Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him whether he believes the situation for which the government is taking emergency measures could be handled using the legislative tools that we already have, such as the Criminal Code or any other federal or provincial legislation in effect in Canada.

Should we not consider using other acts or legislative tools to manage the blockades and protests?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess this is what I cannot understand. I am relatively new to this parliamentary position. There are acts. There are laws. Many of my colleagues have pointed out that, with the Criminal Code, they could have nipped this in the bud and kept it under control. If they were that worried about it, where was the plan? It is so typical of the current government and of the Prime Minister. The Liberals figure they are above the law or figure they do not have to be accountable to Canadians. It is just sad how we ended up in this situation.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is dark days for our country. I am here before members, despondent, with some serious questions about the motion before us. History will look back on the debate today as a black mark on the leadership of the Prime Minister, of the government and of all those who lend their support to this gross overreach.

All members of the House have watched the lawlessness paralyzing Ottawa and the key border crossings across the country with great concern. Every single member of the House has done that no matter what people hear from those who have convinced themselves otherwise. However, never has the Emergencies Act been invoked. It has always been there but never used. In challenging times and in times of true crisis, it has always been there, but it was never used because it was viewed as a last resort and not a first resort. The motion before us today asks members to approve an act that gives the federal government enhanced powers.

As its questionable justification is being discussed in this House for the first time, Canadians are watching. Much of this debate has been mired in the hyperbole of members opposite tripping over one another to claim that any member of this House encouraged the lawlessness that they, themselves, stoked. The idea that any member of the House would support the vile elements of this protest is wrong and members of the House know it. There is no precedent for this. Instead, we are making a precedent. The points we make, the evidence we present and the tone we use will be judged by those who will look back on these dark days to ask, “How did we get here?”

Everyone has a right to peacefully protest any government policy. This is a fundamental freedom in our democracy. It protects the rights of individuals to express their views, even when those views are not shared by the elected government of the day. While these protests are a fundamental part of Canadian democracy, so too is the rule of law. The blockades that incapacitate our critical infrastructure, including our rail lines, our pipelines, our bridges and our urban downtown areas, are illegal. We cannot and should not arbitrarily decide to apply the rule of law to some situations and not others, like we are doing today, because that is not how we build precedent.

I do not think for a moment the threshold has been met to apply the Emergencies Act. This debate has failed to make that threshold known. There is no question that some in these protests and their views are alarming. They have been categorically denounced by every member of the House.

Let us be clear. Not everyone who has participated in these protests is a racist, a misogynist or a woman-hating terrorist trying to overthrow a government. Hearing members of the House suggest they are is the ugliest of politics, something Canadians have come to distrust and reject.

Some of those outside are frustrated by the government’s inability to manage a pandemic two years in without relying on tired talking points and ancient solutions that fail to hear the outcry of those disproportionally hurt by the government’s addiction to lockdowns, restrictions and mandates as the only policy response.

We hear the other side talking about the economic activity jeopardized by these blockades as the primary reason for the invocation of the Emergencies Act. While I will never disagree that our economy is fundamental to the function of our nation, I will remind these very members that for two years few of them raised questions about the economic activity in this country lost due to the heavy-handed COVID restrictions and mandates that have come to be the cornerstone of the Canadian policy response.

There have been terrorist attacks, economic collapses, national protest movements and a pandemic. Every single one of these situations were dealt with using existing laws and existing democratic processes, and at times, when absolutely necessary, municipal and provincial emergency powers.

Let me remind Canadians that there have also been national protest movements that have occupied city streets and parks for months and blockaded critical infrastructure like railways where essential democratic activity, economic activity, had been disrupted or stopped entirely. These have all been responded to within the context of existing laws, every single one of them.

Not only is it not necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act to address them, but it is frustrating to watch members of the government take credit for things that were resolved outside of the powers of this act. Two of the most serious incidents, the blockading of the Ambassador Bridge and the RCMP arrests in Alberta, were both accomplished without the need to invoke the legislation. A national emergency has a high bar for the very reason that it must actually be a national emergency. The answer to lawlessness cannot and should not be a greater level of lawlessness.

