Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

It is with sadness, but with resolve, that I rise to take part in this historic debate. The country, and indeed the world, is watching what is happening here. I hope that we can prove to be worthy of this moment in Canada’s history.

I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service who have been working hard to keep us all safe and to ensure that the people’s servants can continue the people’s work uninterrupted. It is so important that our work continues, and that we show the people outside, and indeed the world, that our democracy is strong and that we will not be intimidated.

We are three weeks into the occupation of Ottawa. Centred as it is on our workplace, we have been unable to avoid its impact. As we reflect, I would ask that we remember that some members' experiences may be different from mine. Some may feel comfortable walking through the lines without fear. As a racialized woman, a very visible Muslim because of my choice to wear the hijab, my experience has been different. I cannot ignore the ties to white supremacy, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism within this movement.

One of those arrested in Coutts for possession of a weapon and other charges has a history of Islamophobic social media posts and memes, pushing the conspiracy theory that the Prime Minister is working with “Islamists” to take over Canada through immigration. We have seen how online hate can transition to real-world violence, so it is with worry that I walk to Parliament each day, watching carefully those around me. It is a heavy weight to carry. It weighs on my soul. My husband and my children are worried for me, but I told them I am going to keep showing up. I will not be intimidated.

I would like to address some of the points I often hear from the supporters of the occupiers. They say this is a peaceful protest. It is just hot tubs and bouncy castles. No. It is much more. These numbers are maybe a day or two old, but Ottawa police have launched more than 172 criminal investigations. They have made 18 arrests, laid 33 charges, and issued over 3,000 tickets. In Coutts, four have been charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers, and there have been 13 arrests, with the seizure of more than a dozen long guns and hand guns, as well as ammunition and body armour. In Windsor, police have made more than 42 arrests, and have seized 37 vehicles since the protests there began. People have been verbally and physically assaulted for exercising their freedom to wear a mask. This is not a peaceful protest.

Actions do not have to be physical to be violent. Preventing someone from earning a living, going to work or running a business is a violent act. The Rideau Centre and many other downtown Ottawa businesses have been closed for weeks because police cannot guarantee people's safety from maskless protesters seeking to intimidate and frighten employees and customers. Hundreds of minimum-wage retail and food workers are unable to go to work and earn the money they need to pay their rent and feed their kids. The closure of the Ambassador Bridge cost $360 million in two-way trade every day it was closed. Auto workers and others reliant on that trade faced temporary layoffs. This is not a peaceful protest.

The two major grocery stores in the downtown core have been forced to close at times during this occupation for safety reasons, making it difficult for residents to even buy groceries. Bus service has been shut down through most of the core, and not everyone is able to walk, especially at -30°C as it has been some days. This is not a peaceful protest.

Protesters are making residents feel unsafe walking their children down the street. They are taking away their freedom of movement by occupying the streets, polluting the air with diesel fumes 24-7 and with honking so constant and loud that it took a court order to somewhat reduce it. This is not a peaceful protest. It is torture.

I support peaceful protests. For those people for whom this is about vaccine mandates, especially those outside of Ottawa who do not see what life has been like for people here in Ottawa, I want to say that is a fair debate. They have a right to protest and be heard, and I understand their frustration.

We are all frustrated. We are all tired of this pandemic. I want it to be over as much as they do. I have family overseas I have not been able to visit in two years. Believe me, their voice has been heard and understood. However, we cannot just wish this pandemic away. Canadians have sacrificed too much. I believe, I hope, we are close to the end, but I do not want to risk seeing restrictions lifted too early and people dying who did not have to. That is the challenge here, I believe.

I support people's right to protest on these points. They can peacefully park their vehicles, take the LRT downtown, stand on the lawn and protest all day. Peaceful protest does not mean blocking city streets. It does not mean blocking trade and commerce. It does not mean threatening and intimidating local residents who are just trying to live their lives. It is time to give the people of Ottawa their city back.

Allow me to say to the people of Ottawa that I am sorry. We are sorry for what they have had to live through and endure. They do not deserve this. I will not prejudge the commissions and the inquiries that will follow. Right now, the focus must be on restoring order, but they have deserved better from all of us.

