House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Madam Speaker, what do we expect from an acting Leader of the Opposition who saw no problem wearing a MAGA hat, which has been seen as a symbol of white supremacy and Trump's far-right rhetoric, and from a party whose heir apparent to the leadership openly supports what is happening? What is really appalling is how the Conservatives are ignoring what is happening just outside Parliament: the racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynist abuse we have all heard about. When I stay in Ottawa, I am in the downtown, and many people I know have been deeply affected.

Conservative MPs have gone out of their way to encourage this occupation. A Conservative MP did an interview in front of a flag with swastikas on it. They have taken pictures, shaken hands and put thumbs up, and in the House they have gaslighted the country by telling us these are peaceful gatherings. Conservative MPs who have fuelled this occupation rooted in white supremacy, which is targeting citizens and the press and is pursuing the overthrow of our institutions, must be held to account. There must be an inquiry into how we arrived at this place: how this occupation came to pass, who funded it, who fomented it, who failed to act, who passed the buck and what the role of the police was. We cannot ignore this internationally funded, politically organized, far-right attack on our democracy. We cannot allow this to happen again.

It comes down to privilege. This protest is being driven by an agenda, by an ideology and by supporters who believe they are entitled to target our population and our democratic system. The abuse is no accident. The agenda is racist, homophobic and misogynist to begin with.

Freedom is rooted in our democracy. It starts with respect. It is not about the freedom to be racist, homophobic and misogynist. The very idea of freedom has been hijacked and distorted. It has been used by many to support privilege, particularly white privilege. It is the privilege to endanger and harass others and the privilege to impose an alt-right, foreign-funded attack on our democracy.

This cannot be a moment in time when we sit idly by as the far right becomes emboldened. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow fascism to be normalized and legitimized. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow for the police and other institutions to belatedly respond and then carry on to crack down on people peacefully defending their rights, including workers on strike, indigenous peoples defending their lands, Black and racialized communities rising up and climate activists fighting for our survival. This cannot be a moment when we sit idly by and allow for the status quo to carry on. This is not the Canada we can be. We can be and we must be a country that practices respect, denounces bigotry, strengthens our democracy and acts on the racial, social, economic and environmental justice we all deserve.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:20 p.m.

Saint Boniface—Saint Vital Manitoba

Liberal

Dan Vandal LiberalMinister of Northern Affairs

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party generally, and the interim leader of the Conservative Party very specifically, have compared the faux trucker occupation over the last three weeks with indigenous protests across Canada, particularly in Manitoba and British Columbia. I am wondering if the member could offer her comments on that analysis.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. Those of us from Manitoba know well the kinds of politics unfortunately practised by many Conservatives, including the interim leader from Manitoba, and there is no comparison to be made. Once again we are seeing Conservatives gaslight the country, saying that this foreign-funded, far-right occupation in Ottawa is the same as the kinds of non-violent demonstrations we have seen by indigenous peoples defending their rights and their land and standing up for what they believe in. It is not just deeply insulting, but downright wrong to compare these two things.

We must be very clear that the interim leader has been open, both by wearing a MAGA hat and through her statements, that she and her colleagues are fine with coddling white supremacy and actions that very much support it.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member and many times we may not agree. One thing she talked about is respect. I listened as she sat there and said the party I belong to is misogynist, white supremacist and all of these great names. We are in a place where we are not supposed to gaslight because we know it is happening outside. I listened to the member talk about the party I belong to and degrade each and every one of us. We have the right to a difference in thought. I do not agree with the occupation, but, like her, I do agree with the right to protest.

Is the member going to hold the Prime Minister responsible, or is she going to continue blaming the Conservatives when it is the Liberals who are in government?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Madam Speaker, in this parliamentary debate, we are talking about who is at fault. As I clearly indicated, the Liberals very much are. We should never have been in this position. However, let us be clear on who has encouraged this occupation. The Conservative interim leader, the heir apparent and numerous Conservative MPs have legitimized, encouraged and supported this occupation. It is clearly documented in social media through pictures they have shared and in coverage by the mainstream media.

