Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

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

I am sorry to interrupt.

Can I ask hon. members to avoid making noise while their colleagues are speaking?

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, in 1988 under the Conservatives, Parliament debated for months the new Emergencies Act, and up until this week it was never used. The question on everyone's mind in the House is whether the current government should have invoked the Emergencies Act. We have asked the government for weeks what it was doing to defuse the convoy. Many MPs from the opposition side had dialogue with the protesters. In fact, I was one of them. I listened to a number of Saskatchewan drivers who made their way to the nation's capital. That is our job as members of Parliament, to listen to other views that, at times, we may not agree with. That is the tough part of this job, but we have to listen.

I found it surprising today that a number of parliamentary secretaries from the government side actually admitted that they, too, were on the street talking with their constituents. That is a shock, because the government never admitted that until today. While it is true that there were many different views being represented in this city, it is entirely unfair to categorize all protesters as fringe extremists. This was the Prime Minister's first reaction in the House. He has a pattern of saying divisive and derogatory things when he is faced with major issues that he is not equipped to handle.

We saw a prime example of this just last week when the Prime Minister hurled a very disgraceful insult at my friend and our colleague, the member for Thornhill, a granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, accusing her of supporting a profoundly immoral ideology, the same evil ideology that claimed millions of innocent Jews during the Holocaust. He still today has not apologized. That is shameful for the leader of this country.

With regard to the current debate surrounding the Emergencies Act, I do not believe the Prime Minister has met the key thresholds outlined to invoke this act, but we have seen in the last 23 days or so that it lies at the feet of the Prime Minister and his cabinet. The government has totally mismanaged this situation. It could have ended, like the blockades at Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, without the need for the Emergencies Act. All four or five of those incidents I just spoke about actually did not need the Emergencies Act. A protest happened, and it was quietly done away with.

Why did the Prime Minister then go from zero to 100% without any action or even any dialogue? The key to conflict resolution is to work with people. We all know that. We try desperately on each side to work with people, but using derogatory and divisive language only fans the flames of disagreement, which we certainly saw in the last 23 days. We are all aware that there were some people protesting here in this city with abhorrent, racist views, and I will be crystal clear that I condemn this behaviour and all those views without any reservation.

Let us make no mistake. The events of the last month and the government's mishandling of them will go down in history as one of the darkest times in this country.

Lots has been said in the House about the foreign money coming into this country with the convoy. GoFundMe froze the funds and returned some to the donors, and then GiveSendGo's website was mysteriously hacked, revealing the names and email addresses of those who contributed to the protests. I can tell members that many Canadians, 48%, donated to this cause. We know Canadians coast to coast to coast have donated $5, $10, $20, $50 or more. In fact, in my province of Saskatchewan, over 1,300 people contributed to the convoy. Of those donations out of my province, 72% were under $100, so we are talking about $10, $20, $50 and so on.

I have talked with people who donated and who are now very worried that their bank accounts will be frozen. This is just a terrifying situation for many innocent people who have made modest donations to a cause they supported. The potential for this to severely damage their personal and even business finances is extremely distressing, and it should be for all Canadians. Canadians should not have to worry that their finances are in danger of ruin by the government because they supported this protest. Yes, I do understand that there are extreme cases where this becomes a factor, but in this situation, the government is being heavy-handed, punitive and trying to control by fear.

I have received dozens of emails on this matter. I am just going to give three examples, because I have received a big pile over the last three days. On Thursday, I received an email from a woman in my riding saying she donated to the convoy. She is now scared that her bank account will be frozen. The next day she went down to the bank and withdrew a sizable amount of money. Members should think about that. The next day, Friday morning, she is down at the bank saying she wants to withdraw most of her money.

A senior in my riding is most disturbed that the government is targeting individual bank accounts. There is another email saying that freezing Canadians' personal or business bank accounts without court order or consequence is totally unacceptable and should have Canadians very worried. I know I am. We all should be very concerned about this.

Another troubling aspect of invoking this act is that there are already tools at the disposal of law enforcement to deal with this unlawful protest. The Liberal justice minister claimed it was necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act in order to compel tow truck operators to remove illegally parked vehicles. However, paragraph 129(b) of the Criminal Code does give police the option to require anyone, “without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace.”

