Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her intervention and share her concern about extremism and the kind of heckling we have seen today, particularly from the official opposition, which is undermining it. It is particularly concerning when 45%, according to new reports, support this extremist convoy leadership.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague feels the same way I do, that it is unfortunate that we are here and the only reason we are here is the failure of all levels of government, including institutions such as the Ottawa Police Service, to actually deal with this matter.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I agree 100%. We have seen weapons seized: 14 firearms, sets of body armour, a machete and large quantities of ammunition, including high-capacity magazines. There are charges for conspiracy to commit murder. We are seeing white supremacy rear its ugly head. We knew it was there.

The government needs to take action in the future, after this emergency is over, to address the white supremacist rhetoric and groups that so clearly exist in our country.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would first like to acknowledge that I am attending this sitting virtually from the traditional territory of the Kanyen'kehà:ka Mohawk people. I will be sharing my time with the member for Etobicoke North.

I too would like to thank all parliamentary employees, as well as the Parliamentary Protective Service, which always keeps us safe. It is thanks to them and their hard work that we are able to do our job today.

The first time I went to a protest, I sat in a carriage with my mother on the streets of Santiago. We lived in a country where peaceful protests were illegal and where the police were politically controlled by a dictatorship, which is a non-democratically elected government.

My family and I came to Canada as political refugees. As Patrick Lagacé so aptly said, “Real dictatorships do not mess around.” They do not let truckers camp out in the streets of their capital city, waving banners that openly insult the government. No, real dictatorships do not have as much respect for the rule of law. They do not have a charter of rights and freedoms that guarantees protections to all.

I am also hearing my colleagues talk about the tragic events of the October crisis in 1970, and I can understand that. I can understand that Quebeckers are not comfortable, given the trauma they may have experienced in the past. I understand that invoking the Emergencies Act reawakened and reinforced this sentiment.

However, that context was very different from today's, and drawing parallels between the two laws is an undesirable shortcut. It politicizes a historical context that is different from the one we have today. Based on the calls I have received and the conversations I have had, especially with my constituents, people can differentiate the past from the present.

Our government invoked the Emergencies Act because the current situation warrants it. We saw what happened over the weekend. For 24 days now, blockades have been illegally disrupting Canadians' lives and have impacted our economy and public safety.

The trucks came to town to protest vaccine mandates, but the protest rapidly morphed into an occupation of the city by people who openly and officially stated that their goal was to overthrow the government. This protest was a total violation of the public order.

As someone from a family of left-wing socialist activists, am I happy that the Emergencies Act has been invoked? Definitely not. In the current context, however, it is the responsible choice. This legislation does not seek to remove the right to protest, which is essential in a democracy. It is a right that we need in order to defend all our other rights. Historically, protests have led to significant political and social changes.

Every international human rights instrument recognizes the right to peaceful protest and its importance to freedom of expression, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is no exception. We have seen it before: a peaceful protest is the historic march involving half a million people who took to the streets of Montreal to protest climate change in 2019. It is the thousands of young people who stood up for students' rights in 2012.

What we are seeing in Ottawa is not a peaceful protest, but a coordinated occupation and obstruction, and acts and threats targeting the very foundation of our democracy. Tamara Lich is not a trucker. She was the secretary of the separatist Maverick Party and creator of the convoy's GoFundMe campaign. The speculation that the movement benefited from foreign funding donated with a view to destabilizing Canada has now been made public.

Jessica Davis, an author and former employee of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, said, “Is it possible that some of this money is coming in from overseas? I think that this is a very important hypothesis to explore.”

The right to protest cannot be used to occupy a city. The right to protest cannot be used to put a city under siege. The right to protest cannot be used to prevent people from going to work. The right to protest cannot be used to scare and harass residents and force them to remove their masks.

Obviously, we must protect the right to protest peacefully. However, we know that the situation is no longer peaceful and that many laws have been and continue to be broken.

In a democracy, we must take a stand against those who threaten and assault people and prevent them from living freely. At no time should the right to protest infringe on others' rights and freedoms. The freedom to protest also comes with its set of responsibilities.

The purpose of the Emergencies Act is not to infringe on Canadians' rights and freedoms—quite the contrary. The Act has a specific, limited and targeted scope. It allows the government to call in essential services, like tow trucks, and enables the RCMP to take quicker action to enforce compliance with local laws. These measures are targeted, temporary and proportional.

