Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I find it absolutely tragic, the irony that is coming from the member who has been—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order, and the hon. member has been reprimanded for this before. If he does this again, I will ask him to leave the chamber.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nunavut.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

During this debate, I experienced Ikiaqurmijaarniq. I spoke so much from the depth of my heart that my throat and voice were shaking. I am sincerely concerned about the risks and safety of Nunavummiut and Canadians, especially with the downplaying of what happened in the last three weeks and especially with the extremism we have seen being downplayed to “having a different view”.

Much of the debate surrounding the Emergencies Act is because of the illegal blockade that was dismantled this weekend, which stemmed from the same extremism. I thank the implementation of the Emergencies Act and law enforcement. I believe our democracy could still be at risk, especially with the awful protests that bordered on extremism that were going on yesterday in Surrey, British Columbia, and the ongoing issues, as described by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Windsor West.

The intent of foreign interference is still in Canada. Some members have attempted to generate fear of the Emergencies Act and the implications of declaring it. Some have accused the NDP of aligning with the Liberals. I will remind the members that the NDP has been reluctant. Its members have sought clarity, have been principled and have sought to confirm that there will be accountability.

While I could share much more, I will only give examples of three instances of government interference in my life. I have an inherent mistrust in authorities and in law enforcement.

In the 1950s, my grandfather was asked to go from Pond Inlet to Resolute to teach the High Arctic relocatees from northern Quebec how to survive. The Inuit from northern Quebec were tricked by authorities to go on the C.D. Howe, a supply ship. They were told life and the environment would be better, and wildlife would be abundant. In reality, there are months of darkness in the winter, and there is minimal wildlife throughout much of the year. Little did they know they were sent there by the federal government in the name of Canadian sovereignty.

When I was four years old, I had frozen my hands. I do not remember the pain. What I do remember is the nurse telling my mom she would cut my fingers off. I remember my mom protecting me and arguing against the nurse. I think that was my first exposure to the awesome power of protest. Thanks to my mom I still have my fingers. I love my mom.

By 1981, when we lived in Igloolik, my dad committed suicide. Some years later, I learned that my grandfather, my dad's dad had committed suicide. From what I have heard, my grandfather was greatly respected. It is believed the toll of being responsible for the Inuit in Resolute caused him great grief. I always wonder if Canada’s policies on sovereignty had a role in this.

After my dad's suicide, my siblings and I were fostered, often separately. According to the government authorities, my mom could not cope well enough to raise us. Instead, the government saw it better to send us to different communities all over Nunavut. We did get to return to our mom many times.

Now, remember the map of Nunavut and how vastly orange I am keeping it. All communities are fly in and fly out only. Ultimately, I grew up in five of those communities at one time or another.

I think about how unoriginal my life is as an Inuk, as an indigenous person in Canada. I do not share this for members to feel sorry for me or the beautiful people I represent. I remind members why I have an inherent mistrust of government authorities and law enforcement.

Colonial laws dictated my childhood away from my loved ones. Despite that, I am here. I have spoken Inuktitut. My culture and Nunavummiut thrive. Here I am, now a duly elected member of Parliament for Nunavut.

In the face of this adversity, I am inspired by an Inuit song called Silatugami by Northern Haze, an Inuit rock band. Silatugami, translated, literally means “that who is wise”. James Ungalaq, the lead singer, was inspired by the calm in his friend’s voice. James was having internal turmoil, much like we are today. Silatugami speaks of the potential of the abuse of power and the fear of threats, extortion, deprivation and bullying. It is also a song of hope and calm for the future. This is the moment we are all in. We are all working for a better future. We need to be in a time of courage, of fearlessness and of willingness to learn.

When I think about the last three weeks, I think about the awesome privilege that so many Canadians are so used to. I know that Canadians can and will move beyond this pandemic.

Will the lives of all Canadians be impacted by this act? No. Am I concerned about its overreach? Yes. Is there anything we as legislators can do, if there is overreach? Yes. What level of oversight is there? It has the highest, which is parliamentary oversight. That is us in the House. Will there be accountability? Yes. Will I be willing to have the measures revoked if I see overreach? Yes.