I and my Conservative colleagues oppose invoking the Emergencies Act. This is a clear case of government overreach. The act is supposed to be used for emergency situations that cannot be addressed through existing laws. The government has failed to explain why, precisely, this act needed to be invoked at this time. In fact, the following organizations have come out publicly against this Liberal overreach: the World Sikh Organization of Canada, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation. This is in addition to the opposition of seven provincial governments. As we know, governments in the different provinces all have the powers they need to deal with blockades and street protests.

This is a totally dangerous precedent that cannot be easily undone. The Conservative Party has spoken again and again in favour of dialogue and discussion. However, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused. He has chosen instead to divide and insult Canadians. Canadians agree that law and order must be maintained, but the Emergencies Act, the successor of the War Measures Act, is not the way to do it.

I cannot, in good conscience, support giving unlimited and unchecked power to a Liberal Prime Minister who has repeatedly demonstrated lack of good judgment here in the House of Commons. My constituents have spoken loud and clear. They demand better leadership than we currently have in this 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 my friend opposite, and we have worked well together over the years.

I do want to give him some startling numbers. I know he cited some numbers. With respect to the fundraising, some 52% of the funds came from the U.S. and 1,100 of those names relate to the same donors who donated to the January 6 insurrection at Capitol Hill last year. Does it not worry him, the level of hatred that we have seen? It is not an isolated one or two or three people. These are a number of different people with a number of different symbols as well as expressions of hate.

Without others denouncing them, particularly the leadership denouncing this hatred, does it not worry him that we are going in the wrong direction and the support of these blockades really sends the wrong signal in terms of law enforcement and in terms of having a safe country for all?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the government gets around looking at bank accounts. I remember in 2015, Leadnow cost Joan Crockatt her MP seat in the city of Calgary. Thousands of dollars from Leadnow, from outside this country, went into the Calgary riding and cost Joan Crockatt her seat. Four years later, we won it back.

What about the Tides Foundation in this country? Can we look at those books? It has done irreparable damage in western Canada, with all of the money coming in from the United States and from throughout the world.

Those are two great examples to refute what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice just mentioned about people in this country who are worried about this situation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member cited a lot of people in his speech, but I wonder what he thinks about the comments from former Conservative MP Peter MacKay and Senator Vern White, who said:

...what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. Leaving aside the stated manifesto of the organizers to overthrow the government, these protests are weakening our economy and disrupting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

As we have seen, many citizens, particularly in downtown Ottawa, were not able to leave their homes. They felt unsafe, they were harassed and they were shouted at.

What are the member's comments to those law-abiding citizens? Does he think that his former colleague, former MP Peter MacKay, and Senator Vern White are wrong?

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wonder about the great Tommy Douglas. What would he think about her party here today? Tommy Douglas supported the 1970 War Measures Act.

What about Svend Robinson, from the member's province of B.C.? He tweeted out that he cannot believe what the NDP stands for today. Why is that? Because it stands for nothing. We know that. It does not stand for Canadians.

What about Erin Weir, the former Saskatchewan MP? By the way, we have no more NDP MPs in our province, and have not for two elections in a row. Why is that? It is because citizens of Saskatchewan have seen through that party.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have seen something called a “war room” in the Alberta government and a very expensive report that looked into all of the foundation money that ever went into Alberta. It did not find any evidence of anything. It was all reported. It was never hidden. As for Leadnow, as far as I know, all of its donors are Canadian. We have already put the rumours to bed.

If the member wants to find foreign-funded, large influence on energy policy in Alberta, he need look no further than the board of directors of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, where 80% of them are controlled by foreign interests.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will say this, because I have watched quite a bit of the debate for the last two days. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has not made up her mind on this. I believe her. We are looking forward to seeing where her vote goes tomorrow night.

In western Canada, they are looking at every NDP and Green MP to see which way they vote tomorrow night, and they will not forget.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all municipal and provincial police forces, to the officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and to RCMP officers.

