Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

The House resumed from February 20 consideration of the motion.

Emergencies Act

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking all of the staff of the House of Commons and the interpreters for joining us today, bright and early, at seven in the morning. Today, in this province, it is Family Day, and they are here spending the day with us. I am grateful and want to thank them and acknowledge them, as well as everyone who is here with us today. We thank them for their time and for everything they are doing as we discuss a matter that I think is very impactful for our families and, really, for our family of Canada.

I also want to take this occasion to wish Her Majesty the very best and a speedy recovery. I had the honour of meeting Her Majesty. I had an audience with her the year of Canada's sesquicentennial. As one of her medalists, it was the honour of my life to have had that opportunity.

Continuing where I left off last evening, flags matter. Symbols matter, just like how our Canadian flag is a beacon of hope for so many people here at home and abroad. I was distraught, as a person who has proudly worn our flag and the uniform of our country, to see people wrap themselves in our flag and use it as a shield for their behaviour, which sometimes was anything but honourable.

What I have commented on thus far, beginning last evening and this morning, unfortunately describes in detail what I believe lay at the heart of some of those who came to Ottawa. They did not come here to register valid concerns. They certainly did not need three weeks to pretend to try to do so, and the rhetoric that spewed from their leaders did not signal a desire for dialogue. They were trying to impose their views on the nation. They were fed up with mandates, vaccines and not being able to do whatever it is they wanted. They wanted to dictate. Some even wanted to govern.

Forget about the will of the people; it was the protesters own will they wanted to impose. That is not expressing freedom. It is also a grossly uneducated view of Canadian democracy and an extremely poor attempt at implementing a coup. Our rights to freedom of expression and assembly should not and must not include the oppression of another's.

I wonder if the protesters were equally fed up with the 35,000 Canadians who died as a direct result of COVID‑19 and its variants? Did those who are no longer with us die because of the common cold? Did they lose their lives because of the actions of draconian governments to stop the spread of the virus? It is disrespectful and nonsense.

This is what happens when some people are glued to Fox News and attend the university of social media. In fact, it was a Fox News commentator who went so far as to share disinformation about a protester getting hurt and dying, only to later delete the erroneous post but, by then, the damage had been done. I would like to commend the members of the Toronto Police Service's mounted unit for their professionalism, their work and the exemplary manner in which they conducted themselves. I commend all of the police services that came to Ottawa to assist in the restoration of peace and order.

Much will be said of the last three weeks and the targeted use of a portion of the Emergencies Act to peacefully end the occupation of our capital and to protect Canada's foreign trade link to our largest and strongest trading partner. People should remember that our country cannot live on beautiful scenery alone. We need good jobs. We need to protect the health of our people and the viability of our economy and our health care system.

Moreover, with every passing day, the protest was sending a signal globally that the rule of law in Canada was weak. It is not often that Canada makes the podcast on The Economist, never mind be the main topic of discussion, but we did. Instead of it being about our world-class arts and culture, our leading tech and innovation, and the many things that make our Canada, our country, great, it was about the protest. It was destroying our global reputation.

I would like now to focus my comments on what lies at the basis of what is being debated in this House, that being the rule of law. Unfortunately, I know a little of what it is like to be denied the rule of law. I also know what it is like to be judged by the court of public opinion, where facts are often cast aside as pesky annoyances.

To the issue at hand, does the limited implementation of certain provisions of the Emergencies Act deny Canada and Canadians the rule of law? Does the act remove one's charter rights? Are the police and the military going to start searching people's homes and arresting anyone they do not like? Will Canadians have all of their civil liberties stripped away at a moment's notice by a nefarious federal government? Of course not.

In listening to some of my colleagues, it would seem that the federal government is on the verge of a military dictatorship. I have heard stories from my parents and others who actually escaped oppression. I spent hours in Yad Vashem reading, listening and learning about the systemic horrors that were endured during the Holocaust. In Ottawa, I heard protesters draw parallels between their experience in the occupation and what different oppressed communities have endured, and some, sadly, still do. I implore people who continue to do that to please stop, because they are cheapening the suffering of those who have endured oppression and much worse.

The rule of law is just that: The law rules. It rules insofar as the same laws apply to everyone, regardless of their personal circumstances, their race, their orientation or anything else.

The definition of the rule of law employed by the United Nations is quite lengthy. The term refers to “a principle...in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.” Interestingly, the UN definition goes on to state, “It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.”

The government's decision to implement certain targeted aspects of the Emergencies Act within a duration of just 30 days is certainly transparent and ensures adherence to the principles of the supremacy of the law. At no point does the implementation of the act remove the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter. At no point does the act usurp the powers of Parliament. At no point does the act impose some unconstitutional period of martial law.