The specific measures in the Emergencies Act are subject to numerous checks and safeguards by Parliament. These measures must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are all tired of this pandemic. We all want to get back to normal and be done with the health measures. The past two years have been difficult for everyone. Everyone feels that way.

Canadians stepped up and followed public health guidelines in order to keep their loved ones safe. I witnessed it in my own riding, where people were helping each other and proving how resilient they are. A crisis like the one we have been in for the past two years really highlights the solidarity between businesses and people.

The presence of trucks in the city, the occupation and the blockades have direct consequences for businesses. These are real consequences that are jeopardizing businesses, both big and small, as well as Canadians' livelihoods.

We have been through two years of the pandemic, and Canadians do not need another test of their resilience. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home. Now is the time for us to fight for an end to this pandemic, to think about the recovery, about our future together, as Canadians, in a country that unequivocally condemns systemic discrimination, that works to end poverty and that fights to help our communities thrive. Now is not the time to sow division. Now is the time to come together and work with one another.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, who is a parliamentary secretary, the following question: When will the implementation of the Emergencies Act end, since the protesters in Ottawa have been dispersed and the blockades at the border were removed before the act was even invoked? When will the special powers that the government is asking for end?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

As he is well aware, the act that was invoked gives us a 30-day period during which it can be revoked. We hope to be able to revoke it as quickly as possible.

That said, this act is necessary because it will enable us to grant the powers and tools needed to restore order and security for the people of Ottawa, as well as for people anywhere else in the country, should that be necessary.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to commend you and the other speakers for presiding over this debate with impartiality and care. I know it has not always been easy, given what is at stake.

I would like to thank the member for Hochelaga for her remarks outlining the Emergencies Act and summarizing all the ways it may come into effect over these next 30 days. I want to pay particular attention to the ways FINTRAC and the tracking of dark money coming into the country could be extended beyond these Emergencies Act measures.

What does the hon. member believe her government can do, beyond the Emergencies Act, to ensure that we do not fall back into the same type of event where we have foreign monies flooding over our borders to fund illegal activities?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

I believe that it is important to be aware that the act is subject to a process of parliamentary transparency and oversight. In addition, we must ensure compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Obviously, understanding where the funding for the protests in Ottawa came from is crucial. Surely, it comes from beyond our borders. All of this will be done under the watchful eye of Parliament and in a way that respects people's rights. It will be done in order to obtain the answers that I believe Canadians deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask specifically about the safeguards available in the Emergencies Act. Could the member highlight some of the safeguards in place as we invoke the act?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As he knows full well, the Emergencies Act must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We must also be transparent about everything that goes on in Parliament. Lastly, we will be able to revoke the act at any time we deem it is no longer needed.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Deputy House Leader of the Government]

Mr. Speaker, what I have always loved about this place, the people's House, is that it represents our great country of Canada. Each day we have the opportunity to listen to our colleagues and friends here in the House, who represent and serve their constituents from every corner of the country. This is the place where we come together to challenge and debate ideas by always putting Canadians first.

Canadians are hurting. It has been a long, hard two years. Families have lost loved ones and friends. Many had to say goodbye over Zoom, never getting to see their family, hold their hand or give them comfort. They have lost businesses, and health care and emergency professionals have been tirelessly fighting COVID-19 day in and day out for two years. Families, communities and Canadians have been fighting COVID-19 in their own way. The silent majority of Canadians understand that the past two years have been about a public health crisis. When Canadians are hurting, it is our job to work even harder to come together, to lose the rhetoric, to lower the temperature, especially during volatile times, and to find a better way forward for all of us, for our children and for our most vulnerable.

I think we can agree that our Constitution is founded on the values of peace, order and good government, and that people have the right to peaceful protest. I think we can also agree that the blockades have caused major damage to our economy. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge alone has affected about $390 million in trade each day. This bridge supports 30% of all trade by road between Canada and the United States, our most important trading partner. In Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. In Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade has been lost to the blockades. These costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers, just as everyone is working hard to recover from the economic damage caused by COVID-19.

I think we can agree that blocking trade routes, hurting the Canadian economy and preventing food and medicine from being delivered is not okay. Blocking life-saving ambulances, preventing cancer treatment appointments and the picking up of prescriptions, and forcing hospitals to take on extra security is not okay.

