Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am very thankful that the peace officers at the Coutts border crossing in Alberta were able to intercept what was obviously very destructive elements that embedded themselves within the actual protest organization. Once that was discovered, the whole blockade disbanded because they did not want to be associated with that.

This is a problem wherever we are in the world, and it is not right or left. There are going to be elements that break the law no matter what. We have said all along that these blockades were illegal on their own, but when we throw in a mix of violence that is going to potentially injure our peace officers, they have raised the bar, and it has to be addressed very quickly. It does not matter what side of the spectrum it comes from. Any type of illegal activity that leads to violence will be detrimental to all of us.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Earlier today, I was taken aback by certain comments. I almost fell off my chair, even though it is very sturdy. Two members of the Liberal caucus, the members for Hull—Aylmer and Don Valley West, told us that they were not 100% certain that invoking the Emergencies Act was the right thing to do. The blues will show that those were their very words.

My question for my hon. colleague is very simple: Does he believe, as I do, that before invoking the Emergencies Act, it is vital to be 100% certain that it is the right thing to do?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his question.

I completely agree with him. The government has not demonstrated to the House of Commons that such legislation needed to be implemented.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard about the Coutts blockade many times in the House. The member speaking before me asked about the legal implications, the people who have been charged with attempted murder, the violence and the white racism there, but in addition to those, there is an economic impact. Those 18 days the blockade was in place cost $864 million to the Alberta economy.

What do we do when the government in place, the Alberta government, that has the legislation in Bill 1 to actually stop these blockades, does not do it? When the provincial government fails to protect the people and economy of Alberta, does the federal government not have an obligation to step it?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I should point out that the Coutts blockade was somewhat disbanded and there was one lane open shortly thereafter. Nevertheless, there was an element there that actually was a problem. We know that. We know it was slowed down. I had not heard the number she referred to, the $864 million of commerce that was interrupted, but I did note in my speech how important it was to make sure those borders were open in Canada all the way across the country.

I will also point out to her that the Government of Alberta has not asked the Canadian government to intervene. I do not know how the Canadian government does intervene. Alberta already has a police force. Is it going to request police forces from across the country? The Government of Alberta has all kinds of police forces, and it acted, and it acted in the benefit of the people of Alberta to make sure that the flow of goods was coming across that border.

Are they asking for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe the time is up. I am sorry. I am trying to stay on time so that nobody gets cut off in their speeches.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Mirabel.

First of all, I would like to say that I will be doing something that I normally do not do. Rather than ad lib my speech, which is something I tend to strongly favour for parliamentary debates, since it makes them much livelier, I will be reading it from beginning to end.

That is my way of trying to help out the support staff in the House who are working very hard right now so that we can do our jobs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them very much.

Today we are debating something exceptional. I am not talking about the situation, but about the Emergencies Act itself. The act is exceptional. The act is an ex post facto law. That means that it applies after the fact. This is a complete departure from the basic principle of natural justice that a person should not be subject to arbitrary laws imposed by a government that can decide that an action is illegal after the fact, especially retroactively.

When it proclaimed this act into law in 1988, Parliament defined very clear criteria for invoking it, specifically to justify deviating from this basic principle and to avoid undermining the foundations of democracy, which state that citizens should be protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. Those criteria are precisely what members should be looking at today.

The only question that matters is this: Keeping in mind that these criteria were rigorously set out to protect the bulwarks of justice and democracy, are we satisfied that the invocation criteria have been met?

The government's backgrounder is quite enlightening on these invocation criteria:

The Act contains a specific definition of “national emergency” that makes clear how serious a situation needs to be before the Act can be relied upon. A national emergency is an urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces and territories, or by any other law of Canada.

Basically, not only does it have to be proven that the act is useful, but it also has to be proven that it is necessary. It is not enough that the situation be serious; the conclusion must be that the only possible response to the emergency is to invoke the Emergencies Act.

The problem is that I have listened to the speeches given so far by the members who support the use of the act. I have listened to them in good faith, in case I hear an argument that makes me doubt my own position. I have heard nothing persuasive so far. I feel like listing off the greatest hits of some of the arguments that I have heard since the beginning of debate and offering my thoughts in response.

