Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question and comments.

I want to be clear. We are criticizing the possible associations between questionable political positions, the unwarranted occupations and the use of the Emergencies Act, which we do not think is justifiable.

I completely agree with what the member said about denouncing hate speech and unacceptable comments and continuing to fight this issue. That said, the government cannot claim that the Emergencies Act is required because the siege must be stopped.

I remind members that in the 1970s, Tommy Douglas's party was the only one that opposed the invocation of the War Measures Act. I urge the NDP to draw some inspiration from Tommy Douglas and the decision he made back then.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his speech. I have a question for him, and I hope I will be able to express myself clearly.

I do not think the definition of what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada can be found in the Emergencies Act. Rather, it is found in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which refers specifically to foreign influenced activities.

I find this deeply disturbing because I think that the misinformation about COVID‑19 and the vaccines, as well as the bizarre ideas that some protesters have are coming from two sources. Some come from Republicans in the United States but mostly they come from from Russia and Mr. Putin, who are spreading misinformation on sites like russiatoday.com. This site is accessible in Canada, which I find very surprising, since it spreads misinformation for the purpose of destroying democratic societies around the world.

We need to make a decision about the Emergencies Act, but beyond that, we must take action against sources of misinformation. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.

This is indeed very concerning. We must not let foreign powers influence domestic policy, that is for sure. That is why, in my speech, I referred to the five reasons given by the government to justify its decision to use the Emergencies Act. I also pointed out that these reasons were justifiable and worthy of debate.

However, in order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate that the problem cannot be addressed by the ordinary laws and regulations already in place. It has not done so.

There are already regulations and laws in place, for example,those concerning funding platforms. The government has not even tried to demonstrate that there is a legal void. That is our position.

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

Madam Speaker, something rather ironic is happening in the House right now: An NDP member is sitting on a Liberal back bench. I hope that he is at least negotiating a seat closer to the front.

Having said that, I hear members on the government side talking about a Maru poll that says all kinds of nonsense. According to this poll, 72% of Quebeckers have a favourable opinion of the Emergencies Act. However, those same members overlook the fact that the same poll found that only 17% of people across Canada think that the Prime Minister is doing the right thing. Canadians have a very low opinion of his leadership.

If we look at the numbers, the only ones that matter are that 100% of the Quebec National Assembly voted against the Emergencies Act and that seven out of 10 provinces think that it is inappropriate.

I would therefore ask my colleague a very simple question: What does he think of the opinion about the Prime Minister, and how should he act responsibly now?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, clearly people watching the situation deteriorate in Parliament want it to stop. They want it dealt with.

If a polling firm asks questions about the Emergencies Act, most people are not going to take the time to dissect the act and understand why it was invoked and what has to be proven. Here, we study it, we analyze it, and we say the government needs to prove there is a legislative gap that needs to be filled. So far, the government has not even tried to do that. It makes no sense.

We agree with Canadians that the situation needs to be resolved, but this statutory nuclear option was not the right way to do that. I am sure we agree on that.

All parties in the National Assembly, including the Coalition Avenir Québec, the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Québécois and Québec Solidaire—I am not sure if the Conservative Party of Quebec's representative was in the legislature at the time, but I am told she was—unanimously said this made no sense. Why are the members from Quebec, including the Liberal Party members, not standing with their people?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the last few weeks I have received phone calls from constituents asking me why it came to this. How is it that Canada, the true north strong and free, has come to declare a national emergency to handle trucks parked in downtown Ottawa?

Let me be clear: It is time that the rule of law was restored in Ottawa, but what happened is a direct result of the fear and division created by the Prime Minister. I also want to tell people who are part of the convoy that my colleagues and I have heard their valid concerns on this side of the House. We will continue to push for an end to pandemic measures, as the science indicates should happen.

People who have reached out to my office in the last few weeks are exhausted and frustrated, and they are tired of this Liberal government not listening or even trying to understand their point of view. After three weeks, law enforcement acted to resolve the situation. However, there was no attempt by the government to speak to the organizers. Instead, the Prime Minister continued to throw around divisive rhetoric and still has not provided a plan forward to end the COVID-19 measures.

This past Monday, the Liberals had an opportunity to finally show some leadership and support the thoughtful and measured motion that we Conservatives brought forward. However, as usual, they partnered with the NDP and crushed the hopes of countless Canadians desperate for a pathway out of the pandemic. They crushed the hopes of many of my constituents in industries like tourism and transportation, constituents who were just looking for a path forward. Instead of working with members in the House and with provincial governments, the Prime Minister dug in with his name-calling. The people outside the West Block who were asking to be heard are just as Canadian as any member here. They should not be put down by someone who is supposed to be leading our country.

