Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the ball is in the Prime Minister's court. He created this crisis. It is up to him to solve the crisis, and solving the crisis does not begin by invoking the Emergencies Act. It cannot be justified in the circumstances.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Karl Marx said that history repeats itself at least twice. The first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce.

For Quebec, the War Measures Act is part of a tragic memory. Today, after three weeks of crisis, including one where he was completely absent, the Prime Minister needs to live out his “just watch me” moment by playing tough guy to salvage his failed leadership, which has been criticized by two of his own members.

Let us summarize. In the days leading up to the protest on the weekend of January 29, the organizers said that this would not be a simple protest but a Woodstock, and it would last until all health measures were lifted. This sent a very clear message. It was no secret that the truckers were not there to lodge their complaints in the time it took to tour the neighbourhood and then leave. They were there to stay. “Woodstock” means it will last a long time.

The Prime Minister then took some time to deal with his cold. A few days later, he broke his silence to insult and stigmatize the truckers, hurled some more epithets and went back to bed.

During the first week, one could almost imagine that the crisis was good for the government, politically speaking. It even led to the swift and unimpeded ouster of the official opposition leader. However, the immediate political gain soon gave way to disbelief that the situation was turning against the government. The longer it went on, the more it became clear that the Prime Minister had no idea what to do about this hot potato.

For two and a half weeks, the Prime Minister offloaded the problem onto the Ottawa police. To varying degrees, all political parties were calling on the Prime Minister to act, of course, and promoting very different solutions.

On February 7, the former Ottawa police chief, who was still in the position at the time, asked the federal government for 1,800 additional officers. In the end, the RCMP sent just over 275 officers, but mainly to protect the Prime Minister and Parliament Hill. According to the Ottawa police chief, only 20 officers were assigned to the protests.

The City of Ottawa reached out to the protest organizers to ask that some of the trucks be moved to make life a little easier for residents. Why did the feds not pick up the phone?

Where was the federal government in all of this? Frankly, no one was flying this plane. Even the most basic level of leadership would have been to create a crisis task force to coordinate all of the levels.

Is this any surprise, given how this government and this Prime Minister have managed previous crises? Just think of the railway crisis with the Wet'suwet'en or the early days of the COVID‑19 crisis in 2020, when almost everyone was calling for the borders to be shut down in the face of a virus about which we knew very little. Very little was known about it at the time. Nevertheless, the government decided to let things be. In the case of COVID‑19, this government let things get so bad that Valérie Plante, the mayor of Montreal, decided to go to Dorval International Airport herself. Now, in 2022, nothing has changed.

Now, all of a sudden, at the very moment when many health measures were being lifted and provincial, federal and municipal government authorities had managed to remove other occupations, the turtle now thought it was the hare. The Emergencies Act, the successor to the War Measures Act, was going to be invoked, even though the Prime Minister had proclaimed for three days that he would not use it. As soon as things were starting to get resolved without the federal government, it wanted to make sure it went on record as having done something. Talk about an admission of failure.

The Emergencies Act gives the government special powers. The government can issue an order for the regulation or prohibition of travel, the use of specified property or any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace. It can designate and secure protected places, assume the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services, and authorize or direct any person to render essential services and provide reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered.

It can also impose, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both, or, on indictment, a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.

To be clear, the Emergencies Act is not illegitimate in and of itself. A state of exception is an integral part of democracy. Any government that wishes to confront crises it hopes will be temporary by definition must have measures to deal with states of exception.

However, the state of emergency being short-lived and temporary, these measures must be time-limited. We recognize that it is not optimal and is not intended to be permanent. The situation may require the suspension of the usual democratic system to fix a problem that calls for an especially rapid response. Everyone knows that. I am sure every party in the House will agree.

The Emergencies Act is typically used for disasters, states of emergency and international crises or when the country is at war. It can be applied justly—that is important, it absolutely can, that is not even debatable—but only as a last resort. In this case, there are other measures available.

The Emergencies Act is an extreme decision that came after two weeks of initially treating this as a minor problem. The government allowed the situation to fester. They let things go off the rails and deteriorate, and then suddenly they cried wolf. It was an about-face.

