Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands again.

I do not believe that that aspect meets any of the four possibilities in the definition of security threat in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, for the simple reason that foreign interference would require a state actor. That does not appear to be the case at the moment.

In that respect, all Canadians who donate to organizations like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International for advocacy in other countries could find themselves—

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

Order.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are at a historic moment in our nation's history. The sun will come up tomorrow, and the eyes of our nation, indeed of the world, will be looking at how we comport ourselves over the next couple of hours and how that vote goes at eight o'clock tonight.

If I am being completely truthful with those who are in the House, the last two years of my political life have been among the hardest in my career, and I think I speak for all members and colleagues in the House. Our nation has struggled with what is real and what is false, with being open and being closed.

We have become a nation divided. We have families that are divided. We have lost friends. We have lost family members. We have communities that are divided, torn apart in the wake of a disease that has separated us emotionally and physically from the ones that we love.

I have probably written this speech about 12 times. I have said it over in my head probably a dozen more times. I have ripped it up every time. In truth, I do not know what I am going to say as we move forward.

I struggle with how to describe what it has been like to be a leader in our community throughout these two years. I know my colleagues in the House, and those that are watching from home, have experienced the very same issues I am speaking of.

I have listened to heartbreaking stories from people I have known for years. I have listened to heartbreaking stories from people I have just met, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, some for mandates and some for no mandates. I have been inundated with calls and requests for help. People on both sides of the issue have come forward to give me their opinions, people who have lost their jobs or who have lost their businesses, and people who simply want things to go back the way they were. I have listened to people who have lost loved ones.

COVID has not only managed to overwhelm our health care system, it has overwhelmed our souls. People were not meant to live in isolation. We are not designed to be without human contact. The devastation of this disease goes well beyond ICUs and long-term care. The mental health aspects cannot be overstated.

We are a nation divided and we are a nation that is struggling. We are a nation on the brink, because we are not made to deal with this isolation, and because of a failure of leadership.

Two weeks ago, I received an urgent call from one of my local leaders. He is a good friend. He has been a sounding board, and he has never been afraid to tell me the truth, to give me that kick in the butt. He was almost in tears as he told me about the threats of harm. He described to me the feelings he had when he learned about his grandchildren having to hide beneath their desks because there had been an active shooter in his community. His voice shook as he told me he feared for his life. He feared for his life.

He fears for his life because of the divisions of this country. He said I needed to do something for him. He needed me to talk to my colleagues on all sides of the House. He needed me to turn down the rhetoric.

We need to stop and listen. Last week, as I walked to and from my office here on the Hill, I stopped to talk, and I stopped to listen. I listened to a young man from Langley who had stayed in his vehicle in -30°C weather just for the chance to be heard. I listened to a grandmother whose son had committed suicide in December because of the overwhelming aspects of this pandemic. I listened to a trucker whose daughter also took her life last year because of the mental health challenges brought on by this pandemic.

The toll of this disease will not be measured in weeks or years. The toll will be measured in lives lost. It will not be just lives lost from those who suffered from COVID, but lives lost from those who lived with the mental health issues this disease created, the mental health issues governments have perpetuated with lockdowns and school closures. There is an increase in domestic abuse and drug dependancies. The measure of deaths by COVID will far surpass the numbers we see on website updates. They do not even come close to the truth. The fact of the matter is, we will not know the extent of the devastation this disease has had on us for years to come.

The people I stopped to talk to were not racists. They were not extremists. They were not here for an insurrection. As a matter of fact, I struggle with something. If this had been a real threat, I have to trust that our security and our intelligence would have shut this place down long before the trucks arrived on Wellington Street. They were not Canadians hell-bent on usurping power or trying to overthrow our government. They simply came to Ottawa because they wanted to be heard.

They came with stories of tragedy. They came with stories of heartbreak. They came because they wanted a voice. They came because they wanted to be heard. There are 338 members of Parliament in this House, and we have all been elected to carry the voices of the electors, of Canadians, to this place. Our job is to listen. Our job is to act. Our job is to make this country a better place for everyone, not just those who we agree with, but also those who we disagree with.

