Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today, and I take no pleasure in having to be in this place this evening to debate the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I will say from the outset that I strongly oppose this measure, and I will be voting against it.

In its current version, the Emergencies Act has never been used before. It was invoked this week. It was passed in 1988 to add parliamentary supervision and to make changes to its predecessor, the War Measures Act. The War Measures Act was only used on three occasions: during the First World War, World War II and the FLQ crisis in Quebec.

Let us be clear. The protests that are happening outside of these walls are a political emergency for the Liberal government. It is not a national emergency facing Canada. Furthermore, it is a political emergency for the Prime Minister, and it is one of his own making. He has no one to blame other than himself, his cabinet and his Liberal backbenchers for allowing this situation to arise and to get to the point we are facing today. This week, the Prime Minister admitted that the Emergencies Act was not something to take lightly. In fact, he indicated it is not the first thing to turn to, nor the second.

Canada's Conservatives continue to press the Liberal government on what those first and second options were. We continue to wait. Instead of dialogue with a recovery plan and a path forward, the Liberal government is so devoid of leadership that it has decided to double down and continue to revel in the practice of the politics of disunity and disharmony. It is concerned more with capitalizing on the divisions caused by wedge issues, rather than working to bring all Canadians together.

The Prime Minister has made no effort to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he has insulted and disrespected Canadians. When this issue grew into a national movement, instead of listening to what concerned people have had to say, his government opted to implement the most extreme measure in response to deal with these protesters in downtown Ottawa.

Let us also be clear. The Emergencies Act was not needed before the border blockades were cleared up. Police in law enforcement agencies in Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia were able to use their existing powers to end those blockades without incident. What is different with policing in downtown Ottawa?

In my riding, a protest was planned for the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie this past weekend. Due to the work of the local police authorities of the Niagara Regional Police, OPP and the Niagara Parks Police, they were able to address the issue, allow the protest to remain peaceful and have their views heard before the protests came to a natural end. Effective planning and policing was responsible for this, not the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Imposing the power of the Emergencies Act sets a dangerous precedent. The Government of Canada should not have the power to close the bank accounts of hard-working Canadians, simply on the suspicion of supporting political causes of which the government does not approve or support.

This is a slippery slope, and it is not how any government should operate in a free and democratic society. In fact, the Canadian Liberties Association is now planning to sue the federal government over the Emergencies Act, news which only broke a few hours ago. About the government's decision, it said, “Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”

The protest in Ottawa is entering its fourth weekend. If this was such a pressing public order emergency, as the Liberals want it to appear, then why did it take so long for them to act?

Two weeks ago, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency because of these protests, so seized with the matter that on that same day, the Prime Minister needed to take a personal day off, despite being in the same city. Let us not be deceived. This again is not a national emergency. This is a political emergency for the Liberal government, and it is one of its own making.

Ultimately, the job of government, of all elected representatives, is to work together for the greater good to bridge differences, find accommodations and propose solutions for the benefit of all. That is why I chose to stand for public office. It is to help people. I am sure all elected members here in the House feel the same way.

Canada's Conservatives proposed such a solution. In fact, it was a way out of this mess, which the Liberal government with the NDP foolishly chose to ignore. Our motion called on the government to put forward a plan that would outline the steps and dates when federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions could be rolled back. This approach would have reduced the temperature across the country on this pressing issue, and it could have addressed the concerns of many Canadians, not just those who were protesting. Conservatives offered the Liberals this olive branch. Instead, they turned it down and unnecessarily invoked the Emergencies Act.

We are more than two years into this pandemic, and Canadians simply want a return to their normal lives. When will we get there? Perhaps it will be when the current federal government displays the needed leadership in getting Canadians the health care tools they need and are looking for, for themselves, their families and their loved ones.

