Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. She clearly explained that the government did nothing to prevent this situation.

The Prime Minister did not try to use diplomacy. He did not call President Biden to reach an agreement. He did not provide the police resources that were requested. I believe that the provinces and police services can currently address any situation that may arise.

Does my colleague share my concern about this urgent motion, which allows the government to put in place any other authorized measure that has yet to be identified? Is she worried about this?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are very worried about the expanded powers that this act could give the government.

Once again, we are insisting on the fact that everything we needed was already in place. Laws such as the Criminal Code already exist and injunctions can be obtained. Everything could have been addressed in some other way. As proof, crises were resolved elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec.

We must be vigilant. We cannot let people challenge the rule of law, but, at some point, we must intervene and be proactive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Repentigny, the riding next to mine, for her excellent speech.

Even before the Emergencies Act was invoked, she had already spoken about the fact that a whole series of situations had been resolved, including those at the Surrey border crossing and the Ambassador Bridge.

Is the Emergencies Act just being used, to some extent, to hide the government's inaction with respect to the situation in Ottawa?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and riding neighbour.

I absolutely agree that the government is using this act to hide its complacency. I wonder whether, at some point, there was some political manoeuvring behind the decision to let the situation get as bad as it did.

The scope of this act is far too broad and that is being used to hide the Prime Minister's incompetence.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I should start by saying that I am opposed to the government's invoking the Emergencies Act, and I will be voting against this motion when it comes up for a vote tomorrow evening. I will now explain my reasons for doing so.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act, formally known as the War Measures Act, is an extremely serious matter that rightfully concerns all Canadians. This is only the fourth time in history that either of these acts has been invoked, and I certainly hope that it will be the last for the foreseeable future.

The first time the War Measures Act was invoked was during World War I, the second time was during World War II, and the third and most recent time was during the FLQ crisis of 1970. For context, I would like to speak a little more about this most recent invocation of the War Measures Act, in 1970, during the FLQ crisis.

The Front de libération du Québec, or FLQ, was by any objective measure a terrorist organization. The FLQ plotted and carried out dozens of bombings. The FLQ robbed banks. The FLQ performed kidnappings. The FLQ murdered a total of eight people and wounded dozens more. Finally, after all the bombings, all the bank robberies, all the kidnappings and all the murders, the federal government decided that this matter could no longer be left to local law enforcement officials; it decided to invoke the War Measures Act in October 1970. To this day, scholars, historians and even politicians who were there at the time remain critical of the decision by then prime minister Pierre Trudeau to invoke the War Measures Act in 1970. Instead, they argue that the matter should simply have been left to local law enforcement officials.

NDP leader Tommy Douglas was very critical of the decision on the floor of the House of Commons, noting that the Liberal government of the day did not provide one shred of evidence to support its claim of an apprehended insurrection. Don Jamieson, Pierre Trudeau's transport minister, wrote in his memoirs years later, “In concrete terms, we did not have a compelling case to put forward.” In his opinion, invoking the War Measures Act was simply a way for Pierre Trudeau to make life difficult for his political opponents.

In the Journal of Canadian Studies, Professor Dominique Clément has argued, “The universal suspension of human rights is, in retrospect, the most damning indictment of the government's decision to invoke the War Measures Act.” Richard Gwyn, one of Pierre Trudeau's biographers, argues, “Trudeau smeared irredeemably his reputation as a champion of civil liberties. No other prime minister has been so severely criticized for crushing civil liberties.”

There is a strong argument to be made by historians and academics that even the FLQ crisis, with all of its bombings, bank robberies, kidnappings and murders, did not justify invoking the War Measures Act, and that these matters were best left to local law enforcement officials.

Therefore, if it is highly questionable as to whether the War Measures Act was justified in 1970, then what is the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act today? What are the protesters in downtown Ottawa and on Parliament Hill doing that would justify the invocation of this act?

Well, for starters, they have bouncy castles. I have walked through the crowd of protesters almost every morning on my way to work on Parliament Hill and I can confirm that there are bouncy castles, but bouncy castles do not justify invoking the Emergencies Act. Bouncy castles in the middle of the street are a matter for local law enforcement.

Many of these protesters and truckers have parked their trucks illegally and have been blaring their horns all night long. I think these trucks should be ticketed and towed, but the need to ticket and tow some vehicles does not justify invoking the Emergencies Act. Ticketing and towing vehicles is a matter for local law enforcement officials.