Canadians see through much of this. What we need is principled leadership. We do not need leaders in our Parliament supporting foreign-funded, alt-right movements that seek to overthrow our democracy and target citizens. I hope the member and all of her colleagues change course, condemn that kind of activity and take appropriate action.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, the act we are discussing cannot be invoked as a preventive measure. It is right there. We already know that.

This week, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie told the media in Quebec that if protesters were to leave and the blockades were removed by Monday, the NDP might reconsider its decision to support the government. Well, it is over. The protesters have left. They are no longer in front of Parliament.

Does my colleague think that the NDP might decide not to support the government on this?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to point out that the people who led and supported this occupation are unfortunately still active.

As I clearly said in my speech, we must be serious about this operation, which was funded and organized by the far right in an attempt to attack our democracy and to intimidate and harass Canadian citizens. This is a problem we are facing and that we must now take seriously.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, I am, not surprisingly, both happy and sad to have the chance to speak in the debate on the confirmation of the use of the Emergencies Act to break the border blockades and lift the siege of the capital.

I am happy to speak, because I think that the situation had reached a crisis point, and the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary to counter a real threat to democracy and the rule of law in Canada. However, I am sad that it has come to this. I am sad, because the Liberals let the situation go on for so long that we reached this crisis point.

It is important to consider how we got to this point. There is enough blame to go around when it comes to the widespread failure to understand that the blockades and the siege of downtown Ottawa and the parliamentary precinct are not protests or exercises in free speech. Instead, the self-described freedom fighters who organized this came prepared to use intimidation, harassment and coercion to get the policy changes that they want. That is not how democracy works; it is not how peaceful protests work, and these tactics have nothing to do with the right to free speech.

We have a rich history of protest in this country, and at times, many of us have been participants in those protests. However, the goal of those protests has always been to change minds and thus bring about change in policy by political means. Their goals have always been to convince governments to change course by making it clear that the political price of failing to do so would be too high.

Blockades and occupations are another thing altogether. None of what has been going on outside of Parliament for three weeks is part of any rich tradition of civil disobedience. Those engaging in civil disobedience do so with a clear understanding that they are taking on any harm to themselves. They accept that it is they themselves who will face harm from the arrests and penalties that result from their law-breaking. They accept that harm to themselves in order to make a strong, moral argument. Instead, those involved in the blockades and the siege seek to inflict harm on others until we all give in to their demands.

Legitimate protests never aim to extort change by intimidation or by deliberately causing harm to others. As the judge in the case resulting in an injunction against around-the-clock sounding of high decibel air horns in Ottawa said, he was not aware that honking was an expression of any great ideas.

I am critical of the Liberals for failing to recognize the nature of the threat that these blockades in Windsor and Coutts and the siege of downtown Ottawa represented. It is hard to understand how this could have been missed, when the organizers clearly stated their intention to force change and even to replace the elected government, when they set up base camps outside downtown Ottawa to ferry supplies to the occupiers downtown or when they organized an attack on 911 services in Ottawa to deny emergency services to residents. This is intimidation. This is extortion.

It is hard to understand how it could go on so long when the evidence of harassment and intimidation of residents and local businesses went on right on the steps of Parliament. We ended up with a situation where, according to most reports, over 50% of businesses downtown were forced to close altogether, and more than 85% had to curtail their activities in order to keep their workers safe. It is bitterly ironic for those businesses that the result of the tactics adopted by those who were arguing that we should open up actually resulted in further closures and heavy losses for local businesses and local workers.

It is hard to understand how the fact was missed that blockades at border crossings in Coutts and Windsor were designed to inflict economic damage severe enough to force change. Workers in factories, including those at GM plants, at a time when we are fighting hard to keep the auto industry alive in Canada, lost shifts as the border blockade interrupted the supply chain.

The ultimate irony is that the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades cost thousands of truckers, for whom the organizers falsely claim to speak, hours and even days stuck in the resulting jams. Once removed, those organizers tried to block the bridge in Windsor once again.

