Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Cancellation of Friday Sitting

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

Before proceeding further, I want to acknowledge what happened yesterday.

With the agreement of the party leaders and in consideration of the safety of members and staff, a decision was made to cancel Friday's sitting. Early yesterday, a police operation was initiated to address the demonstration that has occupied Wellington Street and the downtown core for the last three weeks.

The progress made thus far by police authorities, in collaboration with the Parliamentary Protective Service, is now allowing us to resume our work.

On behalf of this Chamber, let me express our sincere gratitude for the dedication and professionalism of the police authorities, the Parliamentary Protective Service, as well as our Corporate Security staff and the personnel of the House Administration. It is through their support that these extraordinary sittings are possible.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion.

Emergencies Act

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

I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to an order made on Thursday, February 17, 2022, the House be convened this day for the sole purpose of considering the motion for confirmation of the declaration of emergency standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Public Safety.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

This crucial debate is not to be taken lightly. It was prompted by an event that will go down in the history of the Canadian federation, though not as one of its most glorious moments.

Let me say off the top that I am against the use of the Emergencies Act as set out in the orders, and I am definitely against its use in Quebec. To support my argument, I will review what the act does.

As its name suggests, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort that can only be used when a situation is so imminent, so overwhelming and so insurmountable a threat, that it is strictly impossible for the government to control it under existing legislation.

The consequence of the application of the act is that the executive may, by order, impose measures to ensure the safety of Canadians, the territorial integrity of the country and the protection of the constitutionally established order. This may include prohibiting movement or assembly, regulating the use of specified property, taking control of public services, imposing fines or even summary imprisonment.

Given the potentially antifreedom and undemocratic nature of the measures that can be imposed, Parliament has taken care to specify an exhaustive list of situations that can justify invoking the act. Accordingly, the only grounds for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act are as follows.

The first is a public welfare emergency. It should be noted that since the act came into force, none of the devastating floods, winter ice storms or wildfires that Canadians and Quebeckers have faced has led the government to use these extraordinary powers.

In addition to natural disasters, the definition of a public welfare emergency also includes disease. It is especially pertinent to note that the global health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic did not require the invocation of the Emergencies Act, even though it has caused over 35,000 deaths in Canada and nearly six million deaths worldwide to date, and it is about to mark its ill-fated second anniversary. Despite their exceptional nature, the actions taken to respond to the needs created by this unprecedented crisis were possible without resorting to the Emergencies Act.

Third, the declaration of an international emergency, which is defined as a situation or acts of coercion involving the use of force between countries, may constitute grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act. Similarly, if Canada were to go to war, that may justify the use of the exceptional measures allowed under the Emergencies Act.

The fourth and final rationale provided as justification for a government giving itself these extraordinary powers is that of a public order emergency. Since that term is rather vague, the legislator was good enough to provide a definition in section 16 of the act:

public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency;

For the members who are wondering what a national emergency is, section 3 of the Act specifies that it:

...is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

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

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.

That is significant. My colleagues will agree that the wording is very explicit as to how severe the circumstances must be to justify invoking the Act. Whether it is invoked for one or the other of the reasons I just mentioned, it is an extremely serious measure that must not be taken lightly by the government. It should be a last resort—a tool to be used only after we tried to turn off the leaky tap, used every tool in the box and called in the plumber, but the tap is still leaking.

This is the first time since the Emergencies Act was passed in 1988 that a Prime Minister of Canada has felt the need to resort to the special powers it confers. Its previous incarnation, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times, specifically, during the First World War, during the Second World War, and during the episode of October 1970, an episode that deeply scarred the people of Quebec.

To be fair, I would like to note that the two pieces of legislation are not comparable and we have to be careful about comparing everything from that perspective.

The Emergencies Act requires the government to show that it is facing a dangerous and urgent situation that it finds impossible to deal with it under ordinary laws. The government failed to demonstrate any such thing in the statement of reasons it submitted to parliamentarians. Even worse, it did not even try to do so, since it has remained completely silent on the topic.

I want to explain to members why. It is simply because there is no good reason to justify using this special legislation. There is no legal vacuum preventing the government from resolving the crisis in Ottawa.

