Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is surprising to me. I suppose, since I come from Alberta, downtown Ottawa jobs being more important to the Liberals should not surprise me. However, when jobs in Alberta were being threatened by a rail blockade two years back, there was no mention of the Emergencies Act at that point in time. There was no mention of it. It was business as usual with the government trying to resolve the situation.

I would also point out that, at that time, the government sent out an army of ministers to talk with whomever they could to try to alleviate the situation. The opposite took place in this case. There was no dialogue with the truckers in the convoy as they came across the country. There was no acknowledgement that their concerns might be valid. There not even a second thought to lifting the mandates. The Liberals have inflamed the situation and have completely mismanaged it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we said right away that we would be voting against the motion on the Emergencies Act, but certainly not for the same reasons as my colleague.

I am hearing something here that is a little unsettling, and that is the connection being made between freedom and vaccination. In his speech, my colleague told us that his parents cannot go to restaurants because they are not vaccinated. That is not up to the House of Commons, it is up to the provinces.

This unfortunate connection they are trying to make to keep sowing confusion helps no one. The member's speech actually tempted me to vote for the motion.

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

Madam Chair, fundamentally, this entire situation started when the government put a mandate on truckers to be vaccinated in order to cross the border. The mandates are fundamental to the entire situation we are dealing with today.

I will make no apologies for bringing that up.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

As elected officials, our most important responsibility is to protect our citizens and keep them safe. In the past three weeks in Ottawa, I have heard first-hand the many unacceptable, dangerous and threatening situations that the people of Ottawa have faced as a result of illegal blockades and occupation in our city. This includes threatening public safety through intimidation, harassment, racial and homophobic slurs, physical assault, sexual harassment, vandalism, openly displaying symbols of hate, such as the Confederate flag that I saw with my own eyes, and incessant noise, which is impacting particularly the most vulnerable. Imagine children with autism or seniors with dementia having to hear the honking constantly, all night.

There is also the blocking of ambulances, preventing people from being able to go to medical appointments or pick up prescriptions, forcing the children's hospital to take on extra security, and desecrating our national monuments, including the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Businesses, schools, and vaccine clinics are closed. People are losing paycheques. People are driving trucks around elementary schools and in neighbourhoods, while swearing at and terrorizing little children. They are blocking the road to the airport. Trucks with large containers of fuel and other flammable materials are near open campfires and fireworks, not to mention what is happening at our borders and elsewhere in the country, including the cache of weapons that was found at Coutts.

I have heard from constituents who have expressed their frustration about a lack of enforcement of the rule of law. Many are leaving Centretown to stay with family and friends elsewhere, or even leaving the city. The people of Ottawa have been appealing to the federal government to step in and restore order. That is why I am very relieved that we are invoking the Emergencies Act. I have constituents who are writing to me, such as Judy, who is a senior. She wrote, “I am so glad the government enacted the Emergency Measures Act. It is the right thing to do, and I will sleep better tonight.”

This is not something that is done lightly. The Prime Minister was clear that this is a temporary, proportionate, geographically specific and scalable measure to restore law and order. It does not in any way limit the Charter of Rights, and it is subject to parliamentary oversight as evidenced by this very debate.

It is about providing certain tools that will put an end to the abusive, hateful and illegal occupation of our city and other critical infrastructure, while guaranteeing that freedom of expression and political dialogue can occur in a respectful and peaceful way.

These tools include the following measures: freezing the accounts and suspending the insurance of trucks used in these blockades; compelling tow truck drivers to comply with requests from law enforcement; requiring all crowdfunding platforms to register with FINTRAC; seizing bank accounts and prohibiting foreign funding of blockades; authorizing the CBSA to stop foreigners who plan to cross the border to join an illegal protest; increasing the powers of police to enforce the law, impose fines and jail offenders; designating, securing and protecting critical sites and infrastructure to ensure the provision of essential services; and prohibiting the use of property to support illegal blockades.

The rule of law is a fundamental precondition to living in a free and democratic society. What we have been seeing in our city, and across the country, includes some very organized groups with significant foreign funding whose stated aim is the overthrow of our government. It calls for harm to come to elected officials. Groups with links to far-right extremists, who are unleashing hatred with violent rhetoric and conspiracy theories, are actually deputizing themselves to be able to arrest other citizens. This is an attack on our democracy and institutions of governance. I fully support the use of the Emergencies Act under these circumstances.

