Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague ask questions for the last couple of days and I really appreciate her interjections.

I am part of the governing party, but I am certainly not in government. I definitely value bringing that forward, and I will take it back to my colleagues.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in favour of the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.

I would first like to start by joining my colleagues in thanking the Parliamentary Protective Service for keeping members and all the staff of the House of Commons safe and secure. They have done an exemplary job working under exceptionally trying circumstances. We owe them a great deal of gratitude. I would also like to thank all members of law enforcement, who are working calmly and professionally to help restore law and order to our nation's capital, to the parliamentary precinct and in border communities across Canada.

I have had the honour of serving as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg South for over six years. Serving as a member of Parliament also means that I am a resident of downtown Ottawa when the House is sitting. I have witnessed first-hand the anxiety and hardship this unlawful occupation has caused for local residents and businesses. I have been worried about frightened children unable to sleep or attend school, about people who needed an ambulance or other emergency services, about pedestrians harassed on the street for simply wearing a mask and about frontline workers who do not have a paycheque because their places of employment have been forced to close. Like so many Canadians, I was deeply disturbed to see the war memorial and the Terry Fox statue disrespected and to witness numerous symbols of hate openly displayed in our nation's capital.

I want to be clear that there is a distinction between those who oppose public health measures with respect to COVID-19 and those who are responsible for the hostile occupation of our nation's capital. The vast majority of those who are opposed to public health measures enacted by the various levels of government have expressed themselves through legitimate and peaceful means, as is their right under the charter. Their points of view should not be diminished or confused with the unlawful aims of those who organized the occupation of downtown Ottawa.

We cannot forget that the organizers of this so-called “freedom convoy” made it clear in their MOU that their stated goal was the removal of a federal government that was elected only five months ago. These organizers are clearly using public health measures as a rallying cry and a bid to undermine our valued democratic institutions, with no regard for the rights of their fellow citizens or stability of our economy.

What I find particularly troubling is that this unlawful occupation has been actively encouraged and cheered on by the Conservatives who sit in the House: by the current interim Leader of the Opposition, by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is a former Conservative leader and Speaker of the House, and by many other Conservative members, including the member for Carleton, who is a candidate for the leadership of his party. He professed loudly that he was proud to stand with the truckers occupying Wellington Street. Well, I am proud to stand with the 90% of truckers who are vaccinated, some of whom have been prevented from doing their jobs because of blockades at our borders.

During the critical days in January when occupiers first arrived in Ottawa, Canadians witnessed multiple media reports of Conservative members expressing admiration for the occupiers, and sharing meals and taking selfies with them, thus emboldening and encouraging them in their unlawful activities. It is no surprise, then, that the Conservatives now oppose this declaration of an emergency when they have so actively contributed to it.

It has been said many times and it deserves repeating that the declaration we are debating today is not the War Measures Act of the past. Through the modernized Emergencies Act, we are providing expanded authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, dismantle blockades and keep essential first responders and trade corridors open. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportionate. The government has invoked it only after all options had proved insufficient. This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting their jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions. It is about upholding peace, order and good government. The specific measures provided in the Emergencies Act are limited and subject to numerous checks and safeguards, such as the debate we are having right now. All measures must be compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

These measures do not in any way limit Canadians' rights or freedoms of expression. For the overwhelming majority of Canadians, including my constituents, there is no impact on their daily lives or on the rights and freedoms they enjoy.

It is important to note that the acting chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Steve Bell, on Friday clearly stated that law enforcement would not have been able to take the actions they did to end this occupation without the new authorities granted under the Emergencies Act. The former chief of the Ottawa Police Service and the Conservatives' own caucus colleague, Senator Vern White, agrees that invoking the Emergencies Act was the right thing to do at this juncture. The Premier of Ontario and Progressive Conservative leader, Doug Ford, said he supports the federal government's decision to “provide additional tools” to help police “resolve the situation” in the nation's capital.

Amid the high-profile declarations of support from many law enforcement agencies and public officials, I have also received many messages of support for the Emergencies Act from my constituents, the people of Winnipeg South. These constituents reflect the vast majority of Canadians who believe in the rule of law and who support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Opinion survey after opinion survey confirms this.

