Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I know members are heckling, but I am encouraging them to reflect on this and on the rhetoric. Notwithstanding the efforts of my colleagues to shout me down, I am speaking on behalf of constituents and Canadians. Yes, there is an ideologically motivated operation that we see here in the rhetoric that is meant to incite.

That is indeed one of the reasons why we have had to invoke the Emergencies Act. I want to assure members that these are very targeted measures. They are time limited, and they are protected by the charter. For those who want to ask questions as to how those powers are going to be enforced, part of the debate is going to ensure that there are sufficient guardrails and safeguards in place. There will be transparency on how those measures are implemented.

There will also be an inquiry to ensure that we can learn from these lessons and make sure that this is an instrument that has been used responsibly and in a manner that is consistent with the charter to uphold the health and safety of all Canadians.

At the end of the day, we are all here, I would hope, to do one thing, and that is to protect the health and safety of Canadians. We find ourselves at a crossroads of the pandemic, but we have made progress. We have made progress with the pandemic, and we are making progress in restoring public order, but it is absolutely imperative that we have these debates in a principled and reasonable manner that is respectful of our constituents and respectful of Canadians. That is certainly something that I hope we will see over the next number of days.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister today, and in a news conference yesterday, has repeatedly stated that there are ideologically motivated, violent extremists and there is a small group of extremists who are willing to use violence. He says that there are ties between extremists who were apprehended in Coutts and extremists here in Ottawa.

However, when asked repeatedly by the media to back up that assertion with evidence, the minister fails to provide any evidence. We are talking about invoking a once-in-34-year Emergencies Act. Parliamentarians deserve real evidence, not conjecture from the minister, before we could ever contemplate suspending the rights of Canadians. In what basis does the minister make the claim that there are violent extremists in Ottawa?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my colleague operates from the false premise that the Emergencies Act is a kind of suspension of charter rights. It is not.

As I have said throughout the course of the debate, and as the act itself says, all of the powers that need to be exercised in the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter. That means ensuring that section 8 is respected, which guarantees people the right to be protected from any unreasonable search and seizure, and the same for section 7 as well.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the minister said that he was proud to move this motion, that he was proud to be the first Minister of Public Safety to invoke the Emergencies Act since it came into force in 1988. I am wondering how he can be proud to enforce a law that limits the fundamental rights of Quebeckers and Canadians.

We heard the Prime Minister say that this was the last resort. Unfortunately, I do not think he used all of the tools at his disposal before we got to this point. I would like to know what other approaches he could have taken before invoking the Emergencies Act.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. The Emergencies Act is a last resort. This was not the first option and is certainly not the option we prefer.

In response to this convoy and illegal blockade, we had to add a lot of resources to help the police restore public order on the ground. However, we have gotten to a very difficult point right now with a lot of challenges, which is why we invoked this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member spoke of the people who are being impacted by the blockades. He spoke about the harassment and the assaults. I know I have spoken to a lot of workers in this downtown about that as well. It is truly heartbreaking. I think of the workers and businesses who have been impacted negatively. I think about the people at the Rideau Centre. I think about people within my own region in southwestern Ontario and those businesses who have been impacted.

What is the government's plan to help those workers and those business owners after this debate is done, after we have seen the protesters go home? We have been asking for the government to come up with a plan. What is the plan for those people?

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concerns about public safety. Certainly, the impact of these illegal blockades across the country has undermined not only public safety but also families' and individuals' ability to provide for themselves. I want to assure my colleague that we will work with her and all members, so once we clean up these illegal blockades and we have public safety restored on the streets here in Ottawa, the Government of Canada will continue to be there to support Canadians, as we have been throughout the pandemic.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable today.

This week, for the first time since its passage, the Emergencies Act has been invoked by the Prime Minister. This is historic, and it is extremely disappointing. The Prime Minister has invoked the act, he says, to deal with the protests that have gathered here in downtown Ottawa and blockades that were happening at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and the border at Surrey, all of which, by the way, are now open. There are no more blockades at any borders. What are left are the trucks parked outside here in Ottawa that need to move or be moved.

However, throughout the last three weeks the Prime Minister has failed to take meaningful action to de-escalate the protests here or to use any tools he may have available. Instead, he has jumped straight to the most extreme measure, and as he has invoked the act, he has failed to meet the high threshold set out by the Emergencies Act to justify it, that being 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 [the country].”

Conservatives do not believe the government has shown that threshold has been met, and thus we will be voting against it. Members should keep in mind this act is already invoked and is the new law of the land. Our debate and the vote on Monday can only stop it if the NDP vote with Conservatives and the Bloc to stop it. Supporting the use of the Emergencies Act is one of the most serious decisions a parliamentarian can make. I want to remind especially the New Democrats of this, who are supporting the Liberals in this sledgehammer approach. History will not be kind to the leader of the NDP or his members on this particular question.