While I do hold the government responsible for letting the situation get out of hand, at the same time I reject the idea that somehow the government or vaccine mandates created division and that division explains the blockades and siege. Yes, there are some truckers involved in these disruptions, but never forget that over 90% of truckers are vaccinated. Never forget how they continued to work through the pandemic before vaccinations were available, at considerable risk to themselves and the health of their families, to protect the rest of us and our economy.

They know, like the overwhelming majority of Canadians, that masks, vaccinations and social distancing are what have brought us as close to escaping this pandemic as we have come so far. They know that social solidarity and standing united behind our health workers saved literally thousands of lives and gave a death rate from COVID less than half that of the United States. They know that only continuing to pull together as a society will get us to the other side.

Yes, people are free to reject science and the unequivocal advice of medical experts. They can choose to do so, but freedom means accepting the consequences for the choices we make. It does not mean we have the right to inflict the consequences of our choices on others. Those who reject the mandates should not be surprised to find restrictions on what they can do due to the risk they pose to others and to our ability as a nation to survive the pandemic.

No doubt as the pandemic drags on we all want to see restrictions lifted, but for the vast majority of Canadians, this should happen only when it is safe to do so. Five new deaths from COVID were recorded yesterday in British Columbia, including yet another on Vancouver Island, where we are still continuing to lose an average of more than one person per day to COVID. Those are families that lose a loved one each and every day. As of yesterday, the number in critical care in B.C. dropped below 1,000, a number that is still far too high, although thankfully it is down considerably. However, even with numbers dropping, our hospitals and health care workers are near the breaking point.

It is this tension resulting from the ongoing pandemic that the organizers of the blockades and siege have exploited for their own ends. Members should make no mistake that the organizers are extremists and anti-democratic in their goals. It is their clear intention to use force, intimidation and for some, as we have seen at the Coutts border crossing, violence to achieve their ends.

In downtown Ottawa we have seen the open display of hate symbols, racism and homophobia. We have seen the intimidation of residents demanding they remove their masks. This happened to me personally more than once, but it has been most often directed at those the occupiers perceive to be weak and vulnerable to such pressure: women, racialized Canadians and members of the 2SLGBTQI community.

Before some say that every protest has its bad apples or that it is only an extremist minority among the protesters, let me point out that the organizers never once condemned things like the display of Nazi flags, nor did they condemn intimidating local residents by demanding they remove their masks, and supporters have argued that there were only a few swastikas flying in the Ottawa occupation, although I personally counted six in three blocks in a single day. Let me repeat the obvious question: How many swastikas are okay? The obvious answer is none.

People say Confederate flags are just symbols of rebellion, and those who argue that may want to stop and think for just a moment about making that argument in this current context. Confederate flags are clearly symbols of racism and the violence associated with anti-Black racism. That is why I support my colleague the member for New Westminster—Burnaby's private member's bill to ban the public display of these ugly symbols of hate, which discourage full participation in Canadian society by some of our citizens.

We have seen invasions of businesses who are enforcing mandates to keep their employees and all of us safe, and now, with more than half the businesses in downtown Ottawa forced to close, there are literally thousands out of work because of those closures. More than 1,500 people who work at the Rideau Centre mall alone have been out of work for three weeks now.

We have seen the physical intimidation of journalists and the use of children as shields. There have been open threats of violence against the Prime Minister, cabinet and us as members of Parliament both on the streets and online. Perhaps most relevant to our debate here about the invocation of emergency powers, we have seen repeated statements from the organizers that they would not leave until the mandates are lifted.

This is why New Democrats are supporting using emergency powers to put an end to what are, in fact, organized attacks on democracy. As we have done for the past three weeks now, New Democrats continue to reject the narrative that Canadians are more divided than ever. The evidence is, frankly, just the opposite.

When I stand to vote on this motion to affirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, I will be standing with health care workers, with first responders, with grocery workers, all front-line workers and yes, the vast majority of truckers, but I will also be standing to pledge vigilance to ensure these necessary but extraordinary powers are used only to remove these serious threats to democracy and never to infringe on our rights to protest and dissent.

Again, let me say I am sad it has come to this, but I am proud to stand firmly against the use of intimidation, hatred and violence to overturn our democracy.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for all the work he has done over many years on human rights. His speech today really highlighted some of the things around human rights.