Why not use regular legal recourse and regular legal institutions? If the occupation of downtown Ottawa is illegal, then why do we need an exceptional law instead of just enforcing the regular laws?

Let us look at some examples. Protests were held on February 4, 5 and 6 in Quebec City. There was no siege, no occupation. The city was prepared. Law enforcement made their arrangements. The Quebec City police service allowed trucks to drive within a certain perimeter, which had been planned, but it made sure to enforce municipal bylaws. The fundamental right to peaceful protest was fully respected, but it was also clear that protection and security would be provided to all, both protesters and residents alike. Did we need the Emergencies Act in Quebec City that day? The answer is no.

On February 13, 13 people were arrested at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. They had weapons, including military-style semi-automatic firearms, body armour, and large capacity magazines. One of the leaders of the group had even made videos calling for people to take up arms against the government, but the blockade was taken down and the border crossing is open today. Did we need the Emergencies Act to do this? The answer is no.

As far as I know, threats and calls for insurrection are already illegal and were illegal before the Emergencies Act.

On February 14, the Ambassador Bridge blockade, one of the biggest flashpoints in this crisis, came down. Was the Emergencies Act needed for that? The answer is no.

There is always a way, using the conventional legal tools available. As far as I know, blocking a street and inciting violence are always illegal. Do we need special emergency legislation to remind us of the obvious? The answer is obviously no.

The provinces and municipalities already have the means to act. The federal government does too, if it could be bothered to do so, but that is another story.

The worst part is that the government order will have serious consequences, the most important of which is that it will divide the population. Much as the Prime Minister did when he insulted the protesters at the beginning of the crisis, he is putting a heavy partisan spin on the events, thinking that he will probably come out on top of this unhealthy polarization.

Perhaps the fire is slowly burning out, but there is nothing like adding some fuel to rekindle it. I hope the government is ready for the renewed populist anger and frustration that lies ahead. The government has not only shifted the problem, it has made it worse. Seven out of ten provinces are openly opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

The Quebec National Assembly unanimously voted to express its opposition to and rejection of the application of the Emergencies Act on Quebec soil. All parties backed the motion: Coalition Avenir Québec, the party in power; the Parti Libéral du Québec, which I would like to point out is not a sovereignist party; Québec Solidaire, which is not considered to be sympathetic to truckers' positions and claims; the Parti Québécois; and the Parti Conservateur du Québec member. The entire Quebec legislature stated with one voice that it would not go where the government wants to lead us. This is the message we are repeating in the House.

In Quebec, the trauma is real. As we know, in 1970, 500 people were detained without due process. They were workers, mechanics, booksellers, activists, poets, artists, free spirits whose only crime was to want Quebec's independence. This was all made possible by the proclamation of the War Measures Act by a so-called champion of rights and freedoms, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Ottawa never published the official list of the people arrested under that law.

The invocation of the War Measures Act resulted in 32,000 warrantless searches. Of the 500 people arrested, 90% were released without charges, and 95% of those charged were eventually acquitted or had their charges dropped. Today we even know that the list of innocent people who were arrested was drawn up by Ottawa. The police had asked Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, who were known as the “three wise men”, to fiddle with the list, removing some names and adding others. That is the kind of thing that happens in a banana republic. René Lévesque stated that the Trudeau government of the day had behaved like a totalitarian government in peacetime. He was quite right.

These are different times, and every context is unique. The old War Measures Act was not inherently illegitimate either. It was used twice, for the two largest, most tragic global conflicts of the 20th century. The use of the War Measures Act was not warranted in October 1970, however. We now know that the RCMP commissioner at the time had confirmed that the investigations were going well, that the police forces were co-operating and that measures like those in the War Measures Act, in particular the mass arrests, would slow the investigation into the events that October.

The report on the events of October 1970, written by Jean-François Duchaîne and released in 1980, confirmed that the idea of calling in the Canadian army came from the law enforcement community, but that the idea of using the powers set out in the War Measures Act did not come from the RCMP. In other words, according to the RCMP, which is hardly a separatist think tank, the problems could have been fully managed under ordinary laws, without suspending the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.