When someone comes into my office at home or here in Ottawa, I do not ask which party they voted for. I do not ask if they are vaccinated, or if they are unvaccinated, because honestly, I do not care. I kind of hope that they had voted for me, but honestly, I do not care. I see them for the person they are in front of me. I listen. I show compassion. I ask how I can help.

When the trucks descended upon Ottawa the first weekend, they came because they wanted the border mandates lifted. They came because they had had enough. They came because they wanted to be heard. Instead, their voices fell upon deaf ears. What that weekend did was solidify their need to end the mandates. That weekend solidified their need to be heard.

That first weekend opened up old wounds, deep wounds that have not had a chance to heal because of the last two years. It opened up a flood gate of the pent-up emotions we have all experienced to one degree or other. We have the raw nerve of a seemingly unending pandemic and two years of mental and emotional turmoil left unchecked. They wanted their voices to be heard. Instead, they were shunned.

They were called extremists. They were labelled. The question was put to others if we should even tolerate these people. They were told their views were unacceptable. They were called misogynists. They were disavowed as people with unacceptable views, and the man who should have been listening, was not. Instead of doing his job, instead of hearing what Canadians had to say, the Prime Minister of Canada disenfranchised thousands of Canadians.

The Prime Minister motivated thousands of Canadians to come here to have their voices heard. This is arrogance and self-righteousness. It only served to inflame the situation. Leadership is about being front and centre. Leadership is about doing what is right. Leadership is about listening. Leadership is about caring, not just for those who agree with someone, but also for those who do not.

Leadership is about tolerance. It is about dialogue. A lot has been said about dialogue being needed. I have a lot of friends who are in law enforcement, and I asked them if this was needed. They said the first point of ending any conflict is dialogue and negotiation. Do we not teach our kids to use their words, to talk, listen and understand each other's sides? However, when it mattered most, the senior leader in our country chose intolerance over listening.

That is a failure of leadership when it mattered most, and we will be judged for it.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all the law enforcement officials from around the country, including the OPS, who have done such an incredible job in terms of what has ended outside of this very building.

I listened intently to the member opposite, and I think we have a very different perspective on the threat. He basically indicated that the threat of insurrection was not real. I would simply point him to the fact that we have documented evidence calling for the overthrow of the government. We have instances of weapons being found from other blockaders, including at the Alberta border, and we are investigating links between the hate group called Diagolon and what is happening here. When the arrests were actually being effected by those brave law enforcement officials whom I know this member supports, there were attempts made to dislodge their weapons. That, to me, is proof positive that this kind of legislation is required.

Would the member agree with me and with the interim chief, Steve Bell, who said that this legislation is exactly what was needed in order to effectuate the cleanup of the occupation that was occurring outside?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can only speak to the thousands of other protests that we have seen on the Hill over the time I have been a member of Parliament. I can only speak to the people I have spoken to, the law enforcement professionals, the experts who were there, as I am not expert in this, who said this was a ham-fisted overreach in power. This could have been accomplished with the very same laws that we have.

Invoking the Emergencies Act is a very serious step, and one that should be the last measure. What was the first, second, third or fourth measure? We did not see that.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a serious problem here.

All day, it has been said that it would be preferable if members voted their conscience.

The member for Louis-Hébert just told us the orders do not respect the invocation criteria for the act. That is what he just told us. If it were not a confidence motion, he would vote against it, but he does not know whether it is a confidence vote or not.

What does the member think of this situation where the Prime Minister has not even been clear with his members and does not have the courage to tell them whether, yes or no, this is a confidence vote?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has a very good question.

That speaks loudly to me and says that the Prime Minister continues to be afraid that his leadership is threatened. He knows he overstepped his boundaries and his grounds, and he knows his leadership is fragile, so much so that he has to put that veiled threat out there so that his colleagues and his MPs, whether here or in his coalition with the NDP, know that if this vote fails, it could mean another unnecessary election.