In conclusion, what is being done with the temporary, targeted use of certain provisions of the Emergencies Act is to restore peace, order and good government through legitimate and constitutional measures to ensure that the people of Ottawa, the economy and the people of Canada are able to function without further unlawful interference and interruption.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can feel a lot of stress and tension as we debate this.

Do you respect the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which I assume you do? I am assuming everybody—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Perhaps the member could use the word “he” as opposed to “you”.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

I would ask if my colleague respects the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, which I assume all of us do in the House, and how he would respond to what it said, as follows: “This use of the Emergencies Act is unnecessary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional. The high threshold to invoke the act has not been met. It is in light of all these violations of civil liberties that we will be taking the government to court.” I am curious what the hon. member has to say about that.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I was in Ottawa and wanted to patron a local restaurant, as I hope anyone would want to do if my own city of Toronto had gone through the same thing that Ottawa had. It took me 20 minutes of walking before I could find a local restaurant to support here in Ottawa.

Even a fast casual dining restaurant will have a minimum complement of staff of seven to 10 people, so imagine how many hundreds of workers were out of work. I imagine that is an opinion my Conservative colleague and I would share: the importance of supporting local businesses. How many jobs and livelihoods were impacted? How many millions in business revenue were lost? These are revenues to the treasury that support the important services that make our country what it is.

This has been a black eye on our country, and it is so vital that we move forward.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a little offended by the presentation from my colleague from Spadina—Fort York. He repeatedly mentioned a lack of education on the part of the protesters and occupiers, saying that perhaps they had attended only the university of social media. I think that is a massive generalization. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I detected some contempt in his remarks, similar to the contempt shown by the Prime Minister.

The PM could not even be bothered to come down from his ivory tower to meet with people. That is one of the many things he has not done. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Prime Minister's inaction and whether it constitutes contempt for all the protesters and occupiers.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, one of the real issues I have observed walking through the streets of Ottawa is how the people have been impacted. For example, the National Arts Centre has been closed. To give members a sense of the scope, I will provide a statistic from my riding. Ms. Kendra Bator of Mirvish Productions comes from my riding, which is our country's largest theatre production company. Every dollar spent generates $10 in the local economy. How many millions were lost as a result of the disruption by the occupation? It is so vital that we move forward so we can support Ottawa's businesses and people's livelihoods.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by adding my thanks to yours for the people who are here supporting us today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind members they are to address questions to the House. Instead of using the words “you” or “yours”, she may want to say “he” or “his”.

The hon. member may continue.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will do that.

I would like to begin by thanking all of the people who are here supporting us this morning and the men and women in uniform who have been working tirelessly all weekend to apply the law we have invoked. In particular, I would like to thank the York Regional Police, which was here and which serves my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

The member discussed the definition of the rule of law as defined by the United Nations, which I thought was very clarifying. I was wondering if there is anything in the Emergencies Act that has been invoked that the member feels in any way impedes that definition of the rule of law.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, just last evening as we were closing down the chamber, I had the opportunity to personally thank members of the York Regional Police who are here, just like the members from the Toronto Police Service and police services across the country.

As I said during my comments, it is constitutional and measured. It is a targeted use of but a portion of the Emergencies Act, which gives me confidence, as does the fact that it is only for 30 days and can be ended sooner. What is vital is that the occupation was ended so that we can move forward as a country, and so that this city can move forward. More importantly is what it means for the rest of this country, because if we do not end what happened here then it just as easily could happen in even more municipalities and communities across this country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, right now, Ottawa businesses are allowed to reopen. The Conservatives and Bloc members have been saying that the situation in Windsor with the Ambassador Bridge and the corridor is fine, but I can assure members that even last night and this morning, as I drove along the corridor I saw that the jersey barricades we have are still blocking businesses.

I would like the hon. member to reflect on the fact that he could not find a place to eat last night, but still, ironically, Windsor businesses, health care services and other types of emergency vehicles are continue to be blocked because of the actions and the consequences.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, if anything, I think that is where my colleague and l clearly share the importance of taking action to ensure that trade can resume and can move unabated. He would know better than many how vital that connection is. Just as important as that connection is to our strongest and largest trading partner, so too is our reputation and the stain that this protest has had on it. It is so vital for foreign investment and jobs that we move forward. That is why the targeted use of a certain portion of the Emergencies Act is something I support.