I would like to speak to our staff. I started my career in politics as an assistant at Queen's Park, and I know how hard our staff works. We get to go home on the weekends, back to our ridings and away from this occupation. They have to stay here because our Ottawa staff live here, many of them in Centretown or the ByWard Market, in the heart of this.

I urge my colleagues to ask their staff, whom we could not do our jobs without, how they feel. How are they doing? How is their mental health through all this? What is it like on the weekends, when we have gone home but thousands more people, bent on trouble and violence, descend on the downtown core? I am so sorry they and their families have had to go through this. I am sorry that some have had to watch as their bosses have posed for photos with the people making their lives unbearable: photos that they then have to post on their bosses' social media. I am sorry, and I hope they have the support they need to get through this.

I believe in the Charter of Rights, but I feel as if so many who quote it have not really read it. With rights come responsibilities, and their rights do not override my rights. We have a responsibility to one another. That is part of living in a democratic society. Canada is founded on the principles of peace, order and good government. Across our country today, that is under threat by a foreign-funded movement that, under the guise of vaccine mandates, seeks to disrupt our lives, disrupt our trade and commerce, and disrupt our faith in our institutions and in one another.

The measures in this act are targeted. They are proportionate. They respect the charter, and they give the police the tools and the powers they need to restore law and order in our country. It is time to put our democracy first. I will be supporting this order.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is certainly much from the speech by the Liberal member across the way that I would like to comment on, but there was one specific thing she said that really piqued my interest.

The member referenced that there would be commissions and inquiries related to the response to these blockades. I am glad to hear that. I wish that the Prime Minister had said that. I am pleased to hear that the government is willing to look into it.

If the Prime Minister's actions, and the actions of other members of the Liberal government, are found to have been inflammatory and to have played a role in what has been taking place, will the member accept the findings of those commissions and inquiries?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, having now declared the public order emergency, this declaration will only last for 30 days unless renewed. Our government is conscious of the need for transparency and parliamentary oversight as we have undertaken this action, so in the coming days, a parliamentary committee will be struck to provide oversight while the emergency is in effect.

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

Madam Speaker, this morning, when the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, he said something that was rather interesting. He said that invoking this law was not something to be done lightly, that it was not the first, second or even the third option, but the last resort.

We really wonder what three options the government considered before invoking the Emergencies Act that we are debating today.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the Emergencies Act is not the first option exercised or even the third or fourth. It is important to remember that local police are the first responders and the force of jurisdiction. In the case of Ottawa, it is the Ottawa Police Service. From the beginning, since the City of Ottawa began to make requests for support and resources, the government has worked with the city to ensure the RCMP is providing the support the city asked for.

First the City of Ottawa declared an emergency and then the Province of Ontario did, and we continue to coordinate with and support local authorities. We established an integrated command centre with the Ottawa police, the OPP and the RCMP to bring more resources forward. Only when it was clear that this crisis was national in scope and that existing authorities available to the local police of jurisdiction were insufficient did the government reluctantly take this action.

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

Madam Speaker, I have worked with my hon. colleague on several committees and associations, and she is always so good to work with.

There have been a lot of discussions in the House on both sides about the level of dispute outside. On the other side of the House, Conservative members have said that this is about honking annoyances and traffic jams. Those are the two things I have heard over the course of today's debate.

I am wondering if the member could share her thoughts on the dangers of downplaying what we are seeing outside. I have spoken to people about the assaults and the harassment they have endured throughout this convoy.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has always been a pleasure working with the hon. member on many committees.

I totally agree that peaceful protests are an important part of our democracy and that everyone should have the right to peacefully protest, but these are illegal blockades blocking our trade corridors and our borders. As I mentioned in my speech, the closure of the Ambassador Bridge cost $390 million per day in lost trade with our most important trading partner, the U.S.

These are not peaceful protests. These are illegal blockades. We need to finally end these illegal blockades so that the people of Ottawa can have their lives back.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a message tonight for all my colleagues here in the House of Commons and especially for everyone at home in Fleetwood—Port Kells, who are rightfully having a good debate right now about the justifications for using the emergency measures act. I want to provide my own thoughts and the rationale behind my support for the government's actions. To do that, let us focus specifically on the questions in this debate. Is the government's use of the emergency measures act justified and are the measures being invoked legally?