The Emergencies Act's predecessor, the War Measures Act, was only used three times: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis. We should keep these precedents in mind. The weight of those events should caution us against making this decision lightly. These protests have caused disruptions for many Canadians, especially local businesses and residents of Ottawa. As I have said, Conservatives are the party of law and order. We believe the trucks should move or be moved, but we want to lower the temperature across the country. The Prime Minister clearly wants to raise it.

Let us be very clear how this all started. The Prime Minister decided to impose a vaccine mandate on truckers with no scientific evidence that it was the right thing to do. Many Canadians opposed it, but he went ahead anyway. Truckers and millions of Canadians felt they had no recourse with the Prime Minister, and who can blame them? After all, this was the Prime Minister who called them racist and misogynist. He said their views were unacceptable and that they were on the fringe. When truckers and their supporters arrived in Ottawa, what did the Prime Minister do first? He hid for a week and then he continued his insults, calling them and anyone who supported them or even talked with them things like Nazi supporters. We saw that name-calling and unfair and mean-spirited characterization happen just yesterday by the Prime Minister of Canada in the House. That is all he has done to rectify the problem: call names and insult.

Many of the people who are protesting and are upset are our neighbours. They are our constituents. They are Canadians. They want to be heard and given just a little respect by their Prime Minister, but he has decided that, because he disagrees with them and does not like their opinions, he will not hear them. At every turn the Prime Minister has stigmatized, wedged, divided and traumatized Canadians, and now, without even a single meeting with a trucker, without talking through one of their concerns, without apologizing for his insults, without listening to what people have to say and without using any other tool at his disposal, he has used this overreach, the Emergencies Act, and it is wrong.

The Prime Minister's leadership in this situation has, frankly, been abysmal. He said this week, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is never the first thing a government should do, nor even the second. The act is to be used sparingly and as a last resort”, but his actions have shown the opposite approach.

The so-called measure of last resort has come before taking any action to address the frustrations at the root of the protest. How did the Prime Minister go directly from ignoring the truckers to turning to the Emergencies Act? Why has the government jumped straight to this without doing anything to lower the temperature first? Conservatives put forward a reasonable approach that could help bring the temperature down and address the concerns. We asked the government to commit publicly to a specific plan and timeline to roll back federal mandates and restrictions, but the Liberals and NDP refused to support our plan. Instead, the Prime Minister reached for more power. This comes as provincial governments are announcing plans to end COVID-19 restrictions.

The Prime Minister is an exception to this trend and he refuses to come forward with a plan. Even the provinces are unhappy with the Prime Minister for doing this: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia. They are all opposed to the use of the Emergencies Act. This is not a good look for the Prime Minister.

We all want the trucks here in Ottawa to move. We want a peaceful and quick end to the trucks blocking the streets in Ottawa. Our message to those protesting is still this: Conservatives have heard them. We will keep standing up for them, but it is time to move the trucks.

At the same time, no government should resort to the kinds of extreme measures that we are seeing. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has a track record of serious disregard for the law and that raises a lot of red flags. This is the Prime Minister who interfered with an ongoing criminal trial in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. This is the Prime Minister who took the Speaker to court instead of fulfilling his legal obligation to provide documents to this Parliament on two separate occasions. This is the Prime Minister who has been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner.

This Prime Minister admitted his admiration for basic dictatorships. We have seen red flag after red flag after red flag. He may not like it, but in Canada civil liberties must be defended at every turn. Section 2 guarantees our freedom of association and assembly. Section 7 guarantees our right to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 guarantees our protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Canadians cannot be expected to simply take the Prime Minister at his word. His plans are not consistent with fundamental freedoms. The government should not have the power to close the bank accounts of Canadians on a whim. The Prime Minister is doing this to save his own political skin, but this is not a game. It comes at a cost to Canadians' rights and freedoms. Parliament should not allow the Prime Minister to avoid responsibility in this way.

I urge all members of the House to proceed with extreme caution. Now is the time to stand up for their constituents, to show real leadership, to help heal our divisions, to listen to those we disagree with, to not shut them down, to not tell them that they are irrelevant and to not speak insults to them. That is the job of each one of us as members of Parliament, no matter who we represent. We have to represent them with integrity, with hope, with honour.

What the Prime Minister is doing, and has done for the last two years, is to disregard those Canadians, call them names and insult them. It is time for every one of us to show leadership and say no to this Emergencies Act.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now I will speak on behalf of my constituents, which all of us are sworn to do.

I ask the members opposite: If this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order.