The vast majority of protests and blockades that we have seen over the past few weeks have been brought under control or removed without the use of the federal Emergencies Act. The Sarnia, Fort Erie, Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were successfully removed. All of those border crossings are now back up and running, and trade with the United States has been re-established, so it seems that law enforcement was able to put an end to these protests without needing to use any special powers.

What is it about the Ottawa protest that makes it so unstoppable that it cannot be dealt with under the existing legislative framework? What laws are insufficient to resolve the crisis? Why do those laws not allow us to deal with the situation effectively? We do not know. The government has never said.

What is more, before invoking the Emergencies Act, the Prime Minister dragged his feet for two long weeks rather than trying to resolve the crisis. How can he claim, after—

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

The hon. member for Windsor West on a point of order.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I apologize for interrupting my colleague. I think it might even be a question of privilege.

There has been erroneous discussion about the Ambassador Bridge in my riding being open for business. It is not in the normal—

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

That is getting into debate. The member can ask questions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Children cannot get to health appointments—

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

That is debate. If the member wants to ask a question, I will make sure he does.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me continue after that interruption. As we all know, questions and comments come after members' speeches, so I will pick up where I left off.

After trying nothing at all, how can the Prime Minister claim that we now need to use a legislative atomic bomb? What happened between February 11, when he was saying that the Ontario Provincial Police had all the resources needed to put an end to the crisis, and February 14, three days later, when he invoked a law that has not been used in over 35 years?

Why did the Prime Minister extend the application of the act to all of Canada when six provincial premiers and the Premier of Quebec have openly spoken out against the use of the act on their territory?

On February 15, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion that states “that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Quebec” and that “it ask the Canadian government not to enforce the Emergencies Act in Quebec”. This could not be any clearer. Why did the Prime Minister choose to go against this consensus reached by Quebec and some of the provinces?

I would like to close by adding that I stand with the citizens of Ottawa and Gatineau, who have been prevented from enjoying their neighbourhoods, their city and their peace of mind for more than three weeks. I myself have spent these past few weeks in the region, and I have directly experienced the extent of the nuisance caused by the illegal protests to all residents.

It is time to put an end to the siege of the City of Ottawa. Citizens must get their lives back. That is why the Bloc Québécois understands that certain measures must be taken, but it does not believe that the use of such a legislative hammer is justified. The Emergencies Act was designed to address the shortcomings of existing laws, not the shortcomings in the government's and the Prime Minister's leadership.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, put quite simply, the member is wrong. When close to half a billion dollars a day in international trade is impacted, when a downtown is seized with blockades and so forth, and when the interim chief in Ottawa talks about how the use of the Emergencies Act has been of great benefit, I would suggest that the member is wrong.

Does the member not realize that the vast majority of Canadians recognizes the importance of re-establishing order for the residents of Ottawa, and that showing the rest of Canada that the federal government, in working with the municipality and the province, can enforce the rule of law is an important aspect of a democracy?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Winnipeg North for his question.

I was very clear in my speech: There are no grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act. The government has not proven there are any grounds.

How is it that the blockades at Fort Erie and the Ambassador Bridge were removed without the Emergencies Act?

Why does Ottawa currently need the Emergencies Act? What is the legal void?

If someone on the government side could answer these questions today, they might be able to convince me.

The police had all the means and tools they needed. Even the Prime Minister said so.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for the Bloc laid out perfectly why this was an expansive overreach on the part of the government. One of the things that is extremely concerning to me, and I think the Deputy Prime Minister actually confirmed this the other day, is that the government is intending to impose some of the measures in the Emergencies Act on a more permanent basis, including financial tracking of individuals. This causes a problem not just here in Ottawa but right across the country, including in Quebec.

Is the fact that she is talking about a more permanent measure of tracking the bank accounts and the transactions of Canadians disturbing? It should be.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that the Emergencies Act would make it possible to freeze protesters' bank accounts or stop illegal funding.

That is not true, however. The existing Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act already provides for that. This act allows financial institutions to freeze funds that are either obtained through criminal activity or used to fund criminal activity.

The government is trying to spin things, but there is already legislation in place. What the government is saying is completely untrue.