I think we can also agree emphatically that desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is not okay, and that none of us ever wants to see a Nazi swastika flown anywhere in Canada. However, this sacred tomb has been desecrated. It is a place of national remembrance, a place that must be respected at all times. Nazi swastikas have been flown here and around Parliament Hill. This is not peaceful protest. Rather, these are heinous and incendiary acts that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

The Nazi swastika symbolizes a regime that murdered six million Jews. It has an unimaginable and transgenerational impact on Holocaust survivors and on families that lost mothers, brothers, sisters, grandparents and loved ones. It is beyond disgusting and horrific that people would use symbols like the Nazi swastika, symbols that are like daggers, that are meant to hurt and meant to cause pain. In Germany, the public display of the Nazi swastika is punishable by jail time. It is our shared responsibility to remember those who suffered under the Nazi regime, to protect the truth, to confront those who seek to deny, to support research and documentation and to teach about the Holocaust so that education may prevent anti-Semitism and all forms of racism.

It is also our job to protect children, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. On Friday, Ottawa police reported that protesters had put children between police operations and the unlawful protest site. No child should ever be put in harm's way, let alone in the middle of a demonstration where a police operation is unfolding.

Canadians do not want finger pointing. They do not want name-calling. They do not want blaming other levels of government. They want us to work together to put an end to this. Canadians understand that what was happening in Ottawa was no longer a lawful protest, but rather an illegal occupation. In fact, a national survey shows two-thirds of Canadians support the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act and believe that it is time to restore order and peace in Ottawa.

As elected officials, our first responsibility is to protect those we serve. How would we feel if what we have been witnessing in Ottawa were happening in other communities that we serve? How would we feel if businesses, schools and vaccine clinics were closed? How would we feel if people were driving trucks around elementary schools and neighbourhoods, and swearing at and intimidating children? How would we feel if major arteries were blocked, access roads to airports were blocked or highly flammable materials were near campfires? How would we feel if public safety were threatened through deliberate acts of discrimination, displays of hate symbols, harassment, physical assault and vandalism?

On Friday, the gridlock in our capital city reached a sad climax when Ottawa police reported that protesters had assaulted officers and tried to remove their weapons. In response, city, provincial and federal law enforcement officers began an operation Friday morning to remove protesters along with their vehicles. One person was arrested after throwing a bicycle toward a police horse. By the end of yesterday, more than 170 were arrested and 53 vehicles were towed.

This unprecedented situation prompted the House to be shuttered Friday out of an abundance of caution, and it was agreed to by all political parties. Let us actually break that down a bit. While people talked about freedom and the importance of protecting freedom, on Friday, the freedom to speak in the House, the seat of our democracy, had to be suspended to protect the health and safety of everyone who works in the precinct.

All of us have heard from people in our communities with varying perspectives, but it is clear that the majority of Canadians want this to stop and that a majority support the Emergencies Act. The actions we have witnessed these past weeks go far beyond what we accept as free speech. The Nazi swastika and other hate symbols threaten democracy itself. Protests that embrace such symbols and that have connections outside our country threaten our democracy. How we choose to act in this chamber, what we choose to say and what we learn will really matter as we recover from COVID-19 and this illegal occupation.

My hope is that we will choose to make our flag a hopeful rallying point, with more and more people feeling they belong, they matter and they are included. We must choose to make our political dialogue peaceful and respectful and choose to think about how to regulate and prevent the spread of hate speech and other forms of misinformation. Canada's silent majority must be given a greater voice. After all, the silent majority is winning the war against the pandemic. Together, we must rebuild a better, brighter future for all.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely 100% agree, as do all members on this side of the House, that the swastika does represent hate and is certainly a repugnant, abhorrent symbol. However, on Wednesday, we witnessed what I would say was one of the worst incidents of an attack on a member in my six years in the House. We saw the Prime Minister attack a Jewish member of the House, the member for Thornhill, who is a descendant of Holocaust survivors. He suggested she was standing with those who were displaying the swastika. It was the Prime Minister who said this.

Will the member condemn the Prime Minister for that statement?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend for the question. He and I attended high school together.

This is an opportunity to remember the six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust, along with the Roma and Sinti, and countless other victims of its unprecedented horror. We can never forget the systemic extermination and genocide during the Nazi regime. Today, we must also recognize that the world is witnessing an alarming increase in anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia and hate.

We must pledge to always be vigilant, to stand against the Nazi swastika and other symbols of hate, and to uphold human rights and dignity for all. We must refute those who seek to distort facts and commit to educating new generations, upholding the truth, embracing equality and protecting the rights of the most vulnerable.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We heard her present a long list of isolated incidents.