Does the use of special legislation for partisan purposes remind anyone of anything? In 2022 as in 1970, in both cases, its use could have been avoided by simply turning to the conventional institutional rules of the rule of law.

Any parallel has its limits, of course. I am aware that the Emergencies Act differs significantly from the War Measures Act, which it replaced in 1988. We know that, so there is no point using it as an argument.

The preamble to the new act refers to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is largely symbolic, because the old War Measures Act also had to comply with these documents even though it did not symbolically include references in its preamble.

One other big difference is that Parliament must now decide whether to invoke the new act within the next seven days. That is why we are debating here and why we will be voting on this subject soon.

I do not want anyone to misconstrue what I am saying and suggest that I think the situations are identical, because that is not the case. However, despite the major differences between these two laws, as well as the different time periods and contexts, one truth remains. The government is irresponsibly trivializing an extraordinary piece of legislation that has radical provisions, which may be justified, but are radical nonetheless, by using it when there is nothing to indicate beyond all doubt that we had to make use of this last resort. It is as simple as that.

If there is any evidence to suggest that all legal avenues and current statutes, whether federal, municipal or provincial, are no longer sufficient, we would like to see it. It must be tabled and the government needs to convince us. We will be the first to reconsider and study this legislation, if that is the case, but we need to be convinced. So far, we have seen no such evidence. This is an inappropriate use of the legislation.

One thing I know for sure is that the current government's chaotic handling of this crisis will likely be taught in history books for years to come as a monumental mess. It will also undoubtedly be studied in leadership schools as a perfect example of what not to do.

Great captains are made in rough waters. The Prime Minister is certainly no great captain, but we will not let him or this government sink the ship.

We in the Bloc Québécois clearly oppose this unnecessary, unfair and unjustified proclamation of the Emergencies Act.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to complaining, we can always count on the Bloc Québécois. Last week, they told us that we were not doing enough. Today, they are telling us we are doing too much. They are like a mother-in-law who is never in a good mood, never happy. We do not know. We are told that we are doing too much, not enough and not too much.

However, I did not hear the Bloc talk about the fact that what is going on outside is illegal. It is a siege. There are people who cannot sleep, who cannot go anywhere, not just on the Ottawa side, but also on the Gatineau side.

I did not hear them talk about all the retailers who could see a light at the end of the tunnel and who were looking forward to reopening their stores. Then, suddenly, they could no longer open because of what is happening outside, because those who are outside could not care less about these people. Shame on them for that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will leave the shame and guilt aside.

I find it unfortunate that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has so little appreciation for his mother-in-law. I hope she is not watching. We salute her nonetheless. At least he said he loved her.

I find it odd that he did not hear us say that it was illegal, because we did. In my speech, I specifically stated that if it was illegal, it was also illegal before the Emergencies Act was invoked. We were telling the government to act, but within the scope of existing laws. It is that simple. There is no need for special legislation to remind us that something that was already illegal is still illegal. We do not need special legislation to state the obvious.

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

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to quote an NDP MP in the House, but considering the Honourable Tommy Douglas was from Saskatchewan, maybe I will do it this one time. In describing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act, he said it was like “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”.

I am sure my colleague from the Bloc would agree that what is happening outside pales in comparison to what was going on in 1970. He referred to that in his comments. What does my colleague think the great Tommy Douglas would do if he were here in the House of Commons at this moment in time?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make dead men speak. However, and I clearly said this when speaking about both situations, there were real and existing difficulties in both cases.

In both cases, the use of the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act is not justified. We have institutions. We have police. We have the army. We have laws. Occupying a city, or kidnapping a minister, as was the case, is illegal and was already illegal. There is no need for a special law to to reaffirm this. Everyone knows it.

The government could quite simply use the ordinary institutions and laws to respond to the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He did a great job of explaining things. I could never have made a speech like that. He did a great job of explaining the difference between the Emergencies Act, which we are debating now, and the War Measures Act in 1970.

