Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I think the member for Kingston and the Islands is running out of arguments. He has been here arguing for a long time. He is tired and is now taking things too far.

All of the police forces came together, teamed up, joined forces and worked together. They are the ones who managed to push the protesters back, with support and coordination from their command centre. It was not special legislation or an order that came in to save the day.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

It is a sad day to be speaking here on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon West. When I first ran for office two and a half years ago, I never thought I would spend most of my time representing my constituents during a time of COVID-19. When I ran for re-election just six months ago, I never imagined that I would be representing them during a debate about martial law being imposed upon them. From day one of that campaign, when the Prime Minister deliberately set out to wedge, divide and stigmatize our population, the wisest among us may have foreseen this power grab. Unfortunately, I was naive enough to think that even this Prime Minister still had a modicum of love and respect for his fellow Canadians and for democracy. The truth is that his love is for power and his respect is for dictatorships.

What is the Emergencies Act? I want to be absolutely clear. This is a naked power grab by the Prime Minister, and I will not be supporting it. This act allows the government, under certain strict criteria, to override all established laws, regulations and norms of Canadian democracy. It is, simply put, the imposition of martial law. The New York Times reported these measures for what they are: a “temporary suspension of civil liberties”.

This legislation is a successor to the War Measures Act and has never been used in Canadian history. Its predecessor was used during times of world wars to help Canada mobilize and by the first Trudeau to go after real terrorists in Quebec during the FLQ crisis in 1970. Today his son, our current Prime Minister, is using emergency powers to clear vehicles on Ottawa streets.

To be clear, I and my colleagues in the Conservative Party have called for an end to these blockades, but the vehicles at the U.S. border crossings were already gone before this Emergencies Act was even initiated. The Liberals said they needed this power to compel Ottawa tow truck operators. They did not. Existing laws already gave that power. In fact, nearly everything they are doing could have been done under the provincial emergency order.

The extraordinary powers of the federal Emergencies Act have never been invoked, not even when the twin towers were toppled on 9/11, when we went to war in Afghanistan or when an actual terrorist stormed Parliament here in 2014 and tried to assassinate the prime minister at that time. The fact is that the Prime Minister mishandled this situation right from the beginning. Every parent teaches their children to use their words, not their fists. Instead, our incompetent Prime Minister chose division over leadership, chose name-calling over dialogue.

As an aviation enthusiast, I am fascinated by airplane crashes. The root cause of a plane crash can always be traced back to someone not even on the plane. The reason for the crash is never the most obvious one. One must ask why. Why did the engine quit? Why was there no fuel? Why was the fuel gauge incorrect, etc., etc., until one gets to the root cause. If we apply that strategy here, what is the root cause of the unrest we see today? Is it the protesters themselves? Certainly they will be the ones held accountable for their actions, but why were they here? One root cause was the mandate for truckers to be vaccinated. Who forced that? It was the Prime Minister.

Another root cause is frustration and weariness with COVID restrictions in general. When the provinces began to relax restrictions, the federal government was intent on keeping them in place. Who forced that? Again it was the Prime Minister. In fact, time and time again, the root cause of this conflict can be traced right to the feet of the Prime Minister. His own MPs have said that the Prime Minister has politicized the pandemic, using division and fear to pit Canadian against Canadian. We have neighbours snitching on their neighbours, fully encouraged by the government.

The Prime Minister desires division and depends on it to retain his political power. Conservatives want to lead with dialogue and mutual respect. We know that a root cause of this conflict is the lack of a plan to move us past the COVID restrictions of the last two years, so last Monday there was a vote in the House of Commons on our Conservative motion to make a plan to end COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. The Liberals and their lackeys in the NDP voted it down.

In this situation it is the cheerleading of the NDP that is perhaps the most telling of all. The NDP, going back to its CCF roots in Saskatchewan, pretends to be the hero of the little guy, the working class. These last few weeks have finally discredited that myth. We know that many of the current NDP are self-proclaimed socialists. Just like our PM admires Communist China’s basic dictatorship, today’s NDP looks back in time at Lenin and Stalin and yearn for a return to those days.