It is not possible to invoke the Emergencies Act without reasonable grounds, as set out in the act.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the other interruption. I wanted to make sure the member had correct information and did not spread misinformation. The Ambassador Bridge is open, but not in its full context. Now the barriers are in my community along the side streets to keep those 14 kilometres secure.

Not only are businesses, emergency service vehicles and regular life and jobs inconvenienced, but traffic is slower, which is affecting many other people. Today, as well as every single day since the blockade, including with the subsequent repercussions due to other barriers, children cannot get to doctor's appointments.

What would the hon. member like to say to those families who are having to delay medical appointments, which have already been delayed due to the pandemic, even further because of the new blockades? They prevent them from getting to those medical appointments. This is a fact, and I would like the hon. member to address the families right now who will not get to their appointments, not only for themselves but for their children.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about correct information, and I love information, but what I love most are laws.

There are laws already in place that provide for blockades to be removed. The Emergencies Act will not magically allow for all blockades to be removed. Police forces already have the tools and skills to do so.

The Bloc Québécois understands that a piece of legislation can be insufficient. This legislation can then be amended by order in council. However, the Emergencies Act does not give authorities a magic wand to fix everything.

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

We still have quite a few days of debate. I know we are getting noisy already. It seems like everybody has that first coffee in them and they are feeling ready to go, but I just want to make sure that we respect each other's rights in this chamber. I want to make sure we have an opportunity to speak and ask questions, that we can actually hear the questions, and that we can actually hear the responses as well.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the debate on the legitimacy of invoking the Emergencies Act. This is a very important and urgent subject. I know the members are eager to hear my point of view. I thank them for being here.

I salute the police forces for their work, their professionalism and their actions yesterday. I would like to thank the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue for being so resilient, and I applaud our health care workers, who have been working so hard for us for so many months. I would also like to thank child care and education workers, who have braved this virus every day and enable children to learn and grow.

So many other people have worked hard to keep our local economy going, which I am proud of. I speak on behalf of a resource region known for its ability to innovate and recover from tough economic times. That is our path forward.

I appreciate the gravity of the unique situation we find ourselves in here and throughout all regions of Quebec and Canada. The pandemic certainly caused a great deal of harm, which we tried to control through measures that restricted our freedoms, but everyone knows these measures are temporary. People are perfectly aware of that and have said as much in many ways. We hope this all comes to an end without violence.

We are currently debating the Emergencies Act to make it clear to the Prime Minister, as well as Liberal and NDP members, that we do not want this legislation to be invoked. This Prime Minister invoked it for the wrong reasons. First, he has failed to convince us that this is a dangerous and urgent situation all across Canada. The danger is in Ontario, in Ottawa. The provinces possess the necessary powers, and they do not want this legislation invoked on their territory. Second, we are being told that dealing with this situation under existing laws would be impossible. That is false.

I hope all members understand just how far‑reaching the use of the Emergencies Act is, but I doubt it. The act gives the federal government special powers to deal with urgent and critical situations. In other words, these are situations that can only be resolved by granting the federal government even more rights, and it has the right to do so only if other means have been exhausted. That includes dialogue. This act must be used sparingly. We have the privilege of deciding whether the time is right. We have an obligation to weigh each of the requirements of the act.

The Prime Minister of Canada shirked his responsibilities and clearly lacked leadership, judging from his actions and bad decisions. He added fuel to the fire and made enemies of the far right and even the people on the left. It is a serious mistake to lump all the protesters together at this point.

Every analysis and crisis management expert agrees that it is premature and inappropriate to invoke this legislation, but the government will not budge and is acting tough. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. It is rather embarrassing at this stage for the Liberal Prime Minister to admit that he is making a mistake and that he will pay for his poor choices. I hope he is seriously thinking about his future.

Now, what is happening with the provinces? To be clear, I think the Government of Quebec has done its homework. In Quebec, we do not want to give power to a Prime Minister who has shirked his responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will fight hard against legislation that is being used to cover up the Prime Minister's political failure. We are definitely voting against the Emergencies Act. We do not want this legislation in Quebec, period.

