Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question. He said that the point of all the protesters was to overthrow the government. I have been closely following the Ottawa Police Service and they are now laying out charges against people they detained and arrested. I have noticed that nobody has been charged with treason, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious intentions or rioting.

I wonder if the member can please explain to me how the government can claim something rhetorically and amp up the language in this chamber, as we talk about civil debate, when the charges being laid by police services and prosecutors do not match what the government is claiming these protests were about.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to comment on the ongoing investigations right now, but what I will say is that the freedom convoy's stated purpose was to do just that, to overthrow the democratically elected government that we are all honoured to sit in today. Those ideas and that intent were made very clear from the beginning, but I will not comment on the ongoing investigations that may be taking place right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, who is also my neighbour, for his intervention today.

When we look outside and see what has happened and talk about extremism, one thing I heard during this time from some members in the House is that there are “a few bad apples”, and this is very concerning to me. We all know that there are a few bad apples in every group, but the point is not the bad apples: It is the people who stand with the bad apples. If we look at our history on this planet, it is when people were quiet, when they minimized what was happening, that really terrible things were the outcome.

I wonder if the member could speak to how important it is to stand against things that are extreme and make sure that we are not complicit in things that put us and our democracy in huge trouble.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. neighbour, the member for North Island—Powell River, for her very important question, which is also to point of the member opposite who asked the previous question.

Certainly not all those who are involved in these debates hold those views, but we need to be very careful that those views are not normalized within Canada, that seeing swastikas and Confederate flags is not normalized and kind of swept under the rug as being just the acts of a few folks. We need to be very vigilant on this point, as I mentioned in my speech earlier, and the real threat that it could pose to our society if it becomes normalized. I completely agree with the comments and suggestions of the member.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think that it would take to revoke the emergency measures?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

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

I do not want us to have to use these measures for long. In fact, we cannot use them for more than 30 days. However, we have already seen the impact they had on downtown Ottawa and elsewhere in the country. Investigations are already under way.

I look forward to seeing the response from the Minister of Public Safety. We must not put these measures in place if they are not necessary.

[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.

I take this member's remarks to be that in his view, the temperature really has to be dialed down and that we have to really watch that things do not become normalized. I wonder if he can comment, when it comes to normalizing things, on the Prime Minister's lack of apology to the member for Thornhill for the comments he made in the House last week.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we all need to be very careful about what we say in this House and what we say in public. I mentioned in my speech that we do not want to be calling people names and we do not want to be pointing fingers, and that is the responsibility that we all need to take to heart to make sure that we are doing better, because we are setting an example for Canadians. We are here to represent Canadians, and that is a responsibility we need to take very seriously.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, when historians write this chapter of the Canadian story, what will they say about the protest? I do not question that for some it was about vaccine requirements for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border, nor do I question that others came here earnestly to protest pandemic restrictions and the disruption these public health measures brought on all of us. Although I do not share their views, vigorous debate and peaceful protest make Canada's democracy stronger. However, for more than a few and for many of those making up the core of organizers themselves, who sat atop a chain of command throughout this three-week occupation, the purpose was something far more sinister and one that betrayed the earnest initial intent of the others. These individuals came to upend the democracy upon which our country is found. They had their demands and soon resorted to intimidation, lawlessness, force and even sedition to see them met, regardless of whether those demands were wise or even fell within the jurisdiction of the federal government at all. Thwarted by the incoherence of their own demands and frustrated by our resolve, they laid siege to our capital with the stated intent to overthrow the democratically elected government and install themselves in our place.

Today, it is evident that they have failed. With the powers of the Emergencies Act, law and order have returned to the streets of Ottawa. Our democratic system, as well as the rights and freedoms that it provides, carries on. Members of Parliament, duly elected, continue debate on the Emergencies Act, invoked in the spirit of peace, order and good government.

Today, it is evident that this measure was necessary, so let me speak to why I will be voting in support of invoking the Emergencies Act. I have the benefit of addressing the chamber following this week's police operation that finally brought the occupation to an end. What we saw was a methodical, orderly and restrained operation by professional police from across the country working as one.