The government is asking members of the House to suspend certain laws to deal with those breaking other laws, and we are being asked to undermine democratic principles to address some who wish to see our very democracy undermined. These powers allow the government to freeze Canadians' assets with no recourse. The 76 bank accounts so far is 76 bank accounts too many. We have seen some very troubling scenes outside of this place over the last couple of days and hearing few mention it shows Canadians that this is still an insular talking club of those who show little regard for the people who do not share their views.

Less than one week ago, the Prime Minister, after 18 days of doing absolutely nothing about the situation in Ottawa, convened the cabinet on Sunday, told his caucus, informed premiers on Monday and, by press conference, later that day informed Canadians that the Emergencies Act was needed to do the very thing by last resort he failed to do by first resort.

It took days for the Prime Minister to address the House. There were no briefings, no intelligence, no committees struck and if there were evidence pointing to some serious issue of public safety, should members not have been told? If we were all under siege by terrorists waiting to breach the gate of Parliament Hill, would it not be the government's responsibility to tell members of the House not to cross the street right through the protests every day?

The story has changed more times than Canadians can keep up with today and the government's justification in the House was a calculated solution to its own political peril. The Prime Minister's vague claims that whatever he does with these currently unchecked powers will be targeted and time-limited simply is not backed up by the formal text or members of his own caucus. Nor did the text contain any detail on what he planned to do. All he was saying was “trust me”. Forgive me, he has given Canadians absolutely no reason to trust him.

At the beginning of this pandemic, the government proposed giving itself unlimited spending powers for almost two years without oversight of Parliament. They said “trust me”. The government has given itself the power to freeze the assets and finances of people involved in political protests, people who disagree with the government's COVID policy, without the courts' oversight and with no recourse available to those targeted. We cannot treat this as a foregone conclusion because we have an NDP that cannot and will not stand up for protests, for scrutiny or have any courage on this one.

If we wanted to pretend that this was not about politics, the information would have been shared immediately. Otherwise, the only conclusion of any of this is that this is all politics.

The House must approach every decision with caution. The consequences for individuals are too great if we decide to approve the use of this act, and the precedent that will be set is too great to shrug off the legitimate questions and concerns that I think are valid in this discussion. We are setting a very dangerous precedent and it would be a shame if members of the House decide to invoke a never before used disproportional act, when there are very clearly other actions the government could have taken.

We should be cautious about normalizing the use of a blunt instrument in this circumstance. If we consider using the Emergencies Act every time there is a protest that lasts a certain number of days, we have much bigger problems in our democracy. The threshold has not been met and we cannot leave the decision to politics over the real scrutiny that is required. It will be a dark chapter in our history when members of the House choose political expediency over the rights of individuals.

I implore my colleagues, those with a voice, to vote against this motion, because I certainly will.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. First of all, would the member acknowledge that the Emergencies Act brought in place by a Conservative government is subject to the charter? The charter still reigns supreme. Would she acknowledge that?

Second, how does she feel about the fact that the Conservative Party is now on the opposite side of this issue, not just with respect to where the government sits but also the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Ottawa police chief and the Conservative Premier of Ontario? All of these three have supported the government putting in place the Emergencies Act. How does she feel about those two things?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that the government's primary responsibility is peace, order and good government. There is no peace, there is no order and there is certainly no government. This act is unnecessary. It is disproportionate. It violates individual rights. It intrudes on provincial jurisdiction and it creates a very dangerous precedent.

I would implore the member, and any other members showing trepidation on continuing what is abundantly clear to Canadians wondering how this could happen here, that the member opposite should know history is forever and so is his vote on this. He has not proven to the House that there is a justification for this act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, in which she very eloquently explained all the reasons for which this legislation was not necessary.

Does my hon. colleague agree that, even if it was necessary to use the Emergencies Act in downtown Ottawa, the law could and should have been limited to this city instead of being enforced across Canada?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see where the hon. member is coming from. I laid out very clearly in my remarks that I do not think the threshold has been met. I do not think it has been met on where the act would apply or why the act should apply to begin with. There are a number of ways the government could have acted before using this. It has said to the House that this was not option one, two or three, and has not named what those options were. Instead, it just went to this without giving members of Parliament a justification. It still has not done that up to this moment.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

Since the Emergencies Act was declared last week and used this weekend, it has been with reluctance I have participated in this debate. I have done so with my heart and my mind open. I am deeply concerned with the threat to our democracy based on the demonstrations of anti-Semitism and hate we have seen within our immediate vicinity and across Canada.