The hon. member mentioned using children as human shields. Frankly, that is one of the aspects of this protest that has offended me more than almost anything else that has been going on. They are putting children in harm's way, children who sometimes are not able to get vaccinated. One of the reasons for us to get vaccinated is to protect our children, and now we are seeing children being put in situations of danger.

Could the hon. member expand on how that is an affront to the human rights of some of our most vulnerable Canadians?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, while I do not want to focus extensively on the use of children as shields, I did see it personally as I walked on the streets in Ottawa and I was horrified to see parents putting their kids in danger for some distorted view of what freedom means. It shows that the organizers have little respect for basic rights and freedoms, little respect for what it actually means to be Canadian.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the consequences of the blockades.

In the world I live in, the real word, we have the Criminal Code, municipal bylaws, the highway safety code and the ability to call in other police forces. There are provisions in the Criminal Code to combat hate crimes.

Is my colleague aware that all of these laws applied before the emergency declaration was made? I would also like to ask my colleague whether he thinks that a member of the House of Commons who votes against the emergency measures is against democracy and for violence.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I can actually thank the member for that question, but I will say what is very clear here is that some people, and I am not accusing members in the chamber, but some people who helped organize these demonstrations intended to use force and intimidation to change public policy. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what Canada is about. That is not what I am about here as a member of Parliament.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Madam Speaker, the member referred to being in favour of peaceful protests, but under these regulations, the Emergencies Act order requires financial institutions to cease dealing with designated persons. Designated persons is defined as anyone associated with a protest.

Keeping in mind that we both support peaceful protests, could the member explain what a designated person means in the act? Is it a protest organizer? Is it a protest attendee? Is it a donor? Is it someone who tweets in support? How far does the act go?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the Emergencies Act, which builds in parliamentary oversight to this process and which allows at any time for 20 members of Parliament to request a vote to revoke these provisions. As the previous member asked what about laws that were already in effect, what I think is really true here is that the Emergencies Act gives us the power as a government, as a society to enforce existing laws and regulations to prevent those who would use force, violence and intimidation to get around those laws. If anyone is using their resources to prolong these demonstrations, blockades and occupations, they will fall under the provisions of the Emergencies Act.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:40 p.m.

Scarborough—Rouge Park Ontario

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

I rise today with a very heavy heart to speak in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act by our government and the motion in this House to affirm the government's decision. I want to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people. I want to thank the many truckers in my riding of Scarborough—Rouge Park, and the hundreds of thousands of truckers around the world, who have helped us throughout the pandemic.

Ever since I can remember, I have gone to protests. We have been protesting the rights of Tamils on the island of Sri Lanka from the time I was maybe four or five. After the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1983, I demonstrated for weeks on end at the India consulate in Dublin, Ireland. Later in Canada in the 1980s, I protested apartheid of South Africa. In the 1990s, I protested the cuts to education in Ontario under their then premier Bob Rae. In 1995, I organized a vigil and protest right here on Parliament Hill as Tamils were being displaced in the north and east of the island.

In the 2000s, I extended legal supports to protesters at Queen's Park. I did a number of them throughout the decade. In 2009, I was right here in Ottawa and provided legal support to those who were protesting against the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka. This has been referred to, in the last several days, as the Tamil protest. It started in early February and ended in May of 2009. This included similar protests on University Avenue in front of the U.S. consulate, and I worked with the then chief of police for the City of Toronto, now the Minister of Emergency Preparedness, to ensure those protests were peaceful.

I can recall my nephew, who was 10 years old at that time, going to many of these protests with my late father-in-law. My partner and I took our four-month-old in frigid temperatures to protest on Dundas Square in the winter of 2009. During this time, I also attended protests in Washington, New York and Geneva. I am therefore an ardent believer in the right to protest as a tool of dissent and political advocacy. I believe in the right to protest, and I also believe that children should be part of protests, but not used as shields in an illegal occupation.

Since January 29, 2022, Canada has been gripped by what started off with protesting, and has turned into illegal blockades and occupiers. Many colleagues across the aisle have talked about their interactions with the illegal blockaders. I have a great deal of respect for many of my colleagues across the aisle. They have spoken about their interactions with some truckers and other protesters, and their ability to walk through the illegal blockades and understand and empathize.