The longer I stand here, the fewer options people will have to actually present their feelings and represent their constituents later.

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been four weeks in a row. The members opposite talk about listening to the protesters but they will not even listen to a member of this House to understand what my constituents, the members of my community, are going through.

When did the line cross between this being a lawful protest, which we welcome in my riding and happen all the time, to an illegal protest? Members opposite were out there taking photos, encouraging those protesters to keep honking in the middle of the night.

Would the member now denounce those actions?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question for his leader, the Prime Minister. When these protests started, the first thing the Prime Minister did was call these people names. He insulted them. I do not think anyone in that member's constituency thinks that the response of a Prime Minister is to hide and then hurl huge insults, not just saying he disagrees with them but calling them misogynist, racist, having fringe views and that they should not be tolerated.

That is a very good question, and he should ask his own Prime Minister why he did not take action, why he did not show leadership and why he did not take the high road and try to at least listen to these folks so that they felt they were respected. That is a good question for the boss.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problems in Coutts, Alberta, were resolved without the Emergencies Act. The same goes for Emerson, where things were resolved without the Emergencies Act. With the Ambassador Bridge, once the Americans called the situation unacceptable, it was resolved without the Emergencies Act. There were protests in Quebec City, and it was all resolved without the Emergencies Act.

Here, in the federal capital, in the Prime Minister's backyard, there is an occupation. What did the Prime Minister do? First, he called them whiners, then he blamed the police, and then he brought out the atomic bomb, also known as the Emergencies Act.

My question is simple. Between playing Pontius Pilate and dropping the atomic bomb, there was a point at which the government could have shown some leadership and made use of tools.

What does the leader of the official opposition think about that?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member may recall that I sent a letter very early on to the Prime Minister asking that he meet with the opposition leaders to talk about solutions like the ones he just spoke about.

It is clear that the borders were cleared by police action, and that is a good thing. We believe that these protestors here in Ottawa, these blockades could have been moved quickly had the Prime Minister shown some leadership and said, “Hey, I'm hearing you. I disagree with you, but I hear your concerns. We're going to look at removing these mandates. We're going to do it because it's actually scientific to remove them.”

I would guarantee that these folks would have moved on had the Prime Minister decided he wanted to actually listen. What I promise is that we would not be here today invoking an Emergencies Act, which is a sledgehammer on all Canadians.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the convoy stated its mission was to overthrow the government. It sounds ludicrous, but it brazenly posted that on its website and it reiterated it—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order, order. I cannot hear the question, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition cannot hear the question.

The hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the goal of this convoy, posted brazenly on its website, reiterated as recently as earlier this week in a press conference, was to overthrow a democratically elected government. That was its goal.

The interim leader of the Conservative Party says, “We have heard you and we will keep standing up for you.” Do you regret endorsing a convoy that is attacking the fundamental democracy of our country? Do you regret endorsing and supporting an occupation that is harassing citizens? Do you regret endorsing a movement that has lost—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order, order. I know the questions have to come through the Chair, and I cannot speak on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition.

I will let the Leader of the Opposition answer the question.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously nobody in this House believes that a government should be overthrown, although I have seen that member's colleagues at a number of pro-communist marches, so I am not sure if that means he endorses communism.

In fact, I will tell the House what I know. When history looks back on this, Conservatives will have stood up with Canadians, millions of Canadians, vaccinated Canadians, Canadians who are blue-collar workers, Canadians who are white-collar workers, Canadians who have had enough of a Prime Minister who has divided, wedged, stigmatized and traumatized them, and the party that will have stood with the Prime Minister is that member and his NDP colleagues. It is shameful.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to stand in the House today and talk about inflation. I would prefer to stand in the House today to defend the mothers, fathers and seniors who have suffered so much since the beginning of the pandemic and who are facing all sorts of really difficult situations. However, because of this Prime Minister's inaction, because he chose to protect his career rather than listen to Canadians, we are here today discussing a law that is being invoked by Parliament and the Prime Minister for the very first time since its enactment in 1988: the Emergencies Act.

This day will go down in history, but not for the right reasons. It is very disappointing. The Prime Minister says he is invoking the act to manage the blockades and protests happening in downtown Ottawa, at the border crossings in Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson, Manitoba, and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. He said it again this morning.

I would like to point out to my colleagues that we must take these precedents into account. The weight of these events calls for prudence on our part. However, only the blockades in Ottawa remain. All of the other blockades ended or were ended without the need for the Emergencies Act. For 15 days, the Prime Minister took no real action to defuse the protests. He did not listen to the discontent, fatigue and demands being expressed by the protesters and Canadians. He preferred to take extreme measures as a first resort.