Does the member agree the leaders identified as extremists have penetrated the minds of Canadians and this penetration continues to pose a threat to our democracy?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is not a single member of this House who has stood with any symbol of hate or who has said the hateful comments that have come out of the convoy have been okay. Instead of doubling down on the Prime Minister's disgusting comments last week, I will give the member the opportunity to show some courage and apologize for painting every member she does not agree with or and every member of the opposition with the same brush as an attempt to fuel hate and division in this conversation.

We are talking about the Emergencies Act, and there is no justification the government has presented for her to turn her back on her NDP voters and vote for this act.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Andreas Park, who is a finance professor at the University of Toronto, commenting on the extraordinary financial powers to freeze people's bank accounts said, “What we're doing is we're taking people who have not been charged with a crime and we're threatening them with financial ruin. It strikes me as the mob rule.”

They should be afraid of mob rules since the Minister of Justice indicated that political movements the Liberal government disapproves of should be worried. Would the member please comment on that extraordinary power?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of this House should be very concerned when a government can freeze the assets, effectively unbank and unperson a Canadian, without them having any recourse. One cannot possibly think it is okay in a democracy to freeze the assets of somebody whose opinion one does not agree with. This act goes too far and should have never been used.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me and giving me the opportunity to speak in this extraordinary debate that is taking place in this House.

It is the Sunday afternoon of the Family Day long weekend in Ontario, but here we are, as parliamentarians, debating a very important issue.

As members know, I represent the riding of Ottawa Centre. Parliament is located in the riding of Ottawa Centre. The occupation we all witnessed for over 20 days primarily took place in the riding of Ottawa Centre.

I am speaking today with a profound sense of sadness. The events we saw over the last 22 or 23 days were troubling. In particular, the attempt by police to end this illegal occupation and return my community back to its peaceful state was in fact quite sad. Over the last two days I have had a chance to speak to a lot of my constituents who have been aggrieved by this illegal occupation. I asked them how they were feeling. An overwhelming number of them are sad. They are definitely relieved, but they are also sad.

I spent some time wondering why I am feeling sad when we will hopefully have some sense of normalcy back and why the members of my community are feeling sad.

I do not think I have figured out all of the answers yet, as it is still quite raw, but I have a feeling, a sense as to what it is. I think the sadness stems from the fact that, although we live in the nation's capital, in one of the most democratic countries in the world, I have never seen the kind of illegal occupation we just saw in our community. We have never seen that many police officers descend on our community. That did not give us comfort. We are relieved they did their job and ended this occupation, but it did not give us any comfort. If anything, we feel sad it came to the point where this action was necessary to put an end to this illegal occupation and reclaim our streets and neighbourhoods so people can go back to their normal lives.

I cannot overstate the profound impact this occupation has had on my community. In fact, I talked about that with the time I have been given on the floor of this House over the last three weeks and outlined to members what my community has gone through.

I should have said this at the outset. I am not trying to be partisan, because this debate is far more important than partisanship. I am here to speak on behalf of my community. I do not think members in this House will deny that some members live in my riding of Ottawa Centre. Many of them have personally confided in me about their own experiences, such as the horn honking in the middle of the night for weeks, the hurling of fireworks in a densely populated neighbourhood, and the harassment and intimidation of people on the street as they were trying to go from one place to another and live their normal lives.

I have heard from constituents, and I have read many of those emails in this House, such as the seniors who had not been able to go grocery shopping, because they were just too concerned. None of that is partisan. I am not suggesting that every single one of those people voted for me, probably not, but they are real people with real stories of what my community has gone through. It will take some time for my community to heal from this.

As I have said before, it is not like we have been immune to protests in this community. We recognize that we live in the nation's capital. We recognize that we live in downtown Ottawa where Parliament Hill is located. We have seen protests, festivals and all kinds of marches. We accept it and recognize that it is a very important expression of a free and democratic society. However, they have been lawful and peaceful. In fact, at times there were two or three protests at a time, and we did not know they were taking place. People are free to express themselves in a peaceful and lawful way.

