Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. We have to be very careful.

This kind of legislation can serve the public good, but it has to be more specific. This one does not meet the fundamental criteria.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois strongly condemns the occupation, the siege and the blockades. That is clear, and I hope nobody will ever doubt it.

I refuse to play the game the Liberals and the NDP MPs want to play. I think it is deplorable. Do not ask me to just go along with it. This order is utterly out of proportion. It could destroy our freedoms. The Liberals deployed it in the hope that we would not notice their incompetence and their sloppy, pathetic handling of the crisis.

This government, and particularly this Prime Minister, were asleep at the switch for three weeks. As my leader said, out of nowhere, they dropped a nuclear bomb, the Emergencies Act. Our role as BQ MPs is to protect our constituents from these bad federal government decisions. Taking coercive action without taking Quebec's opinion into account was a very bad decision.

The government had police forces at its disposal. They were capable of taking action; they had the tools to do so. Unfortunately, the government waited too long. As my leader said, it is obvious that a truck parked on the white lines of a public roadway, even if it is just for a minute and a half, is breaking several laws.

Let us talk about existing laws. Subsection 430(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

430 (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully

(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or

(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

Note that property here can refer to a road, bridge, tunnel or port.

The right to protest is a recognized right. However, a protest can be declared illegal for several reasons. For instance, section 63(1) of the Criminal Code states, and I quote:

63 (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

Both types of mischief constitute offences that have been perpetrated continuously for 23 days. Individual freedom does have its limits. We were already at that point a few weeks ago. This is not a new problem. A free and democratic society forms the basis of our social contract.

The Prime Minister should clearly have woken up sooner. He knew that the Ottawa Police Service did not have the staff to manage this crisis, and he did nothing to help. On February 10, Ottawa asked for an additional 1,800 police officers. The federal government sent 275. That is not too bad. However, they were mainly assigned to the Prime Minister and Parliament. In reality, 20 police officers were added to the detail monitoring the protesters. That is embarrassing and shameful.

Suddenly, on day 16 of the occupation, the Prime Minister woke up and spoke about the nuclear option, the Emergencies Act. The government says it is justified in invoking this act, so let us talk about the justification or the lack thereof.

Since Monday, the government has used its order to financially punish and literally ruin the protesters and their associated entities. Did we then see the protesters run away with their tails between their legs? No. Everyone is talking about one case that was reported on the news two days ago, I believe, the only known case, the only recorded case.

The protesters have remained, more determined than ever, now convinced that they are living under a dictatorship. This government provoked them and continues to provoke them.

The Economist wrote that this act could make the situation worse. I think it hit the nail on the head. It was right on.

The second thing covered by this order in council is the much-talked-about towing logistics. Tow truck drivers in the area apparently did not want to use their equipment to tow the trucks. The government could have looked to bring in tow trucks from outside the national capital, which would have eliminated the need for this order in council.

When there is a big storm that causes massive damage in Sherbrooke, what happens? People from Saguenay will show up quickly to help. That is how it works in Quebec, at least. People come from far and away to help. All you have to do is ask.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois offered to form an all-party crisis task force in the early days of the occupation. We wanted to work together to address this effectively. The Prime Minister took his time agreeing. He wound up backed into a corner and said yes.

The Bloc Québécois wanted and still wants to help the country get out of this mess, this terrible crisis. The reality on the ground is that the police are now doing their job and they did not need this order to do it. They needed more people.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to this legislation because it was and still is sufficient to allocate as many police officers and resources as necessary to each site, for example to the Ambassador Bridge and Coutts.

A moment ago, I was talking about solidarity. I would like to express my gratitude to the Sûreté du Québec officers who came to lend a hand to our Ontario neighbours. I would also like to express my deep admiration to the seven police forces that have been here in Ottawa since Friday and who are doing an extraordinary job of removing the occupiers. They are professional, methodical and effective. I have nothing but praise for them.

By the way, there are not many NDP members here today, so maybe the NDP is reconsidering its position. At least that is what we hope. After all, only fools do not change their minds.