Sadly, I do not have that privilege. Many in this House do not have that privilege. Even though, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to enjoy the same level of privilege, I do not share that privilege.

They have called for the overthrow of a government and, de facto, all of us serving in this House. They brought symbols of hate, like the confederate flag, Nazi symbols and others, to the protest. They have destroyed the pride flag. They have threatened media. They have taken food from a homeless shelter. I ask my colleagues opposite to please forgive me if I do not feel the same level of confidence engaging with these so-called protesters.

I would never cast dispersions over a group based on the acts of a few, but after 23 days, many who may feel strongly about the type of hate and vitriol we see on the streets should distance themselves and condemn them, including the Conservative Party of Canada.

The impacts of these illegal blockades on Ottawa, Coutts, Emerson, Surrey and Windsor are profound. These illegal blockades are different in form and substance to the hundreds of protests we see here in Ottawa annually. That is why, after considerable consultation and engagement, our government invoked the Emergencies Act on February 14, 2022. We did so after the City of Ottawa, Windsor and others invoked emergencies in their municipalities, and after the Province of Ontario did so as well.

Ultimately, Canada is a rule of law country. In declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we followed the law and are acting within it. There are clear conditions set out in the Emergencies Act in order for a public order emergency to be declared. Our government believes those conditions have been met.

I want to highlight the preamble of the Emergencies Act, which reads:

AND WHEREAS the Governor in Council, in taking such special temporary measures, would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights and must have regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly with respect to those fundamental rights that are not to be limited or abridged even in a national emergency;

Any and all action our government takes will be subject to the charter, and it is the solemn responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure this. The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in specific serious circumstances that amount to a national emergency.

In order to meet the threshold for a national emergency, three conditions must be met. First, we must be in a situation that either seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and exceeds the capacity of authority of a province to deal with it, or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.

Second, the capacity of the provinces and territories to handle the situation must be considered insufficient or show gaps. Third, we must conclude the situation cannot be handled adequately under any other Canadian law, including provincial and territorial laws.

Our government believes these conditions were met, and we have tabled an explanation of the reasons for issuing this declaration, as required by this act. We also tabled, as required, a report on any consultation with the provinces with respect to the declaration. I would especially like to highlight and thank for their support the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador, as noted in the document of invoking the act to respond to this national emergency.

As members have seen, our government introduced targeted orders under the act. While the act technically applies to all of Canada, we have been very careful to tailor orders to be as focused as possible and only those places affected by blockades and illegal occupations will see any change at all.

We introduced the following six temporary measures to bring the situation under control. One, regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of peace and go beyond lawful protests. Two, designating and securing places where blockades are to be prohibited. Three, directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. Four, authorizing direct financial institutions to render essential services to relieve impact of blockades. Five, enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal laws and provincial offences. Finally, imposition of fines or imprisonment for contravention of any order or regulation made under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.

There are a number of safeguards built into this act. As required by the act, the Prime Minister met with the cabinet, as well as premiers, prior to invoking the act. After having declared the act, we tabled the declaration within two days, and Parliament has been able to debate it within seven days. In the coming days, the parliamentary committee will be struck and an inquiry will be called. The declaration lasts for 30 days and can be revoked at any time at the will of Parliament.

The situation is urgent. As interim chief of the Ottawa Police Steve Bell said yesterday that the police would not have been able to undertake the enormous operation currently taking in place in Ottawa without the temporary measures extended to it by the Emergencies Act.

We are invoking the Emergencies Act to end illegal blockades and occupations. We are invoking it to restore the rights of those who cannot safely walk the streets of downtown Ottawa and other places.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for talking about his personal experiences throughout his life. First and foremost, we are all human, and we have lived through certain situations. I appreciate the fact that he raised those issues.

My question is quite simple. During 17 days, nothing was done by the government. Even on February 11, the Prime Minister said that laws could be applied to solve this problem. Three days later, he tabled that bill. What happened in those three days to have him table that bill?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to respond to this question, which has come up a number of times. I want to specifically direct the hon. member to the Report to the Houses of Parliament: Emergencies Act Consultations. It outlines all of the measures taken by the government in respect to addressing the situation we have seen.