The border blockades seen across Canada, including at Emerson in my home province of Manitoba, have cost our economy billions and have strained our international reputation and good relationship with trading partner nations. Canadians are very worried about this. It appears to me that the Prime Minister's announcement that he would invoke the Emergencies Act provided an immediate boost to local law enforcement agencies across Canada, and the illegal blockades at border crossings began to be dismantled. As the member for Windsor West said this morning, the act has prevented a number of attempted blockades from taking place, as several convoys have been intercepted and turned around. The success we have seen so far by the police in restoring law and order to the streets of Ottawa proves to me that using the Emergencies Act was the right decision. Now is not the time to undercut the women and men in law enforcement, who protect us all, by withdrawing the emergency measures they are now actively using.

I would like to end on a note of optimism. Canadians have just endured two years of pandemic anxiety that has been unprecedented in this century. Many have suffered economic and personal loss. Our citizens are tired. The Conservatives say that Canada has never been more divided, but I say, as our Prime Minister has said, that in many ways we have never been more united. We have worked together to fight COVID‑19 and protect our health care systems and our economy. This Liberal government has supported Canadians in doing this and Canadians have risen to the challenge. Our vaccination rates are among the highest in the world. Our economy is rebounding. Our health care workers, teachers, grocery store workers and, yes, our truckers have been there for us.

Today, we as the people's House need to stand up for our fellow citizens. After two years of pandemic hardship, border communities should not now suffer illegal blockades, impacting travellers, public servants and whole sectors of our economy. The people of Ottawa should not need to endure one more day of unlawful occupation. As members of the House, let us help lift the siege for the residents, businesses, employees, seniors and students of Centretown. This House can and should fully support our frontline police officers and let them finish the job. I encourage all my colleagues to support the motion and approve the declaration of an emergency.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I respectfully depart from my colleague's analysis where he says that Canada has never been more united. Frankly, it has been divided, and it has been mostly divided by our Prime Minister and his rhetoric.

I want to zero in on one thing the hon. member said. He mentioned two comments that were really interesting to me. One was about the rule of law and the other was the notion of opinion surveys. He said that opinion survey after opinion survey is behind the government.

When did the rule of law become subordinate to opinion surveys? Something is either right or wrong, so why can he not point to the legislation and say where the threshold is met? With respect, it is not met in these circumstances.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are political creatures and all of us watch opinion polls. They are not the final word, of course, but they certainly show me that my constituents are behind the measures we have implemented, as a majority of Canadians are.

As far as the rule of law goes, we have seen law-breaking with abandon. Speaking of that, there was an abandonment of the citizens of Ottawa. As I mentioned, I am a resident of the downtown here, so I have experienced what they have experienced. The good folks of Ottawa and those dependent on our border communities deserve the rule of law to be implemented, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member accurately described the unjustifiable and unwarranted nature of these blockades. He talked about the need to remove them. I think we can all agree on that.

My question will be very simple. The first blockades, like the one at the Ambassador Bridge, occurred well before the Emergencies Act. Why was the same formula not simply reused in downtown Ottawa?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, we all know that invoking the Emergencies Act sent a very strong message to the occupiers who were conducting the blockade. It enabled them to be dispersed. I do not know if the hon. member heard the speech from the member for Windsor West, but subsequently, at a number of our border crossings, those measures really helped to turn away convoys and prevent subsequent blockades.

The legislation is working. It will have to be ratified by the House tomorrow, and I look forward to that vote.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was made clear early on during the occupation that crowdfunding and cryptocurrency were being used to fund illegal activities. This demonstrated a concerning gap in the reporting requirements.

Why did the government not take immediate action to ensure that the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations were updated, so that these companies were not exempt from reporting suspicious transactions to FINTRAC?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for raising this point, because it is an important one. Our laws need to be updated with some of these modern realities, such as cryptocurrencies, the influence of foreign actors and the impact of social media in driving people to these funding sites.