There has also been an incident of someone jumping up and down on the National War Memorial. There has been another incident of someone putting an upside-down flag on the Terry Fox statue. There have also been reports of local residents being intimidated and harassed. I certainly condemn all these activities, but none of this justifies invoking the emergency measures act. These are matters for local law enforcement, nothing more.

In order for the act to be invoked, I think it is important for Canadians, including members of this House, to understand the threshold that must be met. Section 16 of the act reads, “public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”. It says a “national emergency”. The noisy truckers and the bouncy castles out on Wellington Street do not constitute a national emergency.

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

They are not there anymore.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Then they especially do not.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I have walked through the crowds out on Wellington Street almost every morning on my way to work since the convoy arrived, and I lived to tell about it. There is no al Qaeda. There is no Taliban. There are no North Korean special forces looking to take over the government. This is a matter for local law enforcement officials, and it is wrong for the government to try to make it out to be anything more than that.

If the protestors out on Wellington Street are best left to local law enforcement, then that raises the following questions: What should the federal government be doing? How can the federal government best respond to this whole situation in a positive and constructive manner? I think the federal government needs to get to the root cause of the frustrations we have all been feeling over the last two years. Of course, I am talking about the pandemic restrictions that have been disrupting the lives of Canadians.

The government would do well to come up with a science-based and evidence-based plan to safely and responsibly wind down pandemic restrictions at the federal level. This is exactly what the Conservative opposition has been calling on the government to do for some time. In fact, every provincial government has already presented a science-based, evidence-based plan to gradually wind down most, if not all pandemic restrictions, in a measurable, quantifiable manner based on metrics, benchmarks and milestones.

It is time for the federal government to do the same. If the government would focus its efforts on coming up with a science-based and evidence-based plan to responsibly wind down pandemic restrictions, that would be infinitely more beneficial to the quality of life of Canadians than invoking the emergency measures act to deal with noisy truckers and bouncy castles.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, let us hear from local law enforcement. In this case, it is Ottawa's chief of police, Steve Bell. He said, “Without the authorities provided to us through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to be doing the work we are today.”

Does the Conservative Party disagree with the Ottawa chief of police?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that these protests and these demonstrations have not been limited to Ottawa. There have been similar protests and demonstrations all across the country, and every other municipal police force seems to have been able to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. The other police forces seem to know how to do crowd control, how to divert traffic and that sort of thing. I think it would be beneficial for the Ottawa police department to learn these best practices from other police departments and learn to do it how everyone else has.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does not believe that protesters have the right to do whatever they want. They certainly do not have the right to protest in a way that hurts an entire community, but that is already in the past. I prefer to look toward the future.

What lessons should we learn from what has happened?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of lessons to be learned by the Prime Minister. His rhetoric has certainly not helped the situation in the slightest. I saw on TV that the Prime Minister said many of these protesters are racist, sexist, misogynistic and hold unacceptable views.

The Prime Minister's rhetoric has not helped the situation in the slightest. It would be eminently more beneficial if we had a better prime minister to deal with this situation in a positive and constructive manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is lovely to finally have a chance to speak, having been here since 7 a.m., and I will be here until midnight.

I am trying to make up my mind on how I am going to vote. With a sincere effort to remain respectful, I must tell the member that it does not help when the crisis in Ottawa is minimized to a problem of bouncy castles. It was an occupation. It caused millions and millions of dollars of damage to this city and its residents. Honking horns all night actually qualifies, under the Geneva Convention, as torture. One is not allowed to do that to prisoners.

The people of Ottawa have been imprisoned by occupiers. They may not have known what they were doing. This is quite likely for many of them, especially the ones who seemed so surprised they were ultimately going to get arrested. Non-violent civil disobedience has a long tradition, which I will not go through, that includes knowing one is going to be arrested because one is breaking the law and has done this on principle.

Could we not at least agree what occurred here in Ottawa was, from the moment those large 18-wheelers started occupying whole streets so the people of Ottawa could not go about their day-to-day lives, a crisis? It was badly handled and I will not disagree with that. If we look at the place where we were last week, how would we have solved that without the powers in the Emergencies Act, particularly to compel tow truck drivers?