We know now just how integral the powers of the Emergencies Act were to the success of that operation. When asked if the Emergencies Act was necessary, the interim chief of the Ottawa police, Steve Bell, could not have been more clear: Police could not have done the job they did the way they did it without the powers provided by the act. That comes from the senior commanding officer for the operation.

He is not alone. Many more academic, legal and security professionals have come to the same conclusion, including a Harper-appointed senator, Vernon White, a former Ottawa police chief himself, and security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, whom I know to be a respected voice by many in the chamber, including my Conservative colleagues. It is, of course, worth noting that a recent poll indicated that two-thirds of Canadians support this measure as well.

Specifically, the Emergencies Act provided these key powers that were absolutely critical. One, it allowed police to establish a secure perimeter around the downtown core, preventing additional trucks or groups from joining the occupations. Two, it allowed Canadian financial service providers to immediately freeze or suspend accounts of an individual or a business affiliated with these illegal blockades until such time as that illegal activity was ceased. Three, it compelled private companies to provide towing services, fully compensated, to remove trucks and other vehicles from the occupation zone. It also allowed for the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaws, among other important measures.

Some have asked, which is responsible, whether the Emergencies Act is an overreach. In fact, that is the essential question before Parliament today. It is a minority Parliament that will make a determination on the matter and revoke the measure if it not agreed to by the House. It is an excellent example of the oversight built into the legislation written by the Mulroney government. With due credit to the Progressive Conservative Party at that time, other accountability measures include a special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate to review the government's actions under the act on an ongoing basis, a 30-day sunset clause to make sure that these powers do not extend longer than necessary and an inquiry after one year.

Importantly, the Emergencies Act does not limit charter rights; rather, it is subordinate to those rights. Still, a common refrain from the occupiers is that the Emergencies Act and the police operation to end the lawlessness in our capital trampled on their charter rights to peaceful assembly. That is simply false. The charter protections extend only to assembly that is peaceful. The charter does not protect one's right to seriously disturb the peace, as the occupation of Ottawa has done over the past three weeks. It also does not provide cover for illegal activities carried out during a protest, like the flagrant disregard for the law that has been well documented in the streets of our capital throughout the occupation, with hate crimes, misogyny, arson, vandalism and intimidation. The list is long.

Importantly, the Emergencies Act is democratic. It is an act of Parliament already debated and passed by both Houses, given royal assent, proclaimed and gazetted some 30 years ago. Its application is now being democratically debated in the House of Commons.

Did the time-limited, targeted and proportionate powers of the act work? For the first time in 23 days, quiet has descended upon Ottawa. The streets of the city have finally been returned to its residents, law and order have been restored and the Emergencies Act has performed its function as intended by the Progressive Conservative government that enacted it in 1988.

Three decades later, we find ourselves in the unexpected situation in which the party of Mulroney opposed invoking the measure, while the Liberals and the NDP support it. Our parliamentary system requires Her Majesty's loyal opposition. It is an essential part of the checks and balances that keep our country on a stable footing and ensures that the diverse voices of Canadians are heard in this place. However, when crisis strikes, as leaders we are called to rise above our political divides, for we all take an oath as members of Parliament to act in the best interests of our country.

Sadly, that is not what we have seen from the Conservatives throughout this occupation. Through their actions in the last three weeks, it is all too clear that the Conservative Party has strayed from its origins as a party of principle and accountability. Its proud tradition as the party of law and order lies shattered in the dirty snow on Wellington Street. The Conservatives have put their own political gain ahead of the country's security, prosperity and democracy. As their party clamours for an ever-smaller and more extreme faction of the far right, they abandon the hard-working conservatives who look to them for a credible potential government. Instead, the Canadians they have left behind watch in horror as our police and media are spat on and assaulted in the throes of a lawless occupation that today's Conservative Party has chosen to defend.