Does my colleague think it is right for the government to invoke an act with such huge ramifications in order to deal with isolated incidents?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, children should be able to go to school and go to the doctor unimpeded, and families should be able to go to the hospital unimpeded. One Nazi swastika is too many.

For weeks, blockades have been illegally disrupting the lives of Canadians, harming our economy and endangering public safety, and it became clear that there were serious challenges to local law enforcement's ability to effectively enforce the law. The Emergencies Act supplements provincial and territorial authorities to address the blockades and occupation to keep Canadians safe, protect people's jobs and restore confidence in our institutions.

This debate is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and restoring faith in our institutions.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the House over the past several days, we have heard quite the debate about what kinds of things are going on outside of the House. Is it a protest? Is it a friendly protest? Is it an illegal occupation? I know where I stand on this, but I find that division extremely dangerous as well.

Could the member please explain to the House why she shares the opinion that downplaying what is going on as just a friendly protest is so dangerous?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to understand that when we see a Nazi swastika, we cannot dismiss it as a few bad apples. One flag is too many.

Let me be clear that the measures we are discussing today are targeted, temporary and proportionate. They are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, subject to democratic debate, which we are having now through this very weekend, and subject to a vote.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, we heard a speech from the member for Carleton, who talked about everything to do with blockades but neglected to talk about the situation here in Ottawa. I thought it was a little bit disturbing that a leadership hopeful would take the opportunity to talk about everything to do with his campaign except for the issues that his own constituents in the Ottawa region face.

Can the member account for the disinterest and the lackadaisical approach that the member for Carleton has taken as it relates to the blockades and what is happening here in Ottawa?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Canadians are tired. They want the blockades to end and they want their lives and neighbourhoods back. Going forward, we must work to bring people together, choose to make our political dialogue peaceful and respectful, and choose to think about how to regulate and prevent the spread of hate speech and other forms of misinformation.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the debate we are having on the Emergencies Act is the most important and significant debate Parliament will have in a generation. Canadians are watching what we do. I have never received more emails and phone calls from my constituents since I have been elected. The vote on such unprecedented powers should not be taken lightly by any member of the House. This is not just another vote on another bill. It is setting a precedent in the House of Commons the people of this nation will judge for generations to come. This is not a vote that will impact a few Canadians. It is a decision that will impact the lives of every single Canadian from coast to coast to coast.

I want to begin by discussing how we got here, before I tell the House why I believe the use of the Emergencies Act is not warranted in this situation. The Prime Minister is responsible for this mess. He pushed Canadians to the breaking point. He stripped them of their dignity. He deprived them of their livelihoods. He made absolutely no attempt to unite this country or heal divisions. He pitted friends against friends, neighbours against neighbours and kids against parents. While other world leaders encouraged and supported their citizens to get vaccinated, the Prime Minister pressured, insulted and demonized ours. Our Prime Minister is not a leader, and history will show that he is not fit to lead our nation.

When faced with a growing crisis, he made no attempt to resolve the problem, and now the Prime Minister is trying to cover up his own inaction with a dramatic political performance. I should remind members of the House that the Prime Minister was not confined to two options in addressing the state of affairs we face today. This was not a binary choice between choosing not to do anything and choosing to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has decided to go from zero to 100 without attempting to solve the problem.

Parliamentarians have been urging the Prime Minister to resolve the situation at hand. Last week, Conservatives put forward a reasonable solution to resolve it. We introduced a motion calling on the government to present a plan on when Canadians could regain control of their lives. Canadians saw a glimmer of hope, but the government voted against the plan for them. The Liberals could have de-escalated the situation, but they chose not to for their own political gain. The government never attempted to de-escalate the situation. We should not have ever gotten to this point.

The question we are debating today is not whether the blockades should come down. We should not tolerate blockades on any occasion. They are illegal and must be removed. I thank law enforcement for doing its job on that front. The question we are debating today is whether the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used before in our nation's history, is an appropriate and justified response to the situation our nation is facing. When I read the criteria for implementing the Emergencies Act, it is clear that the extreme use of this government power is not only excessive for the situation at hand, but also an infringement on some of our very basic freedoms.

The House must ask itself what constitutes a national emergency to give the government such extreme and excessive powers. Section 2 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as meeting one of two criteria. Does it “seriously endanger the lives, health or safety of Canadians”, and is it “of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”?

