Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know I have not been able to be present for 100% of the debate here, but there is something that I have never heard from the Bloc Québécois members: an expression of concern for the people of Gatineau and elsewhere in the Outaouais, many of whom work in Ottawa and have lost jobs because businesses have closed down, public transit routes have been disrupted and the bridges have been clogged. It seems to me a bit curious that the Bloc Québécois members never talk about the people of the Outaouais, and the inconveniences and struggles they have faced during the lockdown in Ottawa.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand. The question was not very clear.

Is he suggesting members of the Bloc Québécois never talk about the people of the Outaouais?

The people of the Outaouais most certainly were inconvenienced by blocked bridges. Of course there are people with family and friends on the Ottawa side.

However, it was downtown Ottawa that was occupied. The horns were blaring in downtown Ottawa. That is why we have been talking more about Ottawa. We are in Parliament, which is in Ottawa, and the trucks were here in front of Parliament.

I hope the member is not suggesting that we do not care about Quebec because that would be an ill-advised suggestion.

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

Madam Speaker, on Friday, I listened to my colleagues for nine hours. Today, I have been listening to them all day right from 7 a.m., even though I went to bed at 3 a.m. because I was writing this speech, and even though I will be here until midnight.

I have noticed the extent to which the polarization that I see on social media has crept into the House. I had difficulty writing this speech, which says a lot, because anyone observing me even a little in the House knows that I am constantly writing.

It is difficult to find the words to avoid polarization with all these emotions present. Emotions are running high, and I am hearing a lot of heated comments in the House at present.

It was not easy to write this speech because the invocation of the Emergencies Act is a historic event that will set the bar for its invocation in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that its use will not be taken lightly in the future just because it has been taken lightly today.

Canada has experienced some very dangerous, critical and urgent situations. Almost all of my colleagues have mentioned the Oka crisis, the rail blockades in 2020, the Caledonia crisis, September 11 and COVID‑19.

I want to make one thing clear right now. I never have and never will have sympathy for extremists, on either the right or the left. I have never had sympathy for hate speech or threats. I was outraged and shocked to see Nazi and Confederate flags. I felt sick with anger. I will never minimize threats that someone may receive. I have been threatened myself after a member of Parliament spoke to the media and shared misinformation regarding a vote in committee.

All day yesterday, I responded to hundreds of emails, and every single one of them was calling on us not to enforce the Emergencies Act. I was getting emails not only from my constituents, but also from people in Calgary, Vancouver, Burnaby, Prince George, Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and even Ottawa. The people of Ottawa have been most affected by this situation. All that was missing were some emails from Prince Edward Island.

This legislation scares them very much, and they have the right to be listened to, to be heard and to get answers. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act states that the government must demonstrate that there is a dangerous and urgent situation that cannot be effectively dealt with ordinary laws. However, the order does not demonstrate that existing intervention powers are inadequate.

In other places, law enforcement used the tools it was supposed to use, municipal bylaws, highway traffic acts and the Criminal Code. That is what should have been done here from the start. Some might say that there was no way to predict the future or know what was going to happen.

Of course Ottawa served as an example to others, but Ottawa was indeed aware of the situation. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons mentioned that extremist groups have been on social media for two years. They also mentioned that on social media and in the media, there was talk of a convoy 70 kilometres long. The warning went out one week before the convoy arrived, which should have been enough time to plan and figure out how to contain the situation before it got out of hand the way it did. This type of action is possible through coordination, teamwork, the creation of an emergency response team, collaboration and visionary leadership.

The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the associations and the mobilization that is possible on social media. However, the act makes it clear that it must be invoked not based on hypothetical events, but on the presence of real danger.

The act is to be used when the police are unable to enforce the laws and bylaws available. Right now, I feel that the act is more of a positive move than a reasonable one. A reasonable move would have been to recognize that the problem lies primarily in Ottawa and not elsewhere in the country.