I am thinking in particular of the Sûreté du Québec officers who were deployed to resolve the impasse, although we cannot yet say it is over. They acted in exemplary fashion at a time when the eyes of the whole world were riveted on Canada—for the wrong reasons, unfortunately.

I thank all these people for their dedication.

I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

Speaking of looks, since I just mentioned how all eyes were on Canada, I have always admired the work of editorial cartoonists. The art of editorial cartoons has been part of political discourse since the invention of the printing press in the western world in the late 18th century and early 19th century. It is a counterpoint. An editorial cartoon sums up a political situation with a single, strikingly clear image; the picture tells the whole story. Such a cartoon captures the very essence of a person or event in a humorous way, although that humour can often be biting or cynical. Editorial cartoons are not necessarily designed to convey truth or fact in a single glance, but rather to give the reader pause. Editorial cartoons are meant to inspire necessary and meaningful reflection.

A shining example of the mastery of this informative visual art was published yesterday, around the same time, in the Journal de Montréal by cartoonist Ygreck. Of course, I cannot show members this cartoon without breaking the rules of the House, but I will describe it for them instead. Everyone will just have to use their imaginations. Describing something is just a different way of showing it. At the end of my speech, members will see that the things I have said that gave them pause are actually strong arguments as to why I am voting against the order.

First of all, I would like to set the stage for the cartoon and talk about where it takes place.

First, we have the Prime Minister's office, which has a desk and a chair. The chair is moved to the right to free up space underneath the desk. The desk has a few things on it.

On the left, there is a picture frame and a landline telephone. In the frame, there is a photo of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, thePrime Minister's father, who is covering his eyes with his right hand, a gesture of dismay everyone can recognize. It is commonly known as “facepalming”.

On the other side of the desk, there is a pink teddy bear—some may see a resemblance with a Care Bear. Behind the teddy bear, there is something that looks like a mug in the shape of a unicorn head.

The Emergencies Act is front and centre on the desk and appears to be freshly signed by the Prime Minister, since there is a pen lying across it.

When I said that the desk chair was placed to the right, it was to make room below the desk for the Prime Minister, who is hiding there and dressed like Waldo, from the acclaimed “Where's Waldo” puzzle books. I will remind members that the purpose of the game is to find Waldo, who is camouflaged by his surroundings. The Prime Minister is crouching and looks worried, looking out at the readers and asking them, “Is it over?” with his fingers crossed. The Prime Minister is wondering about the state of the country he is supposed to be governing: “Is it over?”

Let us focus on certain details concerning the two focal points of the scene I described earlier, the setting and the character. Members will recall that the Emergencies Act looms large on the desk. I remind them that on the left, there is a photo of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose hand seems to be disavowing what his son has done. Although the reasons why Trudeau Sr. invoked such a law are his own and do not interest me anyway—we are talking about a depiction—it goes without saying that the cartoon clearly and colourfully conveys that it is a mistake. In my view, it points out that it is a mistake to use, for the first time in the history of Canada, a legislative measure passed in 1988 that is a modernized version of the War Measures Act, an act that has a significant, and I daresay even traumatic, place in the collective psyche of the Quebec nation.

Not only has this new version of the act never even been used by any government, but also, using it now is way out of proportion to the situation. As everyone knows, the blockades in Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Emerson, Coutts and Vancouver were dealt with before the order was released on February 14. Only Ottawa, specifically the seat of government, not the whole city of Ottawa, was occupied until today. Now the occupation is over.

What this means is that an instrument of last resort was ordered to resolve problems that absolutely did not create a need for the Emergencies Act in the first place, because the necessary tools were already available. Moreover, the issues had already been addressed everywhere but in Canada's capital.

In addition, six Canadian provinces plus Quebec, whose National Assembly unanimously passed a motion, categorically refused to allow the application of the Emergencies Act on their territory.

That was the backdrop against which the government issued its February 14 order to invoke a completely unnecessary and disproportionate measure to address a situation that was no longer even a situation. The whole thing is utterly absurd. To paraphrase my colleague from Joliette, this is like me using a nuclear weapon to destroy a mosquito that did not even land on my arm.