I want to be clear that I come to this conclusion very reluctantly. I was on the board of the Alberta civil liberties association in grad school. I did my doctoral studies in Canadian constitutional history, and I have spent most of my career on human rights and democracy promotion. I have lived and worked in parts of the world where I have put my own safety at risk to fight for the rights to free speech, democratic accountability and rule of law.

I would do no less for our same rights as Canadians. I just never thought that I would actually have to. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to drown out other people's voices. It does not give people the right to break the law. The convoy and occupation of our downtown forced many other people to cancel their events because of security, including the vigil for the anniversary of the Quebec City mosque attack.

Freedom of speech does not include throwing excrement at a young woman on her way to work or threatening others with sexual assault or bodily harm just because they are wearing a mask. It does not include making obscene gestures at six-year-olds on a school trip, throwing objects at journalists or flooding 911 lines. It does not include blocking health care workers so they cannot get to the hospitals where they can save lives. It certainly does not include arson or pushing into a residential apartment building and barricading the exits with handcuffs.

Freedom of speech does not mean taking away the rights of others to live in safety. I have worked in countries where force determined whose voices were heard, where the law was flouted with impunity, where might made right. That is not freedom and that is not democracy.

What the Emergencies Act is doing is making sure that this lawlessness does not take hold or grow roots in our country. It is giving powers to law enforcement to make sure nobody is above the law. It is legal. It is constitutional. It is temporary and it does not override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is only being used in proportion to the existing threat, and it is subject to parliamentary oversight as well as an inquiry after the fact.

I would like to quote from Alex Neve, the former head of Amnesty International Canada:

This is not a matter of giving up on human rights by shutting down a protest. Quite the contrary, this is a matter of upholding human rights by ending an occupation that is a source of fear, menace, hardship and harm.

Another issue that I would like to discuss this evening is the taking away of people's livelihoods.

I also know that many of my constituents have had to close their businesses or have lost work hours and paycheques because of the blockades. The Minister of Finance has announced that there will be compensation for businesses and employees who lost income because of this.

I have also heard from many constituents who have sympathy toward the stated aim of the protests regarding ending vaccine mandates. I encouraged them to continue to share their concerns with me in that regard. However, the decision to lift public health measures or to strengthen them must be one taken by elected officials based on advice from public health experts, not based on pressure and threats by people in the streets.

I know that the past two years have been very hard. Some of us have lost loved ones to or because of COVID. Many of us have family members who struggle with mental health or addictions aggravated by isolation and the closing of schools and workplaces. Many of us have parents or grandparents we have not been able to see in order to keep them safe, but we have done our part and we know that it will not last forever. Vaccines have saved tens of thousands of Canadian lives and already we are seeing optimistic signs.

I would also like to emphasize that I understand that not everyone participating in protests was in agreement with the harassment, threats, hatred and extreme language and objectives expressed by many of the leaders and participants. If so, it is well past time to leave the protest and go home. It is no longer peaceful nor legal in its tactics and aims. There are other forums to express views responsibly.

I also think that Canadians need to start talking to each other again. This is already causing rifts within families and friendships. We need to start being decent to each other again, to really hear each other, but we must also make sure that we do that respectfully and without violence. Going into the streets and causing harm to others is not the way the be heard. Threatening people and taking away their safety and livelihoods is not democratic dialogue. Breaking the law is not okay.

I wish that the Emergencies Act were not necessary, but in a democratic society we must stand up against illiberal forces that would deny other people's rights to safety, security and free expression.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the finance minister, the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety have all been unable to provide a clear and articulate answer to this pressing question. What is the donation threshold by which a financial institution will freeze an account under the Emergencies Act?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague were to look at the terms, they say very clearly that this will occur if the purpose is to “further the illegal blockades”. In fact, I would go so far as to say that 52% of the donations are coming from outside of Canada. Of those, 1,100 are coming from people who also donated to the January 6 insurrection in the United States, so this is an incredibly important measure.

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

Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleagues talk about these crimes all evening, I kept thinking the same thing: They could all be dealt with under the Criminal Code.

My question is the following: Why was the City of Ottawa not given more assistance and police resources to ensure that the Criminal Code could be enforced before moving directly to the Emergencies Act?

