Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Victoria was not wrong when she was talking about the gravity of what we are debating today. Ultimately, on future legal tests, jurists will look back to our words here on Hansard to help them understand why the precedent was set.
My rationale is not unlike hers, which is the national capital being occupied and the fact that individuals had talked about overthrowing a democratically elected government. It was not everyone, but certainly some of the core group that was involved. Then there was the economic harm that was associated with it, the fact that members have talked about re-establishing blockades, and the fact that there has been this level of foreign funding and a real focus on the disruption of critical infrastructure.
I support those limited enforcement tools. Of course, some Conservatives are trying to make parallels to Wet'suwet'en and some of the blockades we have seen. To me, that did not give the same level of rise, because there was not a threat to overthrow a democratic government; there was not the same level of foreign financing, and it was certainly clear that it could be addressed at the municipal and provincial levels.
Could the member give those who might look back on this time a legal precedent as to whether or not she would agree with those principles of why this is being established?