Unfortunately, we have heard a lot of speeches where members have tried to justify using the act because, for example, the situation has prevented the public from enjoying the beauty of Ottawa, or because people have not been able to go to museums, or because businesses have not been able to open.

It may seem a bit ridiculous to bring up these arguments that have been used in this debate. I am only doing so because these arguments have not just been raised a couple of times.

Several members have tried to justify their choice using arguments that are not, by any stretch of the imagination, even remotely in the same league as a national emergency situation. To me, that exposes just how flimsy the arguments in support of invoking the act are.

Another argument we have heard is that 72% of the population agrees with invoking the act. I actually find it frightening that anyone is justifying the use of this exceptional measure on the basis of a survey. Obviously, nowhere in the criteria I listed earlier does it say anything about how, if a certain percentage of the population likes the idea, then invoking the Emergencies Act is justified. Thank goodness for that.

That said, here are my thoughts on the survey results. I am absolutely certain that the 72% support is not specifically for the act. I think it is actually indicative of people's desire to see the situation resolved one way or another. It reflects people's reaction to the appalling lack of government leadership in managing this crisis. Ultimately, the government's use of the Emergencies Act is merely a pathetic attempt to cover up its incompetence.

Nevertheless, we have heard some arguments that seem convincing, and they deserve some more attention.

In his questions and comments today, the member for Windsor West emphasized several times that the situation at the Ambassador Bridge has not been completely resolved. He pointed out that although some traffic has resumed, there are still obstacles and barriers. He mentioned that families were prevented from accessing health care, for example.

He asked my Bloc colleagues what we had to say to those families. He asked whether we should not support the Emergencies Act for them. Obviously, I have all the compassion in the world for those families, but I still believe that invoking the act is not the solution.

As evidence, the authorities have been able to use the emergency measures since Monday, and yet, according to the member himself, the situation has not been resolved. Moreover, the blockades were shut down for the most part using the legal means already available before the emergency order was invoked.

It is not the use of the act that is the issue here, but rather the misuse or incomplete use of the resources that were already available, and those families should not be led to believe that invoking the Emergencies Act will solve their situation.

The leader of the NDP and many of his colleagues have also argued that the situation is urgent, particularly because many of the occupiers have started calling for the current government to be overthrown, which would be outright sedition.

I did most of my studies at the Université du Québec à Montréal. There was a protest almost every week calling for the government to be overthrown. Luckily, no one asked to invoke the Emergencies Act. If they had, Montreal would have been in a constant state of emergency.

Seriously, though, I doubt that the criterion of a serious and real threat to the sovereignty of Canada applies here. If we hold to Max Weber's definition, the government is not about to lose its monopoly on legitimate violence, and we are not facing an insurrection.

As for territorial integrity, I realize that Ottawa residents are patriotic, but, even though Ottawa is the nation's capital, I doubt that taking over an area of a mere three square kilometres constitutes undermining the territorial integrity of a country that covers 10 million square kilometres.

We have also heard the argument that the police officers have said that they would not have been able to do everything they have done without the Emergencies Act. I have heard police officers say that the act was useful, but I have not heard them say why it was necessary.

My colleagues in the Bloc have brilliantly explained how existing legislation would have allowed meaningful action to be taken without the use of the Emergencies Act. Before Monday, there was nothing stopping the different police forces from working together to achieve the results we have seen in the past 24 hours.

What is more, it is not the role of the police to justify the use of the act. It is the role of parliamentarians. I think simply citing the police without tangibly and clearly establishing what legal vacuum the Emergencies Act is filling is a weak argument. I even see it as an abdication of the parliamentary role.

The member who primarily used the opinion of police officers to justify his support for the act said in response to one of my colleagues that he was not 100% sure that using the Emergencies Act was the best thing to do. The Emergencies Act is the type of legislation that calls for us to be more certain than that when the time comes to apply it and to have at least tried to resolve the situation some other way first.

Another argument made by a colleague this morning was that the Emergencies Act has probably discouraged protesters from joining the occupiers who are already here. I find the slippery slope of even considering the Emergencies Act as a deterrent, and a preventive one at that, particularly dangerous.