One of his colleagues on those benches directed me to section 129 of the Criminal Code, which I know is obstruction of a police officer, but it does not fit the circumstance.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the hon. member does vote against the invocation of this act. We can agree this whole situation could have been handled better, as we have seen with other police departments in other cities across the country.

There certainly is a role to be played for law enforcement. We cannot have law and order break down. I did say in my speech I condemn the jumping up and down on the National War Memorial and the intimidation of local residents.

Again, these are matters for local law enforcement and do not justify the national emergency spelled out in the Emergencies Act.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have invoked the Emergencies Act. This is the reformed War Measures Act that gives the federal government and police sweeping and never-before-used powers. Let us acknowledge what has happened. The Emergencies Act suspends civil liberties.

I said earlier this week that this is a deep stain on our country's reputation as a defender of rights and that the dictators around the world would be delighted with Canada. Government MPs scoffed when I said that in the House of Commons. If Canada does this, who could say tyrants, with protesters in their capital cities, could not do the same?

It was not long until we heard answers. China’s state media was first, declaring Beijing had greater moral and legal authority to invoke its national security law in Hong Kong than Canada did against its truckers. Russia Today served up outsized reporting, four times that of the BBC and Al Jazeera, to gin up its viewers, and then there was the best. When I say the best, I mean the worst. The best was Iran’s former leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tweeting out support. Oh, Canada, what horrible company for our nation to keep with Beijing, Moscow and Tehran cheering on the Liberal government. It must feel a little uncomfortable where Liberal, NDP and possibly Green MPs sit.

While the street blockade had to be resolved in Ottawa, the conditions to invoke the Emergencies Act have not been met. This is why I will vote to repeal this dreadful infringement by the federal government. Should most other MPs vote to endorse the Prime Minister’s use of force, they will set a very low bar on future governments to suspend civil liberties. What should concern us, particularly opposition MPs who are willing to support the government’s motion, is the test to invoke the Emergencies Act in the future will be today’s feeble justifications. Here is the actual requirement:

...a national emergency is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the [lives,] health or safety of Canadians [that cannot be effectively dealt with by provinces or territories]

(b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada

It must be a situation “that cannot be effectively dealt with by any other law of Canada”.

Unlawful blockades in Surrey, Coutts and Windsor were dispersed prior to the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Should Parliament label protesters on Wellington and its surrounding streets in Ottawa as a genuine national emergency, a future government could easily find others, such as another protest outside Parliament, illegal immigration or eco-radicalism. Lawmakers should be careful on which path they lead our country.

The members opposite who would support this motion affix their names to it in perpetuity. They will authorize and endorse the suspension of constitutional rights. Government members argue civil liberties are not infringed merely because the law’s preamble says that charter rights are protected, yet prohibiting public assembly is an infringement on civil liberties. Seizing private property without due process is an infringement on civil liberties. Withholding assets without the right to recourse is an infringement on civil liberties. Freezing bank accounts and forcing banks to share private information with security agencies, without any court oversight or even criminal charges being laid, is a gross violation of fundamental rights. Limiting travel is an infringement on civil liberties. There are over 100 police checkpoints in our nation’s capital.

Today’s invocation of the Emergencies Act is an out-of-proportion use of federal powers. Are MPs opposite going to vote to endorse this unwarranted withdrawal of civil liberties?

The government’s actions, along with those of the police, will be studied and analyzed for decades to come by academics, researchers and students just as the draconian War Measures Act has been for the last 50 years. I do not believe their judgment will be a pleasant one. Indeed, I am already struck by the large and growing divergence in perspectives and reporting on this matter by our domestic media and foreign press.

Canada's media and elite opinion, albeit with some exceptions in both camps, have largely echoed the government's position. They say Ottawa protesters are not peaceful while downplaying the suspension of rights. Some simply parrot the government line. Others dismiss the legitimate concerns Canadians have about lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. What we do not see is a full-throated defence of Charter freedoms from Liberal reporters and opinion pundits whom we look for when rights are curtailed at home or abroad. This is in sharp contrast to foreign reporting.

What exactly is being reported beyond our borders?

A Newsweek editor wrote mid-week, “Canada is...arresting dissidents. A country that considers itself a democracy arresting people for the crime of organizing a mass grassroots nonviolent protest should horrify” us.

The Economist, which has long celebrated Canada's Liberals in its pages, wrote:

[The Prime Minister]'s crackdown on protests could make things worse....

