Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

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

I must interrupt the hon. member for Mirabel.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on a point of order.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

With all due respect to my colleague from the Bloc, I believe this is the time for questions and comments; therefore, the member opposite has an opportunity to respond if she wishes to.

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

The hon. member is correct.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, as there was no question, I did not feel a need to reply, but I appreciate the opportunity.

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

Madam Speaker, I will give her a chance to respond. This is the first time that this legislation has been used since it came into force in 1988. In answer to his NDP buddies earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the minister said that this did not set a precedent.

My question for the member is this: How is it possible not to set a precedent when this is the first time that such draconian legislation is being used?

If the government comes up with an answer, Quebeckers and Canadians should be worried, because it is impossible for this not to be a precedent.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I do believe there will be a precedent set by enacting this legislation, and I think it is an appropriate precedent. Just because the act has not been enacted since its inception in 1988 does not mean that it should not be enacted now. We have clearly made the case for why this legislation is needed, and I am quite confident that the precedent set will ensure that it will only be used judiciously in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, a number of constituents have contacted me to note the contrast between the way local police responded to the occupation of Ottawa, which they saw as a kid-glove approach, and the way in which so many indigenous people in our country are policed.

Is my hon. colleague also concerned by that contrast, and would she support an independent public inquiry into the way that police have handled this situation and the way in which policing in our country is carried out?

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

Yes, Madam Speaker, I am concerned. The inability of the police to bring this under control earlier was part of the reason why it was necessary to enact this legislation. There is a marked difference between the way these different protests are being treated, so I would fully support an inquiry.

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

Madam Speaker, I was impressed that my colleague for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill followed the line of the legislation from the Emergencies Act over to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act for the definition of “threat to the security of Canada”.

In these debates, we have not identified what it is that required the public order emergency, if it was required. I am very drawn to the fact that what we are looking at here is foreign influence that is affecting Canadian democracy in a negative way. Under “threats to the security of Canada”, subsection (b) states these are:

foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person.

It specifically does not include normal legal protest. I would ask the member to expand on that.

Are we actually bringing in a public order emergency because of the specific protest in Ottawa, or are we wanting to look at a network that is across Canada, and even global, that chooses to rely on disinformation and fearmongering to create divisions and undermine democracy?

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

Madam Speaker, my answer would be both. We need to look at what has happened here in Ottawa, why it happened and what threats are here. The larger question of foreign influence and how it is affecting political movements in Canada should be looked at in a broader context.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House asking the same question that so many of my fellow Canadians are asking: How did we end up here? Across the world, our allies are in shock. I have had friends call me from all over the world asking me, “What is going in your country?” They know that we Canadians are a quiet and polite people. Something must be very wrong for a peace-loving people to rise up, take to the streets and fight for freedom from government mandates and restrictions.

We are here because the Liberal government slowly encroached upon the freedoms of Canadians and because the Prime Minister chose to use hate, fear and division as a part of his COVID strategy. The Liberals want to create a false narrative. They want to convince you that the protesters are terrorists. They need you to believe this so that they can justify the heavy-handed approach that they have taken by invoking the emergency measures act.

Hard-working Canadians are seeking empathy and understanding and listening from the elected officials whose salaries they pay, and yet this Prime Minister clearly refuses to listen to any opinion that is not exactly like his. He has said that those who disagree with him have wrong opinions. That is not leadership. This failed leadership is responsible for the situation with which we are now faced. This protest could have been over at least a week ago without the police intervention that we see now if the Liberals had accepted our motion for them to provide a timetable outlining when Canadians could have their lives back. Even leaders around the world are condemning this Prime Minister's authoritarian move, from British MPs to U.S. senators to Brazilian lawmakers to international authors and journalists. The free world is looking at Canada in shock and using words such as “authoritarian” and “totalitarian dictatorship” to describe our government.

Let me remind the House that it was less than two years ago when the Prime Minister celebrated our truckers as heroes and mobilized a social media campaign to thank them, “Thank a Trucker”. I repeat again that this is not about who is right or who is wrong; it is about who gets to be a part of this conversation, and the only acceptable answer to that question is everybody, every Canadian.

The Emergencies Act is a declaration of a state of national emergency, a blunt-force tool that should only be used when there is a national crisis at hand, when all the legislative and legal powers have been exhausted. Canadians know very well that this Prime Minister did not exhaust all of the options before he implemented this act. Our criminal laws have provisions that will allow for the seizure of crime proceeds, the towing of vehicles, the freezing of bank accounts, and these measures should have been used first.

