Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

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

First, I would say that I am not worried about setting a precedent because the act, as written, ensures that MPs and Canadians can scrutinize how the act was used. There are protections in the act to ensure it is not used if it is not necessary.

Second, Windsor was an exception. With other border crossing blockades, the act helped the police put an end to them, partly by cutting off funding.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank everybody working in the House who is allowing us to do our jobs as members of Parliament.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's intervention. I know it is really difficult to share, especially traumatic histories about family, so I want to honour that.

I want to talk about extremism. We know that people were struggling before the pandemic. We also know that since the pandemic, people have been struggling even more, feeling despair and alienation. When people are not looked after, it is fuel for the fire in the rise of extremist and anti-democratic movements.

I wonder if the hon. member agrees with me that more support needs to be provided to people in Canada to avoid these extremist movements from rising.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her words.

We have done a tremendous amount of work, but we have a lot more work to do. There are members on duty today who have led a lot of that work. Many members have worked very hard to address extremism in this country, and I look forward to working with them and others on all sides of the House to make sure that we do so.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever felt more compelled to add my voice to a debate in the chamber than I do in this debate about the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I am going to start by making a number of things very clear to the people listening, including my constituents. They might want to know where I stand on a number of issues that cannot be separated from this debate.

I am proud to belong to a party that has always stood for both law and order. At no point have I condoned, encouraged or made excuses or apologies for unlawful conduct. I was appalled by the border blockades that immediately harmed the economy and brought into question Canada's core competence as a sovereign country able to control and secure its own borders. I was horrified by the violent attack on workers at the Coastal GasLink pipeline two days ago that resulted in injured police, terrorized workers, millions in property damage and barely a peep out of the federal government, or the press gallery, for that matter.

I was elected on a platform that would make it an offence to block critical infrastructure like highways, railways, ports, pipelines and border facilities. I stand by that. I believe in prudent and reasonable public health measures, especially during a pandemic, but not inflexible mandates. I stand today in the House of Commons opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act and the order that the government has made pursuant to the act. I oppose the invocation because it fails the tests set out in the law, because it sets a terrible precedent for future governments and because the current government in particular cannot be trusted with the powers that it would grant itself.

The first reason is simple. The present situation clearly does not meet the tests set out in the act. The government has declared a public order emergency. The act itself defines a public order emergency as follows:

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

This definition was always understood to mean war, widespread deadly violence, insurrection or threats to Canada's sovereignty.

What was the situation when this order was invoked last Monday? It is certainly true that there had been blockades at border crossings and partially blocked streets in and around the parliamentary precinct here in Ottawa. However, by the time the order was made, conventional policing was prevailing at the border crossings. Arrests with serious charges had been laid in Coutts, and others left peacefully of their own accord. The Ambassador Bridge was also cleared peacefully. Let me pause and commend the police, who successfully ended these blockades with no injuries, no damage to property and no violence with existing powers and solid police professionalism.

Given that the border blockades were resolved without additional powers granted under this act, and the downtown Ottawa situation was all that remained, did the situation in Ottawa really meet the test of a national emergency? Make no mistake. Laws were broken, and people who live and work in the Ottawa core were harmed by traffic disruptions, noise and reported incidents of harassment. However, was this a national emergency, a threat to the security of Canada and one that could not be solved using existing laws and conventional policing methods?

I arrived in Ottawa the day the convoy arrived. I have been here for all but one day since. I have walked through and among the trucks and the demonstrators every day to and from my apartment, this chamber and my office across the street. There was clearly and obviously a breakdown of law enforcement. That is clear and obvious to all, but I did not see a national emergency. There was a downtown Ottawa emergency, perhaps, but a national emergency is an emergency that threatens 38 million Canadians. This emergency did not even prevent MPs from working right in the middle of it. A former member of Parliament, Erin Weir, perhaps summed it quite nicely when he said, “The only element of the protest that may have been a national emergency was the blockade in Windsor”. However, the police reopened that bridge on Sunday night without the federal Emergencies Act.