That's exactly what the finance minister has done. She has filled those gaps, and we will be better prepared for these kinds of illegal acts in the future.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today as a matter of principle and with pride in my past. I began my career as a soldier in the Canadian Armed Forces. All I wanted throughout my military career was to defend my country and its values. I can still say today that I am and will always be that soldier, the one who decided that law and order should be a priority for our country, for the safety of Canadians.

I served my country at home and abroad with the Canadian flag proudly on my shoulder. I served with Canadians from coast to coast to coast, soldiers who were proud, well trained and ready to support efforts to uphold the rule of law. I have personally trained and led soldiers in crowd control operations similar to what we have experienced in Ottawa over the last few days. I have been deployed to areas of Canada where the use of force was possible, without the need for the Emergencies Act.

Defending one's country and serving in the military requires unconditional dedication, but I can say that under this Prime Minister, patriotism is taking a beating.

The Prime Minister's legendary irresponsibility and arrogance did nothing to improve matters. That has been our experience for the past 23 days. A situation that should have been a protest became a siege in front of our Parliament because the Prime Minister did nothing to stop things from escalating.

I have also encountered some obstacles since the beginning of this siege. I come here to Ottawa every week to exercise my role as an MP, and I truly understand the people of Ottawa. That is why, on February 4, I personally posted a tweet asking the protesters to leave and clear the streets of Ottawa. They had made their point, and it was very clear to me that this needed to stop. I agreed with that.

Today we are here to debate the Emergencies Act. This shows that the Prime Minister has once again failed to break this impasse. He claims that the only available option to prevent trucks from blockading the streets is to invoke this legislation. However, the measures in this legislation go too far or have simply become obsolete since the day they were invoked on February 14.

I am going to dissect the order that was published on February 14 and on which members will be voting tomorrow. Many members have given speeches over the past two days, but I think we are forgetting to focus on what we will actually be voting on, which is a motion to confirm the invocation of the Emergencies Act, in accordance with section 58, in connection with the order issued by the Prime Minister on February 14, 2022, one week ago tomorrow.

The first part of the order states:

Whereas the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, that a public order emergency exists and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency;

Whereas the Governor in Council has...consulted the Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province...acting with consent of their respective Executive Councils...

This includes the governments in power and the premiers. There was already a problem on day one, since Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island said no. There was therefore no consent since four provinces were saying no.

The order continues:

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council...directs that a proclamation be issued

(a) declaring that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures for dealing with the emergency;

This is how the motion that we must vote on tomorrow describes the state of emergency:

(a) the continuing blockades by both persons and motor vehicles that is occurring at various locations throughout Canada and the continuing threats to oppose measures to remove the blockades, including by force, which blockades are being carried on in conjunction with activities that are directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property...

Maybe this is referring to blockades that were set up before February 14 or that ended on the morning of February 14, because what I just read out did not happen, especially not in Ottawa.

The second point reads as follows:

(b) the adverse effects on the Canadian economy...and threats to its economic security resulting from the impacts of blockades of critical infrastructure, including trade corridors and international border crossings,

All of this was over and done with before the Prime Minister even published the order on February 14.

Then there are other points concerning the economic relationship with the U.S. Once again, it is the same story. The Ambassador Bridge was cleared, the supply chain disruption was resolved and so forth.

Further down, there is mention of the potential for an increase in the level of unrest and violence. Violence is mentioned often in the declaration. Yes, it was very inconvenient for the city of Ottawa, especially when the honking did not stop, but I did not see any broken windows or acts of violence, except for what happened to journalists. If we compare this to protests that we see regularly in Montreal or elsewhere in Canada, where property is damaged and police cars are overturned, no such incidents occurred during the events we are discussing today.

The declaration that we will be voting on tomorrow refers to measures to regulate or prohibit any public assembly: “Regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace other than lawful advocacy, protest or dissent”. This excludes basic things that most of the people who were there were asking for. I have a hard time understanding that point.

As for the so-called specified area, it was obvious that areas needed to be specified. I was awaiting a more detailed motion, but we never got any details. In the end, all of Canada is covered by the state of emergency declaration. No specific areas where it applied were ever indicated. Everyone knows it was Ottawa, because only Ottawa was left, but from a legal standpoint, we were not informed.