Let us turn our attention to the objects sitting to the right of the War Measures Act on the Prime Minister's desk in the cartoon, specifically the pink stuffed animal and the mug in the shape of a unicorn's head. Of course, Ygreck's cartoons about the Prime Minister are often peppered with objects that are reminiscent of childhood and an imaginary world, and that evoke a certain naïveté. In this case, they are used pejoratively, perhaps intended as harsh criticisms of the Prime Minister, as they emphasize what could be described as his magical thinking: believing that his abstract wishes are all it takes to solve concrete problems, without him ever having to do anything. The pink teddy bear and the mythical horned animal, representing the power of love and purity, respectively, reflect the Prime Minister's tendency to refuse to take reality into account, to flee from it, thereby shirking his responsibilities.

The Prime Minister's undeniable tendency to shirk responsibility is conveyed by his clothing, as he is dressed like the “Where's Waldo" character, as I mentioned earlier. This is someone who hides in the crowd at all times and is hard to find. He looks like Waldo cowering under his desk, using it like a toy bunker, with his fingers crossed for good luck. The Prime Minister's chair is symbolically empty. Basically, the Prime Minister is nowhere to be found.

Indeed, where was the Prime Minister before news of the crisis first broke? When it was first reported that the convoy was about to leave, once the convoy did set off, once it arrived in Ottawa and first settled in and once it became entrenched, the Prime Minister should have been there for Canadians, as he has been happy to repeat ad nauseam for the past few weeks. Yes, he should have been there, even with all his smugness, his arrogance and his contempt. Yes, he should have been there, even in what I would call his selective absence, that fascinating ability that some people have to decide when they will make an appearance without ever being really, fully present.

Rainbows or unicorns, I do not believe for one minute that the Prime Minister is that naive. I see a clear lack of leadership, since the most important quality of a leader is the ability to communicate. To communicate like a leader fundamentally means needing to persuade, if not convince, people. To be a leader means not only truly being there, but also being there to take action. A leader has to be an agent.

I will conclude with the question asked by the Prime Minister in this cartoon, which captures the essence of what we are seized with today in the House. Legend has it that the fires that have been burning from Quebec City to Vancouver have been put out these past few days by the magical power of the rhetoric surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was proportionately inflated by the cosmic emptiness of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership. Yes, a big balloon, an inflated measure might grab attention, but it is full of air and eventually deflates.

To answer the question of the prime minister character who asks whether it is over, I would say—

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

The member's time is up.

We will now move on to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not one to wade into how the politics in Quebec work, but I am pretty sure that there is not a single member in this House who ever thought the Bloc Québécois would vote in favour of this, just given its position, generally speaking, when it comes to national legislation like this.

Having said that, this member's attempt to conflate the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, just like the Conservatives have done, is disingenuous at best and an attempt to completely misinform the Canadian public at worst. This member should know full well that the War Measures Act actually removed civil liberties that were afforded to Canadians. This piece of legislation specifically states in it that the Charter of Rights must be upheld, which is the defining feature between this and the War Measures Act. How can this member continue to perpetuate this misinformation?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would say that in reply to the Prime Minister's question asking whether the crisis was over, I would answer that it is over, and it was over well before he took action. I would answer that, three weeks after the start of this protest, he can now come out of hiding and take the true measure of what he thought was an emergency. He could have seen from the very beginning that there was no national crisis.

What is a real emergency and a national crisis is that this government needs a leader.

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

That does not answer the question.

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech.

We both agree that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government let the situation fester. The Prime Minister was missing in action, and therefore this crisis was not resolved as quickly as it should have been.

Will my colleague not admit that in the face of a convoy organized by the far right and radicals who said outright that they wanted to overthrow the elected government and who terrorized, harassed and intimidated the people of downtown Ottawa, there is a crisis situation?

Does she not agree that invoking the act made it possible to establish a perimeter preventing people from entering the downtown, declare that their unjustified presence was illegal, and increase fines and freeze bank accounts?

None of these measures could have been taken without invoking the Emergencies Act, as the acting police chief of Ottawa stated.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I absolutely denounce the presence of far-right groups, no matter where they are.