In fact, from Monday to Friday morning, while the act was in force, nothing discouraged protesters from partying, barbecuing, or getting into a hot tub in the middle of the street. What served as a deterrent was not the act, but rather a start of a coordinated police response at long last.

I would like to quote Jim Watson, who said this morning that this police operation should have happened on day two. The point is not just that it should have happened, but that it could have happened even without the Emergencies Act.

Lastly, it was argued that we should support the Emergencies Act because it was requested by the City of Ottawa and the Government of Ontario, which have also enacted their own emergency legislation.

Provincial approval is a safeguard governing the application of the act, not simply a justification for invoking it. Again, the criteria for invoking the act are well defined, and the mere fact that a province requests it is not one of them. If it were, there would be the unfortunate risk of unwarranted use of the act when a province loses control of a situation without first demonstrating that all possible solutions have been tried and that the province is genuinely out of options.

Basically, I am not convinced. I am still waiting to hear an argument that will change my mind by Monday, but I must admit that I have my doubts. The government has not met its burden of persuading us that we have no choice but to use the act, as the act itself requires, so I find it hard to see how I could support it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member raised a very interesting point. She said that as of Monday there was nothing that stopped different police forces from working together. As a matter of fact, that is not entirely true. Unless they are sworn officers in Ontario, they cannot enforce the law in Ontario. I am sure Ottawa is extremely grateful for the resources that came from the SQ in Quebec, but until the Emergencies Act was put into place so that they could enforce the law in Ontario, those police officers would not have been allowed to do that. I wonder if the member can comment on that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I remind members that the Emergencies Act states that the government must have done everything possible. However, before invoking the act, the government made no attempt to co-ordinate the various police services. That is proof that the nuclear option, as some members are calling it, was used without justification. The work was not done.

The only measure not permitted under existing legislation is the requisitioning of tow truck services. My colleagues demonstrated that. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is smoke and mirrors and an attempt to remedy the government's poor management of the crisis.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, today and throughout the day, at different times we have seen the self-congratulatory attitude of the Liberals as they talk about the measures being effective. This might be partly because effectiveness is a new concept to them and they are not used to that in their caucus. I would argue that effectiveness is not the measure by which we should be looking at the situation today, but rather whether the actions are justified.

With the precedent we are setting today, in what other situations might she be concerned this act may be used?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the War Measures Act was created with several scenarios in mind, but nothing specific. One of the tenets of a law is that it must not apply to a specific situation. It must be devised for general application to prevent it from being abusive.

That is why there are criteria for determining whether the Emergencies Act may be invoked. I do not see how it is useful to think of a very specific situation where the act could apply because it was designed to be broad and there are safeguards to ensure that the principles of natural justice and democracy are respected. There is no need to even consider potential applications, because the act is already designed to address that.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the failure of local and provincial police to address the situation. I have heard it said several times that the police had the tools and resources they needed to address the situation. However, what we heard from law enforcement was that, due to errors that were made early on in the crisis, they did not feel they had the tools and resources necessary to restore social order. It was only when the federal government stepped in that we started to see social order restored.

I agree that it is up to local police to enforce the law and up to the provincial police to have their backs. When those two levels fail and cry out for help, should not the buck stop somewhere? Should not someone step in and say to the people of Ottawa and across the country who are asking for protection that we will be there for them?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the interesting question. I answered that question directly in my speech.

I said that I am very worried that a request from a province or city that had failed to respond to a national crisis could become a justification to use the act. Failure is not one of the criteria set out in the act. All available resources must have been exhausted first.

Unfortunately, there were some problems and complacency on the part of police. A police chief resigned. However, that should not be a reason to justify such a strong legislative measure that has such potential to arbitrarily violate fundamental rights.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has never sanctioned what has been happening in the streets of Ottawa. These are reprehensible acts. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to commend the law enforcement officers who have done excellent work and who finally got the resources they needed today to respond adequately.

The problem is that this should have been done a long time ago. The problem is that the government and the Prime Minister were insouciant. This government cannot make decisions.

Chantal Hébert, who has covered many governments over many years, said on the radio yesterday that each successive government in Canada has become increasingly centralist and that the current government has reached the height of centralism. This government is incapable of acting or making a decision.