It is just shameful that the Prime Minister would actually take that step. Let us not make any bones about it. He knows exactly what he is doing when he puts that out in a press conference. It is a threat, a shot that he is sending across the bow at any MP who is considering voting against him.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We all understand that after two years, people are fed up, tired and frustrated. I also understand the right to be heard. I have attended enough protests to be heard a few times.

However, the right to be heard is not the right to honk horns day and night for 10 days in downtown Ottawa; it is not the right to harass and terrorize the public.

I do not agree with the member when he says that there was no intention to overthrow the government. That was written on their Facebook page. Far right organizers said they were prepared to work with the Senate and the Governor General to take the place of a democratically elected government.

Members of the Conservative Party, the party of law and order, support this movement and will bring coffee and pizza to these people and get their pictures taken with them. What is happening in that party?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it will be no surprise that I disagree with the member 100%.

Where I will agree is that we have had thousands of protests here in our nation's capital since I was elected. I get that the 10 days of honking and all manner of noise were not appropriate, but all Canadians wanted was to be heard—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the passionate speech of the member for Cariboo—Prince George. It is always hard to follow him in this House.

First, I want to thank my constituents. I can honestly say, for all MPs in the House, that in the last two weeks we have likely received more correspondence than in any other two-week period in the last number of years on a number of these issues, and it has been a trying two years. I want to thank my constituents because they have made it crystal clear that they do not support the invocation and the continued use of the Emergencies Act. There has been a balanced feedback on this one, but the majority have clearly indicated in my riding that they do not support the Liberal government's decision.

I want to make it crystal clear that I will always support the democratic right of Canadians to protest. I am on the record, before this convoy ever arrived here in Ottawa, saying that I will always support, no matter what the issue is on the political spectrum, the right of Canadians to democratically protest. However, I am on the record saying that I will never support people breaking the law. I do belong to the party of law and order, and I am on the record stating that I will never support anyone breaking the law. That includes blockades and anything else.

I am going to focus on my Liberal colleagues and the NDP for my speech, because I think I know how the majority of the Conservative and Bloc members are going to vote, based on the indication now that this is possibly a confidence vote. Maybe my words will be for nought, but I want to get into the crux of the issue that I think we are really voting on tonight, and that is the continuation of the invocation of the Emergencies Act: not the history or why the government did it, but why we still need it going forward.

There have been some great speeches in the House already that clearly outline why people on both sides think that the government was justified or not justified in bringing it forward, but I want to focus on the question of why we need it going forward and, lacking that, the question of trust.

I will just cover the justification briefly. I have read all the tabled documents that were provided to us as members of Parliament and the stuff that has been put out in the public sphere to read. I have tried to either read or listen to every speech given by a Liberal member, but specifically the Liberal cabinet, the members of the Liberal government, because they are the ones who should be speaking more than the rest of us in the House during this debate, trying to convince us why they are implementing arguably the most draconian, powerful piece of legislation that exists in our federal laws. I do not think there is anything more powerful than the Emergencies Act when it comes to putting it into place and actually curtailing some of the freedoms that exist in this great country.

What are the justifications that have been tabled so far? If members read through the proclamation, they will see that it really hits two key points: It talks about the freezing of financial assets, and it talks about tow trucks. I have been involved in dealing with national crises, not necessarily here in Canada but around the world. I understand, maybe more than most, what serious national security threats are, and I have never felt personally that anything that has occurred across Canada over the last three weeks, dealing with the blockades or the convoy here in Ottawa, has met that threshold. Members should not take my word for it. There have been experts out there. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills laid out in his speech, a few hours earlier, clear logic that the government has failed to meet the legal requirements to invoke the act, but it chose to do it anyway.

