Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to follow my friend, colleague and seatmate from Parry Sound—Muskoka because it is a tough act to follow. I appreciate that I can follow him because I do share a lot of the same concerns as he does. I truly am concerned with the state of affairs in this country, in this place, in this chamber, and I am worried about the direction that our political discussion is going. I would like to touch on that a bit more later on.

To start my remarks, I would like to come back to the issue at hand. We are having a very important vote tonight and I believe I have a duty to share my views on how I will be making my decision when the vote comes tonight.

As I said last week in this chamber, the blockades we are seeing are illegal and they must come to an end. I am pleased to see that they have come to an end. The right to peaceful protest is an integral part of our democracy. It is an important pillar of our democracy. I have told many people back home that almost every day I am here, it seems like there is a different protest happening out by the flame on the lawn of Parliament, and that is an important part of our process.

However, nobody in this country has the right to blockade critical infrastructure. Freedom is limited by how it interferes with the freedom of others, and that is what we saw on display over the past few weeks here in Ottawa and in other places across the country.

I believe that police have and had the ability to handle the situation without invoking the Emergencies Act. We saw that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared and that the Coutts border crossing was cleared without the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

In the past in this country, we have seen terrorist attacks. We have seen the Oka crisis, the Wet'suwet'en blockades, the fisheries crisis, G20 protests and the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver. None of these instances warranted the use of the Emergencies Act. Quite recently, we have seen the terrible images from B.C. from the Coastal GasLink assault, a situation where the Emergencies Act was not deemed to be necessary.

I believe that the government had many options it could have taken in working with its partners to address the situation, without going so far, because there are such far-reaching powers afforded to the government by invoking this act, including the ability to freeze the bank accounts of Canadians. Many people I know are very concerned that they may have contributed a small amount to support this convoy. They may have bought a shirt or contributed in a very small way because they felt at the time that this convoy, this protest, was going to be peaceful and was going to raise awareness about an issue that they cared about. They felt like they did not have a voice and the protesters were raising that for them.

Those people are the ones I worry could be unfairly impacted by this decision to invoke the Emergencies Act. They are people who contributed, not knowing that there would be unlawful protests, not knowing how the situation would escalate or necessarily who was organizing it.

I also worry, as many have mentioned in this chamber already throughout the weekend and here today, about the precedent that this sets. I believe we are drastically lowering the bar for what constitutes an emergency in this country. That is something that all of us in this chamber have to think very hard about when we have our vote here tonight. We do not want to see widespread use of the Emergencies Act. We do not want this to become something that is almost an everyday reaction because of how serious and far-reaching the powers are. That is why I will be voting against the implementation of the Emergencies Act.

It will be interesting to see how this transpires because an argument could be made that the situation the government needed to address has been dealt with already. I know that is a question that has been put to the members of the government so far.

As I mentioned off the top, I want to pick up on some of the comments that my friend from Parry Sound—Muskoka was making, because the rhetoric I have heard in this debate and in the chamber over the past couple of weeks in question period, I am truly disturbed by. I have been disgusted by it. The polarization that we are seeing across the country, the polarization that we are seeing in this chamber needs to stop.

Last week, the Prime Minister accused our side of standing with people who waved swastikas. Many members of the House have made comments to essentially say that we are racists. This of course could not be further from the truth, but they are seeing a political opportunity and that is what bothers me the most about this. I know these members. These are my colleagues, my friends. I know that it does not seem like it to many people watching at home, but we actually do get along sometimes in this place, especially when we get outside of the chamber doors.

Many members of the government, the NDP and other parties, I have coffee with them and dinner with them. We crack jokes at the committee table. After a particularly tough debate, maybe we have a drink that is a little stiffer, but to think that those individuals view my colleagues and me as racists, I cannot accept because I surely know that if I believed anybody in the chamber was a racist, I would not be having dinner with them or shaking their hand. Frankly, I do not think I would treat them with any respect whatsoever, and that is the frustrating part because I know it has become political. The Liberals see an opportunity to divide and to wedge and they are capitalizing on it.