The next point concerns measures to authorize or direct any person to render essential services, such as removing, towing or storing vehicles. Under section 129 of the Criminal Code, the police can ask a towing company to tow a vehicle. That law already exists. This specific element was added to the emergency measures, but it already existed. It was not needed.

As for the financial aspect, the way it was handled is a bit odd. The government wanted to know where the money was coming from, and it wanted to freeze the bank accounts of those who made donations to the convoy, among others. We found out that the government got its information from a CBC news story. The government decided to take action under the Emergencies Act based on that story. There was not even a report from a national security agency or from the Department of Finance. The report was from the CBC. The government cannot just go off of that.

The Minister of Finance said that she has everyone's names. It is like a game where the government is trying to find out who made donations, who they made them to and where the money came from. Is it really trying to find out where that money came from in the interest of national security, or simply for partisan reasons? It is unclear.

There is not much we can support in everything I just talked about, but there may be one thing. Someone said that invoking the Emergencies Act would make it possible to impose stiffer fines and prison sentences. In a really urgent case, we would agree with that, but we are not at that point. The last point says, “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.” Here we are, seven days later, and those measures are still not yet known, because nothing has been added. There is no new information.

Out of these 11 paragraphs, 10 do not pass the smell test. We will vote on them tomorrow. If only one paragraph of the declaration was inadequate, we would vote against the motion, but 10 out of 11 are inadequate. How could we support this motion to activate the Emergencies Act?

In closing, the popular perception will be that the Emergencies Act allowed the streets of Ottawa to be cleared. That is what the government wants Canadians to think. However, history with a capital “H” will show that it was all a bluff and that only the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois understood that.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Premier of Alberta announced that he would be challenging the use of the Emergencies Act in court. However, on February 5, his own government implored the federal government to intervene and send help.

Can my colleague tell me why the Conservatives keep talking out of both sides of their mouths?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am only talking out of one side of my mouth.

When a province asks the federal government for help, as was the case at the Summit of the Americas in 2001, where the RCMP was deployed in large numbers in Quebec City to support the Quebec City police and the Sûreté du Québec, was the Emergencies Act invoked? No, it was not.

It is possible for a province to ask the federal government for help in order to get more officers from the RCMP, for example, or from other police forces, without involving the Emergencies Act. I think that what the Premier of Alberta said was that he wanted help but did not need the Emergencies Act to be invoked.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I am a little surprised by the position taken by the Conservative Party over the past few weeks. The Conservative Party is the party of law and order, yet several Conservative MPs supported a movement that wanted to use force to overthrow a democratically elected government. It says that right on its Facebook page.

Not only is the party of law and order supporting an illegal occupation, but its members are handing out coffee and pizza to people who are here illegally and are terrorizing and harassing Ottawa residents.

Does my colleague not think that his party is divided and is contradicting itself? Either they are in favour of the convoy, or they are against it.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, from the very first day, what was the truckers' intent? It was to protest against a rule change brought in on January 15 that prevented unvaccinated truckers from travelling between the United States and Canada, even though this had been allowed for two years. Quebec has 9,000 unvaccinated nurses working in the health system.

Yes, the Conservative Party did believe that it was a laudable request. It was open to discussing it, but the government and the Prime Minister wanted nothing to do with it. That was the problem. Naturally, we were prepared to welcome these people who were coming to Ottawa to say that the rule that went into effect on January 15 was a problem for them.

Four or five days later, I tweeted that the protesters' message had been heard, that they could leave and that we would do something else. I did that, and so did other colleagues. Our position is very clear: We never did anything to encourage the siege of Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, this MP on February 4, referred to what is going on in Ottawa as “the Siege of Ottawa.” In the same tweet he said it is an “occupation controlled by radicals and anarchist groups.” Those are his words in a tweet from February 4.

However, many of his colleagues, in speech after speech, have referred to this as a protest with peaceful protesters. Will he at least acknowledge that he diverts from his colleagues who are calling this a peaceful protest? Does he still stand by his words that this was an occupation controlled by radicals and anarchist groups?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I did tweet that on February 4. I fully acknowledge that I tweeted that, and I still very much believe in what I said. After six days of the occupation in Ottawa, I decided that enough was enough, for me and for the people of Ottawa. My colleagues then also started saying that enough was enough, that they had gotten the message and that the protesters needed to leave.