With deep distrust of government interference, I know that the Emergencies Act is necessary to protect our democracy. There are checks and balances. The types of interferences in my life had no checks and balances. They were government overreach.

However, that is not what we are facing today. We are debating the impact of foreign interference in our democracy, which has been proven with the millions of donations that were allowed to infiltrate the minds of Canadians to break our domestic laws.

I have heard foreign interference influence members of Parliament and that deeply concerns me. It is why we must act with diligence to either the expiry of this declaration or hopefully sooner, when that foreign interference has been dealt with.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for sharing aspects of her own experience and the experience of her communities. I think it is a powerful reminder of the injustices that have been committed by federal governments toward indigenous peoples and also about, really, the abuses we have seen from overreaching federal governments.

I think it underlines the importance of freedom, the freedom of peoples to be authors of their own story, to work and to live where they wish. I think is it important to underline the fact, and I think there has been some misstatement around this, that there are people who have been involved in these protests from all different backgrounds. Being on Wellington Street, I have seen members of visible minority communities, indigenous people and people who are concerned about mandates from all walks of life, who do feel that this is an overreach.

The member seems, in the principles she articulates, to be very aligned with where I am and where we are in terms of not wanting the federal government to be able to interfere too much in people's lives. I do not understand why she is supporting this motion.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, I am in support because I feel it is very important that we must continue to protect our democracy. I sincerely feel that our democracy is under threat. We have seen this through the media, through social media and through the comments that have been made in the House. I have seen the foreign interference that has infiltrated the minds of Canadians.

Qujannamiik.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to respect the member for Nunavut's story because she is probably closer to the essence of what is really behind the protest that we have seen.

We cannot take it at face value that this is about vaccines and mandates. This is about an attack on our democracy and perhaps she would have some useful insight for us as to what would draw people to support the very evil-minded folks who have been behind this protest. We need to know that to more effectively reach them and bring them back into a democracy that includes them.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, that was an important question.

I know, having had whole generations of my people be suppressed and oppressed for years, with their voices lost or prevented from being heard, that there are many Canadians who feel their voices have not been heard. I can understand why they want to be heard now, but there are ways that they can be heard, lawful ways that they can be heard. They can stick to their Canadian roots as kind human beings who respect each other as neighbours. There are ways to make sure that we are protecting those who cannot be vaccinated, and there are ways to make sure that we are following our public health measures so that we can be heard to ensure that we are doing better for our future.

Qujannamiik.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, many NDP members have said that they are uncomfortable with the Emergencies Act and have even indicated that they might vote differently if there were no trucks left today.

When faced with the threat that the NDP would vote according to its conscience, the Prime Minister announced that this would be a confidence vote. That means that, today, there are no more parliamentary safeguards, or hardly any, because we are once again faced with the threat of another useless election.

Does the member not think that the Prime Minister is showing a lack of respect for the NDP members by preventing them from voting according to their conscience?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

This is more than just about the Prime Minister for me. This is about protecting our democracy. That is what we need to be voting on. We have to make sure that residents like the people in the riding of the member for Windsor West continue to be protected. We keep hearing they are still feeling the impacts of the extremist views that have penetrated our Canadian democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for perhaps one of the most powerful speeches I have ever heard in the House. I certainly hope all members of this place have an opportunity to listen to the power of her words.

Last night one of my constituency offices was vandalized. I want to thank the members of my staff who have gone to clean up the mess this morning. They work hard every day to help people in our riding, because they care and want to see a better life for the people we serve.

I also want to thank the security folks in Campbell River who work all night to keep our streets safe and who contacted me last night to let me know. I deeply respect their work and dedication.

I want to thank all of the workers in this House who have driven or walked here during these unprecedented times to make sure that this place still works on a long weekend that is meant to be focused on their families. The House of Commons team shows up every single time, regardless of who is sitting in any seat in this House, and I admire them for it.

I am now in my seventh year of working in this place. I am a person who never wanted or planned to be a politician. I came here because, more than anything, I hate injustice.