We have also heard from members of the government that their leadership, in the last election campaign and since, made a deliberate decision to stigmatize unvaccinated Canadians, driving wedges even further. I do not mean to throw this all on the government. I obviously believe the Prime Minister has an important leadership role to play right now and we need him to lead by example and work to unify us. However, we all have to look inward in this place because we are seeing hateful rhetoric on all sides.

We are seeing people accusing the Prime Minister of being a communist dictator, which is ridiculous and untrue. We are seeing hate and polarization all across this chamber and across this country, and putting an end to it starts right here with every single one of us in the House. We need to turn down the heat. We need to tone down the rhetoric as my friend before me mentioned.

I am shocked that I have to say this in the House. We have a Prime Minister who was democratically elected three times, who commands the confidence of this chamber, yet there are many people across the country who are not seeing it as legitimate and that is a very big problem in our democracy. I disagree with the use of the Emergencies Act. I believe it is far-reaching, but it does not make the Prime Minister a dictator. He is within his right to invoke it.

My plea to all of my colleagues is to think about the words we use in this place. We cannot throw around words like “dictator” and “racist” flippantly. These words matter. They carry weight and when we use these words so casually, we delegitimize the true evils that have been experienced by many people and continue to be experienced by many people in the world.

I am asking all of my colleagues to look at their comments, look at their rhetoric and reassess because we are seeing divisions created that I do not know how we come back from at this point. I am urging all my colleagues to tone down the rhetoric and work to unify. I do not mean to unify in the sense that we all agree on everything. We never will, nor should we, but let us have a respectful debate about the issues. Surely we do not need to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to having breakfast with the hon. member again when the restaurants open. We have had some really good discussions over bacon and eggs, and I am sure there will be more to come when we are allowed to get back into the restaurants, once the health restrictions are lifted.

Since the emergency powers have been granted to police forces, we have seen the police forces working within their own governance. They are not going into the streets and exercising full powers, just the powers that are needed to restore law and order. As we are seeing borders again being put under siege out on the west coast, we do still need the Emergencies Act so police forces can use their discretion in using the powers they have. Hopefully, they will always do so in the professional way they are entitled to.

Could the hon. member comment on having that power available, and the importance of having oversight—

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

I have to give the hon. member for Kenora a chance to comment.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for buying breakfast at the last opportunity we had. As a true fiscal Conservative, I thought it was great for him to offer that.

Again, I have to go back to my comment at the front end of my speech, I do believe that law enforcement had the tools to deal with this situation outside of the Emergencies Act. We have seen many protests throughout our country's history. We have seen crowd control become necessary in a number of situations.

I would have liked to have seen the government look to other options to support policing. As the Prime Minister has said, the Emergencies Act should not be the first, second or third resort. It remains unclear, on this side of the House at least, what those first, second or third resorts were.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sincerely grateful to the member for Kenora for the tone and tenor of his speech. My hat is off to him. I would invite members of the House to reflect on the impact of that speech and its tone because that is the level of discourse we should hear in the House all the time. I hope we will make progress toward that goal.

My colleague talked about people who are undecided about this act. Some members of the House think the Emergencies Act was necessary to clear Ottawa streets. We still think it was not. Even if we were to accept their point of view, does my colleague think those people could change their minds about the need to hold this vitally important, historic vote tonight now that the streets are clear?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the premise of the member's question. It is obviously an argument I do not agree with, but to the argument on the government side that the Emergencies Act was necessary to remove the protest.

What we can see now though is that it has gone. I think the emergency has been dealt with. I would ask all members to consider whether or not the Emergencies Act is still needed at this time.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a new member of Parliament, I really appreciated listening to my colleagues' words today. It has been a really challenging start to my career as a member of Parliament. To hear the words about us working together has been uplifting, to say the least.

I want to ask a little more about that. I have been here from the onset, when the occupation took over the downtown area around Parliament here in Ottawa. I have been hearing from residents of Ottawa, and hearing from my constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It is a challenging time. What many people are asking is, “How do we come together?” This resonates me, and it is what you were talking about as well.