The second reason I oppose the invocation of the Emergencies Act is for the terrible precedent that it would set, or has set, really. This law has been on the books since 1988 and has never been invoked until now. There have been many threats to public safety and security during that time, yet no government has ever reached for the powers under this act: not during the Oka crisis, not after September 11, 2001, not during the dangerous and paralyzing highway and railway blockades two years ago and not during the COVID crisis. However, this invocation is going to be the bar set for future governments.

We now know how the Prime Minister feels about those who disagree with his federal policy of mandatory vaccinations. We know how he lumped together all those with whom he disagreed and called them racists, misogynists, anti-science and a fringe element; talked about how they should not be tolerated; and complained about how they take up space. He did this during an election, when he cynically did everything he could to divide Canadians and weaponize the pandemic and vaccines. However, now he has invoked the Emergencies Act in response to a protest, and hardly the first protest that has taken place since this law came into effect in 1988, or even since 2015 when this government came to power or even since 2020. However, this protest is being conducted by those whose views are abhorrent to the Prime Minister. These protesters are people the Prime Minister has systematically demonized, vilified, stigmatized and scapegoated since he made the cynical self-serving decision to do so during the last election. Now this is going to be the bar set for future use of this act. Every future Prime Minister will have this precedent for using the act as a tool against citizens who hold opposing views.

This brings me to the third reason why I will oppose this motion. The tools contained in this order are so ill-defined and draconian and so utterly out of proportion to the situation at hand that they simply cannot be supported. This order, among other things, immediately orders banks to seize the accounts of anyone affiliated with the blockade and to do so without a court order. Thousands of Canadians who disagree with the government have given financial support to this protest, and many likely did so before any laws were broken. These Canadians are now left to wonder exactly what constitutes the phrase “being used to further the illegal blockades”

Is this really to be the new way that governments in Canada deal with protesters? Are we to become a country where governments say the legal system is really inconvenient and time consuming so let's just keep it simple? That is not Canada. No government present or future should deal with a breakdown of law enforcement at a local level with suspension of legal process, and certainly not over something as politically charged as dealing with a group of people who have been deliberately alienated not just from their government but by they their government itself.

Before we take any comfort from the government's assurance that its members will not misuse the powers they are granting themselves, let us remember what kind of government we are dealing with. We are dealing with a government whose members have been repeatedly sanctioned by the Ethics Commissioner for conflicts of interest, and with a Prime Minister who tried to interfere in a criminal prosecution by creating a new law to get a corrupt company off the hook and who then fired his attorney general, who refused to be complicit. This is a government that tried to give itself unlimited taxing and spending power at the beginning of the pandemic, a government that has tried to control, through regulation, what Canadians post online and a government that has defied court orders of this chamber. We are talking about a government that wanted to receive private banking information and is now seeking a partner from which to track mobility data. I would not want to give the government the extraordinary power that it seeks. Its appetite for power and control and its failure to comply with the law are simply too well established.

To conclude, there is no justification for this act. The emergency is local and does not require additional powers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member reference some quotes from parliamentarians, so I will reference quotes from a couple of parliamentarians too. The member might remember Peter MacKay, a Conservative minister, and Vernon White, a senator. They said, “But what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada.” Vernon White later went on to say on CBC, “I support [the Emergencies Act]. I felt we were at a point of no return.”

Why does the member disagree with these Conservatives? Is it because what we have across the way is really the Reform Party?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was watching the debate earlier in the day, and I must say the level and quality of debate we had in the chamber was much better before the member for Kingston and the Islands came—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, notwithstanding the fact that I take exception to his comment and I think it is inappropriate to say in the House, the member would know he should not be referencing my presence in the House at any time, whether I was here or not here.

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

The member cannot say if another member is or is not in the House, according to the rules.

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not refer to the presence or absence of a member in the House, but from the time that the member began to rise and engage in debate, the civility and the quality of the debate certainly took a turn for the worse. Carrying on—

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

Thank you. That should finish that point of order for the moment.

We are still on the answer to the original question put to the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer his question by saying that I agree with the premise but not the conclusion of some of the remarks that he quoted.