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, we did not head directly to the Emergencies Act. In fact, members will recall that we provided the City of Ottawa with supplemental police officers three times, as well as intelligence capabilities and command capabilities. However, the fact remains that the city and the province have declared states of emergency. They were unable to deal with the extent of this and the entrenchment of the people who are blockading and occupying Ottawa. Therefore, this is necessary. There are certain things, as I mentioned in my speech, that we can do, including cordoning off certain areas, going after crowdfunding and online cyber-currencies, and making sure that tow trucks will be able to take some of these large vehicles away.

I think it is absolutely necessary. This is the kind of thing nobody wants to use, but the fact is that in this case, the peace and safety of Canadians are at stake.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it should never have come to this. In a speech before this one, a Conservative member brought up the Coastal GasLink pipeline and implied that somehow the destruction of property there was equal or worse than what we have been witnessing: firearms, arrests for conspiracy to murder, attempted arson of a residential building and convoy members deputizing themselves and claiming they have the authority to detain and arrest others. Some are even saying they have guns. In expressing sympathy with the convoy participants, the Conservative member denounced indigenous land defenders, and this is all too common. Canadians have witnessed the huge difference in the way indigenous and racialized protesters are treated compared with the way the convoy has been treated over the past few weeks by the RCMP and governments.

I would like the member to tell Canadians how her government is going to address the disproportionate treatment of racialized and indigenous people who engage in peaceful protests and who defend their own land, compared with these groups.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member she referenced, the member for Peace River—Westlock, also called this a “so-called emergency”. He can tell that to the people of Ottawa.

Yes, I do agree with my hon. colleague that there will have to be a really serious rethinking of how policing is done in this country. We have to look at the unconscious biases and the differential ways in which different groups of people are treated by policing and by our justice system.

Right now we need to deal with what is happening here in our city, in Ottawa. The member articulated very well some of the terrible things that residents in Ottawa are going through. I know she shares my belief that we need to get back to a place of peace and a place where people can live in safety.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at this late hour, and I want to take a moment to thank all the House of Commons staff, the interpreters, and you, Madam Speaker, for your indulgence and dedication as the House sits long hours until midnight. Thank you to everyone.

We have been patient for more than 20 days, while these illegal blockades have disturbed the lives of Canadians, harmed our economy and endangered public safety. It is now clear that the local police forces have been very much unable to enforce the law effectively, as my colleague Anita just pointed out.

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

I remind the hon. member that he cannot refer to his colleagues by name.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

To my colleague who spoke before me, I would like to say that the police service was indeed severely affected. We are invoking the Emergencies Act to enhance the ability of provincial and territorial authorities to deal with the blockades and the occupation and keep Canadians safe, protect jobs and restore confidence in our institutions.

In my riding, Highway 50 connects the Laurentians to Ottawa. That was the highway the convoy took to get from Quebec to Ottawa, which was very disruptive.

I got tons of calls from people all over my riding expressing support for the government and our Prime Minister. Some of those calls were from truckers and truckers' associations. These are people who went to the polls in 2021, exercised their right to vote, and placed their trust in me for a third time.

That tells me it is just a minority of people making all that noise outside, bothering the people of Ottawa and Gatineau day and night, and refusing to move their trucks even though the police have asked them to do so several times.

The Emergencies Act provides law enforcement with new authorities to regulate crowds, prohibit barricades and ensure that our essential corridors remain open. The Emergencies Act allows the government to mobilize essential services such as tow trucks, and it gives the RCMP the ability to act more quickly to enforce local laws. The act also provides more power to stop the flow of money to protesters. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportionate.

It is a good and effective piece of legislation whose use is temporary. It is the last resort. This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting Canadians' jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions. For two years, Canadians have been making sacrifices and helping each other get through this global pandemic. Canadians' lives have been turned upside down for two years now.

The federal government has been there since the very start of the pandemic, working side by side with the provinces, for the well-being of Canadians. We will continue to be there. Workers from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, self-employed workers and businesses have been able to benefit from these programs, which we must remember were adopted unanimously by all 338 members of the House of Commons, who all agreed on the benefits that we gave to Canadians. Those benefits were necessary.

The Canada worker lockdown benefit helped a lot, as did the employment insurance program, the wage subsidies, the Canada recovery sickness benefit and other Canada recovery benefits, the wage and hiring supports, the rent support, the jobs fund, the extension of work-sharing agreements, the credit programs, the financing for large employers, and the Canada recovery caregiving benefit. These are all ways that we gave during the pandemic.

Today, we need this act. Today, we will continue our work. We will be there for Canadians who have been taken hostage by these illegal blockades. We have been there from the beginning of the pandemic, and we will still be there to continue our work, the work that the majority of Canadians elected us to do.