The whole philosophy of socialism as written by Marx was to put down dissent and seize power through violence. I read with great interest the tweet of former NDP member of Parliament Svend Robinson. He was referring to the 1970 vote, when the first Trudeau invoked these emergency powers. Svend said, “The NDP Caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act. Today's @NDP under [its leader] betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. Shame. A very dangerous precedent is being set.”

Traditionally, the NDP has stood on the side of civil liberties and prevented governments from being granted sweeping powers; today’s NDP, well, not so much. This will not come as a surprise to current NDP leadership, but it should be a wake-up call to all Canadians who support the NDP. The NDP is not the friend of democracy.

I want to get to the heart of the matter. A leader skilled in dividing and stigmatizing is also skilled at distracting. Like a clever magician, our Prime Minister is having us look at downtown Ottawa while he works behind the scenes to carry out his true goal. What is that? As they say, follow the money.

The finance minister let slip this week that the government's real desire is to make some of the emergency measures permanently available to the government. Which measures was she referring to? She was referring to financial tools.

Let us take a step back. All dictators want control. In our modern society, control is exercised through money. One cannot do anything without money. Even exercising constitutional freedoms requires money. For example, freedom of speech might require a website, a pamphlet, an advertisement, etc., all of which require money. If someone takes away our money, they take away our freedoms.

My parents grew up with cash. A person could accumulate a pillowcase full of cash, put all that cash into a briefcase and buy a neighbour’s house by handing that briefcase over to him. In most of human history, that is how transactions were done, using shells, gold, cattle, etc. Today, if someone shows up with a briefcase full of money, that person will likely be arrested. Governments, through their central banks, want cash to be eliminated so that they can control our money and therefore control us. This plan was going very well until GoFundMe and cryptocurrencies showed up. These new payment methods have thrown a big monkey wrench into the wheels of government control—that is, until now.

What did the finance minister let slip this week? She let slip that the government would take the overreaching powers of the Emergencies Act regarding financial controls and make them permanent, particularly as they relate to crowdsourcing and cryptocurrencies. In other words, in a moment when Canadians are allowing the government to have absolute power, the government is using that opportunity to slip in some permanent changes

I am not a conspiracy theorist; I am just making an observation and hoping people pick up on this discussion and really pay attention.

These emergency powers are significant. What are the people of Saskatoon West saying about this? Cora in my riding said, “This language of hate and divide needs to stop. Love and kindness is the only way forward. ... I can’t help but wonder if we continue on this path how long it will take for myself to be on the receiving side of hate from our government because of policies that go against my well intended morals and values. It’s only a matter of time...and I’m scared.”

I am scared too.

Matthew said, “As a constituent of your riding, I just wanted to voice my extreme concern that the Federal Government of Canada has implemented this measure over a peaceful protest. I know you're part of the opposition, and I have been glad to see some of the members of your party speak plainly to the Canadian people. I don't typically take the time to get involved in politics, but it's absolutely disgusting what's going on right now. I am embarrassed to be a Canadian at this point.”

We should all be embarrassed. A recent immigrant from Bangladesh told me plainly, “Things going on in Ottawa are very sad. [The Prime Minister] is becoming a dictator. Yes! People around the globe know Canada as a calm and peaceful nation. We love friendly, peaceful Canada, and that is why we moved to Canada. Please raise your united voice in the House against all kinds of violence.”

The Prime Minister is embarrassing Canada on a global scale, but all is not lost. My home province of Saskatchewan shone a beacon of hope last week for Canada. It ended the vaccine passport system on February 14, the very same day the Prime Minister took his drastic step federally. I have listened to my constituents, unlike the Prime Minister, who attempts to shut down opposing voices.

I have much more to say, but my time is up. In summary, the Prime Minister has created this situation. He has the power to make it worse and the power to make it better. I pray he chooses wisely.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague if he owns a business in the downtown Ottawa area. What would he think if, for three weeks, he could not open, he could not pay his rent and he had to tell his employees that they would lose their jobs?

In addition, what does he think about closing bridges that are a vital path for the commercial trade between us and the United States? What does he think about threats to our supply chain?