The use of this legislation has to be better and clearly justified to members of Parliament and senators. The effectiveness of this measure is questionable. It has become very clear to everyone that the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act not to end the protests that are blockading downtown Ottawa and border crossings across the country, but to restore the public's trust in him. He is using it to score political points yet again.

Can the government do whatever it wants? The answer is no. The act imposes limits. The government is also limited by Parliament, fortunately, because the House of Commons or the Senate can put an end to this declaration.

What is more, every two days, Parliament reviews the decisions the government has made. Parliament can then amend or reverse them. What should this legislation be used for? The Emergencies Act imposes special measures. It gives the government the licence to order actions to be taken within specific boundaries and restore the order that existed before the crisis. There is therefore a start and an end.

If anyone causes a disruption or is proven to be the source of a disruption, the government can impose harsh penalties, including imprisonment. The consent of provincial governments is required.

The Emergencies Act allows the government to limit or prohibit travel to or from a specified area, limit or prohibit any public assembly that may disturb the peace, designate and secure protected places, and assume control of public utilities and services.

Towards the end of the 1980s, the government decided to repeal the War Measures Act to allow debate on emergency measures. It would never have believed that a Prime Minister would invoke it unless there was an exceptional situation and unless all other means had been exhausted. The members of the House put many conditions in place at the time, including a debate in the House of Commons and a debate in the Senate, to ensure that the government would never be tempted to appropriate such powers for political reasons.

It is outrageous that the Liberal government has brazenly ignored the spirit of the act to further its own interests and avoid taking responsibility for its bad decisions. That is truly deplorable. It is very clear to me that the threshold required to invoke the Emergencies Act has not, in my opinion, been reached. What the NDP and the Liberals are doing is wrong, and they are doing it blindly, wilfully and deliberately, without checking the facts. That is irresponsible.

We must not turn our backs on the people who gave us the privilege of governing them. These people are out in the streets because they came to tell us that they they are not doing well and that they want to have the same rights as they did before the health crisis. It was expected that things might get out of hand, and government inaction has played a major role in what is now looking like a siege around Parliament Hill.

How can the government invoke the Emergencies Act when it is unwilling to take a clear stand and has failed to live up to its responsibilities?

We asked the federal government to show us a plan. Protesters from Quebec and Canada are telling us that they are fed up and that they want to get back to some semblance of normal life. That is starting to happen. The Government of Quebec has made some announcements in that regard.

The Prime Minister is acting as though he has not been listening to the provincial press conferences. I sincerely believe it would be in his best interest to do so. He would realize a lot of things, starting with the fact that everyone thinks this is a bad idea at this point. If he had been involved from the beginning of the crisis, he would realize that there have been mixed reactions from people. I want my constituents to know that we read the many emails that we get at our offices. People have expressed many emotions, including excitement, relief, indifference, doubt and disappointment.

The powers that the Liberal government has given itself are not even appropriate. The federal government should not have the right to freeze bank accounts before it has even presented a plan for a potential return to a much less restrictive environment, as other governments have done.

In practical terms, people have been victimized by this pandemic, particularly seniors. People have lost economic power, and businesses in all sectors have had to adjust. To make it through, we have been trying things with regard to health measures, guidelines and what is being asked, and understandably so. The pandemic has affected everyone across Quebec and Canada.

The most important thing will always be information, or what people are told. The public seeks out quality information; failure to provide it results in knowledge gaps and confusion. Having doubts is fine. Speaking out and protesting are fine. Calls for insurrection and abdication, on the other hand, are not. It was the government's job to answer our questions and give us accurate information. If it had done so at the right time, we would not all be here. When measures are needed and relevant, and people's freedoms must be altered, it is paramount that these people and all of us are notified.

The Prime Minister surely cannot tell us that he has not had any available resources over the past three weeks. He knows full well that there were ministers who could have freed up resources to help the Ontario government and the Ottawa Police Service. Ottawa police asked for more resources to manage the convoys, but the federal government merely told them that RCMP officers were stationed around the Hill.

Was that truly necessary? Would it not have been more appropriate to station them elsewhere, knowing that several convoys of trucks were heading for Ottawa?