Since the early days of this pandemic, Canada's Conservatives have been strong proponents of both vaccines and rapid testing. Why is it only this week that we were debating allocating $2.5 billion toward the acquisition of rapid tests? We should have been debating that a year and a half ago. That would have been the federal leadership Canadians were looking for and desperately wanted and needed. This is the type of federal leadership that is sorely missing from the government sitting across from me. Leadership means bringing people together. Instead, the Prime Minister is polarizing Canadians, wedging Canadians against one another and constantly working to divide us. It is a political strategy that only serves to benefit the Liberals at the cost of our national unity, economic stability and the well-being of our beloved country and citizens.

It also disappoints me greatly that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government are delaying access to critical health care tools that can give all Canadians greater freedoms and choices, especially as they pertain to managing their personal health care and family well-being. Where are the additional resources our provinces have been asking for, in terms of federal health transfers to address the lack of surge capacity in our health care system? For two years, the provinces have been asking for this. Rather than live with the existing very limited capacity, which is constantly at risk, why not invest in our health care infrastructure now to increase this capacity and create relief?

This past January, many of my constituents in Fort Erie, Stevensville and Crystal Beach were angered when the Niagara Health System was forced to close the Fort Erie urgent care centre because of staffing shortages elsewhere in Niagara. This is evidence that our province and our local health authorities require additional resources and the support that the federal government needs to enable. What is the Liberal response to this? The Prime Minister says the government will look at health care transfers once this pandemic is over. That is simply unacceptable.

It has been two long and difficult years. All Canadians deserve a federal government that is here to serve them and protect our national best interests. That means it does not matter what their political party is, where they live in this country, what faith they follow or what their vaccine status is. This is the team Canada approach that we all need. All Canadians deserve so much better from their federal government than we are getting now.

From the very beginning of COVID, the Liberal government was grossly unprepared for this pandemic, just as it was unprepared to deal with the protest when it arrived in Ottawa four weekends ago. The weight of responsibility for this pandemic and Canada's response to it is on the federal government's shoulders, yet instead of working collaboratively to solve the issues facing Canadians, this Prime Minister's attempt to turn the page is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Throughout the country, provinces are reducing their public health restrictions, and have put forward plans to reopen their economies, yet the federal government continues to remain silent on its plans to fully reopen areas of federal jurisdiction, especially in time for our all-too-important summer season in areas that are dependent on tourism, such as in my riding of Niagara Falls.

The Emergencies Act is not justifiable to deal with the protesters in downtown Ottawa. Let the police and local law enforcement officials do their jobs, just as they have done at the international border crossings that were blocked in multiple provinces. While the police do their important work, Canada needs its Prime Minister to start doing his by producing a plan to end all federal COVID-19 mandates and restrictions so all Canadians can get on with their lives, peacefully and together.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, I heard from the member for Niagara Falls, and many of my family members are constituents of his. He talks, and has talked for a long time, about ending the mandates and following policies such as those in the United States, which see a death rate so much higher. If we apply the same death rates to Canada as the United States, there would be an additional 60,000 Canadians dead.

My grandmother, who is a constituent of the hon. member's, needed emergency surgery last month and got it because of lockdowns, because politicians stood up and took steps, because of mandates and because people got vaccinated.

Who among his constituents does he want to sacrifice by throwing public health aside? Could he stand up and tell us whom he would be willing to throw away?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we were all elected to this place to help people. I got into this business because I want to help people. The job of government is to bridge the differences that exist on both sides of the House. Instead, what the current government likes to do is revel in the politics of disunity. It likes to play the majority against the minority. They want to play those wedge-issue games that only serve to protect their interests.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Let me finish. I will say this at this time. I am here to help people. Why are they not?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary had an opportunity to ask his question. He should not be heckling or trying to have another discussion while the hon. member is responding.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, everyone in Quebec is against this law.

All of the members of the Quebec National Assembly, the Premier of Quebec, Québec Solidaire, the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois, the CAQ, everyone is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I see that, on the government side, the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage does not want to wait his turn to speak. This is not the first time I have risen this evening, so I would ask everyone to calm down a little and wait their turn to ask a question.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert may continue.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my mother would have tanned his hide.