What does he think about the people receiving funds from outside Canada? What does he think about more than 70% of Canadians supporting the decision of the Prime Minister?

Is the member aware that the Prime Minister was patient? The protesters stayed for close to three weeks. The Prime Minister was giving them a chance. What—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member has a lot of questions and I have to allow other members to ask theirs.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of questions. For the businesses in downtown Ottawa, it has been difficult, but I must remind the member that there have been two years of difficulties for business owners in this country. For two years, businesses have not been able to open. It has been difficult for everybody.

I also want to remind the member that the bridges that he referred to opened up prior to the imposition of the Emergencies Act. They were dealt with through the regular channels of the system of law that we have in our country. Those were taken care of through regular laws. We did not need the Emergencies Act for that.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The blockades had almost all been removed before the emergency measures came into force.

Could my colleague talk about the consequences of invoking the Emergencies Act when it is not required?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are significant consequences. I want to particularly highlight the people I have been talking to. For example, an older lady called my office in tears because she had donated a small amount of money to the convoy and was worried that her bank accounts would be frozen. Businesses' bank accounts are now frozen because of the imposition of the Emergencies Act. This is having very significant financial implications on individuals and businesses right across the country, and we need to be very concerned about that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am completely astounded by how far the Conservatives, as the self-proclaimed party of law and order, have actually fallen. Some members of that caucus are openly peddling conspiracy theories and turning a blind eye to extremists in their midst.

The Ottawa Police Service said that the Emergencies Act was necessary for it to take action, and Conservative Premier Doug Ford urged that the Emergencies Act be invoked. Does the Conservative Party of Canada disagree with those two institutions?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, if Ottawa has an incompetent mayor who could not get the job done, I do not think it is incumbent on the federal government to take a sledgehammer with the Emergencies Act to come in and try to fix that problem. That is a problem for the City of Ottawa. If the City of Ottawa could not handle it, then the province should step in. The laws that were currently in place could have gotten the job done. I think it is completely unnecessary to do this to cover the incompetence of a local city councillor.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is without pleasure that I rise today to speak on the government's invocation of the Emergencies Act.

Following my election as the member of Parliament for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River in 2019, we put signs throughout the riding with the slogan “building authentic relationships”. I realize this probably is not the catchiest slogan ever, but it demonstrates how my team and I have operated since.

Throughout the pandemic, my team and I have consistently and strategically attempted to be a voice that brings calm and reason to a very tumultuous environment. Personally, I believe that is what leaders should do. The failure of the Prime Minister to show even a shred of grace or compassion for people who are clearly frustrated is frankly unbecoming.

Some may ask why I start here. I start here because of what I have observed since entering federal politics just over three years ago. The Prime Minister and the federal government have shown absolutely no interest in building relationships with anyone, other than those who vote for them.

It is my belief that the moment the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada became the Prime Minister, he no longer had the option of only representing Liberal voters. It became his job to represent all Canadians. However, not only have the Prime Minister and his government shown no interest in representing all Canadians, but they have time and again shown disdain, contempt and disrespect for Canadians who do not agree with them.

Before I address my opinion on the government’s use of the Emergencies Act, it is important that we consider what actions, or inactions, have led to us being here today. As confirmed by our Liberal colleague for Louis-Hébert last week, during the last election campaign, the Liberals saw an opportunity to wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians over vaccines and vaccine mandates. They did this to get re-elected, and they were successful, but at what cost?

A poll taken just after the election showed that 77% of Canadians felt the country was more fractured than ever. I am fearful of what that number might be today. The politicization of vaccines and vaccine mandates by our Prime Minister has led to deep divisions in our communities, our provinces and across our country.

By treating Canadians with impunity, the Prime Minister laid the foundation for what happened just outside these walls in Ottawa and across our great nation. He called Canadians racists and misogynists. We have even heard Liberal members in the House this weekend call them terrorists. This is not acceptable. Might I add that this was before making any attempt whatsoever to meet or speak with them.