That said, emergency legislation, even if it does not apply in Quebec—which is still uncertain—is still retraumatizing for Quebeckers. It seems highly likely that it will apply in Quebec. I myself participated in movies about those days. There are plays and books about it. Once I was even a part of a performance about the trial of Michel Chartrand, “le procès des cinq”, which was after 1970.

People have not forgotten. That is pretty obvious right now. Our offices are getting calls from thousands of people telling us to vote against it. They could not care less about how it is written. What they care about is what it means, and that is what scares them.

Could my colleague comment on the trauma triggered by this bill?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the trauma is there, and we must not think of the trauma as illegitimate or irrational. It was an extremely serious situation, for many reasons. We in the Bloc Québécois even moved a motion on our opposition day in 2020 on the 50th anniversary of the October crisis. We simply wanted an apology for the victims. There was no sympathy on our side for any form of criminality.

There were victims in that crisis, and we know that federal leaders were called upon to fiddle with the list of people to be arrested. Many people do not realize how very serious this is.

RCMP officials said at the time and again a few years later that things did not need to go that far, that the existing institution could have taken care of it. However, it seems that psychological warfare was used. Unfortunately, it has had long-lasting side effects.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite gobsmacked while listening to the member's speech, particularly because the member started by saying that the Government of Canada should have acted sooner. The Bloc Québécois normally has a lot of respect for jurisdictions. We were there to support municipalities. We were there to support the provincial governments that asked for our assistance, with additional forces and creating an integrated command. We were there right from the start. Had we done something sooner, they would have been screaming that we were overreaching as a federal government.

His own critic for public safety, on Monday, said that the federal government needed to show leadership. Does he not think the federal government is showing leadership by creating tools that allow the provincial governments to use their discretion to stop protests across the country, including the ones at Lacolle that are being contemplated by provincial police in Quebec?

It is great that the member mentions the National Assembly of Quebec, because 72% of Quebeckers agree with this measure. What does the member have to say to them?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions there.

To begin with, a poll is a poll. It is talked about, negotiated, studied and disputed. We did not analyze the details of the methodology. The important thing to look at is the question being asked.

I am sure Quebeckers agree that the act should apply in Ontario or other places where it is needed, but the act does not say that. In its current form, the order will apply everywhere.

That is what I tell Quebeckers. I tell them that the National Assembly is 100% the legitimate legislature of Quebeckers. That is where their representatives are. Every political party, regardless of its political affiliation, says so. It is clear, simple and precise. There is no debate. In fact, a vote in the House is a lot more scientific than a poll. Let us be clear about that.

We have taken a lot of time to explain that. We are asking the government to take action, but it seems that the members opposite are unable to take action without interfering.

As soon as we tell them to take action, it is as though all courses of action are equal. That is not what we are saying. For example, the government could have provided the City of Ottawa with the resources it was asking for. It could have done many things.

One thing is for sure. I have explained it many times. I spent 20 minutes explaining it. I even explained it in response to some questions. There is a difference between actions taken in accordance with existing legislation and actions taken in accordance with special legislation. The real problem here is that the existing legislation was not used, yet the government invoked special legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question on policing. Some members tonight have talked about a slight inconvenience and annoyances, but others have spoken about the fear in the community. As we have all seen, the police have not been able to address crime and have not been able to enforce bylaws for municipal-level infractions.

I wonder if the member could tell us why he thinks policing has not been enforced in this situation in Ottawa.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I saw, the police in Quebec City managed to enforce the law. They managed to enforce the law at the Ambassador Bridge and in Alberta, when they arrested people who had weapons. There are several examples of where the law was enforced.

There has been a serious management and leadership problem in the very region we are in right now. It is as simple as that.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a historic and unprecedented situation facing our country. For the first time since its passage in 1988, the Emergencies Act is being invoked by the Prime Minister. The law outlines a type of situation that would merit its invocation. It notes that it must only be used during an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.

While it is the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the act, it is the duty of members of the House who have been placed here to either reject it or ratify it and ensure, if the measures are taken, that they are justifiable and appropriate.