Every member of the National Assembly is against this act. It is a trauma trigger in Quebec because of what happened in 1970 with the War Measures Act. Even though this act is not the same as the one that was in place in 1970, people still associate it with something traumatic. Individuals were arbitrarily jailed, civil liberties were suspended, and it was a very difficult time.

A year ago, we moved a motion in the House calling on the Prime Minister to apologize for the 500 arbitrary imprisonments in October 1970. Does my colleague think the Prime Minister should have apologized for what happened in October 1970?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, not only does Quebec have concerns with this legislation, but I believe five provinces altogether have expressed their concerns with the implementation of this act. What we are asking this government is why it had to take that extraordinary step of implementing the Emergencies Act. What data, proof or situation forced the government to do this and not use the existing Criminal Code elements or the existing legislative regulatory authorities?

Again, we had a protest at our border just last weekend, and police were able to accommodate it without the Emergencies Act. Why was this step needed? In fact, it is not.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree. I think this conversation has been quite divisive. That is concerning. I understand why people are angry and frustrated. It has been a long two years for us all, but I am wondering if my hon. colleague would agree with me that some of the images we are seeing in terms of police involvement, some of the reports and some of the clips we have seen with police hugging people blocking borders, are concerning. A former RCMP officer is one of the organizers as is former military. Should that require a public inquiry?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all believe in the rights of Canadians to peacefully protest, and I think we all agree that some of the images and actions we have seen are not to be tolerated or allowed. We said weeks ago that we believe this blockade should end and that those truckers should go home. It is time for them to go home. It is time for this protest to be over. It is time for Canadians to start working together and stop playing these divisive games, so that we can do the best for all Canadians and get back to work.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean.

Being a member of Parliament is an awesome responsibility. In our system, the 338 of us have enormous power to establish the laws of this nation and oversee the activities of our government. Each and every debate we have and each and every vote we take is important, but there are still some debates and votes that are more important than others. This is one of them. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked in its 34-year history. Any time we increase police powers or limit civil liberties, we have to ensure that what we are doing is reasonable and proportionate.

This is an important debate and Canadians are watching us. We are all tired and frustrated after living with an epidemic for two years. Nerves are frayed. Politicians are passionate people and we often use overheated rhetoric, especially on social media. However, we need to turn down the volume.

I have been watching the House over the last two weeks and growing more and more concerned. Last year, my friend, the Conservative member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, and I wrote an op-ed and reminded Canadians we can disagree without being disagreeable. Both he and I used to be mayors. In the municipal world there is far less partisanship. We can disagree about policy and vigorously debate while still being respectful, but I have not seen much of that over the last two weeks. There have been far too many personal attacks and insults and generalizations based on party membership, instead of respect for people as individuals.

Most policy decisions are not black and white. They are grey. Let us show Canadians we can listen to one another and recognize that even if we disagree, we all love our country and are advocating for what we believe is best for it. We do not want to end up like our American neighbours, who over the last couple of years seem to sometimes live in two different realities depending on what cable news network they watch. That responsibility is not one man's; it is all of ours.

Members should ask themselves two questions about the Emergencies Act.

First, do we believe that the requirements of the act have been met, that is, does the situation meet the definition of a national emergency under section 3 of the act?

Second, even if it does meet that definition, is invoking the act a good idea?

On the question of whether or not the definition is met, we have to look at the circumstances we have been witness to over the past few weeks. The right to peaceably assemble is a core constitutional right under section 2 of our Charter of Rights. Freedom of expression is too. People have every right to complain about the government, including here on Parliament Hill. However, as many others have said before me, a blockade is not a peaceful assembly.

Over the last several weeks, we have seen bylaw after bylaw flouted in Ottawa. Blockading streets with trucks, including residential streets, is not peaceful assembly. Honking horns all night long and polluting the air by running engines 24-7 is not peaceful assembly. Harassing and assaulting residents, threatening journalists and closing small businesses is not peaceful assembly.