We understand that the Prime Minister was required to isolate, but based on his lack of decision-making, you would think he has long COVID.

What happened with the Emergencies Act is a publicity stunt, as only this Prime Minister knows how to do. The problem is that we are setting a dangerous precedent. The seal has been broken. I fear and we fear that in future another government will be able to justify their decision based on what is happening in the streets of Ottawa to invoke the Emergencies Act when the issue is local and partisan and when it suits the government. By using it under the current circumstances, we are tarnishing Canada's reputation even more.

The precedents speak for themselves, but the Bloc Québécois is lending them its voice. I would like to give an example and talk about the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April 2001, where three‑metre-high security fencing was erected for four kilometres in a densely populated residential sector, where security forces were provided by the Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec City police, the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian Armed Forces, where protesters were organized, financed, motivated and questioned the authority of the state. They derailed a proposed free trade agreement. No state of emergency was declared at the time because the governments, including the federal government, were prepared. That is what happens.

Here we have a government that does not govern, that is unable to make decisions, unable to appoint an ambassador to Paris, unable to issue calls for tenders on time for the rail transportation projects that Quebeckers are waiting for. It is a government that has not issued a decision on Huawei when all of its trading partners have already done so. One sometimes wonders whether this is a government that is capable of doing anything at all.

What happened in the streets shows us that our assumptions may have been right. Yes, the Bloc Québécois has asked questions. The Bloc Québécois asked for a crisis task force. The Bloc Québécois took action. We have been accused of asking politicians to control the police. On February 7, the Ottawa police chief requested an additional 1,800 officers. The government’s response was to send 275 officers, and only 20 of them were assigned to the protests. As a percentage, this means that 1% of the Ottawa Police’s request for more officers was met. That is a 99% failure. That is measurable relative to what the Ottawa police themselves asked for while there was still time to act.

Yes, we can collaborate. Yes, we can use existing laws. Yes, we can punish these reprehensible acts. That is why the motion adopted by Quebec's National Assembly, which asked the government not to apply the Emergencies Act to Quebec, also insisted on the need for the federal government to collaborate with the provinces.

If one thing proves a lack of collaboration, it is this: the CAQ, the Liberal Party of Quebec, Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois and even the Conservative Party of Quebec MNA unanimously supported the motion. The “new liberal democratic party of Canada” coalition, however, will take no notice.

They say we need this law. We need it to freeze bank accounts and apply economic pressure.

I hope it is understandable that I am worried about a government feeling obliged to invoke emergency measures so it can block truckers' funding. Much worse things can happen; I hope they will not, but I am extremely worried.

The Basel Institute on Governance has already indicated that FINTRAC, Canada's financial crime intelligence and monitoring system, does not have enough people, enough money or enough resources and that it cannot do enough to prevent financial crimes. Moreover, Canada is known internationally to lack the ability, or perhaps the will, to crack down on the people who commit these crimes. This is the 21st century, yet the government says it does not have 21st-century tools to deal with 21st-century threats, so when it comes to truckers, bring on the emergency measures.

What else is there? The government needed the Emergencies Act to requisition tow trucks. What kind of leadership is it when even tow truck operators do not want to fall in line? That is really bad.

Obviously, the legislation exists for a number of reasons. There are circumstances in which it must be used. The crisis must be national in scope. It has to be a last resort, and right now this is not a last resort situation. There were other remedies that should have been used, but they were not. I am convinced that more could have been done. The facts speak for themselves.

Some will argue that the Ottawa police chief, who yes, of course, has a tough job to do, said that the extraordinary measures brought in by the legislation have been useful. What the Ottawa police chief said was that the municipal, provincial and federal states of emergency were useful. Other levels of government started doing their job before the federal government did its job.

I look forward to questions from the government side, which will argue that this was useful and that the police were given additional tools. First of all, the operations that are taking place could have been carried out with more personnel as reinforcements. Second, Parliament exists, we as legislators are here, and legislation that covers emergency measures is already in place precisely because police should not always be given all the tools they want. That is what democracy is all about: the exercise of legislative power over the executive and the police.