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

Madam Speaker, on the state of the current emergency, the member talked about the temporary nature of it and that it is going to last for 30 days. If all of the circumstances surrounding this seem to have levelled off and we are in a state where we can get back to some normalcy, would he support the revocation of the act?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I emphasized during my comments, it was very vital that action was taken so that not just our neighbours and communities here in Ottawa, but our country could move forward, with certainty and confidence in communities that have already been impacted, like Windsor, as my colleague was referring to, and others, because people's livelihoods and businesses are at stake. As a former entrepreneur and business owner, I cannot imagine what that experience has been like for those whose livelihoods and dreams have been impacted. Again, that is why I support the targeted, measured, time-limited use of the Emergencies Act.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to think that the Emergencies Act was essential.

I would like him to explain how the police were able to clear the Ambassador Bridge without this legislation.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is essential is people's livelihoods. What is essential is people's ability to afford rent, put food on the table and take care of their families. For three weeks, there were people who did not feel safe going home. For three weeks businesses were closed and disrupted. People's livelihoods are essential. That is why it is essential for the Emergencies Act to be implemented in a measured, limited, targeted way.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, right off the hop, I want to acknowledge that it is Family Day here in Saskatchewan, and I hope the residents of Battlefords—Lloydminster, despite the cold weather, are able to go out and enjoy some activities, since Saskatchewan has lifted almost all of its restrictions.

We know that the invocation of the Emergencies Act is not only unprecedented but also extreme. While the Prime Minister has declared a public order emergency throughout Canada to justify this, there is no evidence that there is a public emergency to necessitate these broad, sweeping powers. I have listened closely to the comments from the Prime Minister and his government in the House and what they have told Canadians. I have yet to hear a legitimate justification for the implementation of this act.

The reality is that our country is hurting right now, and it is disheartening. The current state of affairs is a direct consequence of the Prime Minister's failed leadership. At a time when we need leadership to bring Canadians together, the Prime Minister is acting like the Liberal Party leader, not the Prime Minister of Canada.

At the very onset, before the “freedom convoy” even rolled into Ottawa, the Prime Minister publicly insulted Canadians and dismissed the genuine concerns being raised, doubling down on the division that his government's rhetoric and policies have sown into this country throughout the pandemic. Whether it be hubris or stubbornness, the Prime Minister has refused to make even the smallest of efforts to demonstrate to Canadians that he has listened to, heard and understood their concerns.

As we know, this past week, the Conservatives presented the Liberal government with an extremely reasonable opportunity to do just that. The House voted on a Conservative motion that would have compelled the government to table in Parliament, by the end of the month, a plan, just a plan, to bring an end to the federal mandates and restrictions. This was a very reasonable motion and, at the very least, would have helped to bring some resolution to the growing frustration. It would have also given all Canadians some clarity, which, quite frankly, they are owed. Shamefully, we know the Liberals rejected the motion.

What has been even more troubling is that the Prime Minister and his Liberal government have refused to tell Canadians what metrics are being used to justify the continued enforcement of federal mandates and restrictions. Is it vaccination rates? Is it case counts? Is it hospital capacity? Is it simply Liberal ideology? Canadians do not know.

Provinces across the country have presented plans to lift restrictions under their jurisdictions. Countries around the world with lower vaccination rates than those of Canada have lifted their restrictions. Canadians cannot be expected to live with federal mandates and restrictions indefinitely. We know this because I have heard from my constituents and I know every single member of the House has heard from constituents.

Canadians have sacrificed so much over the past two years and they deserve answers from the Liberal government. However, instead of answers or plans, the Prime Minister has invoked the Emergencies Act. What is it for? Is it to crack down on protesters and those who have supported protests? To be clear, the rule of law is a fundamental principle in our Canadian democracy. Law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to enforce the law and we expect them to do so, but we know that they do not need the Emergencies Act to enforce the law. This extreme suspension of civil liberties is not about public safety or restoring order or upholding the rule of law.

The Emergencies Act is clear in its definition of a national emergency that would give grounds for its implementation. The act defines a national emergency as an “urgent and critical situation” that “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”. There is no such situation.

Even in his own words, the Prime Minister has said that the Emergencies Act should not be the first or the second resort. The start of the clearing of illegal blockades at our borders, whether it be the Ambassador Bridge or the Coutts, Alberta, crossing, perfectly demonstrates that law enforcement agencies already have the necessary tools at their disposal to enforce the law.

That said, this really becomes about the Prime Minister granting law enforcement and financial institutions extraordinary powers to punish Canadians who support a cause that does not have his approval. Through this proclamation of a national emergency, the government has given itself the right to freeze the personal and business back accounts and assets of Canadians. There are so many unanswered questions about this draconian measure and how the government intends to apply it. This is a very dangerous precedent. At every turn, the Prime Minister and his ministers have failed to give any straight answers. I have not seen justification for this overreach. This is not how the government should operate in a free and democratic society.