We never imagined that we would come to this point with a protest that should have been peaceful, that should have been legitimate with grievances cited. In the end, there were quite a few different grievances cited by people, which would have been okay had those grievances been cited in a peaceful way. Whether the protesters disagreed with vaccines, disagreed with mandates, were tired of the pandemic, did not like the government or thought that certain things that are happening in society are not correct, whatever the case may be, people are free to express their point of view. However, in a democratic society, they are expected to so in a way that does not rob other people's peace, but we saw that just evaporate in this particular operation. We saw three weekends of mayhem, intentional lawlessness and partying take place in the downtown core in a residential area where people felt unsafe. People felt threatened.

Now that we have started the process of recovering our community, we are still sad that it came to this, that we had to resort to invoking the Emergencies Act to bring law and order back into our community. That is why I am supportive of the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

I am a lawyer by training and have served as the attorney general for the Province of Ontario. I have brought that lens, that skill set, to my analysis as to why it is legitimate to invoke the Emergencies Act. The legislation is extraordinary in nature, but the history of the legislation is very interesting, because it was crafted in a manner to ensure that people's charter rights are always protected. That has been the premise of the legislation.

Let us not forget that this legislation replaced the War Measures Act, which was crafted before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into our lives as part of our Constitution. In fact, it had powers of extraordinary measure that could take away people's charter rights.

The government at the time rightly decided that the War Measures Act would not sustain the charter. It needed to repeal that act and come up with new legislation that would be charter compliant. Hence, the Emergencies Act was created.

If we look back, we can see that there was a very thorough debate by our predecessors in this House. I know it has been said before, but is worth repeating: When the government invoked this act, it was in the spirit that the measures are very targeted in geographical scope; they are temporary in nature, remaining in force for only 30 days; and the response is proportional to the situation we are dealing with. All of that is to ensure that the charter is not violated. That is what we are looking at. That is what we are working with in order to ensure that the siege of Ottawa is stopped, as has been the case now for two days, and to ensure that we put an end to blockades at our vital trade links and our border crossings and prevent them from happening. Yesterday we saw an attempt in British Columbia with the blocking of the Pacific Highway. All of those considerations are extremely important in our deliberations here in this House.

I will go back to what I know best, which is Ottawa. I have been involved since day one in all the work that has gone on that led to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, given the fact that I represent the riding of Ottawa Centre. We have engaged from the very first day with our municipal government and the provincial government in Ontario through the work the federal government was doing, whether it meant providing resources by way of the RCMP or the OPP or by providing other municipal services. These resources to put an end to this illegal occupation came not just two days ago, but over time. We made sure that we had the legal authority or legislative mechanisms to take action.

Let us not forget that this situation got to the point where the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario had to declare states of emergency, yet despite all of that, the occupation continued. It was with the powers that came through the invocation of the Emergencies Act that law enforcement authorities were able to put an end to it. One of these powers was declaring a set geographic area as a no-go zone, which in Ottawa is called the red zone, so that no protests or occupation could take place. Another power facilitated the transfer of police services from other jurisdictions to come here and enforce the law, which would otherwise have to be done by swearing in police officers to give them jurisdiction to operate in Ottawa, which takes time. Another power enabled the procuring of tow trucks so that the trucks blocking the roads in the downtown core could be towed, as we saw happen over the last 24 or 48 hours.

That is not to mention that when we learned of the sophisticated nature of this occupation, including the coordination aspects and the role of foreign money, we were able to give financial measures to FINTRAC to enable our banks to stop the flow of money that was fuelling this illegal occupation.

All these steps and measures were necessary to have a successful outcome, and we are still not out yet. I just got in to the House of Commons through I do not know how many checkpoints, because I am a member of Parliament. Imagine how sad I feel, as I was saying earlier, to see my downtown feel like a war zone. My beloved city and hometown has roadblocks all over, and I ask members, all of us, to close their eyes for a moment and imagine their communities in that state. I have stayed pretty calm all through this ordeal because I am a calm person by nature. I know that many people would not, because of the tragedy of it. I am saying this in the hope of persuading members to support this measure or at the least to demonstrate to members my reasons for supporting the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

I think my time is limited. I want to say this at the end, and I am going to speak as a fellow parliamentarian to all the members.

We are quite privileged to be the 338 people who have this incredible opportunity to serve not only our communities but our country, and I am confident when I say that every single one of us loves our country. Every single one of us is here for the same reason, which is to build Canada into an even better place than we found it. We may differ in the path we take to do it, and that is totally legitimate. I hope we do, because that exchange of ideas would result in a better path forward. That friction is a healthy friction in our democracy, but I think we are more united than we like to think, and I think it would serve us well if we remind Canadians of that unity as well.