The second question is the easiest to answer because that answer is yes, if the measures being used to deal with this situation conform with the legislation that has been on the books since the 1980s. Given that this is the first time the legislation has been used, there should be scrutiny of the measures to make sure that they do conform with the law. However, that is the easy part.

We have to talk about the justification. The act is right to the point. It says:

a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada

Let us take that apart and look at the evidence.

Does the current situation endanger the lives of Canadians? Well, the border disruptions certainly endangered the economic quality of life of Canadians and therefore their well-being. There is ample evidence of that in Windsor, especially in the auto sector, and for so many businesses and their employees in Ottawa. The threats of physical violence toward people in Ottawa's downtown neighbourhood have been real, and charges have been laid against 13 people in Coutts, Alberta, apparently because they appeared ready to murder RCMP officers.

Does the activity endanger our health? There is no doubt that the premature lifting of public health measures, as demanded by the protesters, would do this. We saw this very clearly in Alberta last year when it lifted the mandates for the best summer ever. It was not. We do not want a repeat of that. However, the stated aim of the protest is to force the government to abandon public health measures regardless of the advice from the Public Health Agency of Canada and provincial authorities.

Do the blockades endanger safety? When protesters harass and bully people and threaten assault, yes. When protesters allegedly try to set fire to a residential building in Ottawa, gluing the doors shut in the process, yes, indeed. When police found that cache of weapons that was seized in Coutts, Alberta, how could there not be a perception that public safety was endangered?

Does the situation exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? This is not true in every case, but certainly in some, notably in Ontario. It is why the use of the emergency measures act clearly sets out that it can be specifically targeted to locations where provincial authorities need additional help to restore order. One point that has been raised a few times is that all these things were cleared up just as the emergency measures act was being announced. Let us face it. We want to prevent people from bringing disorder back to those locations, which is a real and current threat.

Do the current actions threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? The manifesto of this group calls for Canada's democratically elected government to be deposed and for the government to be turned over to a committee made up, in part, of them. We can put a check mark next to that one.

There will be some who say the answer is no and that if we consider the protesters at face value, it is just some good old boys and girls and kids in big trucks challenging the government to preserve God-given and charter-enshrined rights and freedoms. However, people who believe that, like some of our Conservative colleagues, have been deceived. They have been gamed by crafty, intense, grey-faced agents of passive aggressive manipulation and sedition. One can only imagine the information our security services have on them.

The gaming that they performed has been intense indeed. Canada has had a long and sometimes very colourful history of civil disobedience where people break the law and the police show patience and restraint while protesters make their point. Then, having made their point on a reasonably transparent agenda, they and the government trade ideas, the deal is done and the protesters go home.

Well, those behind the blockades and occupations know this and have gamed us to a fare-thee-well. They allegedly gamed the Ottawa Police Service too, telling them they will do their thing for a few days and then leave, while planning to use the grace period to dig in. They may have also gamed Ottawa's mayor, who thought there was a deal to get some of the trucks out of the residential areas until one of the leaders, Patrick King, stepped in and said there was no deal and they were not going anywhere.

Do the current actions seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? Well, the evidence says yes. When we take a close, honest look at the people calling the shots in the protest, do their actions seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty and security? Yes, absolutely.

Patrick King, who has demonstrated significant influence in the Ottawa occupation, has deposited a great deal of material online. I am going to quote him, and the “you” in the quote refers to the Prime Minister: “someone's gonna make you catch a bullet one day. To the rest of this government, someone's gonna...do you in.” At another point he said, “The only way that this is gonna be solved is with bullets.”

The 13 people charged in Coutts, Alberta, by their history of arrests and violence, represent a very clear danger to police and to Canadian society. Do members want to know what their motto is for change in Canada? It is “gun or rope”. How many times have we seen news of mass shootings, tragic bloodshed and loss of life only to find out in the aftermath that there were signs the authorities should have picked up. Well, signs have been picked up, and the government will not want the postscript to an act of domestic terrorism to be an indictment by Canadians that we did not act.

This gets us to the real point of the protest, the real agenda of the people behind it. Theirs is a world of anger, resentment and hate, of minorities, immigrants, liberal values and the democracy they represent. The core people behind the protests are precisely as the Prime Minister has described them.