I would agree that there is a very serious situation of unlawful acts that required a response. I disagree that it required this response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge said. I understand why he rejects this law.

If this act was not the answer, what was? Was it leadership? Was it vision? Was it a law?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have had an absence of leadership in Canada under the Prime Minister all the way around.

I recall the remarks from the member for Louis-Hébert, who pointed out the extent to which this government made a deliberate choice to pit Canadians against each other long before this current crisis. One really must connect these two events. There is tremendous responsibility with the Prime Minister for the discord throughout our country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent the Ambassador Bridge area, with 40% of Canada's daily trade with the United States.

I can assure the member that the Conservative Party's talking points are not correct. The Ambassador Bridge is open to a degree of normalcy, but at the same time, the barriers, like they are in Ottawa, are now throughout the community, blocking us from businesses, blocking children from getting to appointments, including medical appointments, and causing a series of different problems.

Right now city of Windsor residents are on the hook for over $10 million. We will continue to pay for that because the OPP, the RCMP and the City of Windsor are still protecting 14 kilometres of the 401 system. What is the Conservative Party's position? Will it support, provincially and federally, paying this bill and continuing to pay this bill?

What is it going to do in regard to convoys? A couple more convoys coming into the area have already been intercepted, and the threat there continues to exist—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree. As I said right at the very beginning of my speech, I was appalled by what happened in his riding. I did note that it was de-escalating, and the crossing, as the member pointed out, had reopened using conventional police methods and without having to resort to extraordinary powers.

I would agree with the member that it is a terrible problem and a terrible imposition on his community, but I do not believe that anything in this motion will change that. It is not a justification for the extraordinary powers the government is granting itself.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, today we are debating the Emergencies Act and the motion for confirmation of a declaration of an emergency, pursuant to section 58 of the act. There is a lot to be said and I cannot cover everything in 10 minutes.

Under section 58, the government is required to provide a motion for confirmation of the declaration of an emergency and an explanation of the reasons for issuing the declaration, and to report on any consultation with the provinces and territories it is undertaking. Indeed, thousands of people have reached out to me in the last week regarding the temporary measures under the public order emergency, including the points on public assembly, fines and imprisonment, compelling to work on behalf of the Government of Canada and other measures, such as the freezing of one's financial assets.

The powers of Parliament in this unique situation are to protect against government overreach and bad decisions and to support the necessity of ensuring effective checks and balances are in place when a declaration of a public order emergency has been made under section 17 of the act. Upon review of the explanation pursuant to the Emergencies Act, I cannot support the reasons provided by the Governor in Council for the continued use of this act. My reasons relate to the following.

Under point two of the reasons for public emergency, “adverse effects on the Canadian economy”, numerous citations were made regarding protests at points of entry across Canada. It is my understanding that as of February 14, no major blockade was inhibiting the flow of goods between Canada and the United States to warrant this unprecedented action. The ability of law enforcement to deal with the protests was demonstrated last weekend when the protesters at points of entry were removed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

It goes on to explain that threats were made to block railways, which could result in significant economic disruptions. The report outlines that railways in Canada have operating revenues of more than $16 billion a year. A threat can be dealt with under existing laws and Parliament requires more information than the flimsy explanation provided regarding the economic significance of railways in Canada. The Railway Safety Act is a strong piece of legislation. I am sure it could be used if there was a legitimate threat.

I would say the same for point four, “the breakdown in the distribution chain and availability of essential goods”. Again the reasons provided by the government are without any evidence. Parliamentarians require more than general trade statistics to confirm the application of the most severe measure the government can possibly take. I just cannot support this.

Again the same could be said for point five, “the potential for an increase in the level of unrest”. The government has not provided the House with adequate justification that the situation in which we find ourselves today could not be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. Neither rhetoric nor emotion justifies such actions.