Canada’s government should have drawn a clear distinction between harmful acts and obnoxious or foolish words. Peaceful protests are fine; blocking crucial highways so that others cannot go about their business is not.

This is a clear distinction between border points and the Wellington Street protest. The Economist article continues:

[T]he truckers have every right to express their disagreement. A wise government would [have] listen[ed] to them and respond[ed] politely, taking their complaints seriously....

[But the Liberal Prime Minister] has done the opposite.

Another respectful British magazine, The Spectator, was much more harsh, writing:

Peaceful civil disobedience is an established means of drawing attention to injustice when ordinary means of recourse have been exhausted....

... Canada’s elites...are fixating on the presence of truckers in the capital and at the borders only as [a national] embarrassment.... They aren’t interested in hearing about the impact of the mandates on citizens’ lives....

It has not been possible for the truckers and their supporters to have their grievances addressed by ordinary civic means....

This civil disobedience is all [the Prime Minister] can cite in justification of the Emergencies Act. The [government] rationale is that ongoing protest and peaceful civil disobedience constitute a threat to national security and to the economy....[A] credible government would have avoided this situation entirely by addressing, or at least expressing a willingness to evaluate, the suffering it is inflicting on its own people.

The title of this provocative article is “[The PM]'s totalitarian turn”, but its conclusion is identical to that of the liberal magazine, The Economist, along with Europe's Financial Times, which is that the Government of Canada got it wrong.

It goes on in other publications. The New York Times asserted, on Monday, that Canada “Declares National Emergency”, allowing temporary suspension of civil liberties.

Ottawa-based reporters did not like that or that The New York Times included coverage as well as photos of police arresting protesters near our Parliament yesterday, at gunpoint.

The Wall Street Journal, which is the largest U.S. newspaper, editorialized that the truckers' protest could have been handled without abusing the law. “Government's job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties.” Canada has failed on both scores.

Foreign press's conclusion is that our Prime Minister crossed a democratic line.

Canadians want the blockade to end, but it never should have come at the expense of the rule of law, crackdowns, abuse and totalitarian methods in Canada, say western press. Oh Canada, that is a deep stain and national embarrassment.

I miss my Canada, but there is some hope. The Wall Street Journal's editorial offers a warning and perhaps a way out, writing, “Protesters aren't emergencies, and Western leaders had better get used to handling civil disobedience firmly without traducing civil liberties.”

How should Parliament respond? The only question for us is this: Does this legislative body support trampling civil disobedience and protest by undermining rights and freedoms? We cannot undo what has happened. Invoking the Emergencies Act is on the Prime Minister and his Liberal cabinet, but we do not need to be culpable. We can stop it. Parliament can act. We must not approve our juvenile Prime Minister's decision and gross misuse of federal law. Parliament can reject the Emergencies Act. It should, because Canadians, along with the rest of the world, are watching and seeing whether we will get it right.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to thank the member opposite, because a lot of what I have heard this morning has been very divisive in the name of non-divisiveness. While I may disagree with much of what was said, I actually appreciate that the tone did not go for that divisiveness.

What I wanted to speak about, though, is the trucking piece. I worry about minimizing what we have seen here in Ottawa. I was speaking to a constituent whose father was travelling back and forth delivering produce and was stuck at the U.S. border. He was vaccinated, but he was stuck because of the protest. He was unable to get more gas and food for himself because of what was happening while he was on the other side of the border .

Does the member not agree that the majority of truckers were not supporting what we saw in Ottawa, and in fact that what was happening in Ottawa was a massive disruption to the lives of people who live in this region?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to maintain a civil tone throughout these debates.

I actually do not know where the majority of truckers are on this question. I certainly know a lot of them are not happy with lockdowns, restrictions and mandates, even though the vast majority of them are vaccinated.

I represent a border community. There are five international crossings in my riding. I do not think that border points should be blocked, which is why I maintained from the outset that they had to be cleared out. That being said, peaceful civil disobedience is an acceptable way to express oneself. We have seen it throughout the ages, and I hope it will continue here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us more about the potential repercussions of using the Emergencies Act when it is not required, as is being done right now?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has repercussions on Canada's reputation.

Right now, in Europe, England, the United States and elsewhere, people are saying that Canada does not respect human rights. I find that disturbing and very unfortunate.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I would like to thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest. I have been thoroughly disgusted that the Conservatives continue to minimize the extremism that has been allowed to grow in all of Canada.

