt Canadians. It was clearly their intent. It is clearly what they were doing, and it had to stop.

We saw the same targeted approach to hurt Canadian interests and to harm their fellow citizens in Coutts, Alberta; in South Surrey, British Columbia; in Emerson; at the Ambassador Bridge; and a number of fakes at other border points. This was not by accident. They did not just wander into those spaces. They went for the throat of this country. They created an emergency, an emergency that we had to respond to.

For the first time, we have come to the difficult decision to invoke the authorities of the Emergencies Act. I want to assure the House from the very outset that our government recognizes the significance of this decision, and the heavy responsibility that would come with pursuing it, not just the responsibility of the government but of the House.

We approached the process with caution and with care. It was essential that we explored all options available to us. We looked at everything very closely. We looked at our existing legislation. We looked at the regulations with the support of our Department of Justice officials to see what additional federal supports would be required. We examined existing municipal, provincial and federal authorities.

I think it is rather evident the threat of parking tickets did not deter those trucks in Ottawa. The threat of the enforcement of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act did not deter those commercial carriers from coming down our highways and using their vehicles, which are licensed under that legislation, to cause harm to Canadians. It has also become clear that with the limitations, even of the authorities enshrined within federal law and the Criminal Code, our law enforcement officials were struggling.

I will give two examples that I hope will be helpful to Parliament in consideration of the necessity for these measures.

One of the challenges that our law enforcement officials had was this, and it was not just our law enforcement officials but those who are tasked with gathering and analyzing financial intelligence through FINTRAC. Unfortunately, the funding associated with these actions, which in many cases have been clearly criminal and harmful to Canadians, was opaque. It became very clear when our officials came to us that they did not have the tools they needed to provide the necessary and appropriate scrutiny of the source of that funding, and that they did not have the tools to bring the accountability and even the consequences that were required in doing their jobs. We listened to what they needed. Ontario, for example, declared an emergency and brought forward really important and useful regulations, but they could not do that because it was our responsibility. We considered that and we listened.

Another example that may sound trivial, but was significant, relates to jurisdictions right across the country. I heard from my counterpart and colleague, the minister responsible in Alberta, who for weeks had been asking for help to get tow trucks down to Coutts, Alberta, to haul those trucks away. However, the tow truck industry in Alberta, like in Ontario, like right across the country, as a result of threats and intimidation were afraid to do their jobs. We needed that equipment. We needed those drivers. We needed their ability to remove those vehicles, but they were intimidated and afraid, so we have brought forward in these measures the authority not to compel them but to really authorize them to do what we all need to be done.

I submit to all those here that these measures work. People who knew the gaps in our laws and our law enforcement's response were exploiting them. When we closed those gaps, they went to school. We saw evidence of that in Coutts.

I do not want to minimize the importance of the RCMP investigation. By the way, I am not going to comment on any of the aspects of their investigation or the prosecution that will follow. It is totally inappropriate for a minister to do so. However, I want to thank them for doing their job. I want to thank God that they were able to do it safely.

That eliminated part of the threat at Coutts, but when we announced on Monday that we were coming for the source of their funding and that there were going to be real consequences, financial consequences for their actions, they scurried away. That is exactly what we needed them to do. They did exactly the same thing in Emerson, Manitoba. Even though we saw yesterday in Windsor that some of them were going back because that is the way they can most effectively attack this country, they were stopped. They were stopped by effective law enforcement.

We have brought forward these measures, but let me also assure all my colleagues in this House that these measures must always be charter-compliant. Our expectation is that our law enforcement officials will do their job, the job we all need them to do, but they will always do it mindful of their responsibility to uphold the rule of law, to effect their lawful purpose with a minimum of force and to do the work right.

I also want to assure this House that we will be there to support them. When they say they need tools, we will give them the tools to do the job. When they say they need resources, we will provide those resources to do the job.

Every order of government and every person in this House has a responsibility to stand up with resolve and determination and to do what is necessary to protect Canada's interests.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I note that the deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, would disagree with the minister's suggestion that there is extremist financing of the convoy, but I will move on to my question.

Back in January through March 2020, as the minister said, those people came for the throat. What happened to the throat of our country when our railways were being blockaded and when our pipelines were being blockaded? We could not even get propane to Quebec in the middle of the winter, risking the lives of so many seniors. The port of metro Vancouver was blockaded. The government said we needed to initiate dialogue, and we needed to work with those people to come to a peaceful resolution.

What is the difference with the current situation that we are facing? Why is the Emergencies Act needed?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me just speak to the member's first point because I have heard him ask the question before. Perhaps he has not been satisfied with the answer. I understand, because I also speak to FINTRAC often and I have worked with them for decades. They did not have the evidence because they did not have the tools to collect the evidence. We listened to them. They said it was opaque. They did not have the tools to examine cryptocurrency laws, for example. We told them we heard them. If they do not have the evidence, we will give them the tools to collect the evidence because it is necessary to protect Canadians.