With the help of the powers of the Emergencies Act, the occupation has come to an end. The trucks and the protesters have gone home, the people of Ottawa are breathing a sigh of relief and Parliament has resumed its important democratic function. However, something has changed in Canada or has perhaps been uncovered these past three weeks. Some will say the divide has grown wider. As political columnist John Ivison wrote yesterday, “It feels like Canada is splintering into two tribes—the intolerant, authoritarian woke lunatics on the left and the spittle-flecked, hateful lunatics on the far-right.” The optimist in me wants to deny it, but I cannot. At times, that is how it feels. Perhaps that is how it feels to a growing number of Canadians as well after these last two years or after these last 23 days.

We need to log out of social media, put down our phones, stop doom-scrolling and ask why it is that, despite a pretty strong consensus on the effectiveness of the broad pandemic response from all parties and all orders of government, it still feels at times like we are more divided than ever. The answer may lie in the palm of our hands in the devices we carry with us day and night. Our political beliefs and grievances are being fed to us by opaque algorithms that serve a singular function: profit for the massive tech giants that dominate our online realm. These platforms prey on our psyche, weaponizing our emotions to keep us all online all the time and garnering untold fortunes in ad revenue. Disinformation, a tool of foreign influence in the cyber-era, goes unchecked. Division, it turns out, is a money-maker. The scene was set as the pandemic locked us inside, and the very same screens they told us would keep us together served instead to push us further apart.

It is my hope that the joint committee and inquiry required in the Emergencies Act will take a hard look at the fundamental role that online platforms played in stoking the flames of division, anger and disinformation, making it harder for any of us to see the other side, as though we live in two entirely different and separate universes, unrecognizable to one another, with incompatible ideas of truth, media and science. Until we address this, I fear we risk repeating the crisis, and who knows in what terrifying form next time. We must act before a generation of children, our children, online as they are, grow up never knowing that there was a better way to be.

[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.

I find it rather disheartening that we have an ode to hope here, but partisan rhetoric really couches it. One thing the hon. member said in his speech is that public opinion is on his side. I would like to ask him when the rule of law became subordinate to public opinion. He cited those two principles and sometimes they are incompatible, but if the rule of law is superlative, why is he not abiding by the rule of law?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot discern a sensible question, but the member did mention political rhetoric. I note that the interim leader of the member's party stated recently, “It’s time for MPs to return to the House and restore unity, wholeness and hope back to our nation.” I would suggest that perhaps the member and his interim leader should focus on restoring unity, wholeness and hope back to their party as we watch it self-immolate in real time day by day.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for operations that call for multiple police forces to intervene, emergency measures are not needed.

Why were such operations not carried out sooner?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my remarks, the interim chief of police in Ottawa was very clear in stating that he was unable to do his job without the act. We have seen the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police underscore that same truth: that this act was a required action to have been taken by the government to help police forces across the country deal with the blockades.

I would further say that there are checks built into this act. The special committee that will be set up to review the actions under the act will shed more light on the question the member asked, but for now I am very satisfied that we are well within the confines of the law.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with the urgency I am hearing today, why did it take the Prime Minister so long to take this seriously?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that multiple premiers across the country reached out and asked for help. When that happened, the government got busy invoking the act. It was very important to give the provincial governments the required time and space to act under their own laws and rules, but when it became clear to some of the premiers, and to the federal government, that the additional powers of the act were required, the Prime Minister and the cabinet acted very swiftly. The results, as we saw, were delivered very swiftly as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think of the impact this has had on people, communities and jobs, whether in Alberta, Manitoba or Ontario. Blockades prevented half a billion dollars in trade between two countries. It had a horrendous impact. Ottawa was shut down by illegal blockades. There were written requests from the Province of Alberta and the Province of Manitoba to the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada asking for support. This is one of the tools that we provided, and it has been effective.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of the tool?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we all have stories about how the lockdown here and the blockades elsewhere have had a personal impact, but I want to address the part of the question about the interruption of trade, the job losses, the shuttering of automobile factories in Canada and the loss of wages that resulted from these blockades.

I was privileged to be part of a call two days ago with the Canadian American Business Council. I found it necessary to reassure our American trade partners that the government had acted at a national level to ensure that such disruptions would not happen again. It was important for them to hear that, and they were edified by it. We must never let it happen again.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart I rise today. This is a solemn day that will no doubt be remembered by Canadians for decades to come. Given the gravity of today's debate, I believe it is incumbent on all members to speak candidly, earnestly and sincerely.

