Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I would like to say about the passionate speech by my colleague from Winnipeg North, but there was one sentence that especially struck me. He said, “If I were in Winnipeg, I would not have tolerated it”.

Is the misfortune of the City of Ottawa, the mayor of Ottawa and the chief of the Ottawa police, who asked for 1,800 police officers only to receive 275, most of them having served in the Prime Minister’s security detail, related to the fact that, with a few exceptions, most of the people here do not live in Ottawa year round?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the case with some members of the Bloc, within the Liberal caucus all urban centres matter. No matter what size an urban centre is, whether it is in Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Brandon, Vancouver, Victoria, or any municipality, we are concerned when there are issues in that municipality that we should be concerned about. We have an obligation to be there, and that is what is good about what is happening through the Emergencies Act. It is very much focused on ensuring that people can feel comfortable and safe and that our economy can be protected. Also, those borders are critically important to our country, no matter where we live.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my community I have received some complaints from folks who are upset because Confederate flags have shown up on their neighbour's lawn.

Going forward, after we can move past this convoy, ideally, and hopefully things settle down a little, where is the government going to go from there? How are we going to stop this from spreading in the way that we have seen it spread to communities, and prevent bolstering that hate and that horrible symbolism?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Many years ago I used to be the critic for diversity. I often talked about the issue of racism. The best way to fight racism is through education.

I was so impressed when the member for Hull—Aylmer, in an S.O. 31, presented a statement on racism. If I were a school trustee in Winnipeg North, I would be inclined to encourage every young person in school to listen to that S.O. 31. It put a very strong personal touch on how racism hurts us all.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions for my hon. colleague.

The first is around powers. Just a few minutes ago I had the opportunity to speak to a constituent who was concerned that this was a broad overreach by the government. When I explained the different measures within the public order, he understood and said that it was reasonable because it was giving tools to the police to be able to address this situation.

Could the member speak about how these powers to give those tools are restricted under the Emergencies Act, and that it is about leadership, not just here in Ottawa but in his own city of Winnipeg and in other places of the country, to make sure that law enforcement, if they choose to use this discretion, have the tools to stop blockades and protests that are truly illegal?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a good example. Yesterday, or maybe it was Tuesday, when I was walking down to Parliament Hill, a police officer was meeting with some of the individual protesters and handing out a piece of paper.

As I walking by, he was referencing the Emergencies Act. This is another tool for law enforcement agencies to be able to ensure that the illegal blockades and protests come to an end. That is why we have it before us today. There are measures within it, such as a standing committee to review it on an ongoing basis. We will also have an inquiry, once all is said and done. There are all sorts of transparency and accountability mechanisms to make sure that it is not abused.

It is a wonderful tool and it can be effective.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is often both entertaining and enlightening.

It is interesting to hear him talk about the political aspects of this. It seems that the first thing that comes to mind is the pot calling the kettle black.

The Prime Minister expects us to believe that “the Emergencies Act will be “geographically targeted”, and that is a quote. That is what he told Canadians when he made the announcement. However, the Order in Council itself states that “a public order emergency exists throughout Canada”, and again that is another quote. We have nothing to suggest otherwise, nothing in writing. I can assure this House that the premiers from Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and many other provinces in the country do not want this in their provinces.

How does the member explain the contradiction, and why should we trust him and his Prime Minister when the first thing they did in the announcement of the act was mislead Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that anyone who was listening to the member's question should take a look at what was in the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday in regard to the province.

There was a letter written by Premier Stefanson, virtually begging Ottawa to get more involved, saying it was urgent, there was a crisis. There is a serious problem in the province of Manitoba at the Emerson border crossing. It was devastating to their industries, and they need that border open. This type of legislation we are passing today is not only good for Manitoba; it is good for Ontario, it is good for Alberta, and it is good for all of Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are here debating the use of emergency powers as has been laid out by the Prime Minister. This is really an indictment of failed leadership. This is about a Prime Minister who has not only dropped the ball when it comes to dealing with this crisis, but has also failed to unite Canadians because he constantly divides, stigmatizes, insults and marginalizes those who have concerns about vaccine mandates and the restrictions that have been brought in by the federal government. He does not seem to listen.