The act enumerates four circumstances that would justify the use of its powers. Let me outline those emergencies described in the act, and hold the circumstances of the current standoff up against these provisions, to see if today's situation meets any of these criteria.

Criteria one involves espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada, or such activities directed toward and in support of such espionage and sabotage. I have seen no clear evidence that blockades have been infiltrated by spies or other acts of espionage, nor has the government brought any such evidence forward to the House.

Criteria two involves foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person. The Prime Minister has alluded to foreign funding by individuals, however it remains unclear how this is detrimental to the interest of Canadians. There is no foreign country that is financing or otherwise supporting the blockades financially, and that is the test. If the Prime Minister believes it is a foreign government funding this, then he has an obligation to share that with the House.

Criteria three involves activities within or relating to Canada, directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or properties for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological objectives within Canada or a foreign state. There has been no concerted, violent effort made by any members of the blockade. In fact, we saw mostly peaceful removal of the protesters on the Ambassador Bridge. Isolated acts of violence do not equate to full-blown acts of violence that are aimed at achieving political objectives.

Criteria four involves activities directed toward undermining, by covert, unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

Every day I have been walking to my office and to the House of Commons, like all MPs, unimpeded by protesters. To be sure, they have effectively blocked several streets, created a lot of noise and made life more difficult for those of us living downtown. Well, what has happened in downtown Ottawa in the last three weeks is nothing remotely close to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act explicitly prohibits the use of these kinds of powers on lawful protests or dissent. If the present circumstances do not warrant using the act for the first time, they absolutely pale in comparison to the previous times the act's predecessor was invoked.

I was a legislative assistant to the government that created this act to replace the War Measures Act to prevent the suspension of charter rights and government overreach. Through our long history, there are only three other times this has happened, during the two world wars and during the October Crisis, when there was an armed insurrection and a diplomat and a politician were kidnapped. Pierre Laporte was murdered and bombs were set off in Quebec.

It was a horrible experience and, even still, some called it overreach. Does a traffic jam on the street in front of Parliament Hill merit the same type of response as those three incidences? Of course not.

The act must only be used as a last resort. That is what the Prime Minister said. If this measure is his last resort, what were his plans A, B and C, because we did not see them. Did he make himself available to meet with the delegation of protesters to hear them out? Of course not. Did he dispatch a delegation of his ministers to meet with them, any key caucus members or senior officials other than the RCMP? Of course not. The government's report to Parliament on the Emergencies Act consultations confirms this.

There are 58 engagements on that list. I searched through the details of the 58 engagements. Did I find a reference to one government official, one minister or the Prime Minister meeting with Canadians on this? No, I did not. The government and the Prime Minister had meetings with themselves, not with Canadians. They went from sitting on their duffs in unproductive meetings to implementing the most heavy-handed act available to government. The Prime Minister said he did not take it lightly, but the evidence in his own documents shows otherwise.

The government does not need the Emergencies Act to arrest illegal protesters. This is done often, just ask the Minister of Environment. Cutting off the funding of an illegal activity does not require the Emergencies Act. The proceeds of crime legislation deals with that. The deputy director of FINTRAC, in a statement before a parliamentary committee, said that there is no evidence of foreign extremist financing behind these demonstrations. There is no need then for the Emergencies Act to stop foreign funding.

For 21 days, the federal government has had the regular legislative tools to deal with the Ottawa protests, but it has not used them. It has not stopped one jerry can of fuel, one hot tub or one barbecue propane container from being carried through the protest right by the police. Meanwhile, provincial governments in Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. used standard policing tools to dispense with the protests.

Days before the convoy had even arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister was stigmatizing and vilifying the participants. He called them racists and misogynists, a fringe minority that holds unacceptable views. This is how the Prime Minister operates. He divides, stigmatizes and drives wedges between himself and those who do not agree with him, and he does it for the most naked of political reasons. He thinks it makes for good politics for himself and the Liberal Party, and that it goes over well with his base.