Let us make the assumption that the justification was valid for bringing in the invocation, that it did somehow meet the national emergency threshold. Was this because the cabinet, as has been hinted at, had access to additional intelligence or information that warranted this? How did the government communicate that to Canadians, but also to the rest of us here in the House of Commons, with this important vote coming? Did the government reach out and ask to share that information?

There are many of us in this House who have the appropriate security clearance, top secret security clearance, who are former members of the Privy Council. All that aside, we could quickly and quite easily read a number of members from all parties in the House into the necessary security classification and provide that intelligence or information, because lacking that, the Prime Minister is really just asking us to trust him. I will get back to the question of trust in a couple of minutes.

As the Liberal member for Beaches—East York laid out in his speech just a couple of hours ago, and as I have already hinted at, the vote tonight is really about why the Emergencies Act and all these restrictive measures are still required. I feel personally that a responsible government, even one that felt it was justified in using this very powerful piece of legislation, would have revoked these measures as soon as all the illegal blockades disappeared. Why has the Liberal government not done this?

I listened yesterday as the Minister of Emergency Preparedness was asked a direct question on national media as to why the Emergencies Act is still needed going forward when everything has been resolved. His response was that there is still work to be done. I stepped out of the chamber this morning to listen to the Prime Minister in his press conference. It was the first question he was asked, and then he was asked again by a reporter to give one specific example. His answer was about tow trucks.

We are in a national emergency because somehow we need tow trucks to move I do not know what. I have been driving in and out every day over the last two weeks here to Parliament. There were lots of vehicles illegally blockading the roads that needed to be towed out, and they are all gone. I had no issues coming in to Parliament Hill this morning.

What disturbed me and disappointed me as well during that press conference was that the Prime Minister was asked a couple of other very easy questions, such as what lessons he learned from the last few weeks, and his response was that the country is angry. I do not know if that is learning much of anything. He was asked if he has any regrets. A sign of a good leader is recognizing that one is not perfect. I know I have made plenty of mistakes throughout my military career, and I am sure even as a politician in the last couple of years. The key to learning from them is to actually recognize when we have made a mistake. That is when we learn the most, and we should have regrets if we did not do things to the best of our abilities.

What does it all mean going forward, when we still see the government continuing to support the emergency measures? Does this mean the Liberals just want to go after those Canadians who maybe happened to donate to their local neighbour, the truck driver, who might have even been fully vaccinated? I know I had constituents in my riding who came here for the protests fully vaccinated. One of my best friends, who I did not even realize had come, drove here with his wife and kids from British Columbia, protested completely legally and then went home. He drove all the way back. He did not blockade anything. He did not do anything. Because people made a $20 donation, are they at risk? Is that why we still need these measures going forward? I had constituents reaching out to me this morning saying they are pulling all their money out of the bank and putting it all in their mattress or whatever, because they do not trust the government.

If these risks still exist, I do encourage the government to take the necessary steps to reach out and share those, because I think it is safe to say the Prime Minister has broken the trust. Canadians no longer trust him, so regardless of where we are on this issue, let us work together to build that trust. I am asking the Liberal government to share that information and make it available. If the Liberals really feel there is a threat out there that still needs to be addressed, they should bring it forward.

In conclusion, as lawyers and Liberal MPs from Louis-Hébert and Beaches—East York just stated in their speeches in the last few hours, the threshold has not been met. The only reason they are voting tonight in favour of this is that the Prime Minister would rather have a federal election than accept that maybe he did not make the right decision.

Tonight I will be voting to revoke the Emergencies Act.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I have listened intently to the member opposite, and I want to point out something we have heard repeatedly during the course of these past four days from the Conservative benches, which is that other steps were not taken prior to invoking this very significant piece of legislation. That is categorically false. A table was convened of all leadership at multiple levels. The RCMP officers were deputized. Ottawa declared a state of emergency. The Province of Ontario declared a state of emergency. Funds were targeted using conventional methods. Cryptocurrency was then being used by the illegal protesters, thus triggering the need to employ FINTRAC.