I came here because I am a white girl who was adopted into an indigenous family, who at a very young age realized that how I was treated was different from the majority of my family. It took me years to understand that what I was seeing was racism and colonial systems that are everywhere in our country still today.

I learned time and again a very important lesson. I cannot participate in minimizing the voices of marginalized people. I cannot minimize any form of action that has any form of extremism at its roots. I take this very seriously because I know our planet's history and I know our country's history. When the majority is minimized, the bodies of marginalized communities pay. If I am not careful inside this white body, the bodies of my children, grandchildren and family are at risk, and I do not take that lightly.

Here we are and I am being very clear that I have heard people say they do not feel safe. They are the workers near the Ambassador Bridge, who watched their jobs become at risk because of the blockade. They were terrified when they heard folks in the U.S. ask why they should continue to partner with Canada when these kinds of things can happen. They have fought so hard to keep these jobs in Canada and know how fragile the relationship is.

They are the working people who are seeing the costs of their everyday expenses grow while watching their income stay the same or lessen, and just want enough to get by every day. They have been put in a position of constant worry that they will not be able to afford what they need to survive and they know they are not getting the help they need.

They are the young people who are scared because they know that the ability to purchase a home or even rent one is something they cannot imagine to be able to afford.

They are the citizens of Ottawa who live right where the blockade happened for three weeks and felt like there was no end in sight.

They are the citizens I saw while walking to this place who were being yelled at for wearing masks.

They are the people with mobility challenges who had vehicles blocking their way so they could not get to where they needed to be. I asked several vehicles to move just a couple of feet so they would have the right to transport themselves safely through their community. The responses I received were a very clear and sometimes very rude “No”.

They are the people in this community who heard fireworks set off in the middle of the night as they slept. The occupation continued night after night. Can members imagine the fear of waking up hearing that noise and not knowing where it was coming from?

They are the poor people who were charged with the attempted murder of the RCMP officers.

They are the people who were blocked from returning home at the Coutts intersection for days.

They are the journalists across our country who are now terrified, who have been spat on, yelled at and called “fake news”, after years of service in their field.

They are the nurses, doctors and health care workers who for the last two years have put everything on the line for Canadians. They have been working too much overtime, have been feeling overwhelmed, have had to tell their patients to wait even in some cases for life-saving supports because the pandemic has overwhelmed our health care system. They have been threatened and told not to go out in public wearing anything that shows their profession because it is not safe.

People are afraid and I feel that as I listen to our debate on this long weekend. I believe in and have participated in peaceful protests, protests that were full of anger and frustration at the issues we wanted to change, fix or see taken seriously by government. That is not what is happening across this country, and I also do not believe it is over.

We saw an occupation that became a complete undermining of our democracy and our social structures. The leaders of this occupation had an MOU that spoke about overtaking the government. They invited opposition parties and the Governor General to have a discussion about how a new government would look.

I will not minimize this. I simply will not do it. I may not agree with many components of the processes of our institutions. I believe, in fact, that there is a lot of work to do to decolonize our systems to address key issues, like systemic racism, ablism and white privilege, and how these institutions continuously leave out workers, the poor, persons with disabilities, members of the LGBTQ2+ communities and people from BIPOC, Black, indigenous and people of colour communities. Even with that perspective, I will not minimize what it does to our communities when people do not respect the rule of law, when they flaunt their complete disregard for what a peaceful protest is and when they create a party on the street that does not respect the people who live where they are occupying.

Just yesterday when I was trying to walk to this place, I saw a business owner chasing two men out of his store with a stick. It was frightening. As I watched, I was trying to think of what I could do to help, but I also thought to myself that this is what happens when people disrespect the rule of law. When they set up bouncy castles and hot tubs in the streets and say, “Look how peaceful we are,” people become emboldened to act in a way that our social structures often prevent.