When trucks stop at a red light, that is one thing. When they stop and park in the middle of the street, that is a whole other thing, and it is illegal. I do not support this occupation in any way.

The federal government dragged its feet while the City of Ottawa was asking for reinforcements, because it knew all too well that the truckers would not be gone on the Monday following the start of the protests. The Prime Minister of Canada certainly could have stepped up and shown that kind of leadership.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues across the way. It is sad that we have gotten to a point where the government is forced to bring in emergency measures.

I do want to point that I was there in 1970, and I remember well what happened. An elected official was assassinated. This was not just any man; he was an elected member of the Quebec National Assembly. There is a reason no minister in the Quebec National Assembly today will go out without safety precautions.

I have a question for my colleague today. The Legault government and the City of Quebec reacted well and did what needed to be done. This was unfortunately not the case in Ontario and elsewhere. However, how does my colleague explain the fact that, according to a poll, 72% of Quebeckers support the government's use of the Emergencies Act?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments.

No, I was not there in 1970. I was not born yet. Nevertheless, what stays with me is the trauma that hundreds of Quebeckers endured and are now reliving with this situation.

All governments have a responsibility, and this government did not take that responsibility. To me, it sounds like there is propaganda coming out of this government. It is using symbols and not listening to what is going on outside, which I think is even worse than what is being said.

What is going on right now is unacceptable. Yesterday I saw a woman on a mobility scooter saying “peaceful, peaceful” to police officers, and she was trampled by a horse.

The government has responsibilities.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech. I would also like to thank the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who spoke earlier.

My colleagues did a great job of contextualizing the big difference between the events of 1970 and the 1988 act invoked by this government. This act, which was drafted and passed by Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government and sponsored by Minister Perrin Beatty, sets out very specific conditions. For one thing, the act cannot be used for partisan purposes. It is to be used only if it meets criteria that this government, unfortunately, has not met.

I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Ottawa was under siege for 17 days. For 17 days, the Prime Minister did absolutely nothing. In fact, on February 11, he said the police had all the tools they needed to respond. Three days later, he woke up and said this act had to be invoked.

Can the member help us understand the Liberal prime minister's completely irresponsible behaviour?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I cannot explain what happened. We are in a democracy. We are supposed to be in a democracy. I doubt it, at the moment.

I have a hard time realizing that I am in the House, but I feel so privileged to be here and to have a voice. There are people outside who wanted to reach out, who wanted to have a dialogue. They were never given the chance to speak.

I am not a spokesperson. I am double-vaccinated, I wear a mask, and I do everything I can. I still think that vaccination is the best way out of the pandemic.

However, it was important to listen, and the government did not listen to the people, the most vulnerable and ordinary people. That is why we are putting ourselves in a dangerous situation right now, and I am very worried about the repercussions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor in my riding is opening slowly, but the barriers that were on Huron Church Road to block the trucks are now blocking side streets. Those are Jersey barriers put up for security. The OPP, the RCMP and the City of Windsor are all manning those right now. Life is not normal. As I mentioned earlier, children are missing doctor appointments.

I would like a direct answer from the member. What would he tell those families they are supposed to do? Right now, their lives are in disarray. It is not just businesses, emergency vehicles access or simple things like groceries and trying to get life back to normal, it is also people missing medical appointments, counselling and therapy.

What would he say to those families right now, because those Jersey barriers that were blocking the bridge are now blocking people from their communities, and they are being left to pay for this by themselves?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West, who is probably one of the people I respect the most in the House.

I would simply say that there are many victims we never hear about, including those with mental health issues. The pandemic has probably claimed more victims among people who were ignored, who gave up their freedom, who were locked in rooms, who gave up their health and their lives, and who were unable to get medical appointments.

Indeed, I think the fact that we are where we are today raises serious questions.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer.

I rise today to explain to my colleagues in the House and my constituents in Chateauguay—Lacolle the reasons I am supporting this motion, the purpose of which is to confirm the declaration of a public order emergency made by the government under section 17 of the Emergencies Act.