In my past life experience, in any kind of conflict resolution mechanism there was always one thing in common: dialogue. They all require some sort of dialogue and active listening. I was raised to believe that respect begets respect. I am, and will always be, willing to meet with Canadians, especially my constituents, regardless of their political leanings. The only limit I impose on them is that they must be willing to be respectful and have what I call “adult conversations”.

I believe that, had the Prime Minister and his government operated in this manner, we would not be having this debate tonight. In fact, I believe that not only would the protesters have left, but they would likely have never come here in the first place. Unfortunately, because of the government’s offensive rhetoric, several blocks surrounding Parliament Hill were indeed gridlocked and people had to forcefully be removed.

I have consistently said that when individuals cross lines of acceptable and legal behaviour, they should be called out and individually held accountable for their actions, but we cannot paint everyone with the same brush.

Let me share something I read from a blog last night. The writer explains that he lives in downtown Ottawa and defines it as “absolute ground zero”. The truckers are literally camped out below his bedroom window. He read a lot about what his new neighbours, he calls them, are supposed to be like, mostly from reporters. He decided to go for a walk to find out who these people actually were. He stated the following:

As I finally made my way back home, after talking to dozens of truckers into the night, I realized I met someone from every province except P.E.I. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians.... Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob.

He concludes a long blog with the following statement:

...what we should have never forgotten: We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.

This brings me to the second part of my speech, and that is how I believe the current situation in Ottawa does not fit the requirements outlined in the Emergencies Act.

During the introduction of the Emergencies Act in 1988, the minister responsible, the Hon. Perrin Beatty, said this in his remarks:

The legislation for second reading which I am proposing today will provide the necessary flexibility to respond to national crises without invoking the War Measures Act. It applies only to national emergencies and distinguishes between four types.

In broad terms they are these: First, situations affecting public welfare and caused by an accident such as a massive chemical spill or by natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods or tornadoes that are of such magnitude as to exceed the capacity of the affected province to respond and to require special powers for an effective federal response; second, public order disturbances that threaten the security of Canada and which are so serious as to be national emergencies; third, international emergencies requiring Canada to take special preparatory measures in concert with our allies; fourth, and finally, war itself.

The order in council released by the government authorizes the government to impose “other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act that are not yet known.”

The Prime Minister is essentially asking the House to hand him unlimited authority. We have seen this movie before. Do people remember March 2020, when the Liberals introduced an unprecedented bill to give their government unlimited powers to tax Canadians and spend public money without parliamentary approval for 21 months? Do people remember the documents from the Winnipeg lab, and how the Prime Minister's actions showed he has little or no respect for parliamentary oversight? Let us not forget how the SNC-Lavalin scandal demonstrated that he has little respect for the independence of our justice system.

More recently, on Monday, when the Prime Minister announced he was invoking the Emergencies Act, he said the following:

I want to be clear. The scope of these measures will be time-limited, geographically targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate to the threats they are meant to address.

Since then, the Deputy Prime Minister and finance minister has stated that she is looking to make some of these provisions permanent.

The justice minister admitted that the Liberals were looking to use the act to punish political opponents. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said that the Emergencies Act provisions technically apply to all of Canada. Why should Canadians trust this Prime Minister now and grant this open-ended request to limit the civil liberties of all Canadians?

Today, I join with the premiers of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, as well as with Premier Scott Moe from my province of Saskatchewan, along with many legal experts, civil liberties associations and millions of regular Canadians across the country saying that while the situation in Ottawa has been very difficult for many people, and I have a great amount of compassion for them, it did not meet the standard of a national emergency. Thankfully, there was no widespread violence and no loss of life.

The Prime Minister said, in his remarks at the opening of this debate, “the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada.” I do not believe this to be true, and for the Prime Minister to say this in the House of Commons leads to the degradation of our democratic systems and erodes the already low level of trust in government. The precedent that this sets is leaving many people in my riding with grave concerns for the future of our country.

Far be it from me to quote an NDP MP, but tonight I am going to because the Hon. Tommy Douglas was from Saskatchewan. In describing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act during the October Crisis, he said it was “like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. I am sure that my colleagues from all parties would agree that what happened outside these walls pales in comparison with what took place in 1970. I implore my NDP colleagues to consider their roots and consider what the great Tommy Douglas would do if he were here in the House at this moment in time.