My party therefore called on the protesters to leave downtown Ottawa, telling them that we had heard their demands. Was I the first to say so? Perhaps, but my party said so as well.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here on a rare Sunday evening in the House because this is a historic moment for Canada.

We are, of course, talking about the unprecedented invocation of the Emergencies Act, a law that was introduced by Brian Mulroney's Conservative government. It has never been used to this day, because the sponsor of the act made it clear that it was meant to be used only in the event of a threat to “the ability of the Government of Canada to [manage a situation that affects the] security and territorial integrity of Canada”. There are four types of emergencies for which the Emergencies Act may be invoked: a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, a national emergency or a war emergency.

The Mulroney government adopted this new act in the 1980s because it was seeking to limit the powers not only of its own government but also of any future government, to ensure that no individual rights could be violated through the former War Measures Act. Yes, that is the act infamously invoked by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1970, in a dramatic move that is still talked about 50 years later.

Clear guidelines have been established to justify invoking a public order emergency. In our opinion, the Liberal government has not met the criteria set out in the act. That is why we will be exercising our right, as parliamentarians, to vote against confirming the proclamation issued last week by the government.

Of course, as one might expect, the government argued that the trucker convoy in Ottawa had forced its hand and that resorting to emergency measures was necessary to remove them. I beg to differ.

The reality is that the government does not know what it is doing. On February 11, the Prime Minister himself declared that local and provincial law enforcement had all the means necessary to respond to the situation on Wellington Street and neighbouring streets in Ottawa. However, three days later, he suddenly acted as if the house was on fire and whipped out the emergency measures without offering much by way of explanation.

I invite my colleagues to consult Hansard to confirm all the questions we have asked, including calling on the government to provide justification for its decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. The government has had five days to explain itself. However, it has not been able to do so satisfactorily, as my colleague explained a few minutes ago.

The order states that the federal government wants to stop Canadians from entering protest areas. However, the provinces had and still have this power, as we saw during the pandemic. As just one example, the Quebec government even split my riding in two in the spring of 2020, restricting movements from the Montmagny—L'Islet RCM to Kamouraska, with the help of the police. The Ontario government was similarly able to limit movements between certain regions, which it did.

Whether one is for or against it, the fact remains that the provinces already had the power to restrict people's movements for various reasons. Since the municipalities are creatures of the provinces, the Ontario government could exercise its own powers without the federal government using the Emergencies Act.

The House may recall that the Prime Minister pledged the emergency measures would be geographically targeted, but now we know they apply across the entire 5,000-kilometre breadth of this country.

The government also pointed to the threat of foreign political interference to give itself the power, in this order, to deny access to any foreign national entering Canada with the intention of participating in the convoy's demonstrations. Here again, the government already has this power. Our borders have been closed to foreign nationals for almost two years, thereby preventing them from coming to Canada for any reason deemed non-essential.

Even before the pandemic, travellers were required by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to justify the purpose of their trip, be it business or tourism. Any non-Canadian entering Canada as a tourist may be questioned by the Canada Border Services Agency to verify the accuracy of such a claim. If the authorities find that the purpose of the trip is other than stated, the traveller may be automatically sent back across the land border or, in the case of arrival by air, may be detained until they board a flight back to their country of origin.

There is a lot of redundancy in the measures invoked in the government's proclamation. We think that they were adopted by a government in panic mode that was desperately trying to appear as though it was doing something after the negative media coverage of the truckers' blockade in Ottawa.

Like all members of the House, we have seen that, over the past three weeks, there were a thousand and one reasons for the Ottawa police to take action and remove the blockade from the main road running east-west in front of the parliamentary precinct. Police could have taken action as of day one of the protest by enforcing the city's noise, idling control and parking bylaws, but nothing was done.

The Ambassador Bridge blockade in Windsor had major economic impacts across the country. However, last weekend, the RCMP and OPP were able to get the situation under control by arresting protesters even before the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act. There were also other protests in other parts of Canada, and all of them were dealt with using laws that were in place at the time and are still in effect.