Conservatives do believe in the rule of law. We believe in peaceful protests and do not support protests that interfere with critical infrastructure, so when the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba were blocked, protesters were asked to leave. The authorities attended and asked them to leave, and they did. The RCMP dealt with those issues efficiently, without a declaration of a national emergency. All critical infrastructures were cleared, and what was left was a protest in front of Parliament in downtown Ottawa. To halt further protests, the Prime Minister threatened to take away drivers licences, seize trucks, freeze bank accounts and outright intimidate lawful protesters. These are the actions of a dictator, and this is exactly what happens in totalitarian regimes.

I have received thousands of emails from terrified people all over the country. One lady who bought a simple T-shirt is afraid her bank account is going to be frozen.

Invoking the Emergencies Act when conditions have not been met undermines confidence in our democracy. This is not the first large protest in this country. We have resolved many other protests without invoking the Emergencies Act, such as Oka, pipeline protests, and in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, the Caledonia protests. The Canadian legal system has laws sufficient for dealing with protests. Our FINTRAC system allows for the tracing of funds and the freezing of accounts.

The continuation of the Emergencies Act without clear evidence of a national emergency is a threat to our democracy. I remind this House that when the War Measures Act, the predecessor to this act, was first enacted, many innocent people's lives were implicated, and lives were destroyed as a result. Even defence minister Perrin Beatty, in introducing the act, expressed the generally held view that the War Measures Act was an extremely effective tool as a political device, but as a criminal device was extremely ineffective.

I am a trained lawyer and I have practised law for over 20 years. I have taught law at law school, and as such, I believe in the rule of law. Its application is very important to me. I am now a legislator, so it is also imperative that I be convinced that the laws are properly applied. If we examine the appropriate section of the Emergencies Act, we will see that the reasons for invoking this act are lacking.

The Liberals cite three reasons. We were told, first, that it is necessary to deal with continuing blockades. This is factually incorrect, since all blockades at the border crossings were removed peacefully with the existing laws in place. There is nothing in the Emergencies Act that gives law enforcement powers that they did not have when they removed the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge, at Coutts and at the Manitoba border. With all bridges cleared and the protest been relegated to downtown Ottawa, primarily on Wellington Street in front of Parliament, that situation certainly does not constitute a national emergency.

Second, Liberals used the act to prevent the protests from having adverse effects on the Canadian economy. Again, this is factually incorrect. Canada was experiencing economic insecurity as a result of the adverse effects of the lockdowns and mandates. This occurred long before the protests and the blockades.

The third reason was to reduce the impacts of blockades on Canada's relationship with trading partners. It is unbelievable and not credible that this Prime Minister needed to invoke the Emergencies Act to secure our relationship with our trading partners. Frankly, the United States is our biggest trading partner, and many U.S. governors as well as countries around the world have condemned the Prime Minister's heavy-handed approach.

It is very likely that his actions alone will negatively affect our relationship with our trading partners. It is clear that the Prime Minister is using the Emergencies Act as a political tool to terrorize and punish dissenters by ruining the lives of people who disagree with him. The preponderance of the evidence clearly does not support invoking the Emergencies Act.

Canadians are desperate for hope and are calling for unity. People on all sides of the debate need compassion and understanding. Like it or not, the Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for his failed leadership. Guarding our freedoms and upholding our democracy means that we need to have compassionate hearts and listening ears.

The Prime Minister's actions likely will bring the government and our democracy into disrepute. Thankfully, there is a simple solution to this problem. Let us entertain a non-partisan resolution to end mandates, just like many countries around the world, including Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Tanzania, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. Together, we could begin to restore our democracy—

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

We have come to the end of the time allowed.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was caught by some surprise to hear that if the House had only passed the Conservative resolution from last week, this would all be finished. I suppose we can believe in fairies, but that is one of the more preposterous statements made by any member here.

Is the hon. member prepared to substitute her views and decision-making for Chief Bell's view that the resources provided by this legislation for the regulation and prohibition of public assembly are welcome, that the designation and securing of places where blockades are prohibited is welcome, that directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts on Canada's economy is welcome, that authorizing and directing financial institutions to render essential services is welcome, that measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal laws is welcome? Is she prepared to substitute her judgment for Chief Bell's?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, my response to that question is that we have legal provisions and mechanisms and laws sufficient to enable law enforcement officers to deal with all aspects of criminality, all aspects of law enforcement in this country, without the imposition of such a heavy-handed act, which should only be used for national emergencies. This situation is not a national emergency.

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

Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. member is this: Does she not see a problem when millions and millions of dollars of foreign funds are flowing in to support organizers who openly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Canada? Does she not see this foreign inflow of dollars to those who do not respect our democratic processes as a problem that actually is a national crisis?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, again I say that I have full confidence in the law enforcement system that we have in place. If there is a problem, as the hon. member has outlined, our law enforcement mechanism is sufficient to deal with it. What should have been done is that all laws should have been exhausted. Our Criminal Code has sections in it to address these issues, and it was not used in this case.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleagues just talked about foreign financing and made many references to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC.