Many agree. Glen Pearson, writing in National Newswatch today, noted:

This hatred for hatred's sake doesn't find an easy landing in Canada, as it might do south of the border. But as the convoy protest revealed, the hate movement is increasingly interested in this country, hoping to undermine its authorities and replace them with chaos. The goal of such insidious agents was never to help the truckers succeed but to make sure the governments and security forces didn't.

Some of the messages put out by the protest leaders make it abundantly clear than Glen Pearson is right that the blockades and occupations have little to do with vaccine mandates and even less to do with truckers. They say Canada should eliminate vaccine mandates for truckers operating back and forth across the U.S. border. They know this is a ridiculous rationale for the protest as long as the U.S. demands anyone entering their country be fully vaccinated. We could eliminate our vaccine mandate right now for truckers, but those truckers would still be out of work and still be out of luck. Some 90% of our truckers agree. They are fully vaccinated, so this foolish premise for the protests has no traction.

The protest leaders and their political familiars frame their actions as legitimate dissent of government actions. That is allowed in Canada. However, the protest leaders have tried to obscure the methods they are capable of using and are possibly threatening to use. Well, we are onto them. They know and we know that those methods are not allowed. They are illegal, and given the size and scope of the blockades and occupations, and even the amount and sources of funding to support them, Canada's security and sovereignty are most certainly under attack.

Two-thirds of Canadians agree with justified, careful measures applied with the emergency powers in the act, with parliamentary and legal oversight and in co-operation with the provinces that need our support. That is what this debate is intended to examine. The majority of Canadians will be looking for justified, careful and measured opposition in this debate, offered in the interests of doing what is best for the country, because what is best for Canada, even when difficult to do, is our government's agenda. It should be the agenda of everyone debating this measure over the weekend.

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

Madam Speaker, given my former career as a Crown attorney for the last 18 years, I want to draw on your reference to Mr. King and his comments directed toward the Prime Minister, which in my view constitute a threat to do grievous bodily harm. Do you not think this would provide the police with ample authority, under the Criminal Code, to lay criminal charges in relation to uttering death threats or anything of that nature, as opposed to imposing of the Emergencies Act?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address his questions through the Chair. He might try to not use the word “you” during his responses.

The hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, these are crafty rascals that we are dealing with here. If we examine the words used by Mr. King, he did not say that he would do it and he did not call on anybody to do it; he just said that it could happen, but the implication and the inference is definitely there. Should he be arrested for that? Probably not, but he is gaming the system like the rest of them, knowing that they can get away with so much.

Is it right, though? Would the member agree? I do not think he would.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, all evening, I have felt that my Liberal colleagues have been taking great delight in trying to associate us with those members who refuse to recognize that some of the protesters have been engaging in reprehensible acts. We have been saying for three weeks that some of the protesters' behaviour has been reprehensible. They may have ties to far-right groups. Everyone agrees on that.

Now, one needs to have principles in life, and having principles means not invoking a legislative measure that would suspend freedoms. That is what the Emergencies Act does.

I would like to ask my colleague if he is aware that the government could have used other existing measures, rather than trying to kill a fly with a bazooka.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will refer to somebody on Twitter who said something kind of colourful. He said something like, “You know, if you've got somebody walking along waving a swastika and you've got 100 people walking along with him, you've got 101 Nazis.” However, I will set that aside for a second.

What has happened here? The federal government has warned that it is concerned about this situation. We have offered additional support to the municipalities. We saw that the municipality, in this case Ottawa, was unprepared to deal with the issues it was facing, and the flouting of the law brought the law into disrepute. The escalation, step by step, brought us to where we are today, and the premise of my remarks tonight is that I believe the government is thoroughly justified.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, uqaqtitiji. I would like to thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for his statement.

The Conservatives seem to be attempting to use the chamber as a vacuum. Listening to them downplay what is going on is such a great concern. Without the benefit of the news and the social media, people could be persuaded that this is not a serious national issue. What can the member say to those Canadians who are not in Ottawa, Windsor, Edmonton or Winnipeg and are not experiencing the danger directly?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, this does not apply to the people in the places that the hon. member mentioned. They can go and protest anything they like, and as long as their local officials do not believe it is illegal, they are good to go. However, the nature of this act really helps us pinpoint the areas where illegal actions cannot be condoned and supported by anybody in good faith and need to be dealt with very thoroughly.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe we are here. I certainly did not expect this to be my experience when I was elected into the 44th Parliament, as I am sure many of my other colleagues did not either.