The Liberal government's argument that the convoy on Wellington Street would not have been cleared if it had not invoked the Emergencies Act simply does not hold water. Practically every protester arrested in Ottawa since Friday is currently facing charges of mischief or counselling to commit mischief, two offences that have been in the Criminal Code for years. To my knowledge, among the hundreds of individuals arrested, not one was charged with an offence under the Emergencies Act. To sum up, the government used a cannon to kill a fly.

I do not want to diminish the importance of what is happening in Ottawa. On the contrary, the repercussions on the residents have been awful, as we can all agree. That being said, as Conservatives, we have serious concerns about the precedent that the government is setting by adopting coercive measures that we are simply not used to seeing in a free and democratic society.

One of them is the measure to direct designated persons to render essential services such as towing. To my knowledge, the only people who can be compelled to render anything are members of the Canadian Armed Forces, under penalty of being charged with desertion. In fact, some professional bodies, such as physicians' associations, might also have their own rules of conduct. However, at no time during the pandemic did we see the federal government invoke a state of emergency or emergency legislation to get people to work overtime.

With the Emergencies Act, who knows if the federal government will one day see fit to order Canadians to render services against their will. The Liberals may well say that these measures are temporary, but once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is very hard to put it back in.

We also have concerns about the Government of Canada giving itself discretionary powers to block or seize the bank accounts and credit cards of individuals who have supported the protest in recent weeks. Some of the convoy organizers may have broken Canadian laws, and they will have to answer for their actions in court, which is entirely appropriate. A judge could seize their assets and force them to pay fines and penalties to reimburse municipalities or other victims of their actions, such as businesses that were forced to close.

However, this usually happens after the defendants have been through criminal or civil trials, not before. The burden of proof for those affected by these emergency measures will be reversed. The onus will be on them to prove their innocence, whereas under normal circumstances, it is the Crown that must prove their guilt.

I did not donate to the convoy, and I obviously condemn the disruption caused to the residents of Ottawa, to all the businesses, to all the workers adversely affected by the closure of the Windsor-Detroit bridge, and to many others.

I have to wonder whether crowdfunding sites are doing enough to verify the identity of donors, and whether it is too easy for people to donate in someone else's name. This has happened.

One of my colleagues tweeted that a woman in his riding had donated $50, and now her account is frozen. She is a single mother.

How is the government identifying these people? How will it sort out this mess if it turns out that these people have been falsely accused?

Invoking this legislation was unnecessary. Clearly, the government screwed up and wanted to take an unnecessary step far too quickly.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I have admired him for some time, because we sat for a long time on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who is in the same party as my colleague, admitted himself that Ottawa was under siege, that it was being occupied. In his opinion, the official opposition now agrees that Ottawa was under siege. I hear the opposition say that this is the first time the Emergencies Act is being invoked.

[An hon. member]

That is true.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, as someone across the aisle just said, that is true. I would like to know if my colleague has seen another Canadian city under siege since the law was passed.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. The reality is that Ottawa was under siege. We never said that it was not. The problem is that the Ottawa police and city council did not act promptly, although they had all the legislation at their disposal to undertake the operation to clear the convoy. Other provinces did so in four different places before the Emergencies Act was invoked. Everything was cleared by means of the existing laws.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, like the Conservatives, we disagree with the motion. However, I must say from the outset that we do not agree with the protesters, either. Unfortunately, I heard a number of Conservatives in the House say that there was a link to be made between the vaccine mandate and the protests outside.

Does my colleague agree with some of the members of his caucus who say that everything we are seeing right now is a result of the vaccine mandate and the provincial rules that to some degree limit personal freedoms?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was the first to condemn the vaccine mandate for truckers on December 15. I can assure the House that I have not changed my mind. As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert said earlier, the government used the election to sow division between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated in Canada. It is still doing so. The Liberal Party members are doing the same thing now. It was not necessary to impose this requirement on the truckers, since the government tolerated the situation for two years. The government did not present any valid studies to show that the truckers were coming into Canada with COVID. There was absolutely no need to impose this requirement.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if I could get comments from the hon. member. There was a joint column from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and my dear friend the hon. Senator Vern White. I just want to quote it. It said this:

As a rule, let’s affirm that negotiations with those committing illegal acts is a terrible precedent. National security threats, which we are now facing, need to be led by our national security force, the RCMP, through the use of the Emergencies Act, which the federal government invoked Monday. They have the strength, intelligence, methods and capability that no single municipality can muster.