There is a lot of misinformation—

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

I will remind the hon. member to refer to the member as the member for Kenora.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what I said that went awry, but I thank you.

My question is about how we come together. I am seeing a lot of misinformation being used as a tool to divide. The reality is that Canada is not divided. There are many who are vaccinated and many who are opposed to the occupation. I am wondering if the member could speak to how we can come together.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a difficult question to answer in 20 seconds. I would probably need another 10-minute speech to do so. As I mentioned, it starts with us in this chamber.

Though we will disagree on many things, and I know many members across the way will disagree with me on almost everything, we must do so respectfully, and within a responsible and reasonable scope that most Canadians can be proud of. Right now, I do not think Canadians are proud when they watch what is happening in this chamber.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brampton North.

I think I lucked out with my time slot because I am following two members who spoke so eloquently in this chamber. I want to thank them for that. We all have a role to play as leaders in bringing down the tone and showing that we can actually work together.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Protective Service, the various municipal police forces, as well as the RCMP, the OPP, la Sûreté du Québec, and everyone involved in the last three weeks for their professionalism in bringing this situation to a close. Today, we are discussing whether the Emergencies Act should have been used. I will explain today why I am going to support this motion and why it was necessary.

When I look at it from a situational analysis perspective, over the past 26 days, Ottawa has been under siege. We have seen protests at the Ambassador Bridge. We have see protests at the Coutts border, in Vancouver and here in Ottawa. We have seen the Rideau Centre down the street closed. There are hundreds and hundreds of employees who cannot go to work. We have seen fundraising with a lot of foreign interference toward this occupation. We have seen a lot of misinformation being shared on social media.

I have been in Ottawa for 22 of the last 26 days of the occupation, and I have witnessed first-hand the constant honking, the fireworks in the streets, the open fires and citizens afraid to go outside. One of the most disturbing sights was someone jumping on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. As the mother and mother-in-law of three serving members, this was incredibly difficult for me to witness.

I have seen people being taunted in the streets for wearing a mask. We have had staff members yelled at, one of whom had feces thrown at her, for coming to work. We have seen reporters being assaulted. We have seen the stockpiling of propane and fuel. We have seen this progression, despite measures that had been taken by local police.

Our government has been in contact with the mayor the whole time. We have also been in contact with the chief of police, the premier and the various premiers of the locations where we have seen these protests. We deployed RCMP officers and tactical police troops; had joint intelligence and operational teams, and community liaison teams; and convened a table with relevant federal and municipal partners. Despite these efforts, it continued.

When we look at the timeline of events, we saw very clearly an escalation. We saw the potential for this to increase. I know that Wellington Street is clear right now, but we also know that protesters are currently in Vankleek Hill. We know that protesters are just south of us waiting. That is why I believe we are just in invoking the Emergencies Act.

My colleague from Windsor West has said multiple times in the last three days that the Ambassador Bridge is not secure. Two blocks away, there are protesters. It is a very volatile situation right now. It is evolving quickly. I trust the police forces, and the intelligence they have, to keep us safe.

The laws that we currently have on the books were not sufficient. One of the most difficult things for me to see were children at these protests. The invoking of the Emergencies Act will make it punishable to bring children into these protests. It also prevents travel to the Hill and through border crossings by those intent on breaking laws. It prevents foreign extremists from joining these protests. It directs tow companies to assist in removing vehicles parked in our streets.

Invoking the Emergencies Act also authorizes financial institutions to freeze the funds of this illegal activity. We are talking dark money. We are talking about using crowdfunding to avoid FINTRAC rules. It also allowed the police forces to save days of delay in deputizing various police forces.

This is not something we take lightly. When this piece of legislation was drafted in 1987, the safeguards were put in place. We are having this debate. There will be a vote. A joint committee of parliamentarians will be struck. There will be an inquiry. There will be a report tabled in the House after 60 days to determine whether or not the invoking of this act was justifiable.