Several incidents have been cited in the House to persuade us that the Emergencies Act is necessary. On February 17, the theft of a trailer full of weapons in Peterborough was mentioned. At 1:55 p.m. that day, the member for Parkdale—High Park drew a connection between that theft and the protest that was going on at the time in Quebec City. That was on February 17. However, the trailer was found on February 16. It was wrong to couple the two together. That is misinformation. This incident cannot be used to support the invocation of the act.

On the same day, the crane truck that was parked in front of the Prime Minister's office was considered a threat. It is no longer there now, but if it was a threat, why was it not moved from the start? The Criminal Code is clear. Paragraphs 423(1)(a) to 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code deal with such incidents, threats and intimidation. The vehicle already would have had to be moved under the existing Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.

Members talked about the threats in the videos. I saw those videos, and I did not like what I saw. My colleague talked about this earlier. We have known about some of these Facebook groups for two years. I cannot understand why they were not shut down in accordance with the Criminal Code.

I know of seven sections of the Criminal Code that could have been used to silence the people who made those videos and bring them to justice because what they were doing was illegal: paragraph 261(1)(a); subsection 423(1), which I talked about earlier; subsection 46(2); subsections 59(1) to 59(3), paragraphs 63(1)(a) and 63(1)(b); and subsection 72(1). There are plenty of them.

For money coming from the United States and possibly, according to sources, from extremist supremacist groups, sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04 of the Criminal Code cover that. Section 83.11 says that banks can freeze assets. We had all the legislative tools we needed to address the crisis before it turned into a 23-day occupation.

To sum up, all law enforcement needed was coordination and the ability to call in tow trucks. The Criminal Code covers that too. With a court order or an order from the Attorney General, the tow trucks would have had no choice but to act, and they would have been supported.

In a crisis, we must all weigh our words and our actions carefully, whether we are MPs, the Prime Minister, law enforcement officers, mayors, municipal councillors or protesters. During a crisis, we must take the time to balance our emotional and rational selves. Too much of one or the other is not a good thing. Inaction can be just as damaging as sudden or extreme action. On both sides of this issue, consultation, collaboration and coordination between the various police forces were possible without applying the Emergencies Act. It took planning and leadership.

It was possible to arrest people who threatened others without applying the Emergencies Act. It was possible to arrest the ringleaders without applying the Emergencies Act. I could go on much longer. I have another two pages of examples.

The police asked for help as far back as February 7 and 11. Leadership and consultation are what this protest needed, and that is what police forces are providing right now.

We do not need to create a precedent.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech.

The member referenced a number of provisions of the Criminal Code, and one that has come up repeatedly in today's debate, particularly from the official opposition and supported by the Bloc, is in section 129 of the Criminal Code. I have looked at this provision and thought about it. This provision is about an omission. It is about someone failing to assist a peace officer, and it allows for that person to be charged with an offence. There is an exclusion in the provision if that person who is not co-operating with the peace officer has a reasonable excuse.

To my mind, and I think to most legal analysts, when somebody receives a death threat, as has been evidenced by an Ottawa tow truck company that was accused of helping with the towing of a protester's truck, that would constitute a reasonable excuse.

I put it to the member opposite that we do not compel people to co-operate with peace officers in other investigations, such as when someone witnesses a gang shooting or a mafia-related incident. We do not arrest those individuals; we come up with other means to ensure their participation.

That is what—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I was trying to give the member a signal. There are other people who want to ask questions.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is this: Did the tow truck drivers go in alone? I understand that some were afraid. I understand that, hence the importance of the words “consultation” and “collaboration” with law enforcement. They both needed to work together, as they did over the past two days, even if it meant getting help from the RCMP, from Toronto and other neighbouring cities, which is what happened in the end. By working together from the start, a lot of mistakes could have been avoided.

I understand that people were afraid of getting death threats. I have been on the receiving end, and it is not pleasant.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. She made a number of very important points.