I do not believe the Emergencies Act needs to be used. I do not believe the threshold has been met under the definitions of the Emergencies Act. I do not believe the federal government has used the powers it already possesses to deal with these situations. What I do believe is that in this order in council, under I believe section 19 of the Emergencies Act, there are open-ended powers being handed over to the current Prime Minister.

We know that, at the beginning of this pandemic, the Prime Minister tried to ascertain how much power and control was possible over Parliament, the treasury and the executive of the government, because he thought he needed to grab on to that power. We know that his lust for power brought us to an early election, because he thought he could win a majority in the middle of a pandemic. He ignored the plight of Canadians who were dealing with the issues surrounding the pandemic and he ignored the plight of the Afghan refugees who had worked alongside our soldiers and were trying to get to Canada, all because he wanted more power and thought he could get his majority.

In the past, we had the War Measures Act. I acknowledge that the Emergencies Act is a modernized version of that, but it still has the same ultimate goal of dealing with major catastrophes in our country. Have we had a major hurricane or an earthquake? Were we attacked? No, we were not. Are we in a world war, such as World War I or II? Have we gone through something like the 1970 FLQ crisis? Have leaders of government been kidnapped or murdered? No, there have not. There is no way that the sovereign nation of Canada is under threat so that we have to use the Emergencies Act.

What we see out on the streets is sometimes annoying to those who live there. I am a property owner. There is no doubt, and I denounce all of those who show signs of hate. I have spent my entire political career, and before that, denouncing racism, anti-Semitism and those who fly Nazi flags and dress up as Nazi soldiers. I denounce those who are carrying Confederate flags. We have to stop racism. Each and every one of those people who have infiltrated the convoy need to be called out and held responsible for those hateful acts.

However, at times, to get attention and make a point, part of being a Canadian is to have a peaceful protest. Sometimes that includes civil disobedience. I have said this in the House before. When the Liberals had their long gun registry I refused to register my long guns. That was my act of civil disobedience, to stand against an overbearing, overreaching Liberal government policy.

I will also say this because there is a lot of concern about how traffic, borders and infrastructure have been blocked. I always oppose blockades. We cannot hold our economy hostage. I believe everybody has made their point. I am glad they are going home, and they are going home from our border points without the use of the Emergencies Act. It was provincial governments, local policing and local municipal leaders who were able to negotiate and remove those blockades, the same way the current government has dealt with blockades in the past at our Vancouver port, pipelines and railway crossings. They went on for days. We did not call in the Emergencies Act to get those blockades removed, because we listened to the people and their concerns. The government refuses to talk with the truckers on Wellington Street. That is disturbing to say the least.

The biggest concern I have is that this is suspending our civil liberties and charter rights because it is open-ended at this point in time.

I am of Ukrainian descent and I want to remind everyone that under the War Measures Act, in World War I, my baba and gedo came to Canada on Austrian passports. They were declared enemy aliens and for four years had to go 20 miles one way to the RCMP station every week to register. Summer, winter, fall and spring, it did not matter what they were doing on the farm, they had to register, even though my baba's brother was fighting for Canada in World War I. They still had to report in and they had to for two years after the war ended because the government refused to lift the War Measures Act and that violation of their charter rights.

I am concerned that the Liberal government will want to continue to erode the civil liberties that we have now. We have to make sure that does not happen. I do appreciate and acknowledge that the Emergencies Act does provide parliamentary oversight, and that is why we are having this debate tonight, to make sure that we can ask for it to be revoked if it passes with the support of the NDP. I have to say that I am really upset that the NDP would stand against freedom and the charter and support the Liberals and the Prime Minister in this ham-fisted approach to dealing with the crisis they think is out on the street.