As we have seen, the blockades have had a confused leadership, with various ideological grievances ranging from ending all public health restrictions to overthrowing the elected government. Then these blockades expanded to border crossings across the country to impede the incredibly important trade relationship between Canada and the United States. The U.S. is our most important trading partner, with approximately $2 billion in goods travelling across the border each day. Over the last 10 days, there have been blockades or attempted blockades at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, at Sarnia's Blue Water Bridge, at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, in Emerson, Manitoba, in Coutts, Alberta, and in Surrey, B.C. These blockades have led to a disruption in the flow of goods and services, the cutting of shifts at Canadian manufacturing plants and concerns being raised in the United States about whether Canada remained a reliable trading partner.

In addition to the blockades at the border, protesters attempted to impede access to the Ottawa airport and threatened to blockade railway lines. They also made bomb threats to hospitals, and noxious substances were mailed to MPs. People linked to the blockades in Coutts were arrested with a large quantity of ammunition, and four of them were charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

I could go on, but my time is limited. In my view, the current situation meets the definition in section 3 of the act.

However, that does not yet satisfy the second question legislators must ask. We also need to determine if we believe the use of the act is a good idea at this time. We need to weigh the need for public safety against the potential limitation of civil liberties. We need to determine if there are other and better ways of ending the blockades.

I want to start by noting that for weeks Ottawa police were unable to manage the situation to anyone's satisfaction. Under our Constitution, policing powers are generally provincial and then delegated to municipalities. The only federal role would be offering support when asked. However, from the beginning, there were questions in the House from all parties about what the Government of Canada was doing to manage the situation.

I was one of many who said that people did not care about jurisdiction here, that they just wanted all governments to work together to fix the problem. However, the problem was not getting fixed adequately. The police clearly needed more resources and more tools in the tool box, and somebody needed to step forward and take charge. Invoking this act is a way for the federal government to give police more tools in the tool box and to step in where necessary, which is exactly the leadership that was being asked for.

I want to thank former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who is otherwise known today as Mark's dad, former minister Perrin Beatty and all the members of Parliament in 1988 who replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act. If it were the War Measures Act we were debating, I would be squarely against it. Under the War Measures Act, in the days before the charter and the Bill of Rights, we had gross violations of human rights, such as the roundup of Japanese Canadians in the Second World War.

The Emergencies Act is very different. This act is subject to the Charter of Rights, it is subject to the Bill of Rights and it even makes note of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yes, there may be temporary added minor limits to civil liberties, but any such limits have to remain compliant with the charter. This means that any limitation to a right still must be reasonable in a free and democratic society. It also means the courts will continue to have oversight.

It is somewhat ironic to me that various members who have complained about rights being limited here have themselves supported the use of the notwithstanding clause by provincial legislatures, which truly has the effect of undermining charter rights. I oppose the use of the notwithstanding clause in all circumstances.

I also note it is important that members of Parliament have continually and rightly asked for involvement and oversight regarding decisions being made related to ending these blockades. The Emergencies Act provides exactly that oversight. The invocation of the act and any extension need to be authorized by Parliament. A parliamentary review committee consisting of MPs from all recognized parties and senators needs to be established to review the exercise of the powers under the act and report to Parliament at least once every 60 days. After the emergency is over, there has to be an inquiry into the circumstances under which the declaration was issued and the measures taken for dealing with the inquiry.

The last point I want to address is that some people think the act should not apply to certain provinces. That makes no sense to me.

Two orders were made. The first concerns emergency economic measures, such as allowing insurance companies to cancel or suspend insurance for a vehicle involved in the illegal blockade. It would make no sense for that not to apply to a vehicle from the other side of the river, from Gatineau, involved in the blockade in Ottawa.

It also allows banks to freeze the accounts of people participating in illegal activities. Here again, it would make no sense for that to apply to bank accounts belonging to people who reside in Ontario, but not to people residing in Quebec.

In conclusion, I believe that invoking the act is indeed a reasonable, wise and proportional decision to take in the current context, and I support the motion.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the first part of the member's speech, I heard his concerns about heated rhetoric and things like that. I am wondering if he can comment on the Prime Minister's comments yesterday regarding one of my Jewish colleague's questions.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the type of question that, in my view, is part of the problem. I asked everybody on all sides to tone down the rhetoric. That is on my side and the other side. We all have that responsibility, all 338 of us. To single out one member when all of us have an equal responsibility is wrong.