I have been listening to a lot of this rhetoric that we are developing about how we are so divided. I disagree. We may have our disagreements, but as a country we are not divided. When I look at the number of people who have gotten themselves vaccinated, I see that it is over 80%. Have we ever seen Canadians agree that much on anything? Over 80% of Canadians being fully vaccinated tells us how united we are to get through this pandemic, which has been terrible and devastating to all of us, and I think that is the unease and the anxiety that we feel right now.

If I asked members right now to raise their hands if they love their country, to raise their hands if they love their province or their territory, to raise their hands if they love their city, their town, their village or their hamlet, to raise their hands if they love their community, to raise their hands if they love their family, we will see that we have more in common than divides us. Let us work together.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was in the House yesterday when that member yelled across the floor to a colleague of mine from B.C. in the official opposition, asking them something to the effect of how they would feel if something like this was happening in their community.

I just want to remind the member that last year a huge portion of B.C., my riding and neighbouring ridings in particular, had extensive fires, floods, mudslides, lives lost, houses burnt, substantial infrastructure destroyed and livelihoods destroyed. The member talked about having to go through some checkpoints to get to his office; in British Columbia, for many days and weeks, many members of Parliament could not get around their constituencies and could not even get to the airport to come to Ottawa. It just shows a disconnect with what is happening across the rest of the country.

The member is in the government and knows the serious crisis that we had. Just as a reflection, the act defines an emergency as a situation that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians”. Based on that, was this member involved last summer, due to the serious situations happening in British Columbia, and did he advocate invoking the Emergencies Act at that time, or is he only considering—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my heart ached as a Canadian when I saw communities in British Columbia going through the torturing heat or the flooding that I have seen just recently, or the parts of the country that experienced forest fires.

This is a big country, and what binds us, unites us and glues us together is that we care for each other, so I say that I will stand with the member opposite, shoulder to shoulder, if her community goes through a disaster. I will listen to her carefully, because she will be in a better position to share with the rest of us what her community has gone through, as I am sharing with her how my community feels, and I will find ways to work with her.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member raised an incredibly important point of law around the protection of our rights and freedoms under our charter. It is necessary for him to clearly answer this point in order for us to fully understand the scale and scope of powers granted under the provisions of the proclamation.

I know the hon. member to be a learned lawyer who would have some knowledge of this incredibly important point of law as the former attorney general of Ontario. Will he please confirm and clearly state whether the rights afforded by the charter remain whole and intact; or is the government, through its declaration, attempting to surreptitiously rescue any potential charter breaches, violations and abuses of government authority through section 1 of the charter and thereby being compliant, as he has so far stated? The public and this House deserve to know.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. He and I had the opportunity to work on very important charter-related issues when we were banning the practice of carding in the province of Ontario. The member was a city councillor then, and he and I worked together on that particular aspect.

The essence of the Emergencies Act is to ensure that charter rights are protected. That is very much the intention and motivation behind it. It states so within the legislation itself. We also have to remember that the charter rights come with reasonable limits. There are reasonable limits that allow for charter rights. For example, as long as a protest is a peaceful and lawful expression of ideas, that is within the charter rights, but if it becomes not peaceful or becomes unlawful, then there is recourse available to ensure that the protest or, in this instance, an occupation almost four weeks long, a total siege, can be put to an end.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Does he believe that Canada's current laws and the provinces' current resources and powers are so insufficient as to warrant federal intervention when a protest takes place or streets get blocked? If so, should we expect the Emergencies Act to be invoked every time there is a protest on Wellington Street in Ottawa?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, what we have to remember in this instance is that for over three weeks, we were not able to put an end to the occupation. It continued on. Different tactics were used, with the application of existing law being present, but our law enforcement agencies were not able to end this occupation.

Through the provision of powers, some of which I articulated, and their application, law enforcement was able to end the occupation. We heard that from our local interim police chief in Ottawa. These powers that were given to him through the Emergencies Act gave him sufficient tools to end the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for his speech.

I certainly appreciated his analysis of the events based on his experience and his perspective as a lawyer and former attorney general of Ontario.