In closing, there is no easy way to put this. The division that has resulted from this pandemic has been heartbreaking. I have seen it divide our country, provinces, communities, workplaces, social clubs, churches, friendships and even our families. I am afraid that the Prime Minister's use of these heavy-handed measures will only further divide our country.

Thus, I am asking all members in the House to search very long and very hard when they decide how they are going to vote on this motion tomorrow night. Let us work together to start healing the brokenness that is so evident across this great country.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite, and I have worked with him at the indigenous affairs committee.

At the outset, I want to say that I believe Canadians are united. Over 90% of Canadians have been vaccinated, and many more are continuing to be vaccinated as we speak, with the second and booster doses. We have seen a lot of hate outside over the last several weeks. I personally have found it very difficult to go and engage, and it is pretty obvious why. It is because I am a racialized individual. I have seen symbols of hate that profoundly affect me.

I am just wondering this. What are the member's thoughts about the calls to engage with these blockaders, and what does he think that kind of engagement would have resulted in?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have worked together with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and we have a mutual respect.

What I and every single Conservative colleague would say is that we are 100% against any white supremacy, bigotry and any kind of racism. The member knows that very well and he knows my record on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. If he looked at the work I have done advocating for first nations people and for Métis people in my riding, for indigenous people across this country, he knows that to be true. If he looked at the work I have done coaching minor league hockey in my riding, coaching kids from across the riding and from first nations and Métis communities, he knows the work I have done and he knows my record.

I am happy to stand by that record.

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

Madam Speaker, we knew that there were extremists within the convoy when we first heard it was coming. We knew there were far-right groups involved. It seems they were allowed to settle in anyway. Once that happened, I think the Prime Minister could have showed more initiative and made sure that the police forces were coordinating their efforts, but nothing was done.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, like I said in my comments, the first step to resolving this was to actually listen to people and to have dialogue with people. That is the root of any conflict resolution mechanism. It was known for weeks that these people were coming to Ottawa, yet no one went to talk to them. The Prime Minister claimed in his comments that he has supported and met with all levels of government and all people involved in this, and that he was very in tune with what was going on, yet the Liberals did nothing until they brought out the Emergencies Act.

I will go back to my “sledgehammer and a peanut” argument. We went from zero to a hundred overnight and this was never necessary, as taking initial steps to dialogue with these people and hearing the concerns of these, very frankly, frustrated people would have gone a long way to resolving this issue a long time ago.

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

Madam Speaker, the world has changed a lot from the 1970s and, unfortunately, we are dealing with much larger manifestations of hate. I thank the member for denouncing it and that is a consensus point in the House in these past few days.

How do we, as parliamentarians, deal with the reality, going forward, of this hate and division in our communities?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would go back to my initial comments I made in my speech and the work that my team and I have done in our riding. It is a slogan and everyone will say it is just a slogan, but building authentic relationships with people actually works. It actually works. We have to become active listeners. We have to engage people at the appropriate level, and we have to dialogue with people.

We have to get to the place where we can have what I call adult conversations with people, even though we might not agree with their philosophy. Maybe we do not agree with their ideology. If we have adult conversations, respectful conversations, sometimes it is appropriate for us to agree to disagree, but we can do that respectfully.

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

Madam Speaker, this evening I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

It is an honour and a privilege to represent the residents of Halifax West in the House of Commons. I recall the day of my swearing-in ceremony 15 weeks ago, walking along Wellington Street, taking in the architectural, national and symbolic elements of the buildings and looking at the multitude of people and the joy and excitement of all people, visitors and residents alike.

The events of the last three weeks are heartbreaking. The illegal blockades, sieges and occupations have disrupted the safety, security and lives of individual Canadians, harming our economy, endangering public safety and threatening our democracy. We need to make sure events like this do not happen again.

I have reflected long and hard and have listened to the debates in the House. I have listened to the differing views. I recognize the seriousness of the situation and our role as parliamentarians in representing our constituents and debating and voting on national laws for the collective good of Canadians.