The report to the Houses of Parliament on the consultations regarding the Emergencies Act lack sufficient justification as well. Words like “spoke”, “met”, “regular engagement” and “discussed” are numerous throughout the document. Real and concrete steps, however, taken by the government in the context of consultations are void. For such a time as this, a government simply indicating that it spoke with the provinces and territories is not sufficient. What Parliament needs to know is what was discussed, what the government said to the provinces and territories and the actions it took to prevent national disruptions, and I would say vice versa in the context of the provinces and territories as well.

Let me quote the Prime Minister, who said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly. This is not the first, second or third option. It is the last resort.” Nothing the Prime Minister has provided the House demonstrates what the first, second or third actions actually were.

During the debate on Thursday, the member for Ottawa Centre asked, while pointing to members of the official opposition, that if this kind of occupation was happening in their neighbourhoods in their ridings for four weeks in a row, how would members be acting?

Arguably, many of the justifications provided relate more to the disasters, floods, wildfires and landslides British Columbians experienced last year. Lytton burned to the ground last summer and this fall every major roadway in the province of B.C. was flooded or washed away. The CP and CN rail lines were not operational. The port of metro Vancouver was cut off from Canada.

In my riding, there was danger to life, lives lost, real property damage for thousands, complete social disruption through the destruction of critical infrastructure and a loss of essential goods and services. People are still without permanent shelter and critical roadways are not fully operational, including the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 8.

Under section 58 of the bill, there is nothing in these documents that shows the government is meeting the threshold of this legislation. I can argue more concretely that the disasters that B.C. faced last year are a much better example of when this act could have been used under part I, “Public Welfare Emergency”.

Friday morning, I was also devastated, as has been mentioned in this House, to read of the horrific acts of violence that occurred in the northern community of Houston, British Columbia. Will this fall under the radar of our Prime Minister and his Emergencies Act? There was real violence there.

I am also reminded of other historical instances in Canada, such as the G20 summit, where the former Toronto chief of police and current Minister of Emergency Preparedness had hundreds of protesters arrested as police cars were burned in the streets and the Emergencies Act was not applied. The eyes of the world were on Canada at that time as well. Our reputation was also at stake in that moment.

In the annex of the motion tabled in Parliament, the Prime Minister included his letter to the premiers. He mentioned that he is concerned about the undermining of the confidence in our institutions. I believe Canadians are concerned the Prime Minister allowed the situation to escalate to where it is today. That is on him. That is on cabinet. I believe his actions are what is actually undermining the confidence in our institutions.

In preparation for today's debate I looked back at the Debates of 1988 when the Emergencies Act was before Parliament as a bill. I learned that parliamentarians of all political stripes were concerned about the future application of the bill and its relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

NDP MP Derek Blackburn, on April 25, 1988, referred to the horrific experiences of Canadians of Japanese descent who suffered internment under the War Measures Act, the preceding legislation. Although in support of the bill, he was concerned that the Emergencies Act could still infringe on Canadian rights and freedoms beyond what is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances. I share his concern. Mr. Blackburn suggested that the Supreme Court review the bill to be more confident that we would strike the right balance and Canadians would be protected. No review ever took place and look at where we find ourselves today.

In closing, I want to remind all members of the House of the thoughtful reflections of the Hon. Bob Kaplan, former MP for York Centre and Liberal member of the House of Commons, from July 11, 1988, who at the time was in the official opposition. He stated:

The legislation we are passing today [the Emergencies Act] still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four...categories of emergencies provided for under this legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation.

We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not...abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in...the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched.

The Prime Minister needs to be watched. The government needs to be watched. It needs to be accountable. I stand here on behalf of my constituents, who expect me to hold the current government to account. I am asking all members of the House to carefully consider how they will vote on this unprecedented and unnecessary measure. Confidence in our institutions depends on it. The trust Canadians have in us collectively as parliamentarians depends on it. Our nation depends on it.

I encourage all members to vote in opposition of this motion out of respect for a concern of government overreach.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a preamble I would like to say I am not sure I agree with taking events from the past and comparing them directly, because every one is different and each context is different. I would not compare a natural disaster to a conscious, coordinated movement, which is what we have seen. There has been coordination between what happened in Coutts and what has happened here.