The first is that there are other legal tools in place. The government does not need to bring in the Emergencies Act every time there is a need for law enforcement action. The Emergencies Act has not been used since 1988. Obviously this country has faced blockades, standoffs and occupations as well as very violent situations and terrorist attacks in the intervening years, yet this is the first time the Emergencies Act has been used.

The member also correctly talked about how the Prime Minister could have sought to defuse the situation. I note the dramatic difference in the rhetoric being used today, the demonization of those with different points of view, from what the Prime Minister said two years ago about another set of blockades, when he said that it was important to talk to people, to listen and to try to come to an understanding.

It looks like the Prime Minister is using a hammer on those who have a political perspective that is different from his own, a hammer that is uniquely reserved for those with those kinds of perspectives. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, I always try to avoid conflating issues as much as possible.

I think there were other ways to deal with the situation we were facing, besides invoking the Emergencies Act. Doing nothing was certainly not the way to get people to leave.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard other Bloc Québécois members say this was not an emergency. I disagree.

When occupiers hold Ottawa residents hostage to the point where they are afraid to leave their homes for weeks, that is an emergency situation.

Would my colleague agree that this is an emergency situation and that we need to act now to ensure that it is treated as such?

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my speech yesterday and today, I listened to the debate.

There is ample agreement that the situation was urgent. However, where we do not agree on the act is that there is no national crisis. This is a local crisis. That is the difference.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in this historic debate on the declaration of an emergency.

I want to begin by saying that two long years with the COVID pandemic and now omicron have been difficult. They have shaped our lives over the last two years. It has taken a toll on work and how we talk to people and how we meet people. It has been very challenging. I want to say that up front, and I want to thank Canadians and thank Nova Scotians for their work and their contributions.

March 13, 2020, is the day we returned home from Parliament when the world seemed to have changed overnight. Let us be honest: Over three million Canadians lost their jobs in a very short period of time, and we knew as a government that we had to respond quickly. First and foremost, this was a pandemic, a health issue, and we wanted to, and would, work closely with the experts in public health. As a government, we would cut red tape and create programs in record time. We would work together across party lines and we would help Canadians. That was the objective from day one.

Our government made promises that we would be there for Canadians, that we would have their backs. We did, and we will continue to do so until this is over. Programs for helping Canadians, such as the CERB and the wage and the rent subsidies, have been successful. When it came to getting tests, PPE, gowns and gloves, we were quick to produce those. We even asked our own business owners to help us produce those products, which they did, and I want to thank them for that. When it came to the vaccines, we were quick to procure those, and we had them in the arms of people much more quickly than anticipated. When the provinces needed help for health care and education, we were again very quick to respond, investing $19 billion for a safe restart agreement and creating the safe return to class fund. The federal government contributed eight out of every 10 dollars that were invested in the pandemic.

Canadians helped us a lot as well. They followed the health guidelines. They came together to help each other. They took their vaccines when they were able to. We have the highest rate of vaccination in the world. I thank Canadians.

I know it has been two long years, and everyone is tired of COVID and the sacrifices they have made. People's lives were put on hold, and we all want to see COVID in the rear-view mirror. We know COVID has had a negative and significant impact on our health, including our economic health, our social health and our mental health. It has been very tough.

That is why it is important that we start looking at the restrictions, but let us keep in mind that most of those restrictions were put in place by provincial governments. Why? It was for good reason. The restrictions were dictated by the capacity on the ground, including the challenge in hospital beds, health care workers and frontline staff. I could go on. We noticed that we needed to continue to invest in supporting provinces in health care, and in other areas as well, but I am optimistic that we will soon see changes as we move forward and as we see more capacity in the hospitals with time.

We have already seen the easing of some restrictions. With respect to the travel restrictions, next month non-essential travel will be allowed for people who wish to do so. We will see the removal of quarantines while people are waiting for their test results. We will continue to be guided by data and circumstances on the ground. I refuse to let all that hard work go to waste. We just cannot drop the ball at the five-yard line.