I personally want to say that I deeply appreciate the member for Thornhill. I enjoy working with her, and I will continue to work with her in a good way going forward.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a planner. When I saw the 70-kilometre-long convoy headed this way, I thought there would be no problem. I thought there would be a plan in place that would involve coordination between various officials. Then I realized that that was not necessarily the case.

On February 7, the federal government was asked to provide assistance, in the form of 1,800 police officers to support the city and law enforcement officials.

Could that have been done earlier, on both the city side and the government side, and should 1,800 police officers have been sent, rather than 275?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is always very reasonable.

As I think I said in my speech, we are all extremely disappointed by what has happened in Ottawa. For various reasons, the Ottawa police were unable to adequately address the situation.

The federal government does have obligations, and it has taken action to increase resources in Ottawa. However, getting RCMP officers from all across the country to Ottawa does take time. They have to be flown or bused in, and they have to be trained on exactly what is happening on the ground here. These things take time.

The federal government has now assumed its responsibilities, and that is what we are debating today.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing some humanity back to the chamber tonight.

This pandemic is a story of sacrifice and solidarity. It is one of grief and loss. It is one of heroes. While the majority of Canadians have done all they can to get us through this pandemic, there are a sinister few who have decided to capitalize on Canadians' kindness and good nature and sabotage our social fabric.

Does the member agree that there are sinister actors here whose actions are meant to hurt Canadians, significantly and negatively impact Canada's reputation and economy, and destabilize our civil peace?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who always speaks so intelligently in this chamber. Yes, I think there are such people, and I think the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells gave a great description in his speech of what was happening.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to echo what the member just said about the member for Mount Royal. The tone of the member's comments was, as ever, extremely helpful.

We need to lower the temperature in this place and be honest with Canadians about the difficulties we face and why it is important to distinguish between what the War Measures Act was and what the Emergencies Act is. The Mulroney government repealed the War Measures Act and put in place a far more thoughtful piece of legislation that does not in any way suspend civil liberties. However, I still have concerns about it.

I ask the hon member for Mount Royal if he believes that in the course of this debate we might even see some changes from the government in terms of the regulations, to be very specific.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always inspired by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I listened to her very thoughtful speech earlier today, and I am sure many others did as well. I would be very happy to speak to her off-line about the questions she raised.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the third week of occupations and illegal blockades, we need this Emergencies Act for two reasons, in my opinion.

Number one is that it is time to uphold the rule of law.

Number two is that it is time to take action to protect our critical economic infrastructure before this makes permanent damage to our economy.

As we all know, the rule of law is a political philosophy that involves the belief that all citizens and institutions within a state, country or a community are accountable to the same laws.

Canada is a wonderful country with a very diverse population. People of different ethnicities and different faiths live together to make Canada the best country in the world. Canadians have come to Canada from over 100 different countries. According to Statistics Canada, 120 languages are spoken in my riding of Nepean, although 60% to 65% of my Nepean residents speak English as their first language.

Some Canadians came to this country several generations back. Some came several decades back. Some are recent arrivals. Many Canadians came to this country for the freedom it offers to all its residents. Many came fleeing persecution in the countries in which they were born. Many came to Canada for the economic opportunities that it provides. Many came to Canada to provide better lives for their children than they had.

There is one common denominator to all Canadians, especially the new Canadians who came to Canada. The fundamental reason is that Canada upholds the rule of law. Upholding the rule of law is so important, and it is so built into the fabric of our country, that the current situation is unbelievable to many Canadians.

Whether it is for economic opportunities or better lives for their children, the fundamental reason for the security this country provides for hard-working Canadians to generate wealth for the economic development of the country, and for their families and their children, is the rule of law.