I could name a whole range of powers that the police once had, but no longer have, that might have been useful for them today, powers that they no longer have precisely because, in a democracy, these powers are not given unless the situation is desperate.

Throughout this crisis, I have been waiting for this government to show some leadership. I have been trying to understand how the decisions were made. I been trying to understand where the government's head was at. After quite a bit of searching, I just gave up.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would point out a logical inconsistency of the member's suggestions. He is saying that we are incapable of taking decisions on the government benches—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Excuse me, but we are having the same problem we had a while ago, where there is no interpretation.

What I am going to do is go to the next party and then come back to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague something that really builds on the question that was asked of the member for Kingston and the Islands. The member for Kingston and the Islands asked this hon. colleague's colleague about the Emergencies Act. I really hope that this gets through. That is this. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that the Emergencies Act was necessary to use to bring in other police officers.

If we look at the Ontario Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, which I was able to research in about 45 seconds, it says under section 21(1):

In an emergency, the Minister may make an agreement with the Crown in right of Canada, or of another province, or with any of its agencies for the provision of policing.

This would seem to fly directly in the face of the statement from the member for Kingston and the Islands. Could this hon. member please comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of having the member for Kingston and the Islands as my municipal councillor and mayor when I was doing my Ph.D. at Queen's University.

Every year, Kingston's Homecoming event attracts thousands of people who overturn police cars, commit crimes and turn the city upside down. Police from Toronto, Brockville, Kingston and Cornwall and mounted police are on duty.

From what I can remember of my five great years in the city represented by the member for Kingston and the Islands, he never called for a state of emergency.

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

Madam Speaker, I will just point out the logical inconsistencies the member was attempting to make vis-à-vis the Liberals being a government incapable of taking decisions, when we have taken a decision that no government has ever taken in Canadian history.

Let us find some common ground. The Bloc is against the blockades. The Bloc has said the blockades are illegal. We all agree with that. We also agree with listening to the police and cutting off the funding that is supplying those blockades. One of the tools to do so is by tracking that money to things such as credit unions, banks, cryptocurrency sites or online sites.

When no sites or donations are being made from the province of Quebec that would necessitate the application of these emergency measures in the province of Quebec, does the member opposite agree with that aspect of this law applying in his province?

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

Madam Speaker, I hope you will allow me to forgo my colleague's little lesson on logic.

Security experts are telling us that communication is the most important tool in such operations.

For two to three weeks, we asked that a crisis task force be set up and that the minister conduct briefings. The Liberals did not make a decision about that. They do not make decisions.

The Ottawa police chief told us yesterday that the more officers are available early in a crisis, the less violence there is later. The Liberals made no decisions and this is the result.

I see that my colleague is working at home. Perhaps he forgot his logic in the lobby.

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

Madam Speaker, my question to the member for Mirabel has to do with the discussion he opened his speech with, about precedent. I wonder this. Does he really believe that letting groups protest that want to use violence, intimidation and hate to try to overturn elected governments' decisions is a precedent we could have allowed to go on much longer, without that in itself becoming the dangerous precedent here?

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

Madam Speaker, we were just talking about logic. According to the convoluted logic of the member's question, when there is a protest or when someone does not like the government, regardless of the threat level, the organization involved or the government's inaction, the solution is the worst, most radical option, the very last resort.

We never supported the things that went on in the street. We never downplayed the threat or the importance of all this. That is why, for the last three weeks, we have been putting forward proposals.

I am happy to see that the member has just woken up.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with my colleague, the MP for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.

What happened in the last few days in Canada is without precedent. It was an organized attack on democracy, coming from the far right and financed from abroad. Our citizens were intimidated. Parliament was forced to cancel a sitting because its safety was at risk.

This is unprecedented in Canada, but not in North America or around the world. It is why this debate is so important. The fact is that we have a choice, as a country, to avoid the path of a far right-driven agenda that uses destabilization, provocation and intimidation as its tactics, aims to roll back so much of the social and economic progress we have made in Canada and aims to undermine our very democracy itself.

Let us start with what this debate is not about. It is not about truckers or the trucking industry. Yes, some truckers have been involved, but the vast majority of truckers are going about their business and doing their job, providing essential services to Canadians during the pandemic. This also goes far beyond the pandemic. There are many people across the country who have not been vaccinated, who do not agree with vaccine mandates and who do not agree with mask mandates, but they are not threatening or intimidating anyone. Not everyone who is part of what is happening is a right-wing extremist, but far too many are.

