Debates of Feb. 20th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in solemn but resolute support of the Emergencies Act.

The past weeks have given me time to reflect on the words and actions of those who came to protest public health measures. One of the words we heard most from the demonstrators was “patriotism”. This frequently repeated word compelled me to consider its meaning. An act of patriotism is ultimately an act of self-sacrifice. It is a selfless act on behalf of our families, friends and communities. During the past two years we have seen extraordinary acts of selflessness by Canadians who sacrificed and stood together to keep each other safe during a pandemic.

Canadians found the strength to persevere in our shared values, our determination, our dedication and our commitment to community: Canadian truckers, front-line nurses, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, grocery store staff, our law enforcement officers and every essential worker across the nation, as the member for Cape Breton—Canso just mentioned.

Although many of the demonstrators label themselves as patriots and were invoking the memory of our veterans and their sacrifices, they forgot the lessons those veterans taught. During World War II, a typhus vaccine was developed and administered to Canadian soldiers. They did it to protect each other and their units. They did it so they could protect their nation. Not only did these vaccines work, but vaccine technology also grew rapidly. In the 1950s and 1960s, vaccines for polio, influenza and tetanus all emerged, and today, polio is a thing of the past. It is gone. It is gone because of the dedication and hard work of scientists, doctors and the millions of people who placed their trust in them.

Over the past two years, Canadians pulled together and cared for one another. They wore masks, physically distanced and got vaccinated. It is because of this that federal and provincial restrictions are slowly lifting across the country now, but we still need to hold strong.

Regretfully, most demonstrators refused to heed the advice of doctors. They neglected the example set by our veterans and chose to ignore the fact that we do not live in a society racked with polio. This is their right, but having made this choice of their own free will, Canadians who refuse vaccines must also accept responsibility for their choice. Others believe that federal and provincial public health measures went too far and chose to exercise their charter right to protest. That is their right.

Unfortunately, according to the intelligence assessments prepared by Canada’s Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre, extremist groups were using the protests as a cover. These groups' motivations extended well beyond grievances about public health measures and policy. Instead, their intent was to use the protest to advance an anti-democratic agenda.

With the intent of using trucks to blockade Ottawa's downtown core, demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. Some even demanded an immediate and unlawful change in government. These actions emboldened others to blockade the downtown Ottawa core. Demonstrators demanded an end to all mandates. They blocked border points at the Ambassador Bridge, at Coutts, Alberta, at Emerson, Manitoba, and the Pacific Highway crossing in B.C. The Ottawa hospital and the Windsor mayor received bomb threats.

Not only did these blockades costs hundreds of millions of dollars due to the loss of trade, but they interrupted the very supply lines these protesters claimed to be protecting. As the Ottawa occupation dragged on and even more anti-government demonstrators arrived, the unlawful conduct of the demonstrators continued.

The citizens of downtown Ottawa were subjected to constant and excessive horn honking and fireworks, a DJ blaring loud music, causing days of sleep deprivation for many residents. The demonstrators' disregard for mask mandates forced businesses to choose between employee safety and staying open. Most closed and remain closed today. The people of Ottawa reported numerous cases of illegal parking, idling, verbal, sexual and physical assault, intimidation and, worse still, death threats, an attempted arson, parliamentary staff followed home and children being used as shields.

Protest by its nature is disruptive, which we accept in a free and democratic society, but protests cannot be used to take hostage the charter rights of other Canadians as a means to force the government to accept political or ideological demands. This conduct gave way to a state of lawlessness in downtown Ottawa and compromised every resident’s section 2 right to security of the person.

While these actions may not represent the majority of participants, it is also more than “a few bad apples”, as the official opposition would say. Weapons seized from the Coutts border blockades and bomb threats received by the mayor of Windsor escalated this crisis. These actions are not peaceful; they are not lawful and they are not the actions of Canadians who share the values that got us through the pandemic.