I have to say that this is not new. When I was 14 years old, I was a part of anti-racist and anti-fascist groups. Far-right groups were around back in 1990.

It is now 2022 and there are laws that enable us to combat these groups. This is nothing new. What is happening right now is the result of the Prime Minister's laissez-faire approach. He has been hands-off from the beginning, letting the whole situation escalate before calling in the heavy artillery, even though he did nothing from the outset.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard often from members opposite that they could not do some of the things they needed without invoking the Emergencies Act. However, section 129 of the Criminal Code allows the Minister of Justice to impose on and get people, tow trucks, to work with police. The Interprovincial Policing Act in Ontario enables a police chief to deputize any person simply to do this.

Can the hon. member tell me if she has heard any arguments from the government during this important debate that justify or demonstrate that the government pursued any of these legal tools before invoking this act?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, this government has clearly not managed to justify anything. If the order does get adopted, there will need to be a report. This government will have to justify its decision.

The Prime Minister has treated Ottawa like any other city, when it is a national capital. He let it all escalate.

The Prime Minister has been selectively absent and has demonstrated a lack of leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish to join my colleague from Manicouagan in thanking the police. I also want to take a moment today to thank the interpreters who have been providing service to us from 7 a.m. until late into the night since Thursday morning and will continue to do so until tomorrow, Monday. I want to recognize them and sincerely thank them.

I am the 22nd Bloc Québécois member to speak about the ratification of the Emergencies Act. I listened carefully to the debate. This is a moment that will go down in history. It is the first time that parliamentarians have been called upon to approve the use of the Emergencies Act. So far, my Bloc Québécois colleagues have shown that law enforcement had all the tools it needed to take strong action sooner in order to put an end to the occupation in Ottawa.

I hope that all members of the House are aware of the incitement to hatred, hate propaganda and defamation that we have seen from some convoy leaders. Such actions are unacceptable and already prohibited under the Criminal Code. Everyone in this House knows that it is already illegal to occupy a city; intimidate residents and local merchants; and push, intimidate and spit on reporters. Those things are already prohibited and illegal under the Criminal Code. We are already able to investigate the inflow of foreign money in order to destabilize the political order.

I am proud of my colleagues and their nuanced thinking. They reminded us that we all agree that the situation in Ottawa became illegal and untenable a long time ago, that we never should have gotten to this point, and that we have been witnessing a clear and serious lack of leadership, as my colleague from Manicouagan so aptly stated. We agree that something had to be done about the occupation in Ottawa. However, what we have been debating for the past few days and will continue debating tomorrow is the ratification of the Emergencies Act, and that is where opinions differ.

Essentially, do we agree to this special act being applied as ordered by the Liberal government across Canada as a whole? Were the extraordinary powers of the Emergencies Act really absolutely necessary to resolve the impasse in Ottawa?

The Bloc Québécois has argued that it was dangerous to downplay invoking this act across Canada, without considering that the emergency was different in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We have shown that, in our opinion, the government did not prove beyond a doubt that all criteria were met to invoke emergency measures. We established that this improvised use of the act created a precedent that could be dangerous.

Today, I would like parliamentarians to realize that the Bloc Québécois's position is rooted in the unanimous voice of the National Assembly. Quebec's elected officials, including its ministers, all rejected the invocation of the Emergencies Act by unanimously passing a motion in the National Assembly. On February 15, Quebec spoke with one voice.

I will repeat that all elected Quebeckers, one by one, opposed the invocation of the Emergencies Act in Quebec. That is fundamentally how one can interpret the position of the Bloc Québécois, because it is in a way the underlying reason for our opposition to confirming the Emergencies Act, which applies to Quebec.

As François Paradis, the Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, can attest, this unanimous support comes from the five different political parties and all independent members. I think that means something. The message could not be any clearer.

I am proud of my caucus, which, throughout this debate, has given a loud and clear voice to the legitimate wishes of the Quebec National Assembly. I hope my speech will make the members of this House grasp the significance of a unanimous vote in a national assembly and in the legislatures of other provinces.

I am proud of my caucus, which has shown some nuanced thinking in a context that leaves little room for nuance, something that has been missing in these debates and in this pandemic. I call on everyone here to be very careful about making generalizations.