Let us examine section 2(a). Does the situation we are encountering exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it? The answer is no. The provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all publicly opposed the Prime Minister's use of the Emergencies Act, and the illegal blockades at the Coutts border in Alberta, the Emerson border in Manitoba and the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario have all been resolved with the tools and resources available to those provinces.

The Emergencies Act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that existing laws cannot address.

The government has failed to provide any evidence that we cannot end illegal blockades without the use of the Emergencies Act. There is a stark difference between inaction and not having the ability to act. Parliament has clearly heard that the government could have used existing legislation to address the situation, but failed to do so. Now the government faces court challenges from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Constitution Foundation for failing to meet the threshold defined in the act.

Let us examine section 2(b). Does this “seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada”? Does the situation we are encountering threaten the sovereignty of our nation? Again, the answer is no. Our sovereignty is not in question.

Do members of the House believe that semi trucks on Parliament Hill threaten our territorial integrity? The government has provided zero evidence to support such an extreme assumption, and now there are more questions than there are answers.

Suppose a grandmother donated $20 to feed local truckers four weeks ago. Will she be treated as someone who funded a terrorism activity, and be barred from using her bank account? Suppose a Canadian walks down to the main street in their local community to peacefully voice their concerns with their government. Will they be arrested and criminally charged for peacefully protesting?

We have faced many crises in my lifetime: the Oka crisis, the aftermath of 9/11, the Parliament Hill shooting, deadly wildfires, historic floods, the pandemic and many blockades, just to name a few. Not once have such powers been needed to address these problems. Invoking such extreme measures without meeting the high threshold outlined in the act is setting a dangerous precedent of government overreach. Who are we as a nation if we normalize the use of emergency powers? I encourage all the members of the House not to dilute the magnitude of the decision on this vote.

To my NDP colleagues, who I hear plan to support the Prime Minister in this excessive power grab, I want to remind them of the words of their former leader, Tommy Douglas, who famously took a principled stand and opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. He stood in this same democratic chamber and stated:

The fact is, and this is very clear, that the government has panicked and is now putting on a dramatic performance to cover up its own ineptitude.

Those words could not be truer today. This is nothing more than a dramatic performance to cover up the Liberals' own ineptitude. I also want to remind my NDP colleagues that disagreeing with the demonstrations and disagreeing with the Emergencies Act are not mutually exclusive. They can do both.

We have a decision to make. Will we stand up for the freedoms of Canadians, or will we hand over the unprecedented reins of power to a Prime Minister who has shown no respect for our democratic institutions? The Prime Minister thinks he is leaving behind a legacy, when he is really leaving behind a scar that will take years to heal.

I will be voting against the Emergencies Act, and I encourage every other member in the House to do the same as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his acknowledgement of the illegality of the blockades. I know that he referenced the steps undertaken by the government. I am wondering if he had a chance to read the “Report to the Houses of Parliament: Emergencies Act Consultations”. It is an eight-page report that was tabled. It outlines all of the measures undertaken by the government, including the Prime Minister and a number of ministers who were involved with this.

Could he comment on why he feels that this is inadequate? This does really outline the urgent manner in which this issue has been addressed throughout the government since the beginning.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the bottom line is that they are words on paper. I wonder what kind of relationship they have with those provinces. I wonder how many times the actual Prime Minister just happened to talk personally to all of the officials who were involved. Did they actually sit down and ask what they could do with the tools available?

When the trucks started showing up there, they had weeks of advance warning to say, “Here, we better get ready for something”, but no. They waited. They waited three weeks to do something, and then they put on laws and put in acts that control everybody in Canada. It is just unacceptable.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last couple of days, I know my office has been receiving literally thousands of emails. I suspect that colleagues across all parties are receiving the emails, particularly as they relate to the Emergencies Act and the concern that Canadians are now waking up to as they start to better understand just the expansive overreach of the state into their lives. I just wonder if the member can comment on that.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, overreach is something we have not talked about in the House. I got an email yesterday from a person who has been charged under this act, a family. The husband was out here protesting. They had their truck confiscated and taken away. The mom was at home. She had nothing to do with the protest, nothing like that at all. Meanwhile, she has a one-year-old baby she is looking after. She went to get some groceries and realized that their accounts had been seized. They are shut right down, no credit card, no bank account, nothing. Meanwhile, her husband was out here just doing his thing, having a protest.

[An hon. member]

How is that standing up for Canadians?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine having that kind of thing happen, when someone has nothing to do with the organization at all.