I support wholeheartedly this motion to invoke the Emergencies Act. I listened to the comments of the interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell on Friday, who confirmed that, yes, the authorities granted by the invocation of this act and those conferred by the provincial and municipal emergency measures taken together were essential in conducting the successful operation that began on Friday.

The use of this act is also supported by the former Ottawa police chief and Conservative senator Vernon White, who noted it is justified and that “it was the right time to do this”. Charles Bordeleau, another past Ottawa police chief, also confirmed the necessity of the tools this act conferred to police in clearing Ottawa.

Canada has a parliamentary democracy founded on the rule of law and respect for rights and freedoms. I, like everyone here, am elected by the residents of my constituency. I am here to represent Halifax West. I care about my community and all its people. I care about everyone's freedom. We need to collectively care about each other in our country.

Let us be clear. There is a national emergency. It does pose a risk to personal security, national security and our economy, and it needs to be ended quickly and decisively so Canadians can get their lives back.

I am confident the threshold the act requires has been met. We have all seen the threats to property, to our economy, to our supply chains and to our most important trading relationship, which have been carried out to reach ideological ends.

I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all the police services who participated in ending the illegal operations, whether blockades, sieges or occupations. This includes the Ottawa Police Service, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP, la Sûreté du Québec and police forces from across the country. This was a national effort from different jurisdictions, standing out there in the freezing cold and putting their safety and comfort on the line to ensure a resolution. My hat is off to them for their professionalism, dedication and restraint in the face of taunts, insults and abuse from occupiers.

We have heard many times how the vast majority of working truckers are vaccinated. I want to thank them for their essential work ensuring Canadians have food, medicine and so much that we rely on every day on our tables. I also want to thank their association, the CTA, for confirming that vaccine mandates are not in fact interfering with the industry's operations and for applauding the government's use of the Emergencies Act to rightfully end these blockades.

I want to thank the journalists on the streets, braving harassment to bring the truth of the occupation in Ottawa to Canadians. I have listened very closely to my colleagues during this debate and I appreciate the points they raised on the gravity of the situation, on the torment of the people and businesses of Ottawa and on the need for a quick and decisive path forward.

What we have seen is an occupation with leaders that in their stated objectives called for the overthrow of a democratically elected government and the removal of reasonable public health measures that have kept Canadians safe. It is an occupation that has been fuelled in no small part by foreign donations and eager cheerleading from political opportunists.

The residents of Ottawa, the business owners and their staff, and the hard-working public servants, they all know this surpassed the point of a protest because they have suffered through it. I think of the email I received the other day from a woman advocating on behalf of her niece, who lives in downtown Ottawa and because of an autoimmune disorder could not leave her small apartment during the current occupation. Her niece had endured constant, inescapable, deafening noise and fumes from the occupiers. What about her rights and freedoms? There are so many stories like hers.

We have seen far too much intimidation, violence and hatred. I want to acknowledge the strength and resolve of the people of Ottawa over these difficult few weeks. They have been through hell and I hope they will get some rest and some relief. At this time, it is incumbent on us to act.

Let us clear up both the confusion and the wilful misrepresentation about what this act is and what invoking it entails. This is not the War Measures Act. This act is not calling in the military. It is targeted, temporary, subject to checks and safeguards through Parliament and must be compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Invoking the Emergencies Act provides new authorities to law enforcement to regulate crowds, prohibit blockades and keep essential corridors open. It allows government to mobilize essential services, including services related to removal, towing and storage of vehicles that are being used as part of a blockade. It allows the taking of action against the largely foreign and largely anonymous funding of this occupation, including from crowdfunding platforms and their payment service providers.

Significantly, it allows the removal of the jurisdictional friction that we have seen impede our police forces, allowing police from different jurisdictions to work together to do their job. I want to reiterate what was confirmed by the interim Ottawa police chief. They would not be able to do the job they are doing without the authorities conferred by the Emergencies Act.

I want to thank the constituents of Halifax West for writing me and calling me, expressing their concern.

