Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Before we go to questions and comments, I believe the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has a point of order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify the record. I misspoke during my questions and comments in regard to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I indicated she was the only member of the House to have been arrested for protesting illegally. I completely forgot the image of the Minister of Environment in his orange jumpsuit. He too was arrested for illegal protests and I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is noted.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, I would like to retain the honour of being the only member of Parliament currently serving as a member of Parliament when I faced arrest non-violently, surrendering immediately and accepting the consequences, unlike our friends outside.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the individual who just spoke indicated that one of the problems here is that Canada's reputation is being tarnished. Whose reputation is truly being tarnished, Canadians' reputations or the government's reputation?

The stands that everyday Canadians have taken have gained international support and have drawn disdain directly toward the Liberal government, and especially toward the language and actions of the Prime Minister.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure it will come as no surprise that I entirely disagree. Canadians have lost confidence in many different institutions as a result of what has been happening over the course of the last three weeks. Top of mind are the police. I believe many Canadians across the country question whether law enforcement was there, and this Emergencies Act provides more tools to our police force to maintain confidence in law and order in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague did say that her government would not let these events tarnish Canada's reputation.

The flag that she holds so dear has now become a global symbol of the far right movement and chaos.

I would like to know, given that her speech seems to have been written three weeks ago, if my hon. colleague is getting help with her agenda.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian flag is the flag of all Canadians, including all Quebeckers, and I wear it proudly every day.

In reply to my colleague, because I did not really understand his very bizarre question, I would like to point out that I have just seen that Quebeckers agree with the use of the Emergencies Act.

More than 70% of Quebeckers approve of the invocation of this act, and I am proud to represent them.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say that I hold the Liberal government responsible for letting convoys organized by the far right take over Parliament and illegally occupy downtown.

I would like to look at this from another angle. The War Measures Act is a painful and traumatizing event stamped in the collective memory of Quebeckers. However, it cannot be compared to the Emergencies Act, which was drafted by Mulroney's Conservative government.

There are huge differences: fundamental rights and freedoms are protected, its application is time-limited, and members can call for a vote at any time to put an end to the application of the act.

Do these guarantees as to the authority given to all parliamentarians to exercise vigilance reassure my colleague?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie. This is a completely different act. The Emergencies Act is not the same as the act invoked in 1970. Soldiers are not being deployed on Canadian soil or Quebec soil.

I agree that there is transparency and that parliamentarians in this House all have the power to revoke the application of the Emergencies Act at any time.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, today I noticed some very interesting public opinion polling coming out of Quebec. As a matter of fact, it says that 72% of Quebeckers support the use of the Emergencies Act. More importantly, in polling from Abacus Data that was released recently, 63% of Bloc supporters in the last election indicated that they would never vote for an MP who supports the occupation going on outside. However, the Bloc seems to be showing its support for the occupation.

Can the parliamentary secretary provide some insight on that?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think I will address this question in French, with the permission of my colleague.

I agree, as I mentioned earlier, that the vast majority of Quebeckers support the use of this act. I will also point out that the approval rating is even higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. I think that the members of the Bloc Québécois should be careful when they speak on behalf of Quebeckers.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time for remarks with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, not only in this House generally but in such important times. Sometimes we do forget what a tremendous honour it is. I am sad, though, to be here discussing emergency measures today. This has been a time, with respect, where the Prime Minister has inflamed, has incited and has divided.

The Prime Minister took that same inflammatory approach yesterday when he spoke in response to a question from the member for Thornhill. I was dismayed that he did not apologize for that today. Instead, he came into this House this morning and doubled down on years of division, so let us recap. The predecessor legislation was invoked three times: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis.

The Prime Minister invites and likes Canadians to think that he is the common person. I am not sure if he has walked through downtown Ottawa of late, but I did yesterday and today. I saw trucks in streets. There were a few streets that were plugged and those trucks need to go, period. The question then becomes how that should be done.

I took an oath when I was sworn in. It was the greatest day of my life to take that oath on behalf of all Canadians and particularly on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I took my oath to do my job to the best of my ability. I have to be satisfied as a legislator that the preconditions for this act have been met. That is my job. That is the oath I took and that is something that I take very seriously.