Today we are debating the Emergencies Act, but before I outline why the invocation of this act is capricious and completely unnecessary, it is best to provide some context to how our country got to where it is right now.

Unfortunately, it is truly clear that Canada is a highly fragmented country facing significant economic problems that put our entire prosperity at risk. Our economy has just experienced significant job losses. We are experiencing an inflation crisis, with inflation at a 30-year high of 5.1%. That has real consequences.

There are people, many Canadians, who cannot afford the bare necessities of life. We have over $1 trillion in debt that will doubtlessly be pushed onto future generations as they pay for our expenditures. Our country is divided. It is divided between west versus east, rural versus urban, freedom versus security and vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Now our Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. It is an act that suspends the civil liberties of Canadians such as section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of association, and section 8, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The police can, literally without warrant or warning, seize one's property. They can arrest Canadians for simply assembling.

Never in my life or in my wildest dreams did I ever expect to have five police checks just to get to my office. Never did I expect that in Canada.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act has also given the government the right to freeze bank accounts without judicial oversight. This can create financial ruin by putting an asterisk beside someone's financial credit rating for life. This might mean that a mortgage never happens, or that a son or daughter never goes to university, because of this asterisk.

Why was this done? According to the Minister of Justice, when he was talking to the media, he said that the grounds could be for as little as supporting causes the government disagrees with. This is shameful. When someone's bank account is frozen, they are effectively being removed from society. They may not have money to pay for food to feed their children, for gasoline for their cars to get to work, or for electricity to heat their homes. The government may literally starve and freeze Canadians into submission.

I watched this weekend as protesters were arrested at gunpoint. They were pepper sprayed. Several protesters were trampled by 2,000-pound horses. How could the Prime Minister ever let the situation get this bad? This is not our Canada.

Let us go back and look at what led us to these circumstances. It makes sense to start with the change in tone from the Prime Minister heading into his unnecessary $600-million election. The Prime Minister, based no doubt on polling numbers, made a calculated effort to demonize unvaccinated Canadians and to capitalize on the growing frustration of vaccinated Canadians with the unvaccinated. The choice led the Prime Minister to demean and stigmatize, as the member for Louis-Hébert so eloquently said.

The Prime Minister said they are extremists “who do not believe in science, they’re often misogynists and often racists. It is a small group that muscles in, and we have to make a decision in terms of leaders, in terms of the country. Do we tolerate these people?”

That is repugnant. I have sat here listening to Liberal member after Liberal member saying that we needed to de-escalate and bring down the heat. They should start by talking to the Prime Minister.

Also, it was no doubt a part of the Prime Minister's strategy to demonize and exploit cleavages in our society when he decided to implement a 14-day quarantine period on truckers: our heroes who, throughout COVID for two years, when there were no vaccines, went across. They braved the delta variant. They braved the omicron variant.

They were our heroes, and now they are demonized. All we have asked, and all the media and the opposition members have asked, is for the government to show us its math. Instead, we get outdated, irrelevant talking points. We have cost thousands of Canadians their livelihoods for purely partisan politics. This is disgusting.

We presented the most utterly reasonable motion. Our party simply asked for a plan to end the mandate. It was just a plan. The Prime Minister remained defiant, refusing to support the plan. While the rest of the world opens up borders, while the rest of the world eases restrictions, our Prime Minister will not even give Canadians, who deserve hope, a plan for that hope or a plan to return to normality. Once again, the Prime Minister has chosen politics over science and petulance over leadership. This crisis could have been avoided with strong and compassionate leadership. Instead, the Prime Minister chose partisanship over statesmanship and division over unity. This has led us to the current crisis.

The Prime Minister's unnecessary mandate and divisive rhetoric have caused frustrations to boil over. Canadians from across the country began to spontaneously demonstrate and show their dissatisfaction to the Liberal government. Unfortunately, some of the movement splintered into illegal activities, including the blockades at the border crossings at Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Fortunately, the provinces were able to resolve these matters peacefully, and they ended with hugs instead of violence.