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

The hon. member for Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne on a point of order.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite knows full well that he is not allowed to mention the absence or presence of members.

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

Indeed. I thank the member for reminding me.

I would ask the hon. member to wait until his microphone is on before apologizing.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand, and therefore I will not mention the absence of the NDP members.

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

I would remind the hon. member that he is doubling down on the comment for which the point of order was just raised. I would therefore ask him to withdraw his comments without saying anything further.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a bit unruly and I apologize.

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all know that one cannot do inadvertently what one cannot do overtly. Members of the NDP are here online, just as other members are, so that is an irresponsible comment and a cheap parlour trick.

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

Indeed, that is what I said to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my remarks.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association announced that it would challenge the Emergencies Act in court.

The group stated that the government already had the tools to address the situation and that the order was unnecessary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional. We could not agree more.

Amnesty International has expressed concern about some aspects of the order that are vague and could result in rights abuses, especially relating to the geographic limitations. That is the message we have been driving home since Thursday.

This act is disproportionate and overly broad. It certainly should not include Quebec, nor should it include the other six provinces that disagree with the order.

However, I completely agree with my Liberal colleagues that the occupation must be cleared out as soon as possible. Unfortunately, as we have said over and over, and as I will now say again, this has to happen in stages. To summarize, this law of last resort does little to resolve the current situation, but it does a lot to discredit Quebec and Canada on the international stage. It does a lot to threaten one of our fundamental freedoms. The Bloc Québécois absolutely does not support the use of this act. It is unfortunate that we should have to spend three days debating it.

It is even sadder considering that we are witnessing the dismantling of the occupation outside as we speak.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Province of Quebec and thank it for intervening and helping us with the illegal blockade we have outside. This is a national problem, and what is happening in Ottawa is not the only issue we are dealing with. We are dealing with issues from one part of the country to another, and that is why we need the Emergencies Act.

I would like to know if my hon. colleague is supportive of having the SQ continue to help us. It is helping us very importantly outside right now.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely extraordinary that the Sûreté du Québec is helping Ontario and British Columbia.

We stand together. The provinces will be excellent neighbours for us, and we will continue to stand together. That is clear.

According to most newspapers, there is not much going on outside of Ottawa. Basically all the protests and blockades have been cleared.

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice revealed yesterday that the financial provisions of the Emergencies Act were aimed more at punishing political opponents than at actually fighting crime.

Can members imagine living in a country like Canada where a law or an act is designed to beat down political dissent on the part of opposition parties. That could include the Bloc Québécois, for example. I am interested in the member's comments on that.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is another great opportunity for me.

I asked that question this morning but did not get an answer. We are talking about finances. The order is meant to affect the personal finances of truckers, except it has unintended consequences. I think it is wrong.

People's bank accounts are being frozen. This morning I asked whether they would be frozen for a week or a month. How long will these accounts be frozen? Will it affect people's credit ratings?

This could destroy people.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate working with the member on the veterans committee and appreciate and respect his opinion. I also appreciate that while I sat through his speech, I was in the camera shot the majority of the time.

I am wondering if the member could answer a very important question.

I do agree with some parts of his intervention, like the fact that the government took too long to respond. We did not see action, and it should have had action. All levels of government failed, and here we are today having a debate on something that I wish we did not have to debate, because governments did not do their jobs. We also know the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is suing the government, which I support. I think it is absolutely important that we have systems in place to make sure everything that is done is done well and with accountability.

I am wondering if the member agrees this is a good step and that a committee to oversee this needs to be set immediately.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding exactly what the question is, so let me take this opportunity to ask the NDP members to really think carefully about this.

New Democrats have extremely humanist values, more so than many people in the House. The NDP members are social democrats. Whether we like it or not, the legislation we are about to pass—or not—will hurt workers.

Workers are the New Democrats' target audience. That is all I wanted to add to my colleague's speech.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to represent the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Friday, March 13, 2020, will be forever in my memory as the day we closed Parliament due to the coronavirus pandemic declaration, and we all made our way home. In response to the pandemic, the Liberals brought forth legislation in which, at the eleventh hour, they added in clauses which would have given the finance minister unchecked power to tax, spend and incur debt, with no budget, no debate and no parliamentary oversight for 21 months.