It is unbelievable for many Canadians that the rule of law is so openly flouted, and that the rule of law is made a mockery. It is possible that our law enforcement agencies built their systems and processes around the assumption that Canadians, generally speaking, uphold the rule of law. Maybe this is the reason why we see an occupation today by a foreign-funded group holding our men and women in uniform in contempt.

We need to support our hard-working men and women in uniform. We need to provide them with the tools they need to restore law and order. This is the reason for the Emergencies Act, which is targeted, reasonable and proportionate. It strengthens and supports law enforcement agencies so that they have more tools to restore order and protect critical infrastructure.

The second reason for the Emergencies Act, as I mentioned, is to protect our critical economic infrastructure. Canada is rich today. We enjoy a very high standard of living because of continued economic growth. This economy of ours is very much dependent on our trade.

Trade accounts for 60% to 65% of our GDP. This trade is dependent on the smooth flow of good and services across the border with our biggest trading partner.

This economy and this trade have given us wealth. They allow us to take care of our seniors. They allow us to provide affordable housing. They allow us to deliver quality health care to all Canadians, irrespective of their income status. For a small, foreign-funded group of Canadians to misuse the freedom of expression and the freedom to protest to damage fundamental and critical economic infrastructure is simply not acceptable. It is time for us to act before permanent damage is done to our economy and, in turn, to the Canadian way of life.

This big economy, and this big trade we have, did not only come about because of hard-working Canadians. It is also made possible by investors from different parts of the world who found Canada to be a good place to invest. We have major foreign companies in the automobile sector, the aluminum sector and the steel sector making investments in Canada. They do this because Canada is always open for business, because Canada offers little disruption to conducting business, and because Canada allows the free trade and flow of goods and services.

This assumption is made by international investors, and it is the guarantee that international investors have come to expect. It is being fundamentally challenged and it is time to act now.

Foreign-funded groups have crossed the line and we have to act to protect the interests of all Canadians. It is time to reinforce the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free. The blockades and occupations are illegal. They are a threat to our economy and our relationship with trading partners. The foreign-funded groups are a threat to our supply chain and the availability of essential goods, such as food and medicine. The foreign-funded groups have become a threat to public safety.

Let me be clear: Every Canadian has the right to express their opinion, their disagreement, or even their anger. They have that right. I will be the first person to defend those rights in our wonderful, free and democratic country. However, this right does not extend to the foreign-funded groups depriving other Canadians of the right and freedom to enjoy a peaceful life. The right to disagree does not extend to foreign-funded groups blockading our critical economic infrastructure. The right to protest does not extend to foreign-funded groups causing harm to families and small businesses, and destroying jobs and the economy.

As the Prime Minister has said, under the Emergencies Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect Canadians' individual rights. We are not going to call in the military. We are not limiting people’s freedom of expression. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally.

Today, I ask all members of the House to take action against the illegal blockades and occupations that are harmful to Canadians. I ask all members of the House to stand up for families and workers.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member made numerous references to the reason to impose this act now. It was to protect critical infrastructure. I lost track of how many times he mentioned critical infrastructure, so I would ask two things. Could he identify which critical infrastructure this act is to protect today? Is the intent to keep this legislation in place to prevent future critical infrastructure attacks that I am not aware of?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the occupations and blockades are not legal. These are done by foreign-funded groups. I am surprised to note that some of our hon. colleagues stand in solidarity with these foreign-funded groups who are taking action, occupying our cities and blocking the trade flow between Canada and the U.S.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage seems to be a bit agitated this evening. He has been called to order a few times now. Had he been asked to leave, I would have found that to be disproportionate, and I would have defended him because I like him. It would have been disproportionate.

Now, I have a question for my colleague. Is it possible that the Emergencies Act is disproportionate?

I have been saying all evening that this is the equivalent of killing a fly with a bazooka. There are many other options available to us. We are setting a precedent and that is what scares me.

Governments will be able to reuse this legislation later, and possibly for more dubious purposes. I am not suggesting that the government has bad intentions, but there may be future governments that use these measures for purposes that are less palatable than what we are seeing today.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.