First and foremost, I think that starting on January 31, there were direct conversations with the mayor of Ottawa. There were numerous conversations with the premiers, including Premier Ford in Ontario. There were consultations with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I can go on. This is an eight-page document that I hope the hon. member can go through to look at the work we did prior to invoking the Emergencies Act.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, since Friday, apart from a small hiccup yesterday, I have been listening to what has been said about the protest.

I have a question about what members have been saying since this morning. Are we to understand that, from now on, every time law enforcement agencies need to join forces, coordinate and collaborate, the federal government can invoke the Emergencies Act?

That is what is happening; after three weeks, law enforcement agencies are finally coordinating their efforts.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Madam Speaker, no, that is not what this entails. We have a specific set of situations right now in a number of different areas, including Ottawa, Windsor, Coutts, Emerson and Surrey, that do pose a national emergency. This is in direct response to the situation at hand and it does mean that this should be invoked.

I hope the government never has to invoke this again, but we are in a situation where it does have to be, and that is what we have done right now.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is a trained lawyer, as am I. We have all heard some concerns raised by the general public that the invocation of the Emergencies Act may set a precedent, so I am curious about his thoughts on that.

I would particularly be interested in his views on the converse of that, which is if we did not act in these circumstances, what kind of precedent does he think might be set by people using economic hostage taking to try to force a change in policy of a democratically elected government. Is he concerned about that also setting a bad precedent in this nation?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question posed by my friend opposite. This certainly does set a precedent in terms of protest. We cannot have blockades of this nature, which literally bring our economy to a halt.

We have gone through the pandemic. We have serious challenges with transport across Canada right now, and we need to make sure that all of our systems are working properly. If the government were to not get involved in a situation where there are such economic losses and job losses, then we would be responsible. I believe we are doing the right thing right now.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

February 19th, 2022 / 5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Leah Taylor Roy Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be here today representing the constituents of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and to speak in this historic debate on the motion to confirm the government's declaration of emergency.

I thank everyone participating in and listening to this important debate. It is critical for our country that we, as a Parliament, work together to ensure that this debate is robust and to address the motion at hand.

In the spirit of unity, I would like to begin by talking about those things that I believe we can all agree on.

First, I believe we are all grateful to Canadians for their efforts over the past two years: for stepping up and following public health measures to protect the health and welfare of themselves and their fellow Canadians, and for working hard on our front lines and our essential services to keep our economy moving and Canadians safe and cared for. We are also grateful to the truckers who have provided these services and, especially today, to our men and women in uniform from across our province and country, for professionally and peacefully working to end this illegal occupation.

Additionally, I believe we agree on our basic rights and responsibilities: the right of all Canadians to free speech and the right to lawfully and peacefully protest, and the responsibility of our government to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada. On a more personal level, there is the responsibility of all of us as members of Parliament to listen to our constituents and to weigh carefully the measures we are enacting.

Likewise, the responsibility of Canadians is to refrain from hate speech and other violent and harassing behaviour toward their fellow citizens, but especially at this time toward our police officers, our frontline public servants, our medical officers and even our own staff as members of Parliament.

I think we can also agree on some facts that were established during the disruptions to public order over the past several weeks. There has been an illegal occupation of the downtown core of Ottawa for over three weeks now. It is an occupation that has not only impeded the operation of businesses and the lives and livelihoods of many thousands of Canadians, but also, and perhaps more importantly in terms of the invocation of the Emergencies Act, it has threatened to disrupt the operation of all three branches of our government, impeding their proper functioning.

The inability of the municipal, regional and provincial governments to disperse this illegal occupation of our nation's capital has further added to the situation.

Let us look at some other facts, such as the publication of a memorandum of understanding by the organizers of these blockades calling for the overthrow of the government if the demands they set out were not met. We should be outraged by the involvement of extremist, white nationalist organizations in the operation of this self-titled “freedom convoy” movement, some even demonstrating with swastikas and Confederate flags. In fact, during CBC coverage of the protest only a few hours ago, a flag of one of the far-right organizations was clearly being waved.

