House of Commons Hansard #36 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was emergency.

Topics

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is a very important one. Holding a vote as a confidence vote is a very serious matter. I have heard others in the House make comments on this during question period and in their speeches today as well.

Is the Prime Minister doing this because he wants to force the NDP to vote with him, or is he doing it to cover some of the dissension within his own caucus? I think that may be part of the reason he has decided to make this a confidence vote tonight: He is very afraid of losing it.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, we can agree, my colleague and friend and I, that all levels of government had failed here in Ottawa. The occupiers had been asked to leave. They were asked to leave by the Anishinabe and Algonquin people. The City of Ottawa and the Conservative Premier of Ontario had also tried to use their tools to move the people from Ottawa. Even a court injunction could not end this occupation.

We have heard from the former defence minister and justice minister from Stephen Harper's government, Peter MacKay; former Ottawa police chief and current Conservative senator Vernon White; and the former security adviser to Stephen Harper, that this meets the bar. They support using this act to take action right now.

What does my colleague say to his fellow Conservatives, including the Premier of Ontario, who has asked us not to abandon him and not to abandon the people of Ottawa? New Democrats will not do that. In light of all the things that were used, even a court injunction, what does the honourable member say to his former Conservative colleagues and to current Conservatives who support our moving forward with this?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, there is a huge difference. I mentioned in my speech the low bar for this emergency measure being used. All other border crossing situations were already solved before the Prime Minister stood up in the House. Those border crossings, which I completely believe should never have been closed, were opened peacefully, albeit there might have been some altercations that were not above board. Those were cleared up without the Emergencies Act put in place, and before the Prime Minister stood up in the House.

The public safety minister, who wants to direct and work with the provinces, gave them no direction. He allowed the protestors to stay in Ottawa. They were actually invited to be here for three days, and—

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

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

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:25 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault LiberalMinister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time today with my colleague from Louis-Hébert.

It is an honour to join this important debate in the House of Commons. We meet at a time heavy with history and laden in legacy. Today I wish to share with the House what the invocation of the emergency measures act is, and also what it is not. I will also provide insights into the financial measures included in the invocation.

Our government has taken the unprecedented step of invoking the Emergencies Act to restore peace and order across the country, and to hold that peace. The measures are temporary, geographically specific and proportionate. They are designed to respect people's rights, to address the crisis at hand and to comply with parliamentary oversight.

Let me be very clear. The Emergencies Act is not a blanket suspension of civil liberties. It is not a suspension of the charter, and it does not represent our government's first action in dealing with the multiple threats to peace and security taking place across the country. We got to this point due to the actions of a small group of well-organized but not well-intentioned people who could not accept the results of the 2021 election, an election where the issue of how to continue the fight against COVID-19 was front and centre, and where each of the parties put forward their platforms and Canadians made a choice.

Since that election, we have come together in this House, in person and virtually, to debate and shape, to push and pull the policies, programs and priorities of a nation. When we are not in the chamber, we continue to hear from and engage with our constituents. Every member in this place and in the other chamber, day in and day out, receives and responds to letters, emails, tweets, messages, direct messages and more on these and other substantive issues. We engage; we listen; we respond. All of these are indicators and proof of the democratic system at work, but that system was not good enough for a tiny group of people, frustrated because they did not get their way. They planned and they plotted to tear down our institutions.

While the public face of these illegal occupations was a demand to end vaccine mandates, which are regulated by provincial and territorial governments, the core of this movement was not one of bouncy castles and Friday night street parties. Its stated goal was to overthrow a duly elected national government, to weaken our democratic institutions, to spread discord and disinformation, to foster fear and, in the worst possible scenario, to foment violence. As evidenced by the discovery of the weapons cache, subsequent arrests and charges laid against individuals at Coutts, there was apparent readiness by some in this movement to murder police officers and any Canadian who would stand in their way.