I will not minimize the fact that the lead organizers of this occupation are from groups of extremists who follow very clearly the beliefs of white supremacy. I believe there were many people out there who wanted to speak out about mandates and about their fear of the unknown and their future. I also know that the leaders were very clear about their agenda. That agenda scares me. I will not minimize it by saying there are just a few bad apples. I believe these people are very organized. I believe that they take advantage of people's fears and give people someone to blame with those fears.

This is where all of us as parliamentarians must look at history. Humanity sadly has a history of dehumanizing people from the communities I mentioned earlier. It is these people and these souls who often pay the most terrible price. I will not minimize the power of white supremacists and their ability to build fear. I will not minimize that the fear can become a weapon.

The NDP has used every tool at its disposal to get the federal government to act. We called for a debate specifically on the occupation. We moved a motion at committee to study the measures that keep money from coming from outside of our country to fund this occupation and make sure those dollars are all held to account.

We moved a motion to invite the U.S. ambassador to the foreign affairs committee to address concerns of the prominent U.S. political figures who are encouraging people to donate and support the convoy leaders. This was voted down by the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre saying that this is not an urgent issue, that we have too many more urgent things and she will definitely be voting against it. I simply disagree. I cannot imagine any other issue right now that is more urgent.

Here we are debating the Emergencies Act. I wish that all levels of government had worked together more efficiently, that members of all levels of government had not minimized who was coming to our nation's front door. Governing in whatever capacity a person has is not easy. I personally struggle often over the decisions I have to make in this place. This one has been very hard and it should be.

There are steps that all parliamentarians should be careful when taking. I wish I had heard a lot more thoughtful debate in this place. Sadly, there have been a lot of political shots taken, ones that further destabilize our democracy and our communities. On one side, we see the government dismissing legitimate fears and concerns from people who are afraid. On the official opposition side, people are stirring up fears and amping up dangerous rhetoric.

I will be voting yes. I will continue to take my duties seriously, with the great possibility of withdrawing my support at any moment.

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

Madam Speaker, that was an amazing speech. I have two questions for the hon. member.

There has been a lot of talk about division, but I would be interested in hearing her comments on the role of disinformation in stoking that division. I would also like her comments on the naive suggestion that if only the Prime Minister had sat down and had a cup of coffee with the leaders of the convoy, somehow everyone would have gone home happy.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about disinformation. We are seeing the breadth of it grow. That is why it is so important that we all support the people who do this incredible work, our media and our journalists. They go out there and ask the hard questions. They want to report the information. Seeing people disrespect them and not respect the role that they play is very concerning to me. We need to be looking at where that disinformation is coming from and making sure we are holding those systems to account. That has to be way more rigorous in this country. We should all be seriously concerned about it.

As for the comment about sitting down with extremists, I could not agree more, but I do believe that this government needs to listen to the people in this country who have very strong voices of concern. That should be recognized, listened to and addressed in a respectful manner.

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

Madam Speaker, I could feel the passion of my hon. colleague in her speech. It is a lot of stress for those who are watching from home and it is the same inside this chamber.

This morning I walked to the House of Commons at 6:45 a.m. Wellington Street was completely cleared. I am just wondering if the member opposite would be interested in revoking the Emergencies Act if the protesters are still not there.

Specifically, in a press conference today, at 11 a.m., the CBC asked the Prime Minister if he would hold onto power for two to three months in case the truckers came back, and the Prime Minister said that indeed, that is what they are thinking about. Does the member agree with this abuse of power?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the committee that oversees this needs to be set up immediately. I believe there needs to be a public inquiry. In so many ways, we have to look at what happened when the people arrived, how the police reacted and what was appropriate. There is a lot of work that needs to be done.

I will say very clearly to the member that if this government oversteps in any way the key things that we have identified that need to be addressed, we will definitely revoke the act. Twenty members have to do that work. However, I think all of us have to hold the government accountable, and not only the parliamentarians in this chamber but all Canadians, and I will be a part of that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a few interesting points in her speech earlier. I do not have time to comment on her whole speech, but I would like to ask her a quick question.

One point she raised really struck me. She made a number of arguments in favour of using the Emergencies Act.

Here is the question I would like to ask her. Why did the government decide to invoke the Emergencies Act here and now in 2022?