The financial and additional enforcement powers, as well as streamlining jurisdictional concerns, have helped police authorities to responsibly disperse or arrest the unlawful demonstrators in Ottawa. It must be remembered that these demonstrators do not represent most Canadians. Roughly 85%, or more, of Canadians got vaccinated, and most of those who did not have not engaged in these disruptive protests.

Much more unites Canadians than divides them. The senseless and harmful acts of the past days do not reflect the attitudes of most Canadians. Initiating the Emergencies Act was a difficult but necessary decision to protect the rule of law and give Canadians their freedom.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious. In the member's speech he referred to security intelligence reports showing the protests were a threat to democracy. I believe he knows that privy councillors are subject to the Official Secrets Act. Our leader, as a member of the Queen's Privy Council, was not asked or invited to anything.

I do not believe the hon. member is a member of the Queen's Privy Council. Could he share with us the intelligence briefings that he got as a person who is not a member of the Queen's Privy Council on the security threat to the Government of Canada?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was quite clear. We have received caucus updates as national caucus members. It was very clear that the groups that were demonstrating put forward a manifesto to overthrow government.

I think we need to look at the many facts that came forward and were well reported as indicators. Bomb threats, blockades, seized weapons; all of those things are quite evident and they are all before us. Everybody has access to that information.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind members of the official opposition that even members who are participating virtually are actually part of the House and they deserve respect. There should not be heckling while a member is speaking.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Steveston—Richmond East. I have the pleasure of working with him on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I really liked his definition of patriotism, and I think it is something we need to consider here. However, he was quick to paint patriots as the good guys, the ones who wanted to adopt the Emergencies Act, and said that the others were not patriots.

I want to know two things. First, does he therefore think that Bloc members are not patriots? Second, does he think that the Emergencies Act was the only solution, despite the problems and illegal activities that were going on?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, weapons were found and weapons were seized. There was a threat to government. A manifesto was put forward threatening the government.

In my comments, I did indicate that some people may have come peacefully to protest and patriots in Canada come in many forms. However, when there are people who are organizing to try to overthrow a government, I do not see the patriotism there.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the intelligence assessments referenced by the previous speaker were prepared by Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre and were made available to the general public via The Guardian newspaper.

The thought was that tens of millions of dark money were flowing into the coffers of far-right extremist organizers like Tamara Lich and Pat King, into the coffers, potentially, of those currently charged with conspiracy to commit murder. It was made very clear early on in this occupation that crowd funding and now cryptocurrency was being used to fund illegal activities and the organizers who seek to put in place their own undemocratic government.

This demonstrated that concerning gap in reporting requirements. Why did the government not take immediate action to ensure that the proceeds of crime and terrorist financing regulations were updated to ensure these companies were not exempt from reporting suspicious transactions to FINTRAC?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would have to get a little more information on the FINTRAC involvement in this investigation. It is a great question, and I take it on notice.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord.

The Talleyrand quote “all that is excessive is insignificant” could have been said today about the situation we are debating in the House.

Yes, we are in the midst of a crisis, but the federal government chose to enforce an act by proclamation, which would allow the state to infringe on citizens' rights. Although the government could have taken many different paths, it chose to break out the heavy artillery. All that is excessive is insignificant.

The Liberal government claims that the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve this crisis, but in reality, it needs to use this act because it was unable to properly manage the crisis from the outset. This type of act is meant to be used exceptionally, especially if it was designed to apply to Quebec. The War Measures Act may have gotten a new name, but it still brings back bad memories for Quebec.

If I may, I would like to provide a brief history of the introduction and use of the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. The War Measures Act was introduced and came into force in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Its purpose was to give additional powers to the government in the event of a war, invasion or insurrection. The act was used again in 1939 because of the Second World War.

The third time the government invoked this law—we still remember it in Quebec—was during the October crisis in 1970. Immediately following the adoption of an executive order issued during the night at the request of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, the army took to the streets of Montreal in large numbers, striking terror and fear in the hearts of all Quebeckers. That was when their rights and freedoms were trampled on. In total, 497 Quebeckers were arrested and thrown in jail without reasonable cause or recourse. It happened before I was born, but the people have certainly not forgotten: “Je me souviens”.