Section 2 of the charter, peaceful assembly, right now is undermined. I walk through the convoy every day. Everybody says hi and has been very polite. Sometimes they honk the horns, which at 10 minutes to seven this morning was annoying, but they do not do it all day long, just for short periods here and there. The first week it was a bit overbearing, I will say that.

Section 7 is life, liberty and security. How are the Liberals going to ensure those things to the tow truck companies when they are commandeering equipment to tow away the vehicles on the street right now? What is beyond the pale in all of this is that they are violating section 8 of the charter, unreasonable search and seizure. They are locking down the bank accounts of people who gave generously to help the trucking convoy. They could not join and felt they had no other voice, so they financially supported the convoy. Now having their bank accounts locked down is disgusting. This is an overreach of the Government of Canada and I am concerned, now that they are on FINTRAC, that they are going to be treated like they were funding a terrorist organization and will not be able to get loans, access their savings accounts or even get mortgages. That, to me, is really disturbing.

Really, what is next? Section 19 of the Emergencies Act and referenced in the order in council says that there are going to be other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the act. That is not known.

I again come back to the issue of failed leadership, inaction and paralysis by the Prime Minister. I have been here for quite a while, 17 years, and I am shocked that we do not have an emergency management plan for the Parliament buildings and Ottawa as the capital city. I was here when the terrorist attack happened in 2014. We witnessed what happened January 6, 2021, when the riot occurred on Capitol Hill. We know there should have been plans made to deal with a situation like this.

When the Minister of Emergency Preparedness was the Toronto police chief in 2010 and protests were taking place at the G20 in Toronto, in a couple of days 1,100 protesters were arrested. The RCMP, the OPP, the Toronto city police and regional police in the area were brought in to deal with the situation. If we did not need an Emergencies Act to do that then, why do we need it now?

It is time to de-escalate this situation. The Prime Minister has to stop stigmatizing, marginalizing, traumatizing and name-calling those who do not agree with his policies and bring people around, take the heat off and end these restrictive and divisive mandates so that we can get back to a normal life again and live as a strong, united Canada.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his strong denunciation of hate, anti-Semitism and racism. I really appreciate that and thank him for doing that so strongly.

I want to also comment that the Emergencies Act specifically is designed to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am also happy to hear Conservatives speaking so highly of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well.

The question I want to ask my hon. colleague, in a sense, I think he answered part of when he spoke about the danger to tow truck operators. Why is he concerned with their security if everything that is happening out there is so peaceful?

The second question I would like to ask is because I know he has a long history when it comes to protecting the safety and security of Canadians. He spoke about the financial transactions and he spoke about January 6. The Anti-Defamation League in the United States has put out a list of 1,100 donors who also donated to the January 6 insurrection in the Capitol. How can he square that circle and does he not believe that foreign interference in our democracy is an issue that we must stand firmly against?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misunderstood what I was saying about the tow truck drivers. How can they have section 8 of the charter security when they are being forced to pull people that they do not want to tow? We have already heard this. A lot of tow truck drivers do not want to be out there towing because these are their customers. These are the people that they work with every day, and they do not want to be put in a position that is adversarial in nature. That is their concern. It is not that they are going to hurt them. It is that these are their friends. These are their customers, and why should they be forced into it? Their charter rights are being violated in this as well.

If the government is so concerned about foreign interference, why has it not denounced what we have already seen and what was linked to the Communist regime in Beijing interfering in the last federal election here that cost us as the Conservative Party at least nine seats? Why do they not denounce when Tides Foundation and other money from the U.S. flows up and funds things to block our energy products and our transportation systems in this country?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to be skeptical about the idea of seizing the bank accounts and financial resources of certain protesters. He seems to be skeptical about the idea of towing the trucks of some of the protesters.