The member's argument against these measures is clearly a little bit shallow. He needs to recognize that. He is right that we did not have that information. Now we are getting that information. It is what our law enforcement officials need to protect the country.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we agree the situation is serious. The problem is, for over two weeks, only the opposition parties recognized it as an emergency.

The Prime Minister failed in his duty to use tools that were available to him before. Quebeckers and Canadians deserve better.

I would like to know if the hon. minister is proud to be seated next to a last-resort Prime Minister.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the member that, not only am I proud but it is the honour of my life to be a member of this government serving Canadians. I also want to be very clear that we have been seized from the very first moment with supporting law enforcement efforts and also the efforts of our municipal and provincial partners. We have been working closely with provincial governments right across the country, including Quebec.

I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that we very much respect the jurisdiction of provinces and territories over policing in their jurisdiction, as I am sure they recognize and respect our responsibility to maintain the integrity and security of our borders. All orders of government have a responsibility to protect Canadians, and we will all work together to do it.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand and share the concerns that people have about the potential long-term impacts of the use of emergency measures legislation, in particular, as it relates to the expansion of the institution of policing, given the past abuses and overreach against legitimate political actions by indigenous, racial and climate-justice activists and workers. However, with the capital and country in crisis, Canadians are feeling abandoned by their local police services who have repeatedly been caught on video compromised and at times seeming to be working in collusion with the insurrectionist occupation.

The last royal commission on policing was in 1962. Will the Minister of Public Safety commit to establishing a national commission on policing that would review the duties assigned to the police and their corresponding budgets, and will the minister commit to a secretariat or some other office to report on the radicalization and use of public resources and security forces for undemocratic ends?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has become quite apparent, and I have heard concern across the country as well, is an overwhelming desire that the police in this country do their job and that they do it right, that they do it in a way that is compliant with all of our laws, with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that their response is measured, thoughtful, proportional and effective. We are working hard to make sure they have the tools and support they need.

I spent 40 years in policing. Policing must always be accountable to the people it serves, because the most important tool that the police have is the trust and confidence of the people they serve. We will always work to maintain that trust and confidence.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister of Emergency Preparedness sharing the care and caution with which this is being applied. The Prime Minister shared a more targeted approach, but I need to reconcile that with what I am reading in the regulations that we have been provided, which mention critical infrastructure quite broadly. I share the concerns of the member for Burnaby South, for example, with respect to how this could be applied in the future to indigenous land defenders and climate activists.

Could the minister clarify the difference between the more targeted approach we are hearing and the words we are seeing written here?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's concern. I want to provide him with reassurance.

These measures are time-limited. They are subject to parliamentary and judicial scrutiny, and we will only use these measures as long as they are required. We recognize their extraordinary nature. They have to be subject to the scrutiny of this House; it is in the law. We will only use them as long as they are required, and we will always ensure that they are compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister and ministers across the aisle, it actually gives me no pleasure to rise to speak to the matter at hand. The invocation of the Emergencies Act earlier this week, for the first time in Canadian history, is a significant moment and it is not a moment to be pleased about. It is a solemn moment. It is a moment when we have to ask ourselves, how did we get to this situation in the first place? When we examine the evidence of how we got to this situation, I do not think there is much for the government to be proud of.

The Conservatives thoughtfully considered the justifications, written in law and given by the government, for the enacting of the Emergencies Act. The government has based its justification on one provision: that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada. This claim is not supported by the evidence. Yes, we have seen border blockades in at least four provinces and we have seen a persistent protest in Ottawa that has now been declared illegal. However, before the Emergencies Act was invoked, the blockades at the borders and across Canada were lifted or were well into the process of being lifted, so the government trying to claim credit after the fact is completely absurd. The Emergencies Act is now being used solely for the purpose of addressing the situation in Ottawa, not throughout Canada as defined by the act.

A key part of the threshold for enacting these measures is that existing laws and capabilities have proven insufficient for dealing with the problem. Existing laws are well equipped to deal with these situations. They were well equipped to deal with the situation at Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge, and I submit they are well equipped to be used here in Ottawa.

The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness said earlier that they were required to pass this so they could requisition essential services like tow trucks. However, it has been noted by many that under the Criminal Code, police already have the authority to requisition such services, under pain of criminal sanction. That was before the Emergencies Act was brought in, so this argument that the Emergencies is necessary is completely absurd.

I note that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle.

The police already had the power to compel many of these services. The police already had the power to be coordinated with the RCMP, the OPP and the various police forces and national security forces throughout Canada. They have measures existing under the Criminal Code, such as mischief and intimidation, to be used against illegal protesters and blockades.

The government has used an argument where it is citing potential acts and threats of violence against Canadians and critical infrastructure. This is not just any violence, the Liberals are saying; this is violence intended for the furtherance of an ideological and political objective. I am very concerned with the language that the government is beginning to use, because that language is very similar to the language under terrorism laws. The definition of terrorism is the use of violence to advance a political or ideological agenda. The government is using terrorism legislation against Canadian protesters.

There is very little evidence that there was a serious threat to persons and critical infrastructure from these protests. There was a short-term risk, but it was dealt with by law enforcement.

[An hon. member]

What about those assaults outside?