These occupations were not developed to end vaccine mandates. They were designed to be an arrow aimed at the beating heart of our democracy to appropriate our freedom and our flag while robbing fellow citizens of their ability to walk to work, to open their business, to get groceries, to drive to the pharmacy and to simply sleep in peace, quiet and security.

That arrow has missed its mark. Canadians will not be fooled or divided. We are resolute in the face of this attempt to destabilize our democracy and to cause lasting harm to our economy and to our international reputation.

The illegal blockades caused serious harm to provinces, to communities and to the country. They threatened businesses, big and small, put Canadian workers at risk and robbed our economy of billions of dollars. For example, the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge affected about $390 million in trade each day; in Emerson, Manitoba, about $73 million in daily trade was affected, and in my province, at Coutts, Alberta, about $48 million a day in daily trade was affected by the blockades.

The illegal actions that have been taken have shaken international confidence in Canada as good place to invest. Canadian jobs and Canada's prosperity are at stake.

Protesters against vaccine mandates do not set out to make Canada poor, but people who seek to undermine our democracy do. No responsible government could, under these circumstances, let the safety of its citizens, the health of its economy or its international reputation as a reliable trading partner be harmed in such a manner and to such a degree.

Our government took action, which is how we arrived at the decision to declare this national emergency and to invoke the act. The emergency economic measures order has allowed the government to take concrete action to stop the financing of these illegal blockades. The measures have allowed the federal government to take a coordination role in what would otherwise have been beyond our normal jurisdiction. Specifically, they were aimed at crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers, as well as at Canadian financial service providers.

In response to a question consistently raised by the opposition over the course of this debate, I would note that crowdfunding platforms and some payment service providers are not ordinarily subject to the anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing laws. It therefore stands to reason that they could be used to finance unlawful activities, such as illegal blockades.

To address this, the order extended the scope of Canada's anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing rules to cover crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers. Specifically, the entities that are in possession of any funds associated with illegal blockades are now required to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, FINTRAC, and to report suspicious and large-value transactions of persons involved in the blockades. This is mitigating the risk that these platforms could be used to receive funds from illicit sources or to finance illicit activities.

With respect to financial service providers, the order directs them to intervene when they suspect that an account belongs to someone participating in illegal blockades. This means that banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers must now temporarily cease providing financial services, including freezing their accounts, when they believe an account holder or client is engaged in illegal blockades. The order applies to all funds held in a deposit, chequing or saving account and to any other type of property. This also includes digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies.

Of course, these service providers are required to unfreeze accounts when the account holder stops assisting or participating in illegal blockades.

With the emergency economic measures order, the government is also directing Canadian financial institutions to review their relationships with anyone involved in the illegal blockades. The order also gives federal, provincial and territorial government institutions new powers to share any relevant information with banks and other financial service providers if that information helps stop the funding of the illegal blockades and unlawful activities occurring here in Canada.

The vast majority of Canadians, those who are law-abiding and not involved in these illegal blockades, will see absolutely no difference. These measures are temporary. They will apply for 30 days and are aimed at individuals and businesses that are directly or indirectly involved in illegal activities that are hurting our economy.

The emergency measures we have declared were designed, as was the act itself, to respect the charter and to ensure the protection of charter rights. We treat the rights protected by the charter with utmost seriousness, as we do the safety and security of all Canadians.

Like so many others in this place and across the country, I am worn out from that persistent, nagging, daily battle against the relentless, heartless and invisible foe that is COVID-19. No one asked for this virus. We simply had to respond to it the best we could, together.

I was not a sitting member during the first two years of the pandemic, and I take this opportunity to salute and thank members of all parties, Greens, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, Conservatives, Liberals and independents alike, for their heroic handling of a once-in-a-century challenge, with $511 billion invested in the lives and livelihoods of Canadians so that we could get through the worst of the pandemic. However, while we may all be done with COVID, COVID may not yet be done with us.