In 1988, the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The new act changed the way the federal government can use extraordinary powers in times of crisis. Since it was passed, the government has never invoked it, so why now?

To answer that question, let us look closely at the present situation and the invocation criteria for this act. To have the right to invoke the act, the government must prove two things: first, that a dangerous and urgent situation exists; second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation with any other existing law.

First, is the current situation dangerous and urgent? The government does not meet this requirement for the unilateral application of the act. Allow me to demonstrate. On January 15, 2020, proof of vaccination against COVID‑19 became mandatory to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Two weeks later, on January 29, a truckers' movement opposed to this measure decided to gather and protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. So far, it all seems reasonable, because the right to protest and freedom of expression are guaranteed by both the Quebec and the Canadian charters of rights and freedoms.

The protest that was supposed to last a few days at the most turned into an occupation of the downtown area. At that point, the government should have dealt with the situation. Instead of taking action, the government washed its hands of it, claiming that crisis management was the Ottawa police's responsibility. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and the next day, on February 7, the Ottawa police force requested assistance from the federal and Ontario provincial governments. On February 11, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency, granting additional resources and powers to law enforcement services. The federal government continued doing nothing, except to polarize the public with inflammatory statements.

Let us keep in mind that in addition to the Ottawa siege, border blockades were set up in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, in such places as Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia.

However, these situations were resolved through existing laws. The same was obviously true for the protests in Quebec City.

As to whether this was an urgent and critical situation, if the situation was cause for concern, that was only true in Ontario, specifically in Ottawa, and nowhere else, especially not in Quebec. The Emergencies Act was to be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner, as the government had announced. That is clearly not the case.

The Liberal government's lack of leadership caused to the situation to deteriorate. Each day of inaction strengthened the protesters' position. Each day required more effort to enforce the law and each day the Prime Minister refused to take action, choosing to throw fuel on the fire with disparaging statements. As a result, the offenders were allowed to organize. They were allowed to set up tents, toilets, kitchens, cafeterias, a stage and barbecues. They even let them install a hot tub. A hot tub impeded the smooth functioning of democracy in a G7 nation.

By allowing the situation to fester, the Prime Minister gave the protesters time—time to fortify their position, time for radicals to get from one coast to the other or to cross the border, and time for foreign elements seeking to destabilize democracy in Quebec and Canada to raise funds in support of the offenders. Had action been taken earlier, we would not be here in Ottawa on a Sunday. We would be home with our constituents, which is where we should be.

Invoking the Emergencies Act is a massive smokescreen, a diversion to trick Quebeckers and Canadians into looking elsewhere so they will forget how things got to this point. It is unnecessary, dangerous and disproportionate. To be clear, the January 29 protest no longer has anything to do with the die-hards who decided to place the House under siege. Those who continue to resist, if any, are extremists who should have been contained by law enforcement long ago.

Now let us turn to the second criterion for invoking the Emergencies Act. The situation must be such that ordinary laws cannot address it.

Could the crisis have been addressed with existing laws? The answer is yes.

These protesters had been breaking the law for weeks. All the police had to do was enforce the laws already in place, and the whole thing would have been over in two days. The government had plenty of options. The Criminal Code is full of offences that were committed by the protesters.

Subsection 63(1) talks about “unlawful assembly”; section 64 defines the term “riot”; section 68 deals with people who fail to peaceably disperse and depart from a riot; section 430 talks about “mischief”; subsection 181(1) describes “common nuisance”; subsection 423.1(1) talks about the intimidation of a journalist; and section 129 talks about the obstruction of public officers or peace officers.

Some police authorities claimed recently that the only solution was the integration of the various police forces involved. However, there is no need for the Emergencies Act to request reinforcements and coordinate efforts. The RCMP, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the OPP, municipal police forces from neighbouring cities and even the Sûreté du Québec were already working together, and this legislation was not required.