I read the act and I considered it. I actually had to read it twice. I have practised law for 14 years. I previously taught at a law school for a number of years, so when it came to my analysis of the act, I did what I taught my students to do. I went back to first legal principles, first statutory principles. We apply legal principles and statutory principles not because it is popular, not because we want the trucks to be cleared in any way possible, but because we here, the 338 of us, must apply the law.

After all, the Prime Minister has made the same remarks about the rule of law. He would not strip Canadians of citizenship just because it was popular, just because people may like it, but instead we must accede to the rule of law.

Let us apply the rule of law. Let us apply the legislation here. This legislation is clear. It says that its application must be the last resort. Members of the House have repeatedly asked what step one was. We hear crickets. What was step two? We hear crickets. The police were not even stopping people carrying jerry cans in. What was step three? We hear more crickets and a word salad. The official leader of the opposition asked the Prime Minister to attend a meeting with all party leaders, with a view to bringing this matter to an end. By my count that was about 10 days ago. Again, we hear crickets.

Even without the Emergencies Act application, which is alive right now, protesters could be arrested under the current regime. There are laws about causing a disturbance, mischief and participation in these sorts of illegal activities. The Criminal Code is very clear on that and I am not even touching on the Ontario Highway Traffic Act. The trucks could be seized, incidental to arrest, as evidence. They could be seized with a warrant, all things that the police have at their disposal right here, right now, to address the very situation that the Emergencies Act says it will deal with as a last resort. These first resorts have not been addressed.

Let us next look at what was resolved without the use of the Emergencies Act: Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. Why? It is because the police had the powers to do so and used those powers. My point is this. The legislation says that we do not resort to its use unless it is absolutely necessary. What we have seen in these three instances I just mentioned is that it is not absolutely necessary and, as a legislator, I need to be convinced that the threshold has been met or I will not vote for such legislation.

I wish we could simply invoke legislation to make our problems go away. That is just not the case. It cannot be done as a measure of convenience. Let us not forget. This was not done during 9/11. This was not done during COVID. This was not done during railway blockades that had a crippling impact on our economy and economic consequences. This was not done throughout many protests throughout the country. This was not done when B.C. highways and rail were washed out due to recent flooding.

I recently received an inquiry from a constituent in the north Thompson area near Blue River in my riding. There have been protests in that area for years. Blue River is a small community. There has been violence, threats and blockades. I told that constituent what I am telling the House. The legislation is a last resort to be used in extraordinary circumstances of national emergency when nothing else will do.

As one of the members for Ottawa said earlier today, this has been going on for four weeks and I echo that sentiment. I understand that it has been going on for four weeks and those committing illegal activities need to stop. It has been going on for much longer in my riding and those people are asking the same questions.

In closing, I do agree with the Prime Minister on one point. He did say that he is trying to save jobs. Unfortunately, I would eliminate the plural. He is trying to save one job, his own, and that is not right.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the hon. member to the House as a new member and a fellow member of the bar. I would politely point out that an emergency—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask that the people who are outside of the chamber please stop speaking so loudly. We can barely hear ourselves.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member indicated he read the statute. He knows full well that, in terms of COVID, enacting a public welfare emergency requires the provinces to initiate such a request. No request was forthcoming.

Second, he asked what steps have been taken. The first step was actually the City of Ottawa declaring an emergency, which did not render the results. The next step was the Province of Ontario declaring an emergency, which has not rendered results. The final step is this very important debate that we are having today.

I want to put to the member an issue about the capability of the province under its authority to deal with this, which is clearly an issue because the provincial order that has been made by Premier Ford fails in two important respects. It does not compel essential workers like tow trucks to actually tow vehicles away. Second, it cannot compel a vehicle's licence to be suspended when that vehicle originates in another province such as one of the western provinces.

Are those not instances of a lack of provincial authority that necessitate the usage of the Emergencies Act in this case?

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

Madam Speaker, the Criminal Code actually deals with all of those issues. When the hon. member speaks about the invocation of a state of emergency, I did not see a single thing change. He is right. I did not see a single thing change. I did not see any enforcement change. What was step one? What was step two?

We cannot simply do this because we do not like how something is being enforced. It should be a matter of last resort and those steps are available in the Criminal Code whether it comes to seizure, to search, or to seizure and arrest with warrant.

With respect, I disagree.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I agree with him on a number of points. This morning, the Prime Minister said that there were several options and that the Emergencies Act was the last resort, but we did not hear about the first, second or third options.