We have now reached the point where we need to ask ourselves seriously if the use of the Emergencies Act was really necessary. The City of Ottawa had a state of emergency in effect and the Ontario provincial government also declared an emergency. Under the current powers that existed in those declarations and existing federal and provincial laws, the police had the tools they needed to handle the situation in Ottawa.

The Emergencies Act clearly states that a declaration can only be made when it meets three conditions, including one that no other federal law or provincial power can deal with the alleged emergency. On top of that, Ontario has a plan to share law enforcement resources among municipalities without using the Emergencies Act. If the police already had the powers they needed and the Emergencies Act was not necessary to acquire manpower, why invoke the act for the first time in Canada's history?

The act was not used for the Oka crisis, nor for either of the Vancouver riots in 1994 and 2011. It was not used in 2010 when protesters at the G20 in Toronto started a riot. This act has not even been used to address recent terrorist threats to Canada or the 2020 pipeline blockades. This government is setting an extremely dangerous precedent by invoking this act.

The powers to deal with the situation here in Ottawa already existed. Despite what various ministers have said, the Governor in Council can direct the RCMP. It is all laid out in the RCMP Act under section 5. This government should know, because it used in 2017.

The Liberals also claimed that they needed the Emergencies Act to direct tow trucks in clearing rigs from downtown. Well, we know that this is false too, because section 129(b) of the Criminal Code gives police the option to require anyone “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”.

What is clear now is that invoking this act is just another power grab and overreach by this Liberal government, and that is scary. What happens in the future when the government does not agree with the political position of protesters in Canada?

My constituents looked at the emergency declaration and asked, “Why?” How can this Prime Minister equate truckers parked in the middle of the road in downtown Ottawa to World War I, World War II and the October crisis, simply because he disagrees with the truckers' beliefs? He could have listened. He could have provided a plan forward out of the COVID measures. He could have handled the situation here in Ottawa without jeopardizing democracy. The RCMP and local law enforcement did it at B.C., Coutts, Emerson and the Ambassador Bridge.

The Emergencies Act is not something we can throw around lightly. It is the absolute last choice after all else has fails.

The future of our country is at stake. The Liberal government and Prime Minister still cannot explain what steps were taken before invoking this act. When a national emergency is so urgent and dangerous, the government needs extraordinary powers, but where is that emergency? No matter what one's political stripe, supporting these sweeping powers is one of the most serious decisions a member of this House can make. It is serious because the use of the Emergencies Act impacts the rights and freedoms of Canadians, regardless of what the government says.

This Prime Minister loves to throw around lines like “responsible leadership”. Leadership is standing up for the rights and freedoms of this country. Real leadership is protecting the fundamental principles of Canada and uniting Canadians. Despite someone having views different from the Prime Minister's, the government should not have the power to limit people's rights. Limiting rights should never happen without due process or an urgent national emergency.

If we do not have a critical national emergency, then the only way to limit Canadians' rights should be through due process, yet the government is now using the act to shut down people's bank accounts. The deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, said that there is no evidence that this funding in Ottawa is tied to ideologically motivated extremism, so why are people's judicial rights being shut down? Is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty just something the government would ignore? Bank accounts are tied to people's lives and livelihoods. A person's support of a political process should never be a reason to interfere with Canadians' rights.

Howard Anglin, former deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, wrote:

[T]he bottom line is that civil liberties in Canada are more vulnerable today than they were yesterday, and they will remain so as long as the declaration of emergency remains in place.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has even taken legal action against the government, saying that the Prime Minister's action in invoking the act is “extraordinary” and “unconstitutional”. The association has said that legal requirements put in place to safeguard democratic processes have not been met.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation has also said, “Emergency legislation should not be normalized. The threshold for using the Emergencies Act is extremely high and has not been met.”

The World Sikh Organization of Canada is also opposed to this act; so is the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. The provincial governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have also opposed the Prime Minister's overreach.

The situation here in Ottawa never met the level of crisis that is needed to use the Emergencies Act. Invoking this act sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message to all Canadians, now and in the future, that they cannot have dissenting opinions or views. In this time of fear and division, people are crying out not to trample on the traditions and beliefs that make Canada great.

The Prime Minister has had many opportunities to de-escalate the situation and take a measured approach. Conservatives have been calling on the government to lay out a clear plan following science. Again, the Liberal government has completely shut out Canadians, even though two-thirds of Canadians want to see these mandates gone. This is all about mandates. It is a time for leadership in this country to unite Canadians, no matter what their views are.

As members in this place, our first duty is to listen to our constituents and protect their rights and freedoms. When the people in power overstep and overreact, we risk the rights, freedoms and democracy that this place represents. This is why I cannot, in good conscience, support the use of the Emergencies Act. Now is the time for us in this House to stand up and find a way to return to a government that is not divisive and find a way to unite Canadians. We need to work together to have a Canada that is united, strong and free.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member on his excellent speech in this difficult time.