In short, the Prime Minister failed to meet the high threshold provided for in the Emergencies Act to justify its invocation and application. For that reason, the Conservatives will be voting against his decision. Invoking the Emergencies Act is one of the most important decisions a member of Parliament can make. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times: World War I, World War II and the October Crisis, which Quebeckers remember all too well.

It is our prime responsibility as parliamentarians to protect our democracy. This includes Canadians' right to elect their representatives, the right to disagree with the government, and the right to express that disagreement publicly.

We know that these protests are causing problems for many Canadians, especially residents of Ottawa and local businesses. It is extremely hard for them. They are the collateral damage of a situation that extends far beyond the streets and people of Ottawa. We acknowledge that. As we have often said, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. The illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. It is time to de-escalate the situation, not only in Ottawa, but across the country. Unfortunately, as many experts and analysts have said, the Prime Minister's actions could have the complete opposite effect.

Let us start at the beginning. How did these events start?

They started when the Prime Minister decided to politicize an election, to trigger an election in the middle of a pandemic, and then decided to force truckers to get vaccinated when there is no scientific proof that it was the right thing to do. We put the question to the government. We asked the Minister of Health on what expert testimony he was basing his decision to force truckers to get vaccinated. The government consistently avoided the question. It never answered, but it did not back down. It kept the rqeuirement in place, despite all the problems it was causing for our economy and supply chains, and despite the size of the movement it created.

When the protesters arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister went into hiding for a week and, when he came out, he did not attempt to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he insulted the protesters and Canadians who did not agree with him. That is what happened.

The Prime Minister called them racists and misogynists. He even said that their point of view was unacceptable. That happens often in the House. Every time somebody says something the Prime Minister does not entirely agree with, it is instantly clear that he finds it unacceptable.

As far as I know, more than half of Canadians did not vote for him in the last election. However, they are still Canadians, and they are entitled to their opinion. They are Canadians who expressed their views and still have the right to do so. Voting against the Prime Minister is acceptable.

I have heard opinions from everywhere, in my riding, on social media, over the phone and in emails. We received a lot of emails this week. The people expressing their views are our neighbours, our constituents. They are Canadians who want to make their voices heard and who should be able to do so. However, since the Prime Minister does not agree with them and does not like their opinion, he simply decided not to listen to them.

The Prime Minister stigmatizes and divides Canadians every chance he gets. We know that he refused to meet with any of the truckers or their representatives. He did not discuss their concerns with them. He did not even apologize for the insults he hurled at all the protesters outside and right here in the House.

Apologies are not for people who do not agree with him. He ignored what people have to say and waited for the crisis to get worse and worse and worse. He could have done something. He had plenty of tools at his disposal.

The first tool is himself. As Prime Minister and head of state, he could have listened to Canadians. The first tool he could have used is himself as head of state. He chose to act like a petty politician. Instead of listening, he chose to give himself more power, to expand the government's powers. That was a bad decision. The Prime Minister's leadership in this case has been deplorable.

This week, he even said, and I quote: “Invoking the act is never the first thing a government should do, nor the second. The act is to be used sparingly and as a last resort.”

No one thinks that the Prime Minister used even the first, second, third or fourth options. He has not convinced anyone of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act when almost every expert, analyst and police chief said that they had all the tools they needed.

The provincial premiers said the same thing more than once. They said that they were able to manage the situation and asked the federal government not to throw fuel on the fire by invoking the Emergencies Act. That is what happened.

How did the Prime Minister go from totally ignoring the protesters directly to invoking the Emergencies Act?

We hope that history will tell, because the Prime Minister and his ministers will not, and, unfortunately, the current crisis was the direct result of the Prime Minister’s lack of leadership.

The Conservatives proposed an option, a reasonable approach. We asked the Prime Minister to present a plan to announce the lifting of the vaccine mandates, a plan to end the health measures. That was not unreasonable. All of the provinces, all of the other governments in Canada are doing that.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister dug in and chose to do nothing, to ignore his experts. He should not be surprised to learn today that the protesters and Canadians are fed up with his lack of leadership. That is the reality we find ourselves in today. The Prime Minister prefers to do whatever he wants and continues to refuse to present a plan.

The government should not have the power to close Canadians’ bank accounts. The government should not have to invoke the Emergencies Act when there are other tools to resolve situations like the one that exists in Ottawa right now.

The Prime Minister failed. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will be judged, not by us, but by generations of Canadians to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite likes to talk about leadership. However, his party is trying to both support and condemn the illegal blockades.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex suggested that the Prime Minister should show leadership and give the illegal protesters everything they want. What measures should the government have taken? Should the government simply give in to the demands of the illegal protesters?