After weeks of not sitting, the Liberals finally introduced a dramatically reduced Parliament for the next several months where MPs could ask questions, but other parliamentary abilities such as opposition day motions, emergency debates and many other daily functions did not occur. This was a crossroad in history for our democratic institutions and how it was going to operate during this world crisis at that time.

Conservatives strongly pushed back on giving the government ultimate financial power, and in May 2020, I flew back to Ottawa and was standing in the House of Commons debating these issues. My speech garnered national media attention as a rookie MP who was passionately standing up for democracy. I feel like we are in a similar situation with the Liberals going directly to the most extreme power. It is not stated enough that Canada is a great country. We have democratic government, equality, rule of law, some of the strongest human rights and environmental laws, a safe and civil society, job opportunities, social networks, civil liberties and freedoms.

It is important that we protect these. They are the reason why so many people want to visit and move to Canada. People have fought for the freedoms and the country we call home. We need to ensure that we have laws to protect all these and the governing structures that uphold our laws.

Prime Minister Mulroney saw the armed standoff in Oka. Gunfire was exchanged, and individuals tragically lost their lives. Prime Minister Chrétien saw the skies of the world close with 9/11 and the threat of terrorist violence at levels higher than any other time in our history. Prime Minister Harper saw the financial markets of the world collapse, and we saw the terror attack on Parliament Hill with a life lost.

In January 2020, protesters blockaded the rail lines and highways that bring trade and provide rail passenger service in Canada from coast to coast. They were at a standstill for a month. They also shut down ferries off the coast of British Columbia. In 2020 and 2021, the coronavirus pandemic brought our health care system and our economy to their knees. Also in 2021, my province of British Columbia was devastated by floods, mudslides and wildfires, affecting tens of thousands of people.

None of these crises brought any federal government of the day to invoke the federal Emergencies Act. To be clear, Conservatives have no issue with dialogue with Canadians seeking to protest peacefully, but that right to protest cannot include blockading infrastructure such as rail lines or border crossings. Free-flowing critical infrastructure is the law of this country and we must uphold it.

The government has falsely insinuated that Conservatives have been inconsistent on this. The party that has been truly inconsistent has been the Liberal Party. During the extensive rail blockades of 2020, due to protests, the government sent delegations to talk to those involved. Law enforcement from many jurisdictions used the various tools and laws available to them to end the rail blockades.

Just a few days ago, on February 17, reports of substantial damage surfaced on the Coastal GasLink Pipeline in B.C., an area that has seen protesters. There were attempts to set a vehicle on fire with workers in it; attackers wielding axes; flare guns fired at workers; cut hydraulic and fuel lines, which caused dangerous leaks; extensive damage to equipment and property; and people throwing smoke bombs at police.

Where are the Liberals on this situation? The Prime Minister appointed a law-breaking professional protester as environment minister. Their hypocrisy could not be clearer. When the Prime Minister agrees with the message of a protest, he opens up dialogue and maybe even perhaps attends. When he does not, he name calls, scolds and demands his government be allowed the same powers as if we were at war.

The words of the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert continue to ring true. When it comes to the Prime Minister's government, wedging, dividing and stigmatizing is the way the Liberals choose to act. The Prime Minister's recent false accusation that members of the House stood with a swastika is only the most recent example of callousness. His refusal to apologize shows how he continues to be committed to that path of division. It is so disappointing to see this from the Prime Minister.

There are many people who came here to Ottawa from across the country who are law-abiding and who are peacefully protesting, wanting to be heard, including from Kelowna—Lake Country. Canadians know that when it comes to hateful imagery, language, intimidation, injury or damage that those individuals need to be held accountable. Every member of the House denounces these situations, and there are laws to address it.

The good news for Canadians is that our laws work and seem to be working, and protests have been peaceful. The border crossing at Coutts has been cleared, the Ambassador Bridge has been reopened, among others. Provincial governments and local police forces have been able to act with the laws of this Parliament, and those of the provincial and municipal governments across the country. Seven out of 10 provinces have come out against using the Emergencies Act.