The starting point for this discussion is how we even got here. How did we get to a point that the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act, previously known as the War Measures Act? To give context to the gravity of this action, the War Measures Act was invoked only three times: during World War I, during World War II and during the FLQ crisis. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked until now. What is it? It is “An Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof”.

Leah West, associate director of the prestigious Norman Paterson School of International Affairs and assistant professor of international affairs, national security law, counterterrorism and cyber-operations, has recently been featured in a CBC article regarding the Emergencies Act. She said, “To invoke a national emergency, the government would need to be saying that these protests threaten the security of Canada, our sovereignty or our territorial integrity. I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have.” If members take home anything of what I am speaking about tonight, it is that quote right there.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “The Emergencies Act can only be invoked when a situation 'seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada' and when the situation 'cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada'.” It went on to say, “Governments regularly deal with difficult situations and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.”

I will go back to my original question: How did we get to this point? Let us go back 21 days and ask how we got to the point that so many Canadians got so angry that they mobilized across the country, drove thousands of miles and spent thousands of dollars just to be heard.

Protesting takes different levels of commitment. People can sign a petition, join a social media group or mobilize. Mobilizing takes another level of commitment. What happened to make people so frustrated that they mobilized across this country?

The other day I was walking to my office in the Confederation Building. For those who know Ottawa, it was a very cold day, about -25°C. It was freezing. I walked down Wellington Street and saw the trucks. I have walked this route since the day I was elected, a female, by myself, and I never felt unsafe. As I walked, I thought that they must want to go home, so I asked. I stopped and asked one of the truckers, “Do you want to be here? Don't you want to go home?” They said, “Yes, of course we do, but no one is listening to us.”

I remember walking to Parliament Hill during the first few days of the protest and speaking with police on the ground. They were polite and engaging. The police have been fantastic. I asked them how they were managing, and they said pretty well. They told me this protest was nothing like Caledonia. They said they had been working protests for decades, and force always escalates a protest. They said force never works for a peaceful resolution. They said the number one thing that works is when protesters are heard. They asked me if I knew why the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge them. I told them I wondered the exact same thing.

Just for fun, I thought I would Google crisis management tactics, just to see what Google had to say. Of course, a top seven useful tactics list popped up, and I am going to share it.

Number one, tell the truth.

Number two, own it and speak from the heart.

Number three, have a plan.

Number four, provide a respectful response.

Number five, use the moment as a learning tool.

Number six, say the same thing to everyone.

Number seven, take all stakeholders into account.

The Prime Minister has a lot more tools at his disposal than Google, yet he still jumped to invoking the Emergencies Act before using the simplest of tools. I do not know that any of those seven tactics has been used by Prime Minister.

Last Thursday, February 10, the Conservative Party put forth a motion in the House asking for a plan, communication and transparency. The Liberal government, whose members have been over-speaking my entire speech and who have no respect, clearly, for the House, voted no. Canadians want and deserve clear and transparent communication. If they do not want to listen to me, they should leave.

On Monday, during a press conference, the Prime Minister said, “Some people will say that we moved too quickly, other people will say no, we should have acted weeks ago. The reality is this, the Emergencies Act is not something to take lightly. It is not the first thing you turn to nor the second nor the third.”

I asked the Prime Minister to please tell Canadians what the first, second and third actions were that he took before invoking the Emergencies Act. I, along with the rest of Canada, am still waiting for an answer. The relationships that have been destroyed in the country may never be rebuilt. The division, segregation and stigmatization have deeply and negatively impacted Canadians.

There have been countless opportunities for the leader of the country to unite Canadians, but instead of bringing us together, our Prime Minister says things like, “They are extremists who don't believe in science. They are often misogynists, also often racists. It's a small group that muscles in and we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country, do we tolerate these people?”