I have a question for my colleague. Does a government that is unable to keep the public safe in the context of these protests and the presence of truckers deserve a seat on the United Nations Security Council?

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister declared “Canada is back” when he was first elected. The problem is this: One can say anything they want, but at the end of the day it is their actions that people will judge.

People look at actions and they look at integrity. We have a Prime Minister that, with respect, has not displayed a great deal of integrity, whether it comes to ethical breaches or it comes to a deliberate desire to divide both in this House and with respect to Canadians.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are seeing growing escalations. This situation is clearly out of control due to a lack of leadership from all levels of government.

In addition to the firearms and arrests for conspiracy to commit murder in Coutts and attempted arson of a residential building in the occupation area, convoy members have been deputizing themselves and now claim they have the lawful authority to detain and arrest others. I do not recall the hon. member mentioning the seriousness of the violent terrorist cell apprehended at Coutts on conspiracy to commit murder. No one wants to see someone get hurt here, yet this is a recipe for disaster.

Does the hon. member, and the Conservatives, not view the situation as an emergency?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be very clear. When we talk about the legislation, has the threshold been met? Simply saying, “Do you view it this way colloquially?” is not the question that is before the House.

The question that is before the House is whether the threshold has been met. With respect, I do not believe it has been because I do not view this as the act of last resort.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a sombre time to be speaking in this House. It is a seminal time in Canadian history, in my view.

It is apparent to me that we seem to be living in two Canadas. There is the Canada of fear and division promoted by the current Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP, confirmed by their caucuses, but there is another Canada out there, a united and proud nation that has sacrificed and done without and suffered economically, physically and in their mental health condition. This is a Canada that is a bit worn out, plainly speaking, but still firmly patriotic and ready to take on whatever the future brings. These Canadians do not share the Prime Minister's post-national narrative. They embrace the essence of Canada that they see themselves a part of, as the true north strong and free.

In our national anthem, we call out to God and we pray that he keep our land glorious and free. The truth is that Canada can only be glorious if it is free, meaning its people are free—free from tyranny, free from government abusing its awesome powers, with the government mindful of the responsibility and trust given to it in a representative democracy. Because the Prime Minister wants to dwell in the extreme, in the fringe and false narratives of what is happening during peaceful protests, I am choosing to address those other Canadians.

I remember the historical term “the two solitudes” in reference to impasses between anglophone and francophone people in Canada. Its meaning was meant to refer to a perceived lack of communication and, moreover, a lack of will to communicate. Here today we see history repeating itself with a lack of communication, but, more significantly, a lack of will to communicate between the present federal government and anglophone and francophone citizens alike.

The Emergencies Act is extraordinary legislation. “Extraordinary” means remarkable, exceptional, unusual and uncommon. The measures in this act are to be entered into reservedly, advisedly and with extreme caution. Through all the trials and tribulations of a newly created and burgeoning nation trying to unite coast to coast to coast, through other public health emergencies and through other civil unrest, the federal government saw fit to invoke the Emergencies Act and its precursor, the War Measures Act, only four times in our history. These extraordinary measures were used in World War I, in World War II, by a previous prime minister in the 1970s and by the current Prime Minister.

It was not invoked during the fears and protests around the Spanish flu. It was not invoked during the workers' strikes in the 1930s; during the crises in Oka, Ipperwash or Caledonia; during the aftermath of 9/11; during crippling national strikes affecting our supply chains or during the rail blockades or pipeline protests that negatively affected the Canadian economy. The list is long. The point is that when other methods and authorities exist to deal with serious disagreement, governments should use those methods and authorities. Government should not subjugate free people to abusive, wide-ranging, freedom-altering overreach.

A Liberal member earlier in this debate asked the Leader of the Opposition how she would feel if this happened in her neighbourhood, in her riding. Well, it did happen in my neighbourhood and in my riding. It happened at one of the border crossings in South Surrey—White Rock. I received many reports on the ground about the activities there. I did get three complaints through social media calling the people involved the same outrageous, inflammatory names that the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister have been using. There were no complaints to my office.

On the other side, I have had overwhelming outpourings of support from my constituents because the supporting protests were meaningful to those in attendance, and even joyful in the hope for change. What kind of change? It was not necessarily a change in government, although that might happen in the next federal election, but most definitely a change in the federal government's approach.