I would like to ask him a question about the order in council that the government passed that led to the invocation of the act that we're debating today. One of the clauses in the act gives the government the power to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known”. It is a pretty open-ended power that the government is asking for.

We know that the Prime Minister has limited respect for the House. He disregarded the request for the production of documents with regard to the Winnipeg lab. He tried to interfere in the legal system with the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Why should we trust him? He has not called a meeting of the privy councillors sworn in in this House to brief them on any security issues. Why should we trust that this power should be granted to the government, which is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, trust has been completely broken by the Prime Minister, because he has not only repeatedly violated ethics but has also gone back on his word multiple times. Trust is the issue here. How can any Canadian continue to trust the Prime Minister?

In his last question, my hon. colleague from the Bloc pointed out that a recent poll shows that a small percentage of Canadians trust the Prime Minister now. This is the same prime minister who said that he would not call a pandemic election. He went against his word then. He said that he would uphold rights and freedoms in this country. We can clearly see that this is the last thing the Prime Minister is doing.

Trust has been broken. The Prime Minister needs to stand up and apologize to Canadians and prove that he is serious—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to ask for other questions.

The hon. deputy House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for his speech.

We are hearing today that some members feel it is not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. I want to read a quote directly from Steve Bell, the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service. He said:

All of those legislative pieces of legislation and supports we’ve got from different levels of government have directly and actively contributed to our ability to ultimately say we are in a position to move forward and look to end this demonstration.

A 31-year veteran of the police force, he has said clearly that this legislation has helped to stop what is happening outside.

Can the member comment?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member said “directly and actively”. The Prime Minister directly and actively forced this to happen in Ottawa, because he refused to listen to Canadians and he refused to sit down and listen to views that opposed his own.

We did not need to get to this point. All of this happened because Canadians were asking for a clear direction and a plan to get out of these COVID measures, but the Prime Minister sat on his hands, as he always does, for three weeks and made no plans to even listen to people.

That is why we are where are. This is all the Prime Minister's doing. We did not need to get here, so the Prime Minister needs to apologize for that. I wish the member would stand up and tell him the same.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn for his interventions today. I have worked very closely with him on getting supports for the people of Afghanistan.

He talked about this as if it is a trucker protest in Ottawa. It is an occupation in Ottawa, but as an Albertan, surely he recognizes that an armed militia was discovered in Alberta that threatened the RCMP and displayed images of white supremacy and racism. It is not just in Ottawa; it is a national issue.

If that is not a reason for the Emergencies Act, what is?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I will say is that all of the borders were already cleared. The provincial government stepped up and the local police stepped up. The federal government did not, and they had already cleared those borders.

What the federal government did is a complete overreach. I hope that my hon. colleague will find it in herself to do what the hon. Tommy Douglas did at that time and not support this complete overreach by the Liberal government.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say, first of all, I appreciate all Canadians' prayers right now. I have been getting messages that they are praying for us in this place to make good decisions. I covet them and we are thankful for them, especially at this very trying time for our country.

Today, we are debating the Prime Minister's Emergencies Act. We have already heard about the thresholds and whether they have been met. The Liberals will argue that they have been. However, across the board, across the country, we are hearing that they have not. Clearly, if I read them out to us today, we would see that they have not been met.

This statement is from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association:

The current emergency orders place significant limits on peaceful assembly across the entire country. They require financial institutions to turn over personal financial information to CSIS and the RCMP, and to freeze the bank accounts and cut off financial services provided to anyone who has attended, or who has provided assistance to those participating in, a prohibited assembly—all without judicial oversight.

It is in light of all these violations of civil liberties that we will be taking the government to court....

This becomes a great concern for that mother or grandmother who donated $20 for the cause of freedom to the truckers convoy. What started off as a simple protest for truckers' mandates has developed into something much larger, into a defence of freedom in Canada. Is the grandmother that donated $20 on some Liberal list now and cannot travel after this? We do not know. We do not know how far and how wide this act will go or what the Prime Minister is trying to do.

I figure it is important that, while we often refer to our freedoms, I will read them out. Section 2 of our fundamental freedoms reads:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Section 6 reads, “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain and leave Canada.”

Section 7 reads, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Section 8 reads, “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

Section 9 reads, “Everyone has the right to not be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.”

The Emergencies Act really allows the Prime Minister to push those aside and do whatever he wants. Some ask me how we arrived here. That is the question I would ask all Canadians. How did we get here? This is the Prime Minister that has been leading up to this. This will be his crescendo.