The government has issued an order, which takes effect immediately, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services if the institution suspects that an account is being used to help illegal occupations and blockades. What we are asking Canadian financial institutions to do under this act is to review their relationship with any person involved in the blockade and to report them to the authorities. The accounts of businesses linked to illegal blockades will be frozen and vehicle insurance revoked.

This is about ensuring the safety of Canadians, protecting people's jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions.

Since the government has now declared a state of emergency, we have tabled the declaration in Parliament within seven sitting days as required.

Our government is aware of the need for transparency and parliamentary oversight. That is why the government is giving Parliament the information it needs to be able to play its role.

The declaration is for 30 days only, unless it is renewed. However, we can revoke the state of emergency sooner, and we sincerely hope we will. What is more, the specific measures set out in the Emergencies Act are limited, subject to many controls and guaranteed by Parliament. They have to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Emergencies Act does not involve the army. That would fall under the National Defence Act, which is not what we are invoking today. This is a matter of keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions.

This is very important for the people of Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation and for everyone in the nation's capital, who deserve peace. For 20 days, the blockades have been illegally disrupting the lives of residents in the nation's capital and hurting our economy. It is time for us to do something about that, because they are jeopardizing public safety and the supply chain that we have here at home.

I have heard horror stories from people who have called me. My colleague who spoke before me listed a number of measures the police have had to take that were related directly to the protest location. We have not yet talked about the people in my riding who have been affected indirectly, having been denied access to their workplaces. Local businesses have had manufacturing contracts cancelled. For example, my brother's company has trucks on the road, and his employees could not access the work site to do their jobs. He had to cancel contracts and relocate workers who were supposed to be on job sites in Ottawa.

This situation has affected many more people than we realize, even here on Parliament Hill. The opposition parties say that this is affecting only Ottawa and that perhaps there were other things we should have done besides invoking the Emergencies Act, but this is having consequences everywhere, whether in my riding in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, and I have a simple question for him.

I wonder how my colleague feels, as a member from Quebec, about having to defend a law that is unanimously opposed by all MNAs in Quebec City.

His premier and probably his own MNA, or the two or three MNAs in his riding, oppose this legislation. They may have even emailed him to let him know they do not need this law because nothing is happening in Quebec.

This legislation is like using a cannon to kill a mosquito. How does my colleague feel? Surely he feels at odds with all—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for the opportunity to answer his question. It is mind-boggling to me to see the Bloc so desperate for something to say that it is making up needs.

Not once have we spoken about needing to go into Quebec if it was not useful. The Bloc is on dangerous ground here. Even the Bloc leader has compared this to wartime legislation. We have never made mention of wartime legislation. We have never talked about there being any need to send the army into Quebec.

We will never invoke this act if it is not necessary.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I am very concerned about the extremist ideologies spreading across Canada. I have seen threats from as far as New Brunswick.

Is it not important to prevent further support of these extremist views from taking root in the rest of Canada?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning that this network has ties to some extremist groups that are dangerous to our society, to the supply chain, to our families, to the common good, to security and so forth.

The act is appropriate and will be in force for the next 30 days. It will be enforced mainly in Ottawa, but perhaps elsewhere as needed, although I hope that other provinces will not need it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member a question about civil liberties. There are many Canadians who will have donated to the convoy before recent developments, certainly without any criminal intent. They maybe donated as an expression of their concerns about mandates, before any of the blockades had started.

Based on the justice minister's comments to Evan Solomon, it appears that the government is contemplating freezing the bank accounts of people who have donated as a response to, allegedly, what their views are with respect to Donald Trump or something else.

Is the member concerned that this is a serious civil liberties issue? People without criminal intent, who may have donated in good faith without knowing some of the things that have gone on since, could lose—

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

We have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary a chance to answer. We are about to run out of time.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, in an effort to keep this brief, I will summarize the question.

The act is clear. Institutions will be responsible for investigating anyone who made illegal contributions and will have to provide this information to law enforcement, which will also have to conduct a thorough investigation. I have faith in our justice system and our law enforcement system—

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

Order. We will have to stop it there.

It being midnight, pursuant to an order made earlier today, having reached the expiry of the time provided for today's debate, the House will resume consideration of the ratification at the next sitting of the House.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 7 a.m., pursuant to order made earlier today.

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)