House of Commons Hansard #34 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, the House shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, February 18, 2022.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
I received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.
Therefore, all those opposed—
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point or order. I am sure it was an oversight, but as this is unanimous consent, every member of the House should have been consulted. I was not, but I wish to give consent.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and speak on behalf of the constituents who elected me to come to the House.
It is important to lay out that within the Emergencies Act there is a threshold that has been established to justify its use, which is when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”, and when the situation cannot effectively be dealt with under any other order of law. I do not believe the government has shown that this threshold has been met.
As many of my colleagues from all sides of the House have pointed out, this legislation has never been used in its current format. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was only used three times. The first was in World War I, the second was in World War II and the third was during the FLQ crisis.
It is important to note that—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, we are not discussing the War Measures Act. That no longer exists. This is an act brought in 1987 by Brian Mulroney. It is irrelevant.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
We are debating the motion before us. We have given lots of members lots of leeway on what their speeches have or have not included.
The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake has the floor.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty evident. Clearly the member opposite and members from the NDP are a little bit uneasy when we talk about the fact that this act's predecessor was the War Measures Act, because it was the NDP under Tommy Douglas who took a courageous stand against the use of the War Measures Act in the FLQ crisis. It is a piece there. The reason I bring this up is that the weight of those events should be a caution to all parliamentarians against making a decision to invoke an act like this lightly.
We have had numerous provincial politicians state that they do not support the use of the Emergencies Act. These include provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and my home province of Alberta. Numerous times over the past few days, the Prime Minister has said that using the Emergencies Act was not the first, second or third option. However, members on this side have asked many times what the first three options were, and we have yet to be given any concrete answers. In the absence of an answer, I am left to assume that step one was wait, step two was do nothing and step three was shift blame.
This is not the leadership Canadians expect or deserve. What we saw was a refusal by the Prime Minister to provide additional support to the Ottawa Police Service when they asked for it. In fact, on February 11, the Prime Minister stated that they had enough resources. A short three days later, on February 14, the Emergencies Act was invoked. What happened in those three days that dramatically changed everything? We have not been told that as parliamentarians.
In the past few days, my office has received hundreds of phone calls, and thousands of emails, on the use of the Emergencies Act. Many constituents shared with me their fears, their anxieties, their collective trauma and the sense of PTSD they had. They shared how they saw government overreach as a very scary precedent.
One constituent, Lindsay, wrote to me and said, “I continue to try and wrap my head around the fact of how we are here and why we are here. How have things gotten so out of control? I feel very fearful, anxious and upset with how our Prime Minister has been treating the people of this country. Both his actions and language are not in alignment with true Canadian values: peace, freedom or protection. He is continuously inflaming the situation and I cannot believe that I am living in fear in Canada”.
Many of the emails and calls that I had were from parents who were tearful because they felt afraid for their children. They felt like they had been ignored and left behind by the Liberal government. Another constituent, Tyler, wrote, “I wholeheartedly disagree with the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. I firmly believe that his decision is unjustified and an abuse of power. It only serves to instill more fear and further divide the citizens of this wonderful country.”
Upon reflection, from all the correspondence and phone calls I have received, it left me wondering if perhaps the Prime Minister may have forgotten or missed the point as to why so many Canadians were protesting right now. I will help, and lay it out simply for him. Many are frustrated with what they see as government overreach. If the Prime Minister thinks that a solution to that overreach is adding more overreach, he is woefully short-sighted.
It is worth noting that the border protests in Windsor, Emerson, Coutts and Surrey have all ended peacefully. They ended through negotiation with local law enforcement and precise local police action. They all ended before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
I think this is an important point to highlight. It is incredibly important. I think those on the Liberal benches should take some time to reflect on this point. The laws of our country, and the widespread respect of the rule of law, were ultimately enough to get the protesters blocking the border to move. Police did their job by enforcing the laws currently on the books, and the protesters went home.
I am a passionate believer in the rule of law. Everyday Canadians' respect for the laws that serve the cause of peace, order and good government is something that makes me incredibly proud of my country. Yes, there are some among the protesters who probably do not share that same feeling, but I think it would be worthwhile for the Prime Minister to reflect on how his dubious leadership has contributed to some of these events.