We should be outraged by the discovery of lethal and illegal weapons and the arrest of individuals associated with the organizing groups at the Coutts border blockade in Alberta. We should be outraged by the threats to the life of the Prime Minister, and to the men and women in uniform who are on the front lines trying to peacefully contain and quell these illegal blockades.

We should be outraged by the significant economic damage that these blockades have done at border crossings critical to vital trade between Canada and the United States. What Canadians are not outraged by the inflow of foreign money funding this political movement? It is money from the U.S. and the Cayman Islands, including money identified as coming from over a thousand donors who also donated to the illegal attempt to overthrow the government of the United States on January 6. How can the Conservatives not be equally outraged by these acts?

The question before us right now is whether the situation we are currently facing warrants the invocation of the Emergencies Act. This act has been invoked under Part II: a public order emergency. A public order emergency is described as resulting from serious threats to the Government of Canada. When defining threats to the security of Canada, the act references the definition provided in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. This definition includes espionage, sabotage, detrimental foreign influences, activities that support the threat or use of violence for a political, religious or ideological objective, or those activities that threaten to undermine or otherwise destroy or overthrow the Government of Canada.

I hope that after hearing the facts I have just enumerated, and given the definition of when we are facing a public order emergency under the act, members will agree that the motion before us should be supported.

Let us remember that we are debating the declaration of an emergency under an act that was introduced, debated and amended in 1987 and 1988 by the then Conservative government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It was a Progressive Conservative government, very unlike the leadership of the Conservative Party opposite.

This is a well-written and thoughtful act that was introduced to address concerns that many Canadians had with the only act available to our government at that time: the War Measures Act. As former Prime Minister Mulroney pointed out, one of the major things that the Emergencies Act did was to require the concurrence of Parliament in the declaration of an emergency. This is an important feature of the act and the reason we are here today.

Perrin Beatty, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who was the minister of defence at the time that this act was introduced, said that the government's use of this act is an indication of how serious a threat the blockades are to public safety and the economy.

To quote a primary source, Mr. Beatty's Twitter account, he said, “When I brought in the Emergencies Act 35 years ago, I wished that it would never need to be used, but I knew there would inevitably be future crises and that it was essential to protect the basic rights of Canadians even in an emergency.”

This is what the act does. Let me once again review the measures in this act that ensure the protection of our basic rights. The act ensures that the government's actions are subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. The act is time limited and targeted, and measures introduced will be reasonable and proportional. The act lapses after 30 days and may be ended prior to that.

There are many checks and balances. We are here today, and I have been here since 7 a.m., to fully debate the invocation of this act, as is required by it. A committee must be established to monitor the measures implemented, and the implementation of the act will be reviewed by the courts.

I trust that, given the many current threats to the safety and security of our country that I outlined earlier, in combination with the safeguards that were so wisely incorporated into this legislation, members will concur that this is a judicious and warranted declaration of emergency by our Prime Minister, and will support this motion.

This is a time for action. Canadians are counting on us. The world is watching us. Let us not be afraid to enact tough, bold measures to protect our country, our border, our economy and our civil society.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that yesterday night, because of the police presence here, I missed a very important dinner with two very dear Kurdish friends of mine: Jowana and her husband Shaheen. I just wanted to mention that at the start.

I listened to the member's speech and I want to put a couple of actual facts on the table. In the lead-up to the declaration of this emergency order and the information the government provided to our opposition benches, it did not provide evidence of how the act should be used. It did not provide briefing material to our caucus before our caucus meeting. In fact, our opposition House leader, and I am his deputy, said to the media that we did not receive any of this information.

If this was a public emergency and the government actually wanted our support and meant to get it, it would have provided this information up front: the evidence that extremist groups were involved, the evidence of which donors were involved, and the actual public safety concerns involved. The government provided no documentation.

I do not have a question. That is just to put it on the record.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

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

The hon. member for Mirabel.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, this is the first time this act has been used since 1988, since it came into force.

Despite this, in response to the friend from the NDP—