I enjoyed the member's speech. It was rigorous and analytical. My question for him is this. Abstracting from the so-called reason for the “freedom convoy”, which was trucker mandates and not really the reason, is he not concerned that there is a longer-term movement in parts of the country? For example, the same organizers were involved in the United We Roll convoy. Also, I read somewhere that the Facebook page for Canada Unity was registered in 2019.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raised a valid point about extremism, having confidence in our institutions and what Canadians see and read online and how that applies to our jobs as parliamentarians, but I think he missed the points raised by the Government of Canada, which largely focused on infrastructure, on the economy and on protecting our supply chains. There is no justification for using the Emergencies Act under the points raised by the government in the official documents tabled in this Parliament. That threshold simply is not met.

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

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

It is not often that we agree with the Conservatives, but I have to admit that, this time, we feel essentially the same way about the use of the Emergencies Act.

Does my colleague agree that the use of the act right now is an attempt to make up for the government's inaction and indifference over the past 20 days? Does he agree that the government is trying to portray itself as a saviour to restore its reputation, when the real saviours are the ones one the ground right now, tactfully ensuring public safety?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her question.

The government decided to use the act for several reasons. I agree with the hon. member that one reason is that the government wanted to change public opinion about its actions and about the bad decisions it has made over the last four weeks.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member as somebody who has worked very hard for his constituents. I just want to tell him that I have been thinking very much about the deep pain his constituents are going through as they recover from the floods.

He quoted previous members of Parliament. I wanted to quote one back to him, if I could, from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White:

What we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and the blockages of border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada.

If a national security and economic threat to Canada is not an opportunity to use the Emergencies Act, I would ask the member, what on earth could be?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think she missed the quote of Peter MacKay saying that the Emergencies Act might be a push too far.

The quotes I gave from previous members of Parliament related to the actual debate taking place in here. There was all-party consensus in this chamber when we decided to pass the Emergencies Act: Members of Parliament from all political parties were concerned about government overreach. They were concerned. In the legislation, it is clearly enshrined that no other law could apply. Only in specific situations did they believe that this was possible. Across our history as a great nation, there are numerous precedents indicating that this law was not required at this moment in time.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I will say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

Canada has a beautiful democracy, but let me be clear: Although beauty is not always perfect or without flaws, it is beautiful nonetheless, and our democracy is under attack by those who seek to destabilize it and to harm it.

The foundation for what is happening, from the illegal border blockades to the occupation of Ottawa, has been building for some time and is grounded in misinformation and hate. Back in May, at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we heard from Timothy Hahlweg at CSIS that ideologically motivated violent extremist groups were working together, united by the pandemic, to push their dangerous agendas and their hate. He said that “with COVID-19, we have seen various groups that previously weren't aligned, or individuals who perhaps were not sharing the same ideology or the same motivation, come together under a common cause, whether that is anti-government activity or anti-vaccination activities.” The rise in the misinformation from the these hateful groups continues to incite hate and fear, and it appears to be at least partly fuelling the blockades at the border and the occupation of Ottawa.

We know certain ringleaders of this occupation are firmly grounded in white nationalism. Swastikas, Confederate and far-right-style flags, along with signs stating misinformation about everything from the safety of wearing a mask to taking a vaccine, have been seen all over the occupied area of Ottawa. I know not everyone who has taken part in this occupation holds this in their hearts, but this is the company they are keeping, and seeing members from across the aisle go out and help fuel and support this occupation has been eye-opening for many Canadians.

To be clear, the leaders of this illegal occupation posted their MOU online, specifically calling for the destruction of our democracy. It has never been hidden.

In Canada, we have an important charter right to freedom of peaceful assembly. When I was first elected as a member of Parliament, one of the first things I noticed was how many people from across Canada would come to Parliament to protest and to advocate for the causes they deeply believe in. Whether they were a small group walking right up on the lawn of Centre Block or thousands of people, they would peacefully state their causes while respecting the rights and freedoms of the residents of Ottawa to live freely in their own city. We do not see this level of accessibility in many other countries, and it is so special and so worth protecting.