Trust in the rule of law breaks down when people stop believing the law is equal and equally applied to everyone. This includes politicians ignoring their own guidelines with regard to COVID restrictions, a Prime Minister who treats ethics violations as a minor inconvenience, conflict-of-interest violations, election-law infractions and a woman fired from cabinet because she refused to break the law. We are considering enacting a law that has previously been reserved for world wars and deadly terrorism, because the protesters will not respect the law—
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
—and here they are on the other side, heckling me—
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
Let us all take a breath. We have been doing so well. We are getting to questions and answers, so I really appreciate it.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I certainly want to apologize for being inappropriate, but the member keeps talking about legislation that does not exist. I do not want her to look bad.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont
We are getting into debate. I am listening to the member as well. I know she is trying to put a full thought together, and sometimes I have to give members leeway in order to do that.
The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Sometimes, when we are passionate about something, we misspeak, even when we are reading something. I apologize for saying “uninformed” instead of “informed”.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The fact that members fail to give respect to members as they are giving their speeches is something that is a problem in the House. I believe right now what we need is honest, open communication and servant leadership. We need de-escalation and compromise. We need to make sure we are trying to get to a resolution peacefully.
My mother was a very wise woman, and she used to always say that when we treat people like people, they will act like people. I think we could all benefit from this advice right now. What we need as a nation is to have people come together. After two long years apart, we need to spend time finding similarities, rather than differences. We need to remember that, at the end of the day, we are all people.
I would urge all members in the House and all Canadians listening to remember that we are people. We need to treat each other with dignity and respect. We need to spend more time listening and find a way to peaceful resolution. I would urge all members to join in voting against the declaration of emergency.
Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member opposite's speech, and what I find concerning, and what I have heard from the Conservative bench for the last couple of weeks, is this. They are equating the idea that, although there are some individuals who have been involved in this occupation who are being peaceful, it is somehow lawful. We can have people who are peaceful, but I would argue that the House has really highlighted points where there are individuals who have much more sinister goals, so we do not have to go down that route. It is still unlawful, what was taking place. The interim chief of the Ottawa police remarked yesterday that the measures the government introduced were extremely helpful for being able to remove the occupation that exists in Ottawa. Of course, we know that some individuals are touting the idea that they will re-establish blockades elsewhere in the country.
Does that testimony from the chief of police in Ottawa not give this member some idea that these measures were helpful in removing a blockade in a G7 country's capital city?
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member was accurately portraying what I heard from that news conference. I think it is very important to highlight the fact that the blockades at our borders were resolved before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, therefore showing that there are laws currently in place in this nation in our provinces and communities that could have resolved these problems.
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her speech.
I would like to hear her speak about the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. We have heard several times that they are not the same, and I could not agree more. In my view, both existed and both still exist. There are still links between them. In the House of Commons, it does not do to pretend that certain things do not exist.
I will give an example that I really like: the 1982 Constitution. Quebec suffered the consequences of not signing the Constitution Act of 1982. We did not sign it, but it still exists.
I wonder if the member would speak to the relevance of the Emergencies Act and point out some links to the War Measures Act that was implemented during the First World War, the Second World War and the October crisis of 1970.
Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some important points. It is important to talk about history so we do not make the same mistakes over and over. It is important to know why the Emergencies Act was created. I think it is important to understand the reasons why it was used previously. I talked about that in my speech, and I will continue to reiterate the facts.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention, but I admit to having a great sense of despair in my own heart right now.
I think of when the first children were found buried in Kamloops, outside of that institution. When I was four, I was adopted into an indigenous family. I remember, when we found those children, my sister calling me and saying that she had to tell Daizy, my niece, about residential school and about Granny, and that she had wanted to wait a bit longer.
When we look at the reality that white privilege, white extremism and white supremacy are still so strong in this country and that many of the prominent organizers of this organization and occupation are from that community, we see how carefully we must walk. My granny, who went to residential school until she was 16, used to say, “You'd better stand straight where you are and know who you're standing next to”.
Can the member talk about how her party has stood next to these folks who have diminished the realities of people in this country?