As for the claim that the occupation could not be dealt with using ordinary legislation, as I have demonstrated to the House, the Criminal Code was already more than adequate to deal with the threat.

The government decided to use legislation by proclamation, in other words without consulting the opposition parties or allowing the smallest amendment. By ignoring those who were elected by the majority of the voters, this minority government is undermining its legitimacy and proving its detractors right. The Prime Minister decided to ignore the verdict of the voters, who gave him a minority mandate. He is acting as though he was granted all the power. That is not what the voters chose.

The government could use the act in specific locations, when the provinces request it. Quebec made it clear to the federal government that it wanted absolutely nothing to do with its emergency measures. Several Canadian provinces did the same. Rather than consult the provinces and Quebec, the Liberal government chose to impose an act that applies across Canada.

This law therefore cannot be limited. It is foreign to the reality of Quebec. It should not apply to Quebec.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the member's speaking time has run out.

The hon. member can finish her remarks during the period of questions and comments.

The hon. member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to the Emergencies Act, the interim chief of the Ottawa police said that it is because of the application of this legislation—which we hope will be temporary—that the police were able to take the various actions they did in the past few days.

What does my colleague think of this statement? Is what the interim chief of police is saying true?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question, which allows me to repeat something I said.

Yes, integrating the various police forces was probably necessary, but the Emergencies Act was not needed in order for the various police forces to work together and coordinate. This means that the law is unnecessary.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Terrebonne very eloquently expressed the reasons why the threshold has not been satisfied under the Emergencies Act. What we have instead is an unprecedented overreach on the part of the government that threatens the foundations of democracy. As the member pointed out, the blockades along the Canada-U.S. border were dispersed before the invocation of the Emergencies Act. The protesters here in Ottawa have been dispersed, and yet here we are debating the Emergencies Act.

Would the member agree that the motivations behind this on the part of the government are in fact quite sinister and that it is not about what was happening here in Ottawa or what was happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it is about crushing those who disagree with them?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the members on the government side not to heckle or weigh into the discussion when it is not their time to speak.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I agree that this is a huge smokescreen. As I said in my speech, there was no need for this legislation.

Given its minority status, the government does not have the democratic legitimacy to impose such a far-reaching measure. The Emergencies Act cannot legitimately be applied because it does not meet the two criteria necessary to invoke it.

As representatives of the Quebec nation, we in the Bloc Québécois have the legitimacy to oppose it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concern about the known extremist factions in this illegal occupation. They are dangerous and they were known prior to this.

I have a question that feeds into that. I am wondering if my colleague from the Bloc shares our concern that the Prime Minister has not shown any leadership. This is unacceptable not only to the residents of Ottawa, but certainly to the individuals and residents in my riding of Winnipeg Centre who have been overtaken by this illegal occupation with extremist white nationalist factions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question.

I agree that Ottawa residents have suffered enough. I hope that I explained in my speech, and now in my answer, that this blockade should never have taken place.

The government's mistake was to allow the protesters to settle in and get organized. Things should never have gotten to that point. Extremists should never have gained so much visibility.

It was a mistake for the government to let this happen. It should have acted earlier, and it should never have gotten to the point of illegitimately invoking this law.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I sure hope I am wrong, but I heard, in my ear, someone using the F-word, referring to me saying, “Why don't you just eff off”. I hope I am wrong. I hope that I did not hear that, but I want to bring that to your attention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the member. Certainly, there did not seem to be anything from this end from what I can gather. I am wondering if maybe, while there was some interpretation happening, there may have been somebody speaking near the interpretation booth. I am not sure, but we certainly did not hear anything from here. I did not have my earphone on for the translation, so I am not sure if it would have been virtual or not. I am sure if it had been virtual, we would have heard the interruptions here. I am assuming that someone will look into what happened there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I need to clarify something. The Emergencies Act was assented to on July 21, 1988, and it replaced the War Measures Act. I would agree that there are important, not to say fundamental, differences between them. However, both acts set out the manner in which we wish to articulate our interventions and responses to the worst situations, namely a public welfare emergency, a public order emergency, an international emergency or a war emergency. There is nothing ordinary or trivial about this act. It is the heavy artillery of legislation. It must only be invoked sparingly and with the utmost prudence.