I do not agree with the Emergencies Act at all, because it is like killing a fly with a bazooka. However, my colleague seems to be suggesting that no measures are possible. I wonder how he would stop what is going on out there.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know that there are a number of provincial, municipal and federal laws that are already in place, including the Criminal Code, that can be used to deal with the situation out on the street. Sitting on the street illegally parking, guess what, they get a parking ticket and they get towed. It is just a matter of having enough police members out there to do it.

As I used in an example, we witnessed, with both the Olympics in 2010 in Vancouver as well as the G20 meeting in Toronto in August 2010, that there were lots of police able to be brought in from across the country by using federal, provincial and municipal powers to provide the proper security at the Olympics and to arrest over 1,100 protesters that were at the G20 summit and have them all locked away to make sure that everyone else was safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention that there have been some words tonight about this being an inconvenience or an annoyance. I want to point out the privilege that we have in the House so that we can look at something like this as just an inconvenience and an annoyance when there are families and individuals struggling right now with no income because of their lack of ability to go to work.

I want to speak about the policing. Why does the member think that policing has not been enforced even though we know that there are infractions happening and crimes happening on the street right now?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that we have had such weak leadership from the Prime Minister. He has not, at all, provided any direction. The public safety minister and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness have not been at all concerned about this until it came to the eleventh hour. They should have been acting on this sooner. They should have had more police on the streets. They should have had proper ticketing and arresting of individuals, especially those who were promoting hate out on the streets.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this evening to the government's unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act. This act has been on the books for 34 years, and in those 34 years it has not been used on a single occasion: not during the Oka crisis, not during Caledonia, not in the wake of September 11, and not following the 2020 blockades of critical infrastructure, including railway lines and pipelines, that went on for two months. Never before has this act been invoked.

There is a good reason that this act has never been invoked before, and that is because it is exceptional legislation meant for the most extreme circumstances. It provides the government with sweeping powers that infringe upon the charter rights and civil liberties of Canadians. These are powers including prohibiting public assemblage, seizing property, freezing bank accounts without warrant and limiting or prohibiting travel within Canada. I could go on. These are extraordinary powers indeed.

In light of the exceptional nature of this legislation, intended for the most extreme circumstances, the threshold that must be satisfied in order to establish that there is a national emergency pursuant to the act is indeed extremely high. An emergency under the act is an “urgent and critical situation that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians, or seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.”

Not only that, the emergency must be of a nature so as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, and so no other law on the books can effectively deal with the situation.

It is patently clear that the very high threshold has not been satisfied. Indeed, it has not come close to being satisfied.

The government, in justifying the invocation of these extraordinary powers, talks about ending blockades. When one turns to the order in council issued on Monday that specifies the nature of the purported emergency, the order in council speaks of the continuing blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings. It speaks to the adverse impacts these blockades have had with trading partners, particularly the United States, and it speaks of a breakdown in the supply chain and availability of goods as a result of these blockades.

However, there is a big problem for the government. There are no blockades in Canada today, on the Canada-U.S. border or anywhere. There were no such blockades on Monday, when the government invoked the order in council and the Emergencies Act.

There were blockades on the Canada-U.S. border at Coutts, Windsor and Surrey. Those blockades were unlawful. They were wrong, and they were dispersed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act under tools already available to law enforcement and under existing laws.

I remind the government that in the act, in order to utilize the Emergencies Act it must be demonstrated that no other laws on the books can reasonably be used. That simply has not borne out to be the case.

We are now left with the situation here in Ottawa. There are trucks outside on Wellington St. in front of Parliament Hill. There are some protesters. In addition to the street in front of Parliament Hill being affected, there are some streets immediately around the parliamentary precinct and downtown Ottawa that are affected. Yes, it has created unpleasantness. Yes, it has been a nuisance. Yes, there have been illegal activities by certain people who are here. That does not make a national emergency.

Indeed, all of the tools that exist are there and have been used. For example, the honking of horns has largely been addressed by way of an injunction issued by a judge. The Criminal Code, transportation laws and municipal bylaws are tools on the books to address this situation. What cannot be justified is invoking the Emergencies Act.