Does everybody remember the Prime Minister's values test that was given to summer student jobs a number of years ago in 2017? In December of that year, the government introduced an attestation that if someone did not adhere to the Prime Minister's beliefs or his values, the funding was not going to come to them.

I remember many times fighting this in my MP office, fighting so that all members of our community would have access to those summer student jobs. Over 1,500 applications were denied because they did not meet this values test. On March 19, 2018, we tabled a motion. Former Liberal MP Scott Simms voted against the government. He was put on the back bench because of that. This is the Prime Minister four years ago. We have seen this developing for many years now.

I think what Canadians are becoming, sadly, aware of is that this is really who the Prime Minister is. I wrote a column a couple weeks ago and this is the quote from the actual Prime Minister's mouth. This is a man who is supposed to unite the country, not divide it. He said that they are extremists who don't believe in science, that they're often misogynists and also racist. He said that it is a small group that muscles in, and that we have to make a choice in terms of leaders, in terms of the country, “Do we tolerate these people?”

This quote is not from some far left-wing or far right-wing individual. This is from the Prime Minister's own mouth. This is the person invoking the same act we are debating today and it is shameful.

Some would ask why. It would seem to make more sense to unite the country than divide it. Here is an article from Lorrie Goldstein, who writes, “Trudeau can't unite us because his strategy is to divide us.” This is what it is all about—

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

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order. I imagine it is about the use of names.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is not just the first time. It is the second time the member has made reference to it and he knows better, I am sure, than to cite specific names in the House.

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

I will remind the hon. member that we do not use members' names. We use their titles or constituencies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I will try not to do it again, Madam Speaker.

I will go back to the article entitled “Goldstein: [The Prime Minister] can't unite us because his strategy is to divide us”, which states, “This because [the Liberals] divided Canadians up into little slices of political support and opposition across the country, in order to extract the maximum number of seats from the minimum number of votes cast.” This is by design. The Prime Minister ran on sunny ways. Conservatives lost that election and hoped that he would at least be a positive Prime Minister, but what we have seen over the last four years is a Prime Minister bent on, shamefully, dividing the country.

I will continue to quote:

From riding into office on the promise of “sunny ways,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s embrace of identity politics has led to an incredible failure of governance, resulting in him becoming just the fourth prime minister to invoke the Emergencies Act (or its predecessor) and notably the first to do so outside an actual war or insurrection. It is a shocking fall, with a witches brew of wedge politics, incompetence and identity politics to blame.

It further states:

Then, imperceptibly at first, the great scourge of our political age began to make appearances within the Trudeau Liberals: identity politics. With—

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

I remind the hon. member not to say members' names, please.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was reading the quote. I apologize once more.

With astonishing speed, opponents of government action could quickly be labelled racist, misogynist, homophobic or any other of a litany of insults intended to personally scar opponents and discredit them as the worst society has to offer, without addressing the substance of their argument.

We are debating the Emergencies Act today and it has come to this culmination by design of the Prime Minister. This is what he wants to happen. This is from the sunny ways Prime Minister whom all who voted for hoped would become the great unifier of our country. Are a bunch of truckers or peaceful, freedom-loving Canadians the problem today? They are not. The Prime Minister and his Emergencies Act is, and the act needs to be defeated.

I especially call on the NDP. We know the Bloc have shown opposition to it and Conservatives are in opposition to it. My hope is that Liberal members across the way will oppose it as well. There needs to be 20 more NDP members who vote against this for it to fail. For the sake of our democracy in this country, it needs to, and I call on New Democrats today to do that.

We hear Canadians across the country and appreciate their prayers, emails and communications of concern. We take our responsibilities in this place very seriously and that is why we are here this weekend to debate this act that threatens our very institution.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for quoting the Prime Minister when he made the comments about the types of people he was talking about. He was referring to a small group. I would ask the member why it is that, since the beginning of this debate, you have consistently, on the other side of the House—

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

I would remind the hon. member to direct her question through the Chair, please.

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

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

I would ask the member opposite to please explain, if the quote he read says that the Prime Minister was referring to a small group within the organization, why the party opposite continuously says the Prime Minister was referring to all the protesters and truckers, whom we all support.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am shocked by what the member asked me. She is basically justifying the Prime Minister's comments. The reference was to people who had vaccine hesitancy, as we call it. She is saying that it is okay that the Prime Minister called them extremists who don’t believe in science, often misogynists, also often racists, with a small group that muscles in, and that he said, “We have to make a choice as a leader, as a country: Do we tolerate these people?”

My goodness, I am surprised the member would defend that statement in the House. Maybe she could get a copy of the Constitution and study our fundamental freedoms to understand what our freedoms are. They are supposed to be for every Canadian in our country, not just the ones who do what the Prime Minister chooses to do.