I am going to address FINTRAC in my question to the member opposite. Thus far, according to the reading I did this morning on my way here, 206 accounts have been frozen among tens of thousands of people in two countries who have donated to these illegal blockades. Is that not, in fact, demonstrating the restraint that has been shown, in terms of the surgical targeting of those who are largely funding this with improper donations, including donations from foreign jurisdictions? Is that not exactly what we should be doing to cut off the supply chain to this illegal blockading?

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

Madam Speaker, I would correct my Liberal colleague. If he goes back and listens to my speech, I never actually made any allegations that there were no justifications or steps. There have been speeches that noted that, but it was not part of my speech.

With respect to the member's comment, if only 263 accounts have been frozen so far and he is saying that is a good sign of restraint, I would agree with him.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that passing the Emergencies Act in its 1988 version is not abusive because it is guided by the consideration and review of the legislators we are.

However, by making this a vote of confidence, the Prime Minister is perverting the free and informed review that we should be conducting as legislators. Worse yet, he is hiding his real intentions from his members.

Does my colleague not find once again that the Prime Minister is demonstrating a shocking lack of leadership?

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

It is a lack of leadership. The whole purpose of the Emergencies Act is to address a case of last resort. We should not be utilizing it without absolute concern and restraint. We need to have the oversight. In fact, that is why we have the the Emergencies Act. It morphed and evolved from the War Measures Act because there was a recognition that we needed the democratic oversight of the House. We have all these tools in place through the parliamentary review committee, which can table and review the revocation within seven days, and we can get to the bottom of all of this. I am personally disappointed that the Prime Minister made this a confidence vote.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague, on behalf of all Canadians, for his service to our country.

We are supporting this measure reluctantly, and we have made that very clear. We have heard from other members of the Conservative Party: Doug Ford, himself a Conservative and the Premier of Ontario; Peter MacKay, the former defence minister and minister of justice under the Stephen Harper government; and Stephen Harper's own security adviser, Richard Fadden. They all believe that this situation meets the bar and that this is the right use of the act.

Given the scope of the act we are talking about today, does the member not believe that they are qualified experts? What does he say to those Conservatives who are calling for us to move forward with tonight's vote and to vote in favour of it?

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

Madam Speaker, every Canadian should have an opinion on this, and I fully respect their opinions. Maybe they are right that it was necessary. That is their opinion. However, I would push back and say that calling for the act when it was needed to get rid of the existing blockades here in Ottawa is not what we are voting on tonight. We are voting on whether it still needs to be in place, and I am not aware of a single protest or threat in this country that still requires the most restrictive, powerful legislation in this country.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley North.

I rise in the House today on a matter of great importance. Every opportunity to rise in this place is sacred. It is a privilege that is not to be taken lightly, especially when we are called here to talk about a difficult period for Canada and for all those who call our country home.

That is what I am doing today, and I rise to assert my conviction that declaring a public emergency under the Emergencies Act was necessary to deal with the coordinated, multifaceted threats that presently weigh on our safety and security, our democracy and our economy.

My constituents, and Canadians in communities all across Canada, are by this point aware of the self-titled “freedom convoy” that descended on the city of Ottawa over three weeks ago to, in their own words, “end the COVID-19 mandates now”. As someone who openly welcomes opposing views and lively debate, and who has participated in dozens of protests and demonstrations over my lifetime, I supported their right to do so. This right is, in fact, entrenched in subsection 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It protects the ability for citizens to voice their discontent, question authority and seek change. It is at the core of who we are as a people, and as an MP and a proud Canadian, I will always fight to defend it.

However, in our democracy, freedom of expression is not absolute. Subsection 2(b) extends toward lawful, peaceful protest. The charter does not protect illegal blockades and occupations. Far from seeing people exercising their constitutional rights to disagree vigorously with the government, we have instead seen intimidation, threats, harassment and an attack on our ability to produce and trade goods. We have seen a coordinated effort by outside actors to attack our country’s right to make its own decisions and chart its own path.