Here in Ottawa, while many of the protesters were salt-of-the-earth Canadians who wanted to express their grievances, unfortunately there were some who expressed hate. They should all be individually accountable for those expressions. In addition, there were approximately 150 vehicles parked in front of Parliament for over three weeks. Those vehicles disrupted lives. They made it impossible for individuals to go to school or to go to work. They needed to be moved, and that cannot be doubted.

To end this, though, the Prime Minister overreached. He invoked the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act is fairly clear and fairly prescriptive. It requires that three tests be met: first, that the public disorder created a threat to the security of Canada; second, that it was national in scope; and third, that the public disorder could not be resolved by other means.

Let us review those criteria, one by one. Was there a security threat to Canada? A security threat would presumably be something extremely significant. A clear example would be the potential use of a nuclear or chemical weapon. Those are security threats to Canada. Another would be a paramilitary force threatening to overthrow the Canadian government.

What we had here were 150 illegally parked vehicles and a mass of disorganized people, some of them who had repugnant views, including the overthrow of the government, but there is no actual intelligence I have seen or any evidence that there was actually the ability to threaten our government. I walked through there for three weeks, and if in fact the government allowed all MPs to walk through these protests and there was an imminent threat to our government, that is the most malfeasance and insecurity our government has ever had.

Second, it is national in scope. Three weeks ago, we may have had an argument about this. When the Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were happening, we might have had an argument, but they are gone. Do members know what? So is the protest in Ottawa. Why has this not been revoked by now? Where is the threat? Where is it? It is clear. It is done.

Third, it cannot be resolved by other legislation. Clearly, it could be and it has been, at the Ambassador Bridge and otherwise. It is true that it would be helpful. A sledgehammer would be helpful to crack a walnut, but it would not be necessary. That is the case here.

Ultimately, this is not about truckers or one's vaccination status. This is about the future of Canada. Do we want a country that is free to dissent? A government that controls the discourse, controls our lives. Do we want a country where environmentalists fear that we are not doing enough on climate change? Do we want a country where Quebeckers can share their request for greater autonomy? Do we want a government where a Conservative can share his contempt for the government? I believe all of these voices should be heard.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was an impassioned speech. I have to admit that I am struck by much of what the member said. In the spirit of thinking through some facts, he mentioned that many people were trampled.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not. I said two.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, two people were trampled. News reports say the reporter actually admitted that there was, in fact, no trampling. I just want to make sure we clarify the facts in the House.

I would ask the following question. The other side does not trust the government. Would the members trust the national security adviser to Stephen Harper, and the former director of CSIS, Richard Fadden? He said that it was appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act, particularly as it related to the federal banking measures, which were not covered under other legislation.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be kind and generous and just say that the individual misheard. I clearly said two, and if you check the records you will hear that. If you want to watch the video, it is available. Just watch it, because it is on film. There are two individuals, including one lady who has a scooter or walker, who get trampled by a 2,000-pound horse. I have horses. Let me tell you, that is going to hurt a whole lot, and that happened. You can shake your head all you want, but just look at the video.

I went through it blow by blow. There is not a national security threat that cannot be resolved by other legislation. It is clear. I do not know how else to say it.

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

I just want to remind the member that when we are answering questions, to put them through the Chair and make sure we are not taking this so personally. I know it is late in the day, and we all have lots to say and lots to comment on and question.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, my colleague said that the government put political interests, partisanship, ahead of science.

He said that by making reference to the motion the Conservatives moved, citing Dr. Theresa Tam. Personally, I have heard many Conservative colleagues say that vaccination is annoying, but the science tells us that we have to get vaccinated.

Is my colleague in favour of vaccination? Does he agree that the best way out of this crisis is vaccination?

I would like his opinion on that.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. It must be the end of the day, because I am a little passionate. My apologies to the member if I got a little passionate.

I am definitely pro-vaccine. I am proudly vaxxed and I believe everyone should be vaccinated. However, we also need to not demonize people who think differently from us. We live in a free country, and when we demonize people, calling them misogynist and racist, that is not Canadian. That is not our Canada.