As we head into a new phase of living with the virus, let us remember who we are as Canadians, what we have built here, north of the 49th parallel, who we are on the world stage, and what we can achieve when we work and pull together. There are forces at play that would love nothing more than to see us fail. We will not succumb to such elements. We will prevail. It is in our very DNA to do so. In the face of this national emergency, our government has taken specific and targeted action, and we have, by law, promptly submitted those actions to parliamentary approval, to committee oversight, and to the critical observation of the media, academics and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

The debate will continue. Thoughtful commentators, thoughtful critics, the media and civil society will weigh in with concerns and observations. All of this is as it should be. In the final analysis, we have stood for the rule of law. We have been careful to limit the extent of these measures, and we acted in the defence of our economy with a solemn commitment to peace, order, good government and the health of our society. As we submit these actions for the democratic approval of this chamber, we know that brighter days lie ahead.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from across the way made mention that the protests that took place in Ottawa could be traced back to organized crime groups or terrorist-like groups, as he accused them of being. However, he did not offer any evidence for this, and the minister just a few days ago made the same types of accusations when he was doing a media press conference. The media followed up with a number of questions in that regard. When the media asked him if he could provide evidence, he was not able to. The media then asked if it seemed like more of a hunch, or whether it was substantiated. He had to admit that it really was just a hunch, something that he felt might be a tie.

I am wondering if the hon. member has evidence that he would like to present to the House of Commons that this is in fact a terrorist-like organization and a large organized crime group.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, the best example we have of the core ideology at the heart of these blockades and illegal protests is the cache of weapons and body armour and the plotting discovered by RCMP agents in the province of Alberta to murder police officers and anybody who stood in their way. One simply has to go—

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

How is that related to Ottawa?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

I would ask the member to allow the minister to answer, please, and not heckle.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Speaker, I did not hear an answer, so I was curious.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

The minister is answering the question.

The hon. minister.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, what Canadians simply need to do is look at the social media feeds of the people behind the protests and they will understand very clearly the ideology and thinking behind these illegal blockades and protests.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, I recognize the member's intelligence and common sense. We now know that invoking the Emergencies Act, as the government is trying to do tonight, is no longer necessary, if it ever was.

Would the member not agree that it would be more appropriate to use this time to gather in a committee to determine which tools could prevent crises like the one we have experienced, instead of resorting to disproportionate measures after the fact?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words and praise.

Despite the differences in our political ideologies, I think that we can both agree on the need to strengthen peace, order and safety for all Canadians and Quebeckers.

The government believes it is obvious that the situation across the country remains delicate and precarious. It is not enough to simply call for peace and order; these have to be maintained. That is our objective at the moment, and we will take all this very seriously while upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of division and rhetoric throughout the occupation. We heard that the Leader of the Opposition said she did not think we should be asking the protesters to go home, that we need to turn this into the Prime Minister's problem and more divisive action like that. Also, one of the top four leaders of the convoy was a former Conservative candidate. On the other side, we heard the Prime Minister's rhetoric demeaning people who do not agree with him.

Does my colleague not agree that the Prime Minister needs to acknowledge that his tone has also helped create division? He has pushed people to the margins who do not agree with him. People have suffered by doing the right thing and implementing the mandates according to health officials, which has harmed their businesses and whatever else. Every Canadian has struggled.

Does my colleague agree that for us to move forward and heal as a nation, the Prime Minister needs to step up and change the rhetoric and the tone he is using?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, my focus as Associate Minister of Finance and Minister of Tourism and a member of this government is to ensure that we have peace, security, good government and safety for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The situation is still precarious, as the member may well have seen—

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

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

We have to move on.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, the decision we are required to make today in this vote is without question one of the most important that a parliamentarian may be called to make. History will judge our votes and our debates in the House.

This vote is about fundamental issues in a democracy. On the one hand, it is about the duty of the government to protect our institutions and the public order, which is necessary in a free society. On the other hand, it is about the protection of citizens' civil liberties, which are just as fundamental in a free society.