Let us be clear: What is happening is being driven by the same far-right agenda that led to the attack on the Capitol building in the U.S. that was fomented by Donald Trump. The same far-right agenda has been raising its ugly head in Europe, Brazil and many other countries. It is the same agenda that we have seen here in Canada.

I am a descendant of those who fought against fascism in Europe and a descendant of those who know what dictatorships are really all about and were part of the struggle to bring back democracy in their home countries. I know that we as Canadians cannot be complacent about the threat of this far-right agenda to Canada. Let us also be clear that when people ignore or even condone what we have seen, they are part of the problem.

How did we get here? It starts with the fact that governments and police have, for far too long, had a view of what is legitimate protest and what is not. As someone who is influenced by Gandhian principles of non-violence, the principles practised by Martin Luther King and the spirit of reconciliation of Nelson Mandela, and as someone who has been inspired by the non-violent actions of indigenous peoples defending their rights and lands, I believe in the right of citizens to engage in non-violent protest. These actions and this occupation have been fundamentally different. They have targeted not only our institutions but our citizens with racist, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic abuse and abuse aimed at people following health orders for wearing masks.

What was the response? Does anyone believe that we would be dealing with what we are seeing today if the protesters were indigenous, Black, racialized, climate-justice activists or students, like those at the G20 or in Quebec, or workers on strike? What we are seeing is a failure of governments and the police, driven by the view of what is a legitimate protest. This is not accidental. It is a part of the strategy. It is like Donald Trump, a billionaire, talking about being a friend of workers.

How do we deal with what is happening and the bigger threat to our values and democracy? The response from the police has been deeply flawed here in Ottawa and across the country. This is an occupation led by white supremacists. We saw swastikas, Confederate flags and other symbols of hate and the far right. This occupation has had the aim of abusing and harassing citizens for days; engaging in racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic attacks on residents; making people afraid to leave their homes; shutting down businesses and workplaces; making people lose their jobs; clogging up 911 phone lines so that legitimate calls cannot get through; and endangering residents and residential neighbourhoods.

This occupation has also had as its target our democracy. Occupation leaders have called for the overthrow of our democratic institutions. They have assaulted members of the press. They have threatened violence and unleashed hate against leaders and elected representatives. Yesterday, the occupiers' actions led to the shutting down of Parliament, a shocking and unprecedented move. However, governments and the police refused to take this situation seriously until the last minute. It should never have come to this point.

We saw failed local leadership that refused to take action. I want to acknowledge the heroic work of Councillor Catherine McKenney and Councillor Shawn Menard, who, along with other leaders, residents and labour activists, pushed back against fascism in their community by organizing the battle of Billings Bridge. We have seen right wing provincial governments in Ontario and elsewhere legitimize these occupations and refuse to take action otherwise. We have seen a federal government lead us to a place where we should never have been.

The Liberal government failed to see this occupation for what it was early on. The Prime Minister focused far more on the rhetoric than the reality. He called out the symbols of the far right, which was the right thing to do, but waited far too long to call out the reality of the agenda itself. However, what is really disturbing, as we have this debate, are the actions and incendiary rhetoric of the Conservatives. Speaker after speaker has exposed the true face of the Conservative Party. This is not the party of peace, order and good government, nor of law and order, and it is definitely not Progressive Conservative.

What we have seen is Trump-style, far-right rhetoric that is condoning, even supporting, what is happening. There are disturbing references reminiscent of Trump's “good people on both sides” rhetoric, incendiary rhetoric aimed at the Liberals and the Conservatives and even some good old red-baiting rhetoric thrown in for good measure. However, what do we expect from an acting Leader of the Opposition who saw no problem with wearing a MAGA hat, something that has been seen as—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Just because someone is participating virtually does not mean the mikes are not picking up what is going on here in the House. Again, I would ask members, instead of chatting back and forth or thinking aloud, to write their questions or thoughts down and deal with them during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski has three minutes and 10 seconds left.