It is also evident that there is no consensus among the premiers to support the Liberal government's extreme response. We know there is a duty to consult built into this act, and we know that with the Liberal government, there is rarely, if ever, a collaborative process, let alone a transparent process.

The Prime Minister certainly does not have the support of Saskatchewan's premier. Premier Scott Moe has clearly stated that Saskatchewan does not support the Liberal government's invocation of the Emergencies Act. He has gone on to say that the Prime Minister has gone too far with the use of this act and has called on all parliamentarians to stop this abuse of power.

Premier Scott Moe has been very vocal in his opposition to the use of this act, but he is not alone. The Premiers of Alberta, Quebec, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have all expressed their opposition to the Prime Minister's actions. Therefore, in addition to encroaching on civil liberties without clear justification, the implementation of the Emergencies Act is also encroaching on provincial jurisdiction without their expressed consensus, which seems to be a trend for the government. It does not seem to care about what jurisdiction it is encroaching on. Again, this debate is not to be taken lightly. This is a matter of principle with the very high stakes of safeguarding our fundamental freedoms.

It is also worth noting that it is clear the world is watching Canada at this moment. In considering the validity of the government's action, members of the House must decide whether the high threshold set out in the Emergencies Act to justify its use has been met. If the House gives the Prime Minister these unprecedented and extreme powers without the legal and moral justification to do so, Canada loses credibility on the world stage to criticize abuses of power.

I want each and every member of the House to think which side of history they want to be on. The actions of this place have long-lasting consequences. Either the threshold needed to implement the Emergencies Act has been met or it has not. Any doubt in that threshold should be enough to warrant opposition to it, because the personal cost to Canadians and to our fundamental freedoms is too high to get it wrong.

I will not be supporting this motion. I do not believe that the necessary threshold has been met to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. The government has not provided sufficient evidence that we are in a national emergency. There is no proof that law enforcement agencies need additional and far-reaching powers to enforce the law. Canadians should not face harmful financial penalties for opposing government policy.

We cannot sidestep the simple fact that this really is a crisis of failed leadership. There has been no effort made by the Prime Minister to bring a peaceful resolution to this impasse. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Prime Minister has been purposeful in his words to divide, to stigmatize and to insult Canadians with whom he does not agree.

It is time to reject the Prime Minister's divisive politics and abuse of power. The Emergencies Act must be revoked and we need to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Time is up. The hon. member will be able to continue during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member think that the letter the Alberta government sent to the federal government seeking assistance with the blockade in Coutts could undermine the Alberta government's upcoming challenge to the Emergencies Act in court?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion this was predictable. It is actually an example of what I said in my speech, that the Prime Minister does not listen to the premiers. If the Prime Minister had sat down, spoken to and heard what these Canadians had to say about how these restrictions are affecting their livelihoods and their opportunities to make a living, I believe we would not be in this position.

The question I have for the government is, what is next? Sure, the streets around Wellington may be clear, but what is next? There have been no conversations with any of the Canadians who have concerns about these restrictions.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which are very relevant to me. Members will understand what I mean when I deliver my speech later.

My question is this. Considering that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared before this order was in effect, and with what just happened in the parliamentary precinct, where authorities managed to clear out protesters with the rules in place in the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act, does my colleague believe that the government is trying to score cheap political points with this legislation, which is in force even though members have not yet officially voted on it today?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, again, this comes down to failed leadership. We know that law enforcement has the ability. We have seen this. I gave the examples of the Ambassador Bridge and also Coutts. This comes down to the Prime Minister failing to acknowledge actual concerns that Canadians have and how it has affected their families and their livelihoods for the past two years.

The fact that the Liberal government, along with the NDP, voted against the Conservative motion for the government to table a plan just shows arrogance and that the Prime Minister does not care about the concerns these Canadians have.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada has become a very toxic petri dish of disinformation. We see online now that this is somehow some kind of a plot with the World Economic Forum. There is this crazy theory going around that the UN flew a secret plane into North Bay and they fired rubber bullets on people in Ottawa. We are hit and inundated with anti-vax disinformation, and it is also being perpetuated by Conservative MPs. In Washington, Congress is looking into whether Facebook was allowing bought accounts from foreign sources to push the convoy, particularly Russian disinformation.

Is Parliament ready to step up and look at the disinformation campaign? If Congress is investigating what happened with the convoy, why is there not anything happening here in Parliament?