First, let me begin by addressing what has occurred here in Ottawa. The protest began over COVID-19 mandates and restrictions. Over the course of three weeks, it had morphed into an occupation of a city that almost one million Canadians call home. Streets were blocked, engines ran 24 hours a day, making the air difficult to breathe for neighbouring residents, and horns sounded at all hours of the night, with what many in Ottawa, the seniors, parents and students alike, have called a form of sleep deprivation torture. We saw frequent and unabated displays of hatred, including swastikas, Confederate flags and signs proudly stating “pure blood”, and acts of direct hatred when windows were smashed at local businesses because they posted signs on their windows that represented differing points of view. We have seen the desecration of our national monuments, including our National War Memorial, and an attempted arson, all of which was caught on video.

Prior to this weekend, efforts by the Ottawa police to maintain law and order in the nation's capital were unsuccessful, resulting in both the City of Ottawa and the Conservative Government of Ontario declaring a state of emergency. All of this is but one component of a much larger and more coordinated effort to undermine our institutions and our economy.

There has also been a coordinated effort to block our national border crossings, halt the flow of goods and people, and stop trade. Blockades have occurred in Surrey, Emerson and Coutts, Alberta. They have occurred at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. These are deliberate attacks targeting critical infrastructure. As the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, I heard witness testimony just last Thursday, February 17, that the blockades at these ports of entry have resulted in trade disruptions costing Canada $3.9 billion, with $400 million in daily losses at the Windsor crossing alone. With automotive parts, for example, no longer able to make their way to factories, shifts at multiple auto plants were cancelled and thousands of workers were sent home. All of this was impacting businesses, workers and the confidence in Canada as a reliable trading partner and a safe place to invest.

Adding to this, in the United States and indeed in other nations, foreign citizens and bodies with their own interests have openly supported the blockades and admitted to sending money and resources to help the blockades continue. In fact, it has now come to light that over 50% of all the donations received through the convoy’s online fundraising campaign were American, with American billionaires donating upwards of $90,000 alone. I ask anyone watching who hears this whether it is acceptable for any foreign actors or foreign citizens to contribute to efforts to undermine the democratic process of another country or, for that matter, to purposefully sabotage the economic trade routes of another country through blockades. These blockades, I repeat, cost $3.9 billion in economic activity for Canadians.

I ask members of the House, particularly my hon. colleagues and friends from across the aisle, what their threshold is. Is this not enough? What is their threshold before they adopt the necessary measures to counter those who seek to undermine the decisions of the House and, more importantly, the will of Canadians at large?

Adding to this, just a few days ago, the Anti-Defamation League showed a result of their study of the online GiveSendGo fundraising campaign. It found that roughly 1,100 people in the United States who supported the January 6 insurrection last year that stormed the U.S. capital were donors of the blockades here in Canada.

I am asking all Canadians who are listening and I implore all members of the House to seriously think about these facts. As members of the House, we can at least all agree that these actions are unacceptable and that concerted action must be taken to address this affront to our democracy.

Furthermore, my hon. colleagues in the House and all Canadians watching should be alarmed by the 13 arrests at the Coutts border in Alberta last week. Law enforcement found a large cache of military firearms, ammunition and body armour, which led to charges of conspiracy to commit murder.

Measures had to be taken to protect our democratic institutions, our borders and our economy, to respond to the needs of the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario and of any other province requesting assistance as a result of coordinated blockades. For these reasons, I will be supporting the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

To address misconceptions and concerns regarding overreach, I want to reaffirm that this is not the invocation of the War Measures Act. We are not calling in the military. What we are doing is giving the RCMP the power to enforce local laws and work quickly and efficiently with local law enforcement. We are not putting the RCMP or any other police force under the direct control of the government. Policing operational decisions remain independent under this act, as they should and must in any strong democracy. This act also directs financial institutions to take action to halt the funding of the illegal blockades at our ports and border crossings and levy significant penalties.