The protests of the last three weeks have been very difficult. We witnessed the blockade associated with the convoy. I am a great believer in the right to protest and in respecting our rights under the charter, but this is not a peaceful protest. It is an occupation. It is controlled by individuals who want to overthrown an elected government.

Peaceful protest is not associated with symbols of hate and violence or the bullying and harassment of frontline workers. It is not about holding our city and infrastructure hostage and showing disrespect for our monuments or memorials. I watched the video of an individual dancing on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. It was very, very difficult to watch the disrespect. We were quick to put up fences to protect the monument from occupiers, but then I had to watch, like many Canadians, a mob of people tear down the fencing.

I want to share a tweet from the Royal Canadian Legion: “The National War Memorial is a site of collective remembrance & must be treated with respect. The removal of protective barricades & the reported inaction by those charged with safeguarding this memorial is deeply disturbing. Those who sacrificed for our freedoms deserve better.”

These actions do not reflect Canadian values. I reject the notion that this represents the will of the Canadian people. The more we learn about this occupation, the more disturbing elements we find.

Foreign actors are influencing and fuelling events on the ground, with 55% of the donors being American and 6% from other countries. Canadians represent 39% of the donors. Another very important fact is that 1,100 Americans who donated to the insurrection in the U.S. on January 6 also donated to the Canadian convoy occupation in Canada. This is not about truckers.

I also want to share with the House a joint statement by Canada's unions:

Canada’s unions have fought for generations for the right to protest. This is a cornerstone of our democratic system. But what we have witnessed on the streets of Canada’s capital over the past thirteen days is something different altogether. This is not a protest, it is an occupation by an angry mob trying to disguise itself as a peaceful protest.

The statement goes on to say:

It is time for all levels of government to work together to help the people affected and put an end to this occupation of our nation’s capital.

Invoking the Emergencies Act was necessary. For four weeks illegal disruption harmed our economy and endangered public safety. The people in Ottawa suffered for 23 days and counting. We needed to supplement provinces and territories with the authorities to address this challenge.

However, before launching into what the Emergencies Act will do, I want to talk about what it will not do. It will not take away the right to protest. It will not limit rights under the charter. It does not limit freedom of speech. There is no military involvement. It is reinforcing the principles and values of our institutions. It keeps Canada free. It is not the War Measures Act. It is much different.

The threats to the security of Canada are real. This group wanted to overthrow our leaders, our democratic government. Foreign money is influencing what is happening on the ground. Tracked and blocked foreign money is creating negative impacts on our economy and democracy.

The Emergencies Act will give the provinces and territories authority. It creates new authorities to regulate crowds, prohibit blockades and keep essential corridors open. Finally, it will mobilize essential services like tow trucks, which we did not have access to for a long time.

There are all kinds of declarations and clear oversight in this act. It tables in Parliament within seven days. We have the debate that we are having tonight, which is so important. We have a parliamentary committee that will provide oversight while emergencies are in effect. It will last 30 days or less. It can be revoked. What I find very interesting is it triggers an automatic inquiry. This will allow us to look back at all decisions.

I want to share some of the key things the acting chief of police, Steve Bell, and the mayor said. They said the Emergencies Act was very important for them to do their job. All three levels of authorities were needed to deliver what we are doing today. We know we have to now solve this as quickly as possible and this will allow us to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, will this member speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and condemn what is happening in the B.C. Interior? There were 20 masked men armed with machetes and axes who attacked a group of pipeline workers causing millions of dollars in damage. Is he prepared, on behalf of the Liberal government, to condemn that type of activity?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question, but we are focused on the issue today, which is the Emergencies Act. I want to remind my colleague that it is the Conservative Party, and I was listening earlier to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who said that the interim leader is now saying that the truckers should leave. That is not what she said for the first two and a half weeks. She even wrote to the opposition leader of the day to tell him that it is the Prime Minister's problem and to go talk to them. A number of Conservatives were taking pictures and supporting this group. That is unacceptable. He should focus on what is at hand today.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier the member for Lac-Saint-Louis told us that the opposition does not get it, and that the government did not control the police services, as if there was no middle ground between controlling the police services and taking action, as if the only option left was to use the emergency measures.