How many times has it been used over the past 30 years? How many crises have been resolved without this act? What makes this crisis so much more significant than all the others? Why is the act necessary in this case? Why could the situation not have been resolved without it?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a thoughtful question.

I think we should all be looking into why we are where we are today, and I do lay that at multiple levels of government within the provinces and within this country. I would have liked to see a much more coordinated approach. Again, people were driving across the country with the very clear intention of what they were going to do, and the response when they arrived here was, “The door is open. Park and do as you will.”

Unfortunately, when we get into a situation where the community is not safe, when we know that people are at risk, when we know that foreign money is interfering in our democracy, we have to stand up. We will have to monitor this very closely, and I look forward to doing so.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this historic debate. I will share my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

Three weeks, a convoy of protesters arrived in Ottawa to begin an illegal occupation of our national capital. At times, the Conservative Party rallied to the cause, which was amplified by a number of extremists on social media and appeared to be funded in part by foreign donations.

Those illegal blockades then spread to the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, to the Coutts border crossing in Alberta and to other points across our nation. From that, we have seen supply chains disrupted, businesses shut down, workers forced to stay home and Canadians harassed in their own neighbourhoods. These blockades and occupations are illegal. They represent a threat to our economy, to our communities, to relationships with our key trading partners and to our international reputation.

Images of these illegal blockades are being broadcast around the world, images that are not representative of Canada, but are now affecting our global reputation. The blockades have massively impacted our supply chains and the availability of essential goods, and are putting at risk Canada's long-term economic prosperity. They have threatened our public safety and they are an affront to something all members in the House should dearly appreciate: the rule of law. This cannot and will not be allowed to stand in our country.

As the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, my focus is on ensuring that our post-COVID‑19 economic recovery is dynamic, robust and sustainable. I know we are positioned to prosper thanks to our resources, our talent and our extraordinary ingenuity, not to mention our stability, our trade relations and our respect for the rule of law.

That is why it is so concerning that at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, billions of dollars in goods did not cross the border when the illegal blockades took place. The blockades in Coutts, Alberta and Emerson, Manitoba meanwhile have affected approximately $48 million and $73 million in trade each day, respectively.

The situation here in Ottawa is of concern. We have all seen it. Downtown businesses have been forced to close, putting people out of work. The Rideau Centre mall, which we all know, as well as the businesses operating in it, just down the street from Parliament, is currently losing $3 million in business per day because it was forced to close due to harassment of staff and illegal actions from occupiers. These costs are real. They threaten businesses big and small, and they threaten the livelihoods of Canadian workers.

Canada is one of the world's principal economies. It relies on solid and secure supply chains to support our economy. However, because those supply chains are global, they are more vulnerable to risks and shocks. With the effects of the pandemic, as we have all seen, supply chains around the world have already suffered unprecedented pressure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in disruptions in production and in shipping. We have seen that companies across the world are experiencing demand uncertainty, supply and logistical delays, and significant operation stoppages. The blockades and protests have added to the already heavy burden that Canadian businesses across our nation and citizens have been asked to manage during this pandemic. We cannot allow illegal blockades to hijack Canada's economic recovery and endanger the livelihoods of Canadian workers. That should be appreciated by all members in the House.

I would like to remind members of the House of some of the devastating effects of these blockades as we debate the confirmation of the declaration of the state of emergency under the Emergencies Act.

I can tell colleagues that auto sector manufacturers like GM, Stellantis, Honda and Ford had to either reduce or completely suspend manufacturing last week as a result of the Sarnia and Windsor trade corridor blockades. That should be of concern to all members of this House.

I can also point to Douglas Porter, chief economist at BMO. He stated, “For every week the protests continue, it could start to cut first quarter growth by up to a couple tenths of a per cent”. That should be of concern to all members of this House. As we continue to reopen our economy and come out on the other side of the omicron wave, any reversal of our economic fortunes is an unnecessary blow to business owners and Canadians, who have already been through so much during this pandemic.