I would like to hear the member's comments.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I am seeing today, and what I have been seeing from the beginning of the debate two days ago, is that the NDP has lost its bearings concerning this motion. I am putting it politely. The NDP always stood up for all Canadians. It always defended Canadians, but today it is joining forces with the government to vote in favour of this motion. That is totally unacceptable.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I speak today from the traditional territory of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council and Kwanlin Dun First Nation, recognizing with honour the trust that the people of Yukon have bestowed on me to represent them in this House and lend my voice to this important debate.

I recognize also what a great privilege we have here to carry out this debate on some of the most fundamental tenets of our democracy in one of the most respected and successful democracies in the world.

As members of Parliament, we all have a responsibility to put partisan ideology aside, look at the best evidence we can find and set the way forward to preserve our democracy from any cracks in its integrity or threats to its survival.

Today we are debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act, legislation that was passed in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act to ensure that in moments of crisis when existing measures are insufficient, special time-limited measures could be introduced federally to deal with the crisis.

As many have stated, this is the first time these measures have been enacted. I add my voice to those who agree that this action is necessary to put an end to the occupation of Ottawa, address the blockades or threats of blockades by these groups and address the threats to critical infrastructure.

Let me be clear: This is no longer a mandates protest. This is a siege, an occupation and a credible threat to our democracy. I will come back to that, but first I would like to offer some reflections on the pandemic and the many measures that have been put in place to respond to this public health crisis.

Fatigue and pandemic exhaustion simply from the length of this pandemic have fuelled much of the current unrest, unrest due not only to the two-year duration but also the many false endings we have seen. How many lights at the end of the tunnel will be seen before it really is not another train?

Almost a full two years ago, as chief medical officer of health for Yukon, I was involved in the first few weeks as we watched and prepared for the pandemic coming closer to Yukon. I remember fully the tears that were in the eyes of deputy CMOH Dr. Elliott when she had to announce the cancellation of the Arctic Winter Games, the first of many joyous events that fell in the path of COVID.

No long later, even before our first case, we declared a public health emergency, knowing that extraordinary measures would be required to fight this pandemic. When I announced Yukon's first cases and later Yukon's first death from COVID-19, those days are marked with searing clarity in my memory.

When we decided early on and quickly that the only way to protect ourselves from COVID would be to temporarily limit non-essential travel into Yukon and establish a quarantine requirement, we realized how drastic and serious a move that was. There were Yukoners who opposed that move, some vociferously, and we were acutely aware of the hardship and loss that those restrictions imposed.

However, most people supported the move. It gave us protection and allowed us more freedom within our territory. We united as a community and we managed to contain the impact of COVID to a minimum until the arrival of vaccines enabled us to gradually replace border controls with a vaccine strategy, well before most other jurisdictions with similar approaches.

Even before vaccines arrived, we opened borders when we could, even removing quarantine requirements for our B.C. bubble in the summer of 2020 to allow travel back-and-forth between B.C. and Yukon, providing a release valve for people to travel in both directions and for families and friends to reunite.

Largely, our strategy of containment worked. Were there costs? Absolutely there were. We shared the pain of elders in long-term care not having visitors, but we avoided outbreaks of COVID in long-term care and protected many lives. We saw families separated, families grieving the loss of loved ones in solitude, celebrations of all kinds cancelled or severely cut, workplaces struggling to keep up and tourism devastated, but because we had measures in place that were tied to the risk of COVID, we kept our society open as much as possible.

We had compensation, including substantial federal benefits that were supplemented by territorial government supports and allowed people and businesses to stay afloat despite incredible challenges.

I am telling this story because I wanted to help members understand that painful compromises and infringements on individual freedom had to be made in order to achieve a greater public benefit. We knew there was a cost and we did not hide that. We started early to measure and document the effects not just of the virus but of the consequences of restrictions.