How is it that the Ottawa chief of police asked for 1,800 RCMP officers? How is it that the Government of Quebec, which manages public security, decided to go elsewhere? How is it that nobody understands anything except the Liberals?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I always find it interesting to have discussions with him.

I would like to remind him that the Bloc Québécois needs to take a look in the mirror. It often claims to know the truth, but let us not forget that 72% of Quebeckers are in favour of us applying the Emergencies Act. That is a sign that this party must keep in mind.

It is time to take action, and that is what the government is doing. We would like to have the support of the Bloc Québécois.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have asked this question of others in this House, but I wanted to convey to him the comments I have received from many constituents who have noted the stark contrast between the way in which the Ottawa police responded to the convoy and the occupation, and the way in which indigenous people in northwest B.C. and across Canada are treated by police when they are protesting.

Could the member comment on whether he shares our concern on that contrast and whether he would support an independent public inquiry that would look into the way in which policing has been done over the past number of weeks in this situation?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that I think there are a lot of people in Ottawa and across the country who are very disappointed with the way things unfolded with the police here locally. It took way too much time. We could have provided more tools earlier, I suspect.

The good thing about this Emergencies Act is that an automatic inquiry is embedded in it. That will allow us to reflect on what has transpired and how we can continue to do the work that needs to be done as parliamentarians.

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

Madam Speaker, I noted that my hon. friend from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook talked about foreign interference as though we were just talking about the flow of money in donations to the so-called “freedom convoy”. I wonder if he has turned his attention to foreign interference in the form of disinformation, largely emanating from Russian websites, social media activity, as well as that emanating from the U.S. Republican Party.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are good people on both sides, the Conservatives and Trump, that is for sure. There was a flooding of 911 calls, most of them coming from the United States. As I said in my speech, 1,100 people who contributed to the insurrection in the U.S. contributed to this convoy. That tells us there has been a lot of involvement by a lot of right-wing people in this country and in the States.

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

Madam Speaker, there seem to be two conflicting views. One is that the convoy was all about vaccine mandates and personal freedoms. On the other hand, when listening to the leaders, it sounded like an insurrection, that they were coming with the intent of overthrowing the democratically elected government. The supporters of the protest, including the Conservatives, have either been naively blind to the fact that they were gamed by the true leaders of this, or they are wilfully blind to the evidence that those leaders presented. What are your thoughts on that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not going to tell you what my thoughts are, but I will let the parliamentary secretary do that.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am so proud of Canadians. We have over 80% double-vaccinated, which is very important. Some who have been vaccinated are very tired. I understand that people would like to get their lives back, but an organization that has as its main objective to overthrow the government, is unacceptable.

In my opinion, the Conservatives, looking at the interim leader's comments before she was interim leader, she told her leader to take pictures with these people and “Let this look like it's a Trudeau issue”. That is unacceptable. That is a political game. That is all—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The parliamentary secretary cannot use the last name or first name of the Prime Minister.

I have another question. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

Madam Speaker, this legislation, the Emergencies Act, has been on the books for 34 years and it has never been invoked. The hon. member gave a 20-minute speech but not once did he talk about the legal threshold that must be satisfied, namely that the emergency is a situation that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.

Does he honestly believe that the situation in Ottawa met that threshold?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, that is an easy question to answer. If the main objective is to overthrow a democratic government, that in itself indicates that sovereignty is in question. If people in Ottawa were afraid to leave their homes that is another very strong indicator. If the economy, our Canadian economy, is in trouble as well, that is a good indicator as well.