I know that every member of this House is concerned about the recovery, but we should all do what is right and make sure that there are no more illegal blockades in this country. The impact of these illegal blockades goes well beyond our borders, sadly. Canada has no closer friend and ally than the United States of America. It is a partnership forged based on geography, common interests, deep people-to-people connections, and strong and secure economic ties. It is a relationship we defended and protected when we renegotiated CUSMA, despite pleas from the Conservative Party for us to fold and capitulate, and it is one that we are defending here today, together.

During recent conversations with my international counterparts and private-sector stakeholders, it was obvious that both we and the United States recognized the importance of our integrated supply chains and the need to work together to ensure the free movement of goods between our two markets.

It is for these reasons, and others, that our government took the unprecedented but necessary step of invoking the Emergencies Act to restore public order and to protect our economic well-being. This is not a decision we take lightly, nor is it one that we ever wanted to make, but it is a step that is needed in order to give law enforcement authorities the tools they need to face this very unique situation in our country.

These measures are reasonable and proportionate. Canadians at large agree, because they are looking to us to ensure predictability and the rule of law, protect supply chains and restore our economic vitality. Goldy Hyder of the Business Council of Canada, for example, said, “we welcome this as a step toward ending illegal blockades across the country and upholding the rule of law.”

Perrin Beatty, of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, to cite one more example, said, “The government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act indicates how serious the threat to public safety and our economy from the ongoing blockades at various points in Canada has become.”

In conclusion, I would remind colleagues on the Conservative bench that it was in fact Perrin Beatty who first introduced the Emergencies Act in 1988 as the former minister of national defence for the then Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. Perhaps the party that once portrayed itself as the defender of law and order, and as a champion of the free market, should re-examine how it is standing today.

We know who we are standing with on this side of the House. We are standing with workers at the Stellantis Windsor Assembly Plant, who had their shifts cut due to supply chain blockages. We are standing with small business owners in Ottawa, like those of Moo Shu Ice Cream and the local coffee shop Little Victories, which had to close their doors due to safety concerns. We are standing with Canadian truckers, who did their jobs and kept our shelves and our warehouses stocked during this pandemic. We are standing with Canadians who want these illegal blockades to end, and with the support of the House in today's motion, they will.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is very simple. He talked about the still ongoing illegal blockades. Could he just provide one instance in Canada, ongoing right now, of a current illegal blockade and why the Emergencies Act is still required going forward?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague would agree, after everything we have seen in terms of violence and intimidation, that the way to act in light of this is to be prudent and to make sure that as the situation is fluid, we give law enforcement authorities all the powers they need to make sure not only that they clear the crossings that have been blocked in Canada, but that they have all the powers needed to keep these trade corridors open.

There are businesses in the member's riding and I am sure he understands that we need to make sure our supply chains remain open at this critical point in our recovery.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, during the debates of the past few days, which I diligently attended, Liberal MPs have mentioned that the application of the Emergencies Act was necessary for the police force of Quebec, the Sûreté du Québec, to be present in Ottawa.

I looked into this over the past two days, and this appears to be false. It is enough to swear them in, which has been done in the past.

If the Emergencies Act was so necessary, and if democratic safeguards are so important, then why did members of the minister's own caucus feel the need to mislead the House?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

However, I believe that in a debate such as this, we must choose our words very carefully and appeal to the public for calm.

I would ask my colleague to read a letter written by different police chiefs from across the country stating the need to obtain additional powers to manage this unique situation in Canada's history.

I believe that we all want to restore peace and order across the country. These measures will help us stabilize the situation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc and the Conservatives keep giving the impression that things are fine at the Ambassador Bridge, but there are barriers lined up for miles in my constituency to prevent further action. In fact, since the Emergencies Act has been in place, convoys have been turned back, but there are still threats that could take place.