I would actually like to ask my colleague to tell us, based on that perspective, what test needs to be met to make the Emergencies Act necessary.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the test is in the legislation. There has to be a threat that is national in scope. We did not have the tools available that could deal with that.

This emergency is national in scope. It has impacted pretty much the entire country. There is not only the occupation of downtown Ottawa, but also the blockades that we saw in Windsor, in Manitoba at the Emerson crossing, in Coutts, Alberta and, most recently, in British Columbia. Certain tactics have been used to impede not only people's lives, like in the case of Ottawa, but also the commerce and economic viability of the country.

The tools that were available to use were not sufficient to put an end to it. This is not to mention the financial aspect, which is very necessary and very much part and parcel of this emergency declaration.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for some good points. I disagree with some of them, but he is debating in a strong parliamentary fashion.

I disagree with some of the things he said. As mentioned, under the Emergencies Act, the key test is whether or not existing laws in Canada can solve the problems we face. In the case of Ottawa, and I have been in and out of the city since the truckers' protest began, the actions we saw in the last couple of days were a reflection not so much of the fact that we needed the Emergencies Act, but that the Ottawa police had finally started to act. At the very beginning, we could have avoided some of the challenges that we have today if the Ottawa police had taken a different approach from the onset.

The member opposite is the former attorney general of Ontario. There have been many cases in Ontario where a large police presence was required, such as the G20 summit a number of years ago. It had a huge police presence and was able to contain a large crowd.

I still have not received enough evidence from the government to determine that no other existing laws could have effectively dealt with the current situation.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that politicians cannot dictate to law enforcement how to apply the law. We have to rely on law enforcement to do the work.

We have heard from our interim police chief that the Emergencies Act allowed him to do the important work he has done, with the help of many other police services, including the RCMP and the OPP, to put an end to this illegal occupation here in Ottawa.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fredericton.

I have listened quite intently to the debate that has been ongoing on the question of the emergency measures act. While I am sometimes disappointed in the partisan and petty level of debate coming from the opposition benches, I think there are some things we can agree on as a House.

We can agree that all Canadians are protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that it is our job as MPs in this House to protect those rights, including the right to expression, to peaceful assembly and to the safety and security of the person. We can agree that the majority of Canadians are frustrated and tired of this COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed the lives of over 34,000 Canadians.

We can agree that our Prime Minister did not create COVID-19 or this global pandemic. He and his government created measures to combat it, with the objective of protecting Canadians' health and safety. We can agree that a convoy of protesters drove for days, uninhibited, to Ottawa to protest various provincial and some federal regulations. For at least three weeks, they blocked major streets and were allowed to set up tents, speak their minds and express their feelings.

We can agree that the organizers of this convoy-turned occupation officially called for the fall of this democratically elected government and its replacement by people of their own choosing. We can agree that crowd-sourcing efforts raised millions of dollars for this occupation, and that over 50% of that funding came from foreign lands. We can agree that the Ambassador Bridge was blocked by these protesters for many days, causing hundreds of millions of dollars lost in trade per day, and that those losses still continue.

We can agree that lethal weapons were seized in Coutts, Alberta from protesters and over a dozen people were charged with conspiracy to commit murder. We can agree that children were used as shields in Ottawa and on the Ambassador Bridge. We also agree that Canada is a federation, with separation of powers outlined in our Constitution, and that those powers include policing powers, where provinces take leadership, including in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and so forth.

I have received thousands of emails from across Canada, and not just from my own riding, from people who are confused and scared. Some were repeating misinformation about what is happening in our country. My job as a member of Parliament is to listen to all voices in my riding and balance the diverse ideas into a consensus that I then represent in this esteemed House. I will continue to try to clear up some of that misinformation that has been disseminated irresponsibly by some in this very place.

This convoy does not represent all truckers, and it has been condemned by all major trucking organizations across Canada. I have heard from truckers living in Mississauga—Erin Mills, and they have expressed to me their disgust with the actions we are seeing from certain participants in the convoy. They pleaded with me not to judge them for the protesters' actions, because they do not represent them or their industry.

I do not believe that every person supporting these convoys has behaved in this way. For many, this was a way to express their frustration with the pandemic. The fact is that these incidents keep happening. They keep encroaching on the rights of Canadians, and it needs to stop. When it comes to this issue, the majority of Canadians do not care about a person's politics and they do not care about what colour a person's party is. This behaviour just cannot be defended and our citizens have demanded action.