First and foremost, I am not going to engage in the kind of attempts that the Bloc Québécois has made to draw tenuous connections between the Emergencies Act that we are debating today and its predecessor, the War Measures Act. They have very little in common in terms of checks and balances or accountability, or even protections guaranteed by the charter.

I will also not engage in the game being played by the Conservatives, who had to muster all their courage to finally ask the protesters to stop occupying Ottawa and who struggled to condemn all the misbehaviour we saw over the past few weeks in Ottawa.

I will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but one person's freedom ends where another's begins. In a democracy, people always have the right to be heard, but that right does not mean they can block critical infrastructure or negatively impact downtown Ottawa residents' quality of life for weeks. Those people have nothing whatsoever to do with the protesters' demands.

Anyone who knows me will not be surprised to learn that, 10 years ago, I was a part of the student strike. I wore a red square and marched for more than my fair share, as the saying went. However, I never supported the actions of those who blockaded the Port of Montreal or Jacques Cartier Bridge at rush hour. I never felt that was the best way to make our voices heard, and rather than raise public awareness of our cause, it inevitably turned many people against our movement and our ideas. The same happened with the convoy.

To those who may be tempted by illegal means, I say resist. Take the high road, because in a democracy, we value the noble path of non-violence and the ballot box.

Protesting in front of Parliament, in front of provincial legislatures and in front of my office, and organizing peaceful marches are all perfectly fine. However, an occupation that lasts for weeks and blockades that last for days are not fine. They caused serious problems that municipal and provincial governments could not or would not address. Their failures and their inaction emboldened others to set up blockades elsewhere in Canada, including in Emerson, Coutts and Windsor.

That is the problem that the federal government wanted to address by invoking the Emergencies Act. Let me be clear. I agree with the government's objective. However, I have serious questions about the means chosen. The Emergencies Act is undoubtedly the most draconian weapon in the government's legislative arsenal and, in this case, it confers enormous powers on the state, including the power to freeze bank accounts without due process. To invoke this legislation, a very high threshold must be met, and this threshold was deliberately set high.

According to section 16 of the act, a “public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”.

A threat to the security of Canada is itself defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There are four possibilities: espionage, foreign influence, activities relating to terrorism, and violent insurrection against the government. The threshold is extremely high, which is by design, given the powers this act confers.

The government based its decision on the third possibility, terrorism, which is defined in the act as follows: “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or 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 within Canada or a foreign state”.

I think it is clear that the second aspect, the political objective, is not a factor here, but for the first one, the threat of serious violence must constitute a national crisis. That part of it is anything but clear to me. For the current crisis to to qualify under that criterion, the government is forced to consider economic disruption or, at this point, the threat of economic disruption, as a threat of serious violence against persons or property, as set out in the act.

Along with many eminent lawyers and various experts, such as Professor Leah West and even the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I believe that is a false equivalence. It is a slippery slope that dilutes the strict criteria under the Emergencies Act.

During the rail blockades put in place in early 2020 to support the demands of the the Wet'suwet'en, I never thought it would be appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is precisely because, even if there were some major economic disruptions, the line was never crossed, there was never any violence or threat of serious violence against property or persons. I look at the present situation in the same way.

I am aware that I do not have all the information that cabinet has. As a parliamentarian, I must make decisions based on the information that is provided to us.

Based on what is available to me, I cannot help but echo the comments of my colleague from Beaches—East York, that contorting the application of the law in order to defend the law is not a very comfortable position to be in.

Beyond the concerns I just raised about the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act, I also have questions about the fact that we are being asked this evening not to retroactively confirm the use of the act, but instead to extend its application. I wonder if it is still necessary in the circumstances, considering the occupation of Ottawa is over, the police have finally and rather easily done their job, and there are no more blockades at the border.

The measures taken under the Emergencies Act may have been useful to law enforcement, or even effective, but that does not mean they are necessary or proportionate, nor that they still are as we speak. Personally, I am not convinced.