There were mental health effects, including depression and anxiety, addictions and toxic drug deaths. A backlog of surgical health care services and screening was unattended to. There were children suffering from lack of socialization and physical activity.

As CMOH, it had always been my perspective to understand and address resistance and hesitancy. When vaccines arrived, through conversation and consultation, we could help determine what stood between anyone's beliefs and vaccines, work with that person or community and strive for ever higher vaccination rates.

When we removed vaccine quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated people, the move was received with joy and relief. Of course, not everyone agreed or was pleased, but in allowing fully vaccinated people to have that extra freedom, we were able to achieve more people being able to travel, more families reuniting and more people getting vaccinated to enable our small population to weather oncoming waves of the pandemic.

Do vaccine requirements and mandates restrict individual freedom? To some extent, they do, but so do seat belts, drinking and driving laws, and other vaccine policies. In fact, many everyday laws and regulations keep us safe and allow us to thrive.

A greater public good should always be the aim. In the case of COVID vaccine policies, the public good is found in allowing sectors to reopen or reinvigorate, in allowing people's livelihoods to continue or in advising people to get vaccinated.

As the pandemic once again recedes, we should be well placed to reduce and rescind many of these requirements, especially as our tool box to tackle COVID is growing. These tools include better masks, better knowledge of how masks work, more understanding of the role of ventilation, an increasing panoply of vaccines, the arrival of effective treatments and even increased population immunity with the recent omicron wave.

However, let me be clear: We should not be in a rush to end our restrictions and policies. If we have learned anything, it is that public health responses should be swift in response to a threat and lifted slowly, in accordance with expert analysis of viral activity, including international surveillance and monitoring.

Unfortunately, the pandemic will not be gone overnight. There is a rush toward thinking that we are in an endemic phase, without even fully knowing what “endemic” means.

Let us note, for example, that in Denmark, where restrictions were rapidly dropped in a highly vaccinated population, a country often cited in the House as one whose policies we should adopt, we are already seeing concerning trends in increasing ICU and death rates. There is a cost, and that cost will be borne disproportionately by people at greater risk and susceptibility. They are people with disabilities, people who are immunocompromised and people who, for whatever reason, are not vaccinated.

I am concerned for other parts of the globe or a country where restrictions have precipitately been removed. We need a gradual and thoughtful way out of this phase of the pandemic, and we need to take considerable caution with what might be next.

Let us revisit the Emergencies Act and whether it was called for. As I said, I believe it was necessary, for all of the reasons that we have already heard on this side of the House. I, like anyone, have received emails and correspondence saying “support the convoy”. I have even received some from people in Yukon. However, I have received concerned emails and calls from many others. One call from a Yukon resident representing many like-minded friends said to me, “You have to do something. This occupation and these blockades are unacceptable in a democracy. You have to do more.”

Our capital city is being occupied. As anguished as Ottawa citizens have been, this call came from citizens of Canada 5,400 kilometres away. Ottawa being occupied is more than a city being under siege. People, including my own family members, are being subjected to fear. The downtown core is shut down like a war zone. This is about a disruptive occupation with a violent underbelly bringing our capital city to its knees.

It has been said many times, but please remember that the Emergencies Act is scalable, so that the response is proportionate to the threat. It is limited in time. It is limited in scope. It offers extensive parliamentary oversight, part of which we are engaging in presently, to ensure the measures introduced are not abused. Perhaps most importantly, it must be charter compliant—that is, it must operate within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The act is designed to support provinces and territories that require additional authorities, but imposes no infringement upon the rights of citizens anywhere.

Some of my colleagues opposite have compared the Emergencies Act, even today, to the invocation of the War Measures Act in October 1970. Not to age myself, but I will. It is a day that, as a 12-year-old child, I remember well. I was not far from the age of my own son, who is 13 years old, and my grandniece Audrey, who celebrates her 12th birthday today in Ottawa. I wish Audrey happy birthday on this singular Sunday.

Back to 1970, when I was 12, I do remember the shock and pall with which the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, and later the murder of Mr. Laporte, rocked the country. That was a tense time and many of us are reflecting on Canada's experience and response in that time of fear, violence and threat.