Peaceful protests can make us uncomfortable, and in Canada that is okay. I will not state the cause, but each year there is a rally that brings thousands of people to Ottawa's Parliament Hill, and believe me, it makes me uncomfortable. I do not support the cause, but I respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. They come and they hold their rally; there is usually a robust counter-protest, and they leave.

To be very clear, what is going on in Ottawa has not been a peaceful protest. What we have seen in Ottawa and at the borders is a threat to Canada's sovereignty and democracy under the guise of freedom. These occupiers have stolen the freedom of the people of Ottawa. They have kept citizens held hostage in their homes, while terrorizing them with high-decibel noise, hate and harassment. People have not been able to leave their homes or wear masks without fear of being ridiculed, harassed and made to feel unsafe in their own city. This occupation has stolen the economic livelihood of many. Due to harassment and other terrible acts, the mall and businesses in the area have not been able to stay open safely.

Many people, especially those on minimum wage, are going without, while the occupiers remained for three weeks, and despite the City of Ottawa declaring a state of emergency and then the Province declaring a state of emergency, blockades and the occupation of Ottawa continued. When other orders of government call upon us, the Government of Canada, we answer that call, and we have been there to provide support for Ottawa and for the situations at our border every step of the way. We continued to work within the confines of existing measures and laws to provide resources.

We know the damage caused by the illegal border blockades has harmed Canada's economy profoundly. The Ambassador Bridge alone supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and our most important trading partner, the United States. That is around $390 million per day. My heart goes out to the hard-working truckers who were harmed by the illegal blockades. They were stuck at the border and stuck on highways for hours and hours while they were simply doing their job to keep Canada's supply chains moving. The same goes for what happened in Coutts, where we know that around $48 million in daily trade was affected by the illegal blockade.

A peaceful demonstration should never harm others. A peaceful demonstration should never breach the rights of others. The impacts of these illegal border blockades will be long-lasting. We know that they have threatened businesses here in Canada and the livelihood of workers. In fact, it is shameful.

I have heard from so many folks from across Dartmouth—Cole Harbour who have been watching the struggles and hearing from loved ones in Ottawa about what is going on. They have been demanding stronger action from the start. Everyone from veterans to teachers and from seniors to young people has been speaking out in my riding, self-identifying as supporters from various political parties. Some say that they have never before felt so moved to reach out to their MP as now. They are frightened by the hate and the lawlessness that they were seeing at the borders and in Ottawa. They wanted to make sure that all orders of government were working together and doing everything possible to take control of the situation, preserve democracy and restore order.

It has been crystal clear that there were many challenges to local law enforcement's ability to enforce the law in Ottawa. We have invoked the Emergencies Act to provide more support for the provincial and territorial authorities to address both the blockades and the occupation to keep Canadians safe, restore confidence in our institutions and protect people's jobs. There is simply no other law in Canada that would provide this level of coordination and support.

My colleagues, many of whom are lawyers, have already, clearly and concisely, provided the legal case for invoking this act. It is met, and there is no question that this Emergencies Act is far from being the antiquated War Measures Act of the past. This act will not send in the military. The Emergencies Act preserves the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ensuring that the individual rights of Canadians are protected, as they must be.

All parliamentarians must work together for Canadians. That means working together to restore order in Canada, and it means working together to protect Canada's democracy by standing up against hate, even when it is difficult to do so. I encourage all members of this House to join us in standing up for families, for workers and for democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My hon. colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, spoke about many lawyers in this House who have scrutinized this bill and have felt that the threshold is met. Well, I can tell him that after scrutinizing the bill, this lawyer does not feel that the threshold has been met.

The member spoke about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was interesting, because part of the rule of law is that the law must be predictable and it must be transparent. In this case, when it comes to freezing assets, we do not have any predictability or any transparency about how that is going on, especially if it is delegated to a third party, such as banks. How can this hon. member say that the charter is being respected when the rule of law cannot be upheld through a third party?