There are two scenarios being advanced. The first is that FINTRAC can get the job done and that there was no need to declare a state of emergency. The second is that FINTRAC is underfunded and understaffed and that this government has not taken cases of financial crime seriously, such as those we are seeing today.

Could the member tell us if the government negligently failed to prepare for such crimes?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, essentially the director of public prosecutions has sections that he could tap into to address these issues. Section 10 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act allows the power to be directed and for these types of investigations to be done. We have the FINTRAC system, and there are other mechanisms that were not utilized before the Emergencies Act was negligently invoked.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of laws could have been used but were not used. We ended up with an occupation that went on for three weeks. What laws could have been invoked to get tow truck drivers to pull trucks away when they were refusing?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe section 129 of the Criminal Code could have been utilized to get tow truck drivers to remove vehicles from the streets, so we did have sufficient mechanisms in our criminal laws to deal with that issue. Therefore, the Emergencies Act was unnecessarily invoked.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am always grateful to have the opportunity to address the House of Commons, especially in this seminal moment in Canadian history. I did not want to do it this way, but I did come back to my riding. I thought it important to understand very clearly what the national emergency was, and I will come to that more in the rest of my intervention.

There are many difficulties with the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and to be debating something that has already happened is somewhat counterproductive. However, that will be an important part of the mandatory review of the entire process as we go forward. The two main issues, as I see them, really boil down to how we got here and what the justification is for the Emergencies Act.

There are those here who wish to muddy the waters as to the legal justification for using the Emergencies Act, and I do believe that there are people out there who have that very important skill set. That will form part of the review as well. The question we need to start with is how we got here, and this, in my mind, has been the most dismal display of leadership I have ever seen.

As many in the House have been, I have been a part of sporting teams, committees and leadership positions in the medical community, and I have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force. One thing that is very crystal clear is that when we encounter those who do not fully agree with our position or support what we think is important, then that moment in time represents a significant opportunity for dialogue. Also, as a physician, I think the opportunity to discuss options and negotiate with patients presented itself to me on a daily basis, and I will be so crass as to say that this is communications 101.

Since the beginning of this pandemic, I have been shocked and appalled with respect to the language used by the Prime Minister when commenting upon those who have been vaccine-hesitant. I have been concerned about vaccine hesitancy since the beginning of the pandemic, and certainly I took the opportunity to review the scientific literature on the topic of vaccine hesitancy. There are innumerable papers, and I have had the opportunity to review them, and there was absolutely no mention of division, stigmatization or name-calling. The language used in these scientific papers would be more along the lines of building relationships, building trust and understanding the other person's position.

Chris Voss, who is a famous FBI negotiator, during one particularly difficult case, spoke through an apartment door for six hours with no response. In the end, the fugitives and the hostages emerged suddenly. The fugitives commented, “you calmed us down.... We finally believed you wouldn't go away, so we just came out.”

I think it is important people know I have been in Ottawa for the last three weeks, since the protests began, and every day I walked to work. I realize, as has been brought forward by others, I am a white man. I understand that. I have never been accosted, accused or threatened. I wear a mask, but sadly, Canadians who do not agree with the Prime Minister have been vilified, stigmatized and called names. Let us keep that in mind.

Even on Wednesday evening just past, I left my office at the corner of Bank and Wellington, and I walked all the way up to the Byward Market during the protest. Indeed, I did not feel unsafe. Nobody even spoke to me. Was this a public order emergency? Certainly, I do believe there are other avenues to deal with this situation, and certainly, as I have mentioned previously, I returned here to Nova Scotia and there is absolutely no public order emergency here. Life is going on as normal, and I think parliamentarians portraying what is going on in Ottawa as a public order emergency are a little misguided.

This isolated issue here in Ottawa does not a national emergency make. I have heard many Liberal colleagues talking about how dangerous or scary—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I did not realize this was a meeting room. They are having a meeting and talking so loud we cannot hear—

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

The hon. member is calling a point of order on noise. I was speaking with the clerk and I did not hear any noise.

I do invite the members, if they want to have conversations, to go into the lobbies or behind the curtains.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, all I did was say to my colleague that the members of the official opposition feel that all they have to do is click their heels and wave a wand and, poof, the protesters will disappear. I said that in a very low voice. I did not even think anyone could hear it. It was more of a whisper. However, if I offended people with respect to their—

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

It seems that it was loud enough to bother the members who were trying to listen to the speech, so I request that members keep as quiet as possible and respect when other people are speaking.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.