When these convoys arrived in the GTA, the greater Toronto area, we saw that appropriate police action could minimize the harm and damage to local residents. We need to understand why Ottawa had so much trouble. I appreciate that the hard-working women and men of our police services and our federal government have been responding since day one with all the support we could provide under normal circumstances. To be honest, I am disappointed that the provincial and local leadership could not handle policing these demonstrations to ensure that Ottawa citizens were treated with respect and that our supply chains were secure.

After two weeks of what we saw here, the Premier of Ontario declared a state of emergency and called for greater tools from our federal government to take action, which could be administered only through the Emergencies Act. Instead of leaving Ontario out in the cold, our government is invoking this legislation, after careful consideration and after exhausting all other measures, to provide these greater tools to local authorities to address the situation.

We are taking action to keep Canadians safe, to protect people's jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. If we look outside, we will see that the emergency orders we are debating right now are already helping local law enforcement restore safety and a sense of normality to the streets of Ottawa.

After weeks on end of working day and night, they now have the tools they need to enforce the law, thanks to the federal government. Citizens should be able to walk freely without the fear of being harassed. They have the right to safety and security. Small businesses in the downtown core should be able to open their doors to the public again without fearing for their safety and that of their staff. These organizers have had weeks to address the hate symbols and disturbing statements, weeks to root out the participants who are putting the citizens of Ottawa in danger, weeks to leave and go home. They refused at every turn, and that is what brought us to today.

The Prime Minister has said this over and over again and I will say it once more. These measures are temporary. To be clear, the Emergencies Act does not involve the military and will not be used to limit people's freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

In fact, the Emergencies Act requires that any steps taken be reasonable and proportionate to the situation. There is a strict time limit of 30 days, unless the House votes to extend, and the House of Commons has the power to revoke these measures at any time. It will not prevent people from peacefully protesting. It will certainly not infringe on individual rights, which will always be protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There must also be a joint review by Parliament, including the Senate, to ensure that all requirements under the act were followed and justified. Residents in Erin Mills have told me that they would expect such a review to also scrutinize the response of provincial and municipal governments and why they needed to kick this issue up to the federal government.

We must maintain the appropriate balance between Canadians' rights and their freedoms, including the right to peacefully protest. At the same time, we must protect the safety and well-being of Canadians and of our nation's supply chains. I assure my constituents that I will be the first to defend them against government erosion of their rights. I sincerely do not believe that these powers are abusive, and I sincerely do believe they will help to restore peace and order and the rule of law in our Canada.

I recognize that we are all tired of the pandemic and we are all tired of the public health measures that have separated us from our loved ones for over two years. We want life to go back to a semblance of normalcy, and that is what we are all working towards every single day.

Our government has already been loosening certain restrictions at the federal level that pertain to travel, and will continue to do so at a pace that ensures that Canadians' health and safety are protected.

If we are to live with COVID-19, then we need to make COVID-19 livable for everyone, especially vulnerable residents for whom this virus is a death sentence.

I am encouraging all of us to take a step back and start connecting with our residents on the ground rather than with spectators on social media, to take the time to clear up the misconceptions and misinformation that are beginning to fester in our grassroots. It is time we really talked about the real issues, and I am looking forward to spending time this coming week connecting with Erin Mills and celebrating Black History Month the way we should.

I look forward to hearing from constituents about our ongoing budget, which is our plan forward out of the pandemic and out of this economic downturn.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act allows the government powers without judicial oversight. That is what is going to happen. The Emergencies Act removes judicial oversight regarding the freezing of bank accounts.

Earlier today, members on the Liberal side mentioned 73 bank accounts have been frozen. Andreas Park, a finance professor at the University of Toronto, expressed alarm at the scope of the government's financial measures. He says, “It doesn't just raise eyeballs, it makes your head explode.” He believes that Canadians have a “fundamental right to participate in the economy”.

What the member supports is that without judicial oversight, the government can order financial institutions to freeze bank accounts. Does she think that is right? How will charter rights be protected if there is no recourse? Will people have to go to their financial institution? Do they have to go to court?

There are also civil liabilities. The banks are protected when they do this, so if they do it in error to someone, how will a person have recourse during this so-called emergency the government is claiming?