The Emergencies Act is not needed and is not warranted, because there is no national emergency. What we have is a Prime Minister who has invoked the Emergencies Act absent a national emergency. That is an abuse of power on the part of the Prime Minister. It is a perversion of the rule of law. It threatens the rights and freedoms of Canadians right across Canada, not just those who are standing outside Parliament Hill. It also sets a dangerous precedent of normalizing the extraordinary powers authorized pursuant to the act.

The Prime Minister knows the threshold has not been met, but the Prime Minister does not care because, for the Prime Minister, it is all about political theatre. The Prime Minister knows that what he is doing is wrong and that he is acting unlawfully. The members on that side of the House, the members of the NDP, the coalition partners of the government, have a choice. They can follow the law pursuant to the Emergencies Act, or they can aid and abet this abuse of power on the part of the Prime Minister. The choice is clear.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Since I have taken the Chair, I have noticed a lot of helpful people trying to help everybody out in their speeches. I know where the help is coming from depends on who has the floor, but we have lots of debate to do and there are lots of opportunities to speak in the House and ask questions.

Let us get to questions and answers. The hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development has the floor.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I were elected together in 2015. We have gotten to know each other, and one thing I have gotten to know about him is that he stands, or has stood, for law and order. The member opposite has said that there is no national emergency and that there are maybe some illegal activities, but those illegal activities taking place are okay and not that bad. There was $450 million in trade a day blockaded. The Emergencies Act was announced on Monday. There were still blockades at that time at our border points. Today, in Windsor, Ontario, a woman was arrested for threatening to bomb the house of the mayor. A blockade was stopped on its way to the Ambassador Bridge. In fact, if we just walk out of Parliament, there is a blockade in Ottawa.

The member opposite is saying, to the thousands of residents who have been held hostage for the last 20 days, that their safety and security do not matter. What is he saying to the Canadians who elected members in all parties in the House just a few months ago, and to the people who are out there who he served coffee to, who he took pictures with, who have said they want to overthrow, not the government, every elected member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand is whether the threshold has been met to invoke the Emergencies Act. That is the question. Based upon a review of the legislation, it is very clear that the bar has not been set, with respect to the blockades. It was existing law enforcement tools and powers under the authority of the provinces that dispersed the situation. At Coutts, the situation was dispersed by many of the protesters themselves. What the Prime Minister needs to do is turn down the temperature, instead of pouring fire on this situation.

With respect to the hon. minister, I say this could be ended very quickly. The path toward ending it is for the Prime Minister to move forward and lift his punitive and discriminatory vaccine mandates. That would resolve this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am doing my best to include all the political parties in the discussion so that they can ask questions. I see that the questions and answers are a bit long, however.

The hon. member for Longueil—Saint-Hubert.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be quick. We in the Bloc Québécois are fiercely against, but for other reasons. We break out in hives every time the federal government sticks its nose in Quebec's business, in general.

I very much liked my colleague's speech and I understand his position. However, for the past two or three weeks, we have seen members of the Conservative Party take selfies and record videos with the protesters here in Ottawa and elsewhere. How many Conservative Parties are there in the House?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 119 Conservative members of Parliament who are working every single day to fight for their constituents, including those who have been adversely affected by the government's tyrannical policies.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague frequently refers to indigenous peoples who are peacefully protesting on their unceded territories. I wonder, if he was in government, what he would do if a national police service refused to enforce the rule of law, as it has been doing at Wet'suwet'en. This includes what we saw with militarized police: They took an axe, a chainsaw and an attack dog to take down the door of two unarmed indigenous women on unceded territory. This is something that was affirmed in Supreme Court rulings. We are now witnessing police in Ottawa who have been dangerously lenient to these so-called “protesters”. I would refer to it as an illegal occupation. In fact, we even have photos and news broadcasts of police officers hugging blockaders.

I am wondering this. What would the member do if he was in government?