I have seen the effects of these extremist messages reach my home community of Iqaluit. Iqaluit has one of the lowest vaccination rates in Nunavut, albeit about 70%. These extremist ideologies, such as not getting vaccinated because of religion, have had detrimental effects in my community. Once COVID-19 arrived in Iqaluit, it rampaged through the community. For weeks, COVID-19 cases rose. Iqaluit is not the largest community in Nunavut, but it had the highest incidence rates for a while.

Does the member agree that these extremist views having infiltrated the farthest reaches of my riding in Nunavut is an indication that extremism such as this is a national issue requiring urgent action?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that citizens in this country should look to science and vaccines as a way out and a way to protect themselves. However, that does not involve invoking the Emergencies Act. I hope my remarks today have convinced NDP members to at least think about their support for the draconian actions that the government has taken and the impact on Canada's reputation. We cannot undo it, but Parliament should not sanction what the Liberal government has done.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. That is the deal.

From the early stages of the pandemic to a protest that has become the target of the sledgehammer that is the Emergencies Act, the government has failed in every way to plan for events that it had ample opportunity to be ready for. It has dismally planned to fail.

Before COVID-19 we had SARS, a precursor to the pandemic that should have given us a road map for what could come, but it did not. From a dismal lack of stockpiling of PPE to the completely inadequate health care capacity of our whole system to the failure to produce a single drop of vaccine two years in, Canada was not ready for what became the biggest spend of money in all Canadians' lifetimes combined.

What will we see in the next decade? Misspending has created the largest inflation in 30 years, gas prices are now over $1.80 in some parts of the country, and grocery bills are crippling our families.

The government did what the government had to do when there was no plan: It intervened. The problem with the government taking total control is that it hates to lose the control that it has gained.

Let us switch gears to the protests here in Ottawa. The convoy drove from west to east, making its way slowly across the country while making it well known that it was not happy with the mandates. In every town it entered, it was met with thousands of Canadians who supported it, feeling hopeful for change. Canadians had their own reasons for supporting it, but the common thread was the need for change, for hope and for the end of suffering.

The government had fair warning. People were coming and they were unhappy. The government had ample time to listen to the people and create a plan, a road map out of this pandemic, that Canadians so desperately needed. However, instead of listening and seeing what other countries that had had fourth waves ahead of us were doing, on January 7 our health minister said that he saw more mandates coming.

There was Quebec's tax on health and the continued PCR testing that the WHO said was unnecessary. There was and has been no scientific medical data to back up these mandates, just as there was no data to prove that the Prime Minister was correct in suggesting that interprovincial passports for truckers were absolutely necessary.

Instead of listening and creating a safe, responsible plan, the government took a heavy hand, threatening more mandates and belittling Canadians for expressing their displeasure.

The Ottawa police, the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police had all the time they needed to prepare for trucks coming downtown, but let us be honest: There was no plan. An article in the National Post on Saturday stated that the Ottawa police's plan was that the trucker protest would last just a weekend. When police were overwhelmed, they still did not announce an emergency. The following week, they became more indecisive. The police chief stated that he believed protesters would dissipate on their own. It was a failure to plan.

Especially, there was no plan from the federal government to address this larger group or manage any elements of lawlessness. There was absolutely no plan to understand that this was not just a fringe element, but a larger movement of ordinary Canadians simply looking for hope from somebody, anybody, as we in the world continually reach the last phases of the pandemic and the beginning of an endemic. It was a larger group that had no affiliation with hate, intolerance or lawlessness. We only had to listen to and speak to many of those screaming to be heard, or see the messaging from our constituencies.

Most of all, it was a failure of the Prime Minister.

We must all remember just one thing in the House, and that is whom we work for, whom we represent and whom we answer to. When we forget that, and it feels like the government has forgotten it, we find a divided country. A divided country allows our country to be weak on the world stage, weak in future planning and weak to those who look to us for a path forward.

The Prime Minister made a choice, and that choice ignored Canadians when they most needed a leader to hear from. Here are some of the voices from Bay of Quinte in the last few weeks.

My son struggles after COVID19 to the point where he has completely broken down. He can no longer play with friends and he has no interest in even attending school.

I had a major reaction to the first vaccine where I cannot mentally get the second and cannot get a medical exception. I am at the verge of breaking down every day and have never had so little hope.