I want the minister to explain the consequences for Ontario and Quebec MPs should this route be choked off and how irresponsible it is to go back to having just the municipal police force take care of this international border crossing, which is responsible for 40% of our daily trade. It is totally irresponsible to put it on local municipalities, and I cannot understand why Ontario and Quebec MPs would want to put the onus entirely on them when the danger is still around.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member said it well. Thirty per cent of all trade between Canada and the United States is using the crossing at the Ambassador Bridge. As the member said, it is one thing to have the bridge open, but, as I have reassured colleagues on both sides of the border, we need to make sure that we keep the crossing open. It is one thing for it to be blocked once, but it would be devastating for the Canadian economy if there were new blockades on that very critical infrastructure. The Emergencies Act will not only give power, as the member said, to local enforcement authorities, but they could rely on other forces around the country to make sure order is restored.

We should all be concerned with keeping our critical trade corridors open in order to preserve jobs, to make sure our economy functions and to be seen as and remain a very reliable trading partner.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question before us is whether we ought to confirm the government's declaration of an emergency pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act. I have really struggled with the answer to that question, and I will get to that.

The first question we should all reflect on is a more basic one: How did it even come to this? Some Conservative colleagues have made the case that we could have ended the illegal blockades if only we had ended federal vaccine mandates, a Neville Chamberlain approach to pandemic management. Appeasing illegality is an affront to the rule of law, and we should put public health before politics.

Mandates will not be with us forever, and yes, we need to re-evaluate their use. However, it is also true that NACI has yet to confirm whether a third dose is properly a booster dose or should be considered part of the primary series. We should proceed cautiously as we lift measures that helped save lives.

Of course people are tired of pandemic rules. I was furious when Ontario's schools closed yet again to in-person learning in January. Protest is to be expected, and everyone has the right to peaceful protest, but that right does not extend to blocking highways and bridges. It does not extend to the intimidation, harassment, threats and the endless and deafening noise we have seen in our national capital. These are crimes, and they are quite obviously crimes.

We cannot paint every protester with the same brush, but we can judge people by the company they keep and we should never platform the language of treason, medical experiments, the Nuremberg Code or support for white supremacy, all of which we saw on our democracy's doorstep.

My genuine plea for those listening, for those who dislike the Prime Minister, for those who dislike public health measures and especially for those who sit in the Conservative caucus is to just remember that democracies are fragile. Encouraging lawlessness and emboldening anti-government, anti-democratic voices is a disservice to our country, no matter how much hatred they have for their opponents. If they do not stop fanning the flames, I am not certain we will be able to put out the fire.

Reflecting on my own side of the House, if we are so fearful of polarization, then we ought to be especially careful not to contribute to it ourselves. We are each sent here to represent our constituents, of course, but our obligations extend beyond any parochial interest. We are the trustees of our democracy; the rule of law; civil liberties; and peace, order and good government.

The illegal blockades represented an attack on these core ideas. The greatest criticism of how the blockades were removed is that they were not removed more quickly. The failure to enforce the law in Ottawa and the acquiescence to occupation emboldened similar blockades across the country at Emerson, Coutts and the Ambassador Bridge. Against a failed municipal and provincial response, a strong federal response was warranted. Therefore, I suffer no sympathy for those who shut down our border crossings and inflicted harm on the residents of Ottawa.

However, in the interest of disappointing everyone in my audience, I do have concerns with the invocation of the Emergencies Act in the circumstances. One constituent I trust a great deal wrote to me that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. She is unquestionably right, but the law also remains the law, so let us turn to it for a moment.

Section 16 of the act defines a public order emergency as “an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”. The shoe arguably fits, with this general definition in mind, but the act goes on to define two terms with great specificity.

First, and again in keeping with section 16, “threats to the security of Canada has the meaning assigned by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.” In turning to the CSIS Act, we see four possible meanings: espionage, foreign influenced activities, activities akin to terrorism, and the violent overthrow of the government. These are incredibly high standards.

In the order in council, the OIC, the government relies on activities akin to terrorism or, as the Minister of Justice said in the House, “We took measures that had been applied to terrorism and applied them to other illegal activity”. The specific section requires that there be activities in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective. It is obvious enough that the latter element is met, as warped as the ideological objectives may be, but have there been threats or acts of serious violence that themselves amount to a national emergency?