The order in council released by the government authorizes itself to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.” What does that mean? Just trust the Prime Minister and give him ultimate authority with no oversight? It also states that the “emergency exists throughout Canada”. That is not true.

The order in council also requires institutions to cease dealing with a designated person, defined as anyone associated with the protest. What does that mean? It is extremely vague. What if a person shared a tweet? It is being recorded that financial institutions are unclear what this entails. There appears to be broad discretion for the government.

They are invoking the Emergencies Act, but, as a national emergency, this does not meet the threshold for its justification. The choice of this government to seek to use the powers of the Emergencies Act is not for lack of options. It is the result of a lack of leadership from this Prime Minister. His government has been left embarrassed and now seeks to break glass on the most severe law.

Canadians are frustrated, and they are seeking hope. Conservatives tried to offer this government, just a week ago, the olive branch to do that. We put forth a motion calling on the government to light the way for the end of COVID-19 restrictions and mandates. We wanted the government to tell Canadians, 90% of whom are already vaccinated, and millions more boosted, the plan for when this will be over. Provinces are doing it, and other countries are doing it. We asked for a plan in our motion, and the Liberals and NDP refused to give one. They voted it down.

My constituency office has never received so many emails and phone calls over the last two weeks. This are not form letters. Thousands of people from Kelowna—Lake Country, many who had never reached out to their member of Parliament before, are supporting the Conservative motion to have a plan to end the mandates, and they are not supporting the Emergencies Act invocation. Here is just a brief sample of their comments.

“I used to be so proud to be Canadian...now I am not.”

“I am an RCMP member, 13 years, and it saddens me to see what is happening in this country.”

“I notice the Liberals are wanting to follow the money with the truckers blockage. I’m wondering if they are now willing to open up the WE contravene and follow the money in it?”

“Three weeks of peaceful protest & zero willingness from the liberal gov't to listen to those upset & sick & tired of mandates.”

“Under the Emergencies Act, Canada's financial institutions would be granted the power to freeze anyone's accounts without a court order. This IS most assuredly a brazen attack on our freedom of expression and cannot be tolerated. Enough is enough.”

“If it’s ONLY a fringe minority, then why invoke the Emergencies Act?”

“I'm a veteran of 20 years and right now I'm very disgusted to what is going on.”

“This not the Canada I know.”

The Liberals across the way are chirping at me, and they are laughing at the comments from my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. For people to consider for the next election, here is a quote from Prime Minister Harper, as retweeted by our current Prime Minister almost a decade ago. It says, “When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern”.

I have looked at this motion, done my research, listened to people and heard from my Kelowna—Lake Country constituents. I absolutely cannot support confirming the Emergencies Act.

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

Madam Speaker, I take great exception to the terminology that this member uses when she says phases like “these Liberals” and “those Liberals”. I can assure her that “these Conservatives” are nothing like “those Conservatives” of the past, like my predecessor Flora MacDonald, who actually introduced this bill into this House.

The member referenced a lot of quotes, and I have a quote for her from Police Chief Steve Bell. He said, “Without the authorities that have been provided...through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to...work [together] today”.

Can the member explain to us why she, coming from the party of law and order, somehow encourages the activity out there and will not take the word of the police chief running this?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reason we are here today is the failure in leadership of the Prime Minister and the government. We continually asked what the steps were that they took to bring us to this point. Continually, we had no answers.

What was the first step that they took? What was the second step? What was the third step? What was the fourth step?

This is an extraordinary situation. We have been given no information about all of the steps that were taken by the federal government to bring us to this point. The first step could be to talk to and listen to people.

There has been nothing done to bring us to this point today.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

First, if I may, I would like to recognize the presence, courage, bravery and judgment of members of the various security forces who are on the ground in front of Parliament right now. My husband is a retired police officer and I can assure the House that it takes a lot of judgment and—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

Can I have order so we can hear the questions? Order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands used an unparliamentary term, referring to another member as an “idiot”.

I would like him to apologize.

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

I did not hear that.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands may respond.