I donated $30 to the trucker convoy not because of any other reason than I wanted hope and an end to mandates. I’m a single mother and I’m afraid my bank account will be frozen, and I will be detained.

I am currently a teacher. I am speaking on behalf of children that are being masked all day long. They cannot breathe. They are not developing social skills with one another that they should be. The language development in several of my senior kindergarten students are being stunted because of masks.

This is after we should be celebrating what we have done as a country, a country that is 90% vaccinated, a country that has all the opportunity in front of it for a prosperous future and a country that can start to heal from its wounds.

As COVID‑19 wanes, what is left today is a country in shambles. What remains is a country divided, leaving generations of mistrust in government. When a government divides and conquers, once trust is broken, it is almost impossible to build it back. Mothers, daughters and sons have contacted us in the last few weeks. There has been massive trauma experienced as a result of COVID‑19. Domestic abuse and mental health issues have gone through the roof.

The question for the government is this: Why are your politics more important than the heart of this nation? We keep creating division when we should be healing. We cannot keep fighting across the aisle, slinging mud and acting like it is helpful. Canadians need us to meet them with an open heart, acknowledge the pain and trauma they have suffered throughout this pandemic and do all we can to be a light after this dark tunnel. It is time to say that we are sorry, right our wrongs, start mending our country and build trust again.

The government did what it had to do at the beginning of the pandemic: It intervened because it had no plan. There have been countless consequences of that. Again, with no plan to deal with a prolonged protest in downtown Ottawa, the government is in another failure scenario with the Emergencies Act. We are against this act.

The actions taken these past three weeks in several locations in Canada are not an aberration, but rather a manifestation of the growing frustration Canadians feel with our federal government and its inability to truly listen to Canadians and put them ahead of its overreach. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is a slap in the face to all Canadians and not a proud moment in our country’s history.

Even if the need for law enforcement is justified to bail out those who failed to plan, it is the financial overreach that has me most concerned. The law must be predictable and transparent, and the financial overreach of this act is not. Banks should not be and are not our nation’s prosecutors. There are laws now that ensure law enforcement can and will go after unlawful activities, but no Canadian who innocently donated to a cause because they wanted desperately to feel hope should feel maligned. Certainly no government looking at powers that allow financial information to be accessed should be allowed to make those changes permanent, as the Deputy Prime Minister made claim to this week.

The invocation of the Emergencies Act under these circumstances is an insult to all Canadians and certainly not a proud moment in our country’s history. Our nation needs to start healing now, and that is the only plan that we all need to get behind.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have noticed not only this morning but over the past couple of years a very targeted, divisive approach to get to this government, and not on any merit.

I will ask the member why he is blurring jurisdiction lines. I know we have heard from Bloc Québécois members about the importance of jurisdiction and from other members about the importance of ensuring that the rule of law and our Constitution are maintained. Our Constitution accounts for those jurisdictional lines. As part of their main argument, we have heard members talk about how our federal government has failed because of lack of action by regional or provincial governments. Can the member please clarify his position there?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this was a failure of the government because it starts at the top. We have heard the government members on the other side blame every single party for this, but it starts with the tone and escalation of not treating Canadians as Canadians and pitting them against each other.

We talked about the failure of the police here in Ottawa to take care of the situation. I said that throughout my whole speech. However, it was also the government's tone in not recognizing what was happening, not listening to Canadians and not ensuring that we start healing this nation instead of dividing it.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my Conservative colleague whether he agrees with me on two things—not that he has to.

Especially since yesterday, I have noticed that the government has been constantly giving us the same two arguments. First, that a poll of 300 people shows that Quebeckers approve, and second, that the City of Ottawa has said that the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary.

In the member’s opinion, why is the scope of the Emergencies Act being downplayed?

What reason will we hear tomorrow in the House for why we should support invoking the Emergencies Act?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Quebec and I agree. She talked about two points. We have talked about two points this week too: We are looking for point one and two of what the government did before invoking the Emergencies Act. We cannot seem to get that answer. There is no justification for it since we did not have step one, two or three introduced before this motion.

At the end of the day, we agree that this is a step too far, especially, as I mentioned, given the financial ramifications to Canadians and especially when the government wants some of these changes to be permanent, which we certainly do not agree with. As I have stated, it is definitely overreach by the government.