Those are the Prime Minister's words. This is a far cry from the Prime Minister we can quote from 2015, when he won and said, “A positive optimistic hopeful vision of public life isn't a naive dream, it can be a powerful force for change. If Canadians are to trust their government, their government needs to trust Canadians.”

Where is that Prime Minister? Where did he go?

Our office has received thousands of emails and messages from very scared and confused constituents. Some of the messages I have received today alone are the following. People are very concerned about the serious misuse of power and the over-reach of federal government.

One constituent sobbed on the phone that she is frightened and cannot sleep because it reminds her of the October crisis. Another constituent phoned in because he feared he would be arrested if he spoke in public in our local community. People have phoned in, very concerned, that the act is already being implemented and that this debate is purely window dressing.

The general public is confused as to the extent of the powers, and that there is no check on the government's implementation. People are afraid that their bank accounts will be frozen, not because they donated but because they have supported the truckers on social media. Constituents are worried that if they donated even $50 their accounts would be frozen and forever jeopardize their credit ratings.

What are the facts that make the government believe that the blockades are associated with the threat of serious violence for an ideological purpose? What is the legal basis for this extreme action by government?

A constituent wrote to me right before I spoke tonight, and he told me that he received a scam email that his account had been frozen. Has the government acknowledged that this Emergencies Act may have opened the door for fraud and for innocent Canadians to be further traumatized?

Another constituent wrote to me and said, “I am a senior, Michelle. I cannot pay for my food. I cannot pay for my mortgage. Why is the government not dealing with this?”

To the people of Ottawa—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the hon. member's time is up. I am sure she will be able to add during questions and comments.

The hon. Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the hon. colleague asked what the basis is for invoking the Emergencies Act. There is $450 million a day in trade that is being blockaded by illegal activity. The illegal occupation here in Ottawa is harassing and holding Ottawa residents hostage. The other reason is we have seen very clearly in the news that 52% of those who have donated to support this campaign have actually been from the United States, 1,100 of which supported the January 6 insurrection.

Those are very clear reasons. I ask my colleague on the other side when she thinks foreign interference in our democracy is appropriate.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess my answer would be exactly what I said in my entire speech: How did we get here? What are the first, second and third actions that were taken before invoking the Emergencies Act?

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit of an odd duck and when I have questions, I do research. Right now, I am reading the Criminal Code. It is long, but interesting.

The things that have been happening here are illegal under the Criminal Code, but nothing has been done about that. On behalf of our citizens, can my colleague tell me what measures should have been put in place before today?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it goes back to a lot of what I was saying in this speech in speaking with the police and different police chiefs about meeting with these protesters. The police were obviously able to clear the blockades at the border crossings by negotiating, talking and listening. I think that is the big piece that was missed. I do not think we needed to go to the strongest parliamentary action to get to this point.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for talking about how they received messages. I wanted to say that when I was in my riding this morning, I was able to be on the phone all morning. I was actually answering the phone calls that were coming to my office. I heard many stories and listened to many people today who are afraid, folks who have been duped by lack of information and are misunderstanding what is happening, not just here in Ottawa but right across Canada.

How does my colleague think the miscommunication can be cleared up for the majority of Canadians?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I formerly worked in media, and it has been unbelievable to see how people are getting their information from information silos. I think it is one of the biggest contributing factors to the division we are seeing in this country. There is a really big discussion that needs to happen about media and the information that is being released to the public.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member put her finger on something very important, which is what she described as silos of information. There seem to be echo chambers of information.

I have constituents who have written to me pleading that it is a terrible lie that convoy protesters went into the Shepherds of Good Hope, accosted staff, demanded to be fed, assaulted a security guard and assaulted a homeless person. They firmly believe this is a lie.

This organization is supported by my church when I am in Ottawa, St. Bartholomew. I have a lot of friends at Shepherds of Good Hope. This was witnessed and this happened, yet the spinning around this from the convoy supporters is extraordinary.

Can the hon. member confirm that she accepts that some convoy protesters have committed assault in this community and terrorized community members?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this whole discussion is part of what I am trying to say. How did we get to a point where each person thinks they are so right and people are so divided? It comes back to the leadership at the very top. When we have a leader telling Canadians that some of the people in this country are bad people, it divides us, and that is the biggest problem we have in this country. We are no longer united; we are divided.