We know that dangerous and extremist elements are embedded within these protests and blockades. In Coutts, for example, we saw conspiracy to commit murder charges, with two of the accused connected to a far-right extremist group. We also saw the police seize a cache of guns and body armour, and in Ottawa we saw major intimidation of local residents and threats against the police if they enforced the law. As a parliamentarian, I acknowledge I am not privy to all of the information in the hands of the executive, and there may well be even more dangerous and coordinated elements at play.

It also strikes me that these serious threats are ancillary to the blockades, and it is the blockades that constituted the emergency. A national emergency, after all, is also a defined term within the act. It means:

an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that

(a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or

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

There is an additional requirement that no other federal law be sufficient to meet the emergency as well. It is frustrating that the government has not clearly articulated which ground it relies on here, and it appears that it likes to rely on both. When we look at the illegal blockades and the negative impact they wrought on so many lives, I do think there is a fair argument that they meet the definition of a national emergency as long as we understand “capacity” to mean both whether a province could act in theory as well as the reality of their action.

Again, if the blockade is at issue, when we look at the threats of serious violence, the violence that must itself constitute the national emergency at issue, it is unclear how the definition is met. To meet the act's requirements, it seems apparent to me that we need to re-interpret “serious violence to persons or property” to mean economic harm. I am often in support of large and liberal interpretations of the law, but I am not convinced we want economic harm to trigger the act, unless we would be comfortable with the act being used in other instances of economic harm, the most recent one in memory being the railway blockades in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en.

This is all perhaps too lawyerly, too technical an objection. Other levels of government had failed to act or acted too slowly. Legal gaps certainly exist in addressing foreign funding and foreign influence operations and crowdfunding for illegal domestic activities, and the emergency measures seem to have worked.

It is also true, as I say, that I do not have all of the intelligence information that the executive has. My answer to that is a simple one, and I know many will find it inadequate, but contorting the application of the law in order to defend the rule of law is not a position I find comfort in.

Expert Wesley Wark wrote recently that the Emergencies Act was unusable because of the high threshold in section 2 of the CSIS Act. However, he subsequently came around to the idea of shoehorning the law to fit, because of his perception of the nature of the threat and the missing response from other levels of government.

Expert Leah West recently wrote:

As someone who fervently believes in the rule of law, I’m desolated by what we’ve witnessed this month: a failure to enforce the law by 2 levels of government created a crisis that the 3rd had to contort the law to end.

That is a fair summation.

Now, whatever one thinks of the legal contortion, and the ends may well justify the means and the courts will weigh in on the law, let us return to the role of Parliament.

In the coming months, we will need to address the shortcomings in the laws, perhaps to better protect critical infrastructure and most certainly to better follow the money of foreign influence operations and crowdfunding for illegal activities, but with proper due process. Assuming the threshold question is met here, it is still not at all clear to me whether the government continues to need the ability to freeze bank accounts without due process, if it ever did. Usefulness and effectiveness are very different standards as compared with necessity and proportionality.

Now, where does it leave us for tonight’s vote on the invocation of the Emergencies Act and section 58?

Putting aside my concerns around the threshold or due process, the effect of section 58 is that a yea vote extends emergency measures while a nay vote simply revokes the powers as of the day of the negative vote. A nay vote need not mean impugning the actions of the government over the last week. Whatever one thinks of the necessity and proportionality of the emergency powers at the time they were invoked, whatever one thinks of the threshold that triggers the act in the first place, the question before us is whether the powers remain necessary and proportionate to the circumstances today.

I appreciate the federal leadership over the last week. This is not the War Measures Act, as this particular legislation highlights the role of the charter and provides for a significant amount of independent and parliamentary scrutiny. However, I am skeptical that the strict legal test was met for the act's invocation, and I am not convinced that the emergency measures should continue to exist beyond today.

I would vote accordingly but for the fact that it is now a confidence vote. My disagreement, the disagreement I have expressed here, does not amount to non-confidence, and I have no interest in an election at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to questions and comments, I do want to remind members not to be debating and chatting across the way while another member has the floor. It is very rude and not very parliamentary.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.