Like all of my colleagues, my office has received tons of emails. In my case, most of it is from outside my province, containing outrageous false claims and comparisons. This has included anti-vaccine propaganda, conspiracy theories, insistence that the pandemic is over, denial that our hospitals are being pushed past their capacities and disturbing comparisons made between the requirement to get vaccinated before boarding an airplane and the horrors inflicted by the Nazis. The contents of these emails are troubling, concerning and full of disinformation.

The fact is that Canada is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. The majority of Canadians do not support these illegal protests and the occupation. The overwhelming majority of Canadians understand that facts and science still matter. That reassures me.

This week, we celebrated the 57th anniversary of our Canadian flag, a symbol we all respect and appreciate. I have felt uncomfortable seeing how our flag has been used over the last few weeks. I do not want anyone to ever see our flag flying and feel a twinge of fear or anxiety. I understand the frustration and the pandemic fatigue felt by many. We are all tired and we all want the pandemic to end.

In my province of Nova Scotia, we had a small taste of what it felt like to have a post-pandemic life in the fall, when cases came down and restrictions were lessened. It was a blessing and it was appreciated and deeply needed, but omicron had other plans. I want to say I understand the frustration and empathize with folks. The risks to our communities, families and hospitals do not simply end because we want the pandemic to be over. I wish they did. Recently in Nova Scotia we saw the most deadly week of the pandemic since May 2020. We are still seeing daily test positivity rates over 10% and packed hospitals staffed by overstretched health care workers.

Here I want to thank all health care workers for caring for Nova Scotians and for caring for all Canadians. I have hope that a brighter spring is on its way. I want to encourage everyone to spread hope to their friends, communities and loved ones, while at the same time recommitting themselves to having each other's backs, being cautious, getting vaccinated and showing our solidarity with one another—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up. She will be able to continue during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

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

Madam Speaker, I liked the points in the member's speech that focused on section 58 of the Emergencies Act. However, I disagree with the member based on the fact that adequate evidence has not been provided to the chamber to determine that no other law in Canada could deal with this.

I encourage the member to look at the Emergencies Act NOA submitted by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, especially paragraph 51. It outlines:

...the Government’s precipitous invocation of the Emergencies Act appears to have been motivated by its view that the provinces have not gone far enough in addressing intraprovincial protest. However, this does not mean that the provinces lack the capacity or authority to deal with the protests....

The provinces “have all the tools they need”, according to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It goes on to argue, “The Emergencies Act was not intended to provide the federal government a pathway to arrogate provincial powers to itself in circumstances where the provinces do not exercise those powers in the way the federal government would have.”

Can the member provide any form of evidence to the chamber demonstrating that the federal government actually had to go as far as it did?

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

Madam Speaker, in my remarks, I specifically said that the Ottawa interim police chief concluded that without the act, the police would not have been able to do what they did. Again, former Ottawa police chief Charles Bordeleau said that invoking the Emergencies Act allowed them to set up a perimeter, allowed police to deny entry to those trying to join the protest, allowed for the banning of bringing children and minors into the designated zone, allowed for the quick seizure of money and assets involved with sustaining the occupation, allowed for vehicles to be towed and allowed for the immediate swearing in of officers from outside Ontario as police officers, among other things.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Of course, our opinions differ.

Patrick Taillon, a respected law professor at Université Laval who is well known in Quebec, told Radio-Canada today that it is not enough to argue that a law is useful based on what the Ottawa police chief says. He pointed out that the government also has to show that the use of the act is necessary or essential, saying, “That is where the government is at a disadvantage, because it is difficult to prove that it is necessary or essential when the normal legal tools were not used during the first 14 days of the crisis.”

Why go from doing nothing to the most radical solution? We are not convinced that the government tried everything before getting to this point.

In short, why did the tortoise turn into a hare?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Unfortunately, I think it was necessary to invoke this act. The specific measures set out in the Emergencies Act are limited, subject to many checks and balances, and guaranteed by Parliament, hence this debate. The measures also have to be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police have all said that they could not have overcome these obstacles without this act.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the things the Liberal government has said is that it would bring forward legislation to deal with online hate. We know that many of the people who have been radicalized have been radicalized on social media, and I am just wondering if the government is planning on bringing this legislation forward. If so, when and why not yet?