To address concerns relating to charter rights infringements, I want to share five key steps, checks and regulations built into the act and speak to the important role of the Attorney General of Canada. First, everything done by a government under the Emergencies Act must be done in accordance with the charter, full stop. It is entrenched in the preamble of the act. Second, all declarations are time-limited to 30 days. In fact, it may be less and I hope that it will be less. Third, the very act of declaring an emergency under the declaration must be reviewed by a committee of all members of Parliament and senators from all political parties. Fourth, the exercise of powers under the declaration must be reviewed by that committee. Finally, following the end of an emergency, a full inquiry must be held.

In closing, the Attorney General of Canada, a fellow Quebecker who represents the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, is a seasoned lawyer. He was vice dean of McGill University's faculty of law. This man has the respect of MPs of all political stripes, and it is his job to ensure that the rights of all Canadians under the charter are protected and that all necessary and crucial measures are taken in accordance with the law.

I have confidence in his abilities and in his character. I have confidence in the ability of all members of the House to ensure that the measures set out in this act are used in a measured fashion, and only when and where they are necessary to put an end to these attacks and blockades.

That is what my constituents in Vaudreuil—Soulanges and all Canadians expect from us, so let us work together to make it happen.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the borders are open. Those at Coutts, Emerson, Surrey and Windsor are open. That happened before the Emergencies Act was even invoked. In Ottawa, the trucks have been removed, the streets are clear and there is no threat of violence or disharmony. Most of the charges that have been laid involve mischief or maybe trespass, not exactly terrorism.

How does the member opposite, along with his colleagues, justify the continued use of the Emergencies Act going forward?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows full well that this is not over. She knows full well that there are still attempts to ensure that blockades across the country are funded and that they do not stop. What the government needs to be doing right now is ensuring these blockades do not continue and do not reorganize to block the free flow of goods with our neighbours to the south. We must ensure that what happened here in Ottawa does not happen again.

We will re-evaluate, as the days go by, whether or not these measures are necessary. It is in fact the job of the House to do just that, and I look forward to working with my hon. colleagues to make sure that is the case.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges, a member of the Liberal Party's Quebec caucus, for that mostly English speech.

We have been debating for three days, so we are familiar with each party's arguments. There is one thing we do not know. The member for Louis-Hébert said a few minutes ago that he does not know if this evening's vote will be a confidence vote. We do not know. We have not been told. As my hon. colleague and friend from Montcalm so eloquently put it, if this is a confidence vote, the outcome may not accurately reflect our beliefs.

My question is simple: Is this evening's vote a confidence vote, yes or no?

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, it does not make any difference to me whether it is a confidence vote or not.

I am sure it is the best decision we can make as a government to protect Canadians and to help the City of Ottawa and the Province of Ontario, which both declared a state of emergency on their territory. It is also the best decision to ensure that our borders stay open to free trade with the United States and to keep our workers employed.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to focus specifically on a concern of my constituents and of folks across the country. It relates to indigenous peoples' rights. I want the member to confirm, in plain, clear language, that invoking the Emergencies Act does not in any way, shape or form negate or restrict indigenous peoples' rights to access their lands and to even occupy their lands.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his staunch defence of his constituents.

I have full confidence in members of cabinet, most notably the Minister of Justice, and the actions they are going to take in the coming days and weeks. I know they will be working diligently to ensure that the charter rights of all Canadians will be protected as they carry out the necessary actions to bring back law and order to the city of Ottawa, as they ensure that everything that needs to be taken care of in Ontario is indeed taken care of, and as I stated before, as they ensure that we no longer have blockades blocking key points of entry into our country.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about illegal money coming into Canada. He can tell us, as he did, that 50% of the funds come from outside Canada. As a result of the tracking already embedded in platforms we know where the money comes from, yet the law he proposes to support here has us looking into Canadians' bank accounts. I would like him to square that with me.

What does this accomplish that is not already being accomplished with our current financial mechanisms?