Today, we must decide if using this act in the current situation is appropriate. Are we in a state of emergency? If the answer is yes, does the seriousness of the situation justify invoking the Emergencies Act? If so, as provided for in subsection 17(2), what area is affected by this state of emergency?

Subsection 17(1) of the act provides for the Governor in Council to declare a state of emergency after holding consultations under section 25. Pursuant to section 25, this means that “the lieutenant governor in council of each province...shall be consulted”. This exercise should usually make it possible to determine, with a modicum of reliability, if a situation exists in a province that requires us to invoke the Emergencies Act.

In the interest of being thorough, subsection 58(1) provides that the report on the consultations must be provided with the motion for confirmation of the potential proclamation. The Governor in Council's proclamation, dated February 15, 2022, states that the consultation under subsection 25(1) did take place, and it “declare[s] that a public order emergency exists throughout Canada and necessitates the taking of special temporary measures”.

What does that mean, exactly? Like all the other members of the Bloc Québécois caucus, I think that ratifying this proclamation at this point in time would be a grave error that could have worse consequences than the situation it seeks to address. Even setting aside the fact that no end date is given for the allegedly temporary proposed measures, there are plainly at least two big issues with the proclamation. First of all, and this is no small matter, it is clear that there is no state of emergency as defined in the act, which I think nullifies any argument for authorizing the proclamation under section 17(1). The definition of a public order emergency is set out in section 16 of the act and requires “a national emergency”. This national emergency is itself defined in section 3 of the act, which states that the situation must be such that it “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. It also states that the situation must “exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”.

However, the protests and the occupation in Ottawa and elsewhere in Canada have all been dealt with. The blockades have been removed and the offenders punished without the need to invoke the Emergencies Act. The existing laws and provincial and municipal powers to intervene were clearly sufficient. Moreover, the majority of premiers consulted by the Prime Minister confirmed that they did not need this act and made it clear that they were opposed to using it. In fact, of the 13 premiers consulted, only three said they supported invoking the act. How then can anyone seriously argue that the whole country is in a state of emergency?

The Premier of Quebec even said as much to the Prime Minister. Page 5 of the report attached to the proclamation says that “municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation”. It then says that “the use of the Act would be divisive”.

The least we can conclude from that is that the national emergency, which the act states is a condition for declaring a public order emergency, simply does not exist.

Furthermore, in the worst-case scenario, the report on the consultation with the provinces under in subsection 25(1) of the act would only justify the declaration of a public order emergency in the three provinces that were affected and that supported the declaration, namely Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia.

The premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Quebec all said that they had the situation under control and did not support the invocation of this act.

Unless the government has no regard for these premiers, it certainly cannot claim that there is a national emergency in these seven provinces as required by the act.

As for the premiers of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, the report merely states that they have not issued public statements. It would be pretty difficult to interpret that silence as a call for help or as approval to invoke the Emergencies Act.

As for Quebec, I will simply read the quote from the report on the consultations regarding the proclamation. It takes up just three short lines in an eight-page document:

The Premier of Quebec said that he opposed the application of the Emergencies Act in Quebec, stating that municipal police and the Sûreté du Québec have control of the situation, and arguing that the use of the Act would be divisive.

Under subsection 17(2) of the Act, the emergency, if it existed, was in only three provinces, so the proclamation should have stated that there was a situation in the provinces of Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and British Columbia, rather than indicating that a state of emergency exists throughout the country, as appears in the third paragraph of the declaration.