This is not a prime minister for all of Canada or all Canadians. This is a very selective prime minister, one who picks and chooses his causes based on the degree to which they further his vain, glorious self-image or the interests of the Liberal Party. Not long ago, the Prime Minister calculated that it would be in his interest to opine on the agriculture reforms that were being proposed by the Government of India, the world's largest democracy and a fellow member of the Commonwealth.

In the ensuing diplomatic spat that resulted from his unsolicited and righteous remarks, the Prime Minister justified his intervention in the domestic affairs of the world's largest democracy by saying, and I know the government is listening, “Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world”, except apparently at home. The Prime Minister passionately supports the principles of free speech and peaceful protest. It is just the practice of free speech and peaceful protests that he opposes, especially at home in front of the symbol of free speech and democracy, Parliament Hill.

Conservatives sympathize with those Canadians who have been affected by the blockades. Critical trade links were halted, but have now been restored, and many small businesses have had to shut their doors in light of the protests. The protesters here in Ottawa brought a message and that message has been heard. The Conservatives have heard them. We will stand up for them and for all Canadians who want to get back to normal life. We will not stop until the mandates are ended.

Canadians have sacrificed so much. We all know that. Every member of Parliament has heard and seen first-hand the sacrifices. However, in a country more divided than ever, the Prime Minister has decided to purposely politicize the pandemic for his own gain.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member's remarks, I felt like we were living in two different worlds. It is not lost on me that he kept talking about these peaceful protests that ended quietly and through dialogue. I saw the news, and in Coutts, Alberta, they ended because there was a huge cache of weapons. That is something that is quite concerning to all Canadians. He was talking about the premiers who could do this without emergency powers. In Ontario, they actually enacted—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18 are being violated. I cannot hear the minister trying to ask a question because of the heckling from the people she is trying to ask the question of.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have stopped the clock. I will allow the minister to ask her question again, and I do ask members, that if they have other questions and comments, to wait until it is their turn. I am sure the member for South Shore—St. Margarets can answer without the help of his colleagues.

The hon. minister.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I always appreciate the comments, I do appreciate the opportunity to ask this question.

The member was talking about premiers who were able to do this without emergency measures, but in Ontario last Friday, the premier actually brought forward a state of emergency, which comes with extraordinary powers. They were then very supportive of the federal government bringing this forward because of the extraordinary damage to our economy and the security of Canadians at border points, as well as right here in Ottawa. What I hear from the members opposite is a complete disregard for the safety of people in Ottawa.

When will the member recognize that people are unsafe and they are scared? It is our job, as parliamentarians, to protect them.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister. We do live in two worlds. Your world, where you watch the CBC to find out what is happening—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Please address comments through the Chair.

The hon. member.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, the minister and the government watch CBC to get all their news. In our world, we actually go and talk to people. We go to the protests at the borders, where the people are, to find out what they are saying to try to represent them in Parliament. We do not just sit in West Block talking to each other in those ineffective meetings, which always happen on the government's side and that produce absolutely nothing. The government went from zero initiatives to the most draconian piece of legislation that exists in this country, and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do want to get to more questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues since this morning because this is an extremely important issue.

What I am hearing does not make sense. It is like a book without a cover or anything written inside. Some people think everything is sombre and sad, but others are living in a magical land of unicorns. Where is the middle ground?

Could my colleague tell me what measures should have been taken sooner, based on that middle ground?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister should have actually enforced the existing laws and tools he has before him without using the act. I am hearing from members opposite that it is not his job. That is the problem with the government. Nothing is its job. Whether it is inflation or this crisis, it is always somebody else's fault.

My colleague from Nova Scotia, who I respect a lot, has also said that it is not our problem, that we did not create the economic crisis we are in. I am sorry, but you did. That is your excuse for everything in this House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the member he is not to use the word “you”. That would prevent me from having to get up so often to redirect him.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard some words around this House today saying that people are not talking to constituents, that people are not talking to workers, and that members of Parliament are not talking to their communities. I just want to say that we are. What I am hearing is that people have been traumatized by this.

I wanted to ask something of the Conservative Party and the member who says they will stand up for the occupiers. Will they endorse illegal occupations going forward, or is it just this one they are supporting?