In support of the right to protest the government's policies, actions and inactions, on two previous weekends vehicle after vehicle drove in a rolling loop around those border crossings and highways in South Surrey, with not hundreds but thousands of Canadians cheering them on from the sides of the roads and on highway overpasses. Those involved were vocal but peaceful, holding Canadian flags high, singing the national anthem, saying prayers and greeting others cheerfully, including the police. The result is that the border has been cleared, goods are flowing and police officers, using tools already at their disposal, were able to both show respect for the protesters and clear any impasses.

Why is the Emergencies Act needed now in my riding? It is not. The only distress being expressed right now from my riding is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet, having inflamed the situation, are showing disdain, are not even attempting to engage in dialogue and feel the only tool in their tool box is to take more power unto themselves.

I have heard from many civil enforcement officers, civil liberties scholars and lawyers on this subject. Collectively, they want me to remind the House that a public order event is not necessarily an emergency. We are down to a protest in a few blocks of downtown Ottawa. That is all. With some proper policing, the situation in Ottawa can be brought to a conclusion, as it has been elsewhere. Unlike some of the other events, in downtown Ottawa, our nation's capital, we are not at a U.S. border, so the protest does not affect imports and exports.

I am not sure who the leader of the NDP was referring to when he said, “Don't let your anger turn into hatred.” The Prime Minister has literally turned his back on a large segment of Canadian citizens, showing them nothing but derision and disdain, which only escalates and never de-escalates tension and disagreement.

I had occasion, early in my career, to attend advanced negotiation classes at Harvard Law School under the supervision of Professor Roger Fisher, the author of the acclaimed book Getting to Yes. There are necessary steps that should be taken in any conflict resolution, such as some form of engagement, de-escalation, respectful dialogue and looking to best alternatives to resolve the conflict. The only one the PM has employed has been described as the “nuclear option”.

I agree that we should never have arrived at this moment of looking like a failed nation state. We are looking this way due to weak and ineffective leadership. It is that simple. Why invoke this act now when it was not invoked all those times before? The federal government should be talking to and engaging with citizens to resolve this conflict by introducing a plan to get back to normal. Instead, we have seen the federal government demonize and insult our fellow Canadians. The Prime Minister must remember that they are all Canadians out there on Wellington Street, and a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I am pretty sure I heard that somewhere before.

Instead of creating a plan, engaging in dialogue and looking for a peaceful solution, the Prime Minister is looking to invoke and stoke more fear and division. Countries around the world, and Canadians themselves at home, are looking at this situation and wondering if this is the Canada they have believed in patriotically, firmly and with a full heart for so long. The truth is that the Prime Minister and the government initiated these protests by Canadians by calling them down in the first place and then not dealing with the situation as it unfolded.

I think back to a former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who went along with a former prime minister who invoked the War Measures Act for just the third time in Canadian history, and not during wartime. He voted for that War Measures Act. His name was Robert Stanfield. He later said that it was the greatest regret of his life that he voted with the government that day.

Edmund Burke is often quoted as saying that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Well, I stand against this measure with every fibre of my being. I will vote no. This is a free country. Its people should be free to protest and free to exercise their human rights, and we need to respect and engage them.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I respect the member opposite a great deal and served with her on the justice committee in the last Parliament.

I have heard the narrative throughout the debate thus far that the tools are no longer necessary, because the blockades at the border have been cleared. I would also put to her a few simple facts, simply from one lawyer to another.

We know that there was an attempted resurrection of the blockade in Windsor just yesterday, and the Windsor police used the tools under the Emergencies Act to their benefit in preventing and thwarting that quickly. We also know that protesters who have threatened to take up arms have openly declared that they will be returning to Quebec City on February 19 in front of the Assemblée nationale, and we know the type of arms that were seized at Coutts.

Do these threats and ongoing threats not merit the necessity of using a federal power, including the Emergencies Act, to deal with what is an ongoing, current and future situation in this country?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend opposite. I also have great respect for his intellect and abilities. Yes, I apologize to all Canadians: We are both lawyers. That said, we are now members of Parliament as well.

With great respect, I do not think it should have ever come to this. I believe the Prime Minister and the government should have engaged in respectful dialogue, should have at least signalled an understanding that we can have differences of opinion in a free country and that those differences are being listened to. If the government had acted on our opposition motion to table a plan of action, all of this would have calmed down immeasurably.