The government's claim that the lieutenant governor in council of each province and the commissioners of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut had been consulted and that it had therefore concluded that a state of emergency exists throughout the country inevitably suggests either a serious lack of judgment or equally serious wilful blindness. As the Premier of Quebec rightly said, this is not an inconsequential mistake, but a potentially divisive act. Do we really need this?

Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent. This kind of law constitutes a serious argument to convince anyone that the Government of Canada has the power to control its territory. Invoking it on a whim anytime an unexpected situation causes headaches and creates major policing challenges actually weakens its impact. The most powerful weapons should be used only as a last resort. They tend to be more effective as a deterrent than when they are put to use.

Let us be clear. The situation that has been happening on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks is unacceptable in a democracy and should never have been tolerated this long. In a democracy, the right to express disapproval of our leaders' decisions and the right to assemble are sacred.

However, we must bear in mind that each individual's rights end where another's begin. Abuse of those rights is a violation that can and actually should always be punished. Have we reached the point of bringing out the heavy artillery? I do not think so. It might happen one day. We cannot rule it out. As I see it, this act should be delayed for as long as possible and be used as rarely as possible—ideally, never.

In conclusion, the invocation of the Emergencies Act at this point could be seen as a clumsy or perhaps desperate move on the part of a beleaguered Prime Minister trying to make it look like he took action to deal with a situation that is unacceptable in a democracy. Either way, it is a serious, dangerous move whose consequences will not be fully understood for years.

It is therefore my intention and that of the entire Bloc Québécois caucus to vote against the confirmation motion, and I urge my 306 colleagues, be they NDP, Conservative, Green, Liberal or independent, who also care about democracy and the rights we enjoy because of it, to reject this motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservative Party against the Emergencies Act is actually quite disappointing. Contrary to what some of the premiers might actually be saying out west, Alberta has asked for support from Ottawa. The province did not have access to tow trucks. In the province of Manitoba, the premier literally begged and pleaded for Ottawa to get more engaged and show leadership just three days before the act was brought in. The premier of Ontario supports the measure. The interim chief of police indicates that, in essence, it is because of the measure that we can look outside today and start to see Ottawa's citizens getting back their city.

Why does the Bloc continue to support the Conservatives, and not support real people in our communities by voting in favour of this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Unfortunately, from listening to him, I can tell that he did not even read the documents he now wishes to endorse. He should read the report on the consultations with the provinces, which is appended to the proclamation. That is where I found the text I just read. It is in that document that we can see that only three provinces asked for the proclamation: Ontario, Newfoundland and British Columbia.

If he did not read these documents, I suggest that instead of rising to speak, he allow other members who have read the documents to have their say, so we can have an intelligent discussion about the situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech.

The Liberals said that we needed to have the necessary measures to deal with the problem in downtown Ottawa. Now, that situation has been settled. Why do we still need these measures? Perhaps the government wants to have these unlimited powers?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I completely agree with her. The situation has been resolved, as I said in my speech.

It is a difficult situation, we agree. It is unacceptable. People cannot block off streets like that. If there had been a fire or if someone had fallen ill on Wellington Street, it would have been impossible for an ambulance or the fire department to get there. I agree that this is unacceptable.

That said, the situation was resolved through the police. It was almost nice to see the various police forces supporting each other. That is how the situation was settled.

The Emergencies Act needs to be kept for real emergency measures, otherwise we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. It is much like the story of Peter and the wolf. We cry wolf when there is no wolf. At some point, there will be a wolf, but our cries will not be heard.

I am urging us to show restraint. The Emergencies Act should be invoked when there are emergency measures to be taken. If there are other ways to deal with a situation, we should use them. If the act is to be invoked, it should be done sparingly and judiciously, selecting the places where it applies. It was only three provinces, not the ten provinces and three territories, that asked for it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I had the honour of travelling to Poland with the hon. member for the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. We have seen anti-Semitic symbols flying in our nation's capital. Many of the organizers of the convoy are well-known far-right figures who are known for their white supremacist ideologies.

Can the member speak to the need to tackle anti-Semitism across the country and ensure that this kind of thing never happens again?