In closing, I want to make some observations in response to what I have heard during the debate in the House over the past few days. In our debates and reflections, I think we need to avoid letting our dislike of an issue affect our ability to analyze it in a neutral and rational way, because governments change and do not always have the same views on different issues. Take, for example, environmental or indigenous issues, or even the student issues we hold dear. In the current context and for the reasons mentioned, the use of the Emergencies Act creates a serious precedent.

I also think that we must avoid ascribing too much value to opinion polls when we are debating the use of a law like this one. Public opinion is not one of the criteria set by the legislator. If I had to choose, I would far rather do the right thing than follow the trend.

In the future, I also think we will have to modernize the act to ensure that it can be used more adequately to respond to situations like the one we are facing.

To conclude, members should not interpret my comments as a repudiation of this government. I believe that in the absence of municipal and provincial leadership, the government took the steps it believed to be appropriate to address this crisis, and it did so in good faith. I agree with the government's objective of restoring order, though I disagree with its methods.

As for my vote, since 2015, the Liberal Party has had a moral contract whereby members must vote with the government on confidence votes, electoral commitments, and issues affecting Canadians' fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Under this contract, all other votes are free votes. I made this commitment as a member of the Liberal Party. If this evening's vote were not a confidence vote, I would vote against it. However, at the very least, as we prepare to vote, I would like to have a clear and unequivocal indication as to whether this is truly a confidence vote.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Frank Caputo Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. The hon. member took a very analytical approach in his speech and I do appreciate all that he said.

Earlier in question period, the hon. Minister of Justice was asked about releasing any legal opinions in his capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney General that were provided to him as minister as to the legality of imposing the act, what is the legal opinion and has the threshold been met.

The Minister of Justice and Attorney General did not provide anything in that respect. If the threshold has been met, what would the government be afraid of in releasing a legal opinion that supports its cause?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, the member touched on a lot of aspects in his question. To me, based on my analysis as a lawyer, when I look at section 16 and what is defined in the CSIS Act as a threat to the security of Canada, I do not think the threshold has been met.

However, I understand different lawyers and different legal experts can have different legal opinions. I also understand I am not privy to all the information that cabinet has. In such circumstances, there is usually always a great deal of deference given to the executive. However, based on the information I have and based on my reading of the law, I do not think the threshold was met.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Madam Speaker, I will start by commending my colleague for his political courage.

The member started his speech by talking about our individual responsibilities as legislators in this evening's vote. By making this a confidence vote, the Prime Minister is doing two things. First, he is preventing members of his own caucus, like the member himself, from voting according to their conscience. Second, he is preventing the NDP from voting according to its conscience without triggering another useless election.

I heard my colleague correctly. I respect his position, but I would like to know whether, despite their moral contract to vote the same way on emergency and special measures, the Liberals will make an exception for my colleague.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I, too, have a moral contract and that is with my constituents. They know what party I belong to, and it has always been clear that I would support the government in confidence votes.

I am simply asking for a clear and unequivocal answer as to whether this evening's vote is a confidence vote or not.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Louis-Hébert raised some very relevant points.

He touched on the issue of freezing the bank accounts of individuals or businesses involved in the organization of these illegal occupations, who often have ties to the far right. Does he not find that cutting off the funding of all those who want to destabilize our democratic institutions is an extremely effective measure?

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The member for Rosemont has known me long enough to know that I do not have any sympathy for far-right groups. We saw how some of these groups latched onto this movement.

I think we need to ask ourselves how we can monitor the foreign funding of certain causes in Canada.

However, a value that is dear to me as a lawyer involved in the defence of civil rights is the existence of legal proceedings when the state uses such coercive power.

Emergencies ActOrders of the Day

4:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am very impressed by his courage.

I think we now have a real emergency situation. I believe that the threats to Canada's security are real, consistent with the definition of threats to the security of Canada found in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. Unfortunately, that definition has not been included in the Emergencies Act, although it does refers to that other act.

That is why foreign-influenced activities threaten Canada. Activities that are not foreign-influenced are hidden. Does my colleague think that foreign activities pose a threat to our democracy?