Canada is a country that upholds the rule of law. By declaring a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act, we are abiding by Canadian law and acting within the framework of the law. Enacted in 1988 by the Mulroney government, the Emergencies Act clearly sets out the criteria for declaring a public order emergency. Our government believes that the situation meets these criteria, hence this action.

The Emergencies Act contains a number of guarantees and various checks and balances, including parliamentary oversight. That is why we were here until midnight the other night, and that is why we are here at 7 a.m. this morning.

All measures taken under the act must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, reasonable, and proportionate to the threats they are intended to address. The Emergencies Act serves to strengthen and support all police forces across the country. We saw this yesterday on Wellington Street, when police finally managed to form a cordon in order to push back the participants of this illegal protest.

Six measures have been put in place to control the situation.

First, public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protests have been regulated and prohibited. The protests in Ottawa and at the Ambassador Bridge are illegal.

Second, places where blockades are to be prohibited, including borders, border crossings and other critical infrastructure, have been designated and secured.

Third, persons have been directed to render essential services to relieve the impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. For instance, tow truck drivers are being compelled to provide their services, with compensation.

Fourth, financial institutions have been authorized and directed to render essential services to relieve the impacts of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of resources to finance or support the blockades.

Fifth, the RCMP has been authorized to enforce municipal and provincial laws, as needed.

Sixth, fines or imprisonment are being imposed.

We want to use these measures to keep Canadians safe, protect their jobs and restore their confidence in our institutions.

The Emergencies Act was passed in 1988 by the Mulroney government and also contains several important limits, checks and balances, and guarantees. As required by the act, on several occasions this past week, the Prime Minister and his cabinet consulted the provincial premiers and their respective governments.

Having declared a public order emergency, we tabled the declaration in Parliament. In the next few days, a parliamentary committee will be established to provide oversight while the state of emergency is in effect.

The declaration is in effect for only 30 days, unless it is continued. However, the government may also revoke it much sooner. Personally, I hope that will happen. Parliament also has the ability to revoke the declaration, as clearly specified in the act. It also has the power to amend or revoke any order adopted under the act. Furthermore, all orders must be tabled in Parliament within two days of being made by the government for review by parliamentarians.

We can certainly ask ourselves how we got here. Why has a declaration of emergency become sadly necessary here in Canada, a country that always ranks high in terms of freedom, democracy and social peace?

I cannot comment on the police operations here in Ottawa or on the lack of interest shown by the Ontario government, at a time when the City of Ottawa clearly was not able to respond to the threat posed by the protesters here on Wellington Street. Despite the undeniable fact that municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867, the Ford government dragged its feet and only took action when protests broke out in Windsor and elsewhere in Ontario. I believe Ontarians will be going to the polls soon, and it will be up to them to decide how to judge their elected officials.

As an MP, my concern is what goes on in the House. As a backbencher, I noticed that since the start of this so-called freedom protest, which quickly became an occupation and an attempted insurrection, some MPs have been exploiting the protest for partisan purposes. They also axed the leader of their own party.

When these MPs took photos with protesters who were holding flags emblazoned with racist and hate-fuelled symbols, they claimed they had done it inadvertently or, even worse, that there were no such flags there. These members deliberately and egregiously denied and minimized their actions, all while tweeting support for the protest and lending credibility to the organizers and their dangerous plans.

I could give many more examples of all of the deception being used to sow division. We are well aware that some members in this House are masters of partisan tactics. Their strategy is to divide Canadians in hopes of profiting off of that division. These members should be ashamed of themselves. They are prepared to put our security, our economy and our democracy at risk to further their own partisan ends and advance their political careers, or even simply to get an interview on Fox News.

Again, I agree with our government that the blockades by both persons and vehicles at various locations throughout Canada represent a state of emergency. These blockades have a direct connection to activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property, including critical infrastructure, for the purpose of achieving a political or ideological objective within Canada.

I agree that these blockades are having adverse effects on the Canadian economy. Canada's economic security is threatened by the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings. These blockades have broken down distribution chains and are hurting Canada's relationship with its trading partners, in particular the United States.

In response to this state of emergency, our government, with the utmost caution, invoked the Emergencies Act. Canadians across the country can have confidence in the fundamental principles of our beautiful country of Canada: “peace, order and good government”.