This motion is about ratifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act, not about the cause the protesters were defending. There is a bit of mixed messaging in some of the speeches we have heard from our colleagues in the opposition parties.

We have spoken rationally, but also from the heart. I am really proud of our contribution to the debate, which made members think. In response to our questions, we have learned that even certain members on the government benches do not seem 100% convinced of the need to invoke this last-resort act. When agreeing to invoke special legislation, it seems to me we must be convinced of the necessity to do so, of the fact that using the law is essential.

Personally, I am confident in my vote and I know that on Monday night, I will vote no to this extraordinary legislation. On Monday, in addition to all the political and legal arguments that my colleagues have presented, the Bloc Québécois will vote in line with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. That, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with the fundamental essence of our political commitment.

With respect to the unanimous will of the National Assembly, I will add that I would have also liked to see that unanimity in the House. I would have liked to see parliamentarians from all parties discuss the proclamation on emergency measures before, not after the fact. I would have liked to see a more elevated and serious discussion.

Unfortunately, we saw partisanship and insinuations of support for the far right and even racism. We have heard it. This seems to be bigger than we are. We have seen it: the petty politics, the insults, and the bad faith are far too commonplace in the House of Commons, even during an historic debate.

We have the opportunity to rise above. We have a duty to rise above. I invite my esteemed colleagues to ask themselves whether they are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the only way, whether they are comfortable incorporating the Emergencies Act into the modus operandi of government crisis management and whether they truly believe that our democracy will be stronger for it.

I invite them to think about it because our debate is not about what happened in the streets of Ottawa. From the beginning, this debate has essentially been about our democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate being here in the House debating the very important piece of legislation before us.

I want to thank the member who just spoke. I work with her closely in our joint roles as whips, and I really appreciated the very sensitive approach she took in her speech. I also want to say that these are amazing times. I believe we should not be here, yet here we are. I also want to say that today when I was walking to come to work I saw something that really bothered me. I saw a small business owner chasing two men out of his store with a stick, yelling at them. He could not get hold of the police.

I am just wondering if the member could talk about the impacts this kind of recklessness is having in this county, when we see this extremism, when we see a blockade for three weeks, when we see people feeling so afraid and we also see the impacts of that activity, which means our social structures start to come undone. If we cannot stand up in this House and talk about how we are going to deal with that, then I do not think we are doing our jobs very well. I would love to hear her thoughtful response, just as thoughtful as her speech was.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my whip colleague for the question.

This allows me to clarify that the people who were part of the convoy or the hundreds of people who occupied the streets did not all have the same message. They were not a monolithic group, but we seem to have forgotten that when we focused our attention on one group over another.

Like my colleague, I have seen testimonials and I have spoken to people who were in tears because they wanted to withdraw from the convoy but were stuck. We have seen and heard all sorts of things.

The important thing today is that the streets are empty. The occupation is over. We no longer need this legislation. It is no longer useful, vital or necessary to manage the crisis that is coming to a close.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I do not entirely disagree with the comments from my colleague in the Bloc when she said a lot of people were caught up in this whose intentions were different from those who were on the path of the lawless behaviour that we have seen. However, I would say that the vast majority of those who were here in the week leading up to the police action that we saw in the last three days had by that point dug in their heels and were saying that they would not leave.

More importantly, we have heard a lot about how the powers were there and the provinces had the powers to do this or that. Yes, the provinces had the power to bring in other police forces, but they did not. The provinces did not do anything.

Is this member saying that it just happens to be a coincidence?

I would like to ask my question without being heckled.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order.

Can we listen to the question until the end?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, is this member suggesting that it just happened to be a coincidence that the Emergencies Act came in on Monday and then we started to see real action on Thursday? Is that just a coincidence that has nothing to do with the emergency measures?

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

Madam Speaker, frankly, I am flabbergasted by my colleague's question.

From what I understand, he is saying that the provinces did not do a damn thing and stood by while the situation got worse, and that the good old federal government had to come in to whip the troops into line and invoke special legislation to get them to do their jobs—