I heard a lot over the last couple of days about listening. I make a point of reaching out to the citizens who write to me, especially those who are angry and do not agree, because I really want to hear their point. Let us be honest. When most people write to an MP's office, it is not to say we are doing a great job; it is because they are angry about something or not happy with something. I make every effort to hear them. While we may not agree on a position, it is important that I hear them. I am pretty sure this is the same across all parties. We have those discussions in caucus. We share what we are hearing on the ground. Those conversations are happening. People are listening. We are listening. We have a duty to listen, and we are.

We are dealing with a very scary situation in Canada where people feel empowered to say awful things to others, whether it be on social media from the safety of their keyboard or attacking them personally. I have no problem with someone questioning my position on something or questioning a policy, but when we start taking personal attacks, we have gone too far.

I think there are a lot of questions to be asked coming out of what has happened in the last month here in Canada. My hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay brought this up, I believe, on Saturday. I may be mixing up the days after being here debating for three days. He said there should be a public inquiry into what happened here, in addition to the parliamentary inquiry that is stipulated in the Emergencies Act.

Ottawa has festivities all the time. It is well versed in crowd control. I looked up online what streets are closed normally to vehicular traffic during the Canada Day celebrations. How did those trucks get on Wellington Street? How did a crane get put beside the Prime Minister's office? Where was the protection for the protesters walking in between the parked trucks? There will be a lot of questions to ask after this through various channels, levels of government and agencies, and I welcome that, so this never happens again.

I urge colleagues across the aisle, as well as on my side, to be mindful of the words we use and how we express ourselves, and to ask questions about what really happened here. How is it that an illegal protest like this was allowed to get so far? Let us be honest. If the complexion of this protest were different, this would have been called something entirely different.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the tone of her speech. We are here to have debate and discourse, not necessarily to agree but to get to the root of the issues.

The real point I want to get to is this. Does the member believe there is still justification for this act? She hinted at some of her concerns. The Emergencies Act is by far the most draconian and powerful piece of legislation the federal government has, so we cannot use it just to protect against a potential threat; it is there to deal with a national emergency that we are dealing with right now. I would like her comments on whether she thinks it is justified to still have this act in place now.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the member opposite for his service to Canada. I know he served in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Yes, I do. As I said, when the decision to invoke this act was made, it was measured, targeted and timely. We know now that within two days the Ottawa police were able to make great advances in removing the illegal protesters from downtown Ottawa and various locations, but they have not gone home. There were protests across Canada, and they continue. Police are in the best position to tell us when they feel the situation is under control. The safeguards are there and when it is time to revoke the act, we will.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for her speech.

I would like to pick up on the part where she talked about the Ambassador Bridge. Several people have talked about it this morning.

She said that there are still protesters a few blocks away from there. To be clear, these are protesters, not occupiers. This is not a siege. The Ambassador Bridge blockade was dismantled before the Emergencies Act was invoked. There was no need for the act. The situation was dealt with.

Why adopt a draconian measure when the authorities already have everything they need to take action?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that there were children on the Ambassador Bridge. We all knew that there might be more violence. The OPP and the Premier of Ontario asked us to implement this measure. We invoked the Emergencies Act at the request of the province and the police.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work on the industry committee as the former chair. It was very much a collegial environment.

As I have noted several times in interventions, the Ambassador Bridge blockade has moved from Huron Church Road and is now along city streets. A couple of convoys have been intercepted since the act has been in place.

Does the member find it ironic that a private American billionaire now benefits from traffic being quickly rerouted, when small businesses and their employees cannot work because the blockades and cement barriers are now preventing people from getting to their businesses along the corridor?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed working with my colleague when I was on the INDU committee.

I have heard the member explain throughout this debate the precarious situation on the ground right now at the Ambassador Bridge, the fact that there are still protesters blocks away who can retake that bridge. There are issues with respect to the management and ownership of that bridge that I would happily discuss with him. I know he needs to make sure that the people in his community are able to feel safe, that businesses in his community can continue to thrive and that we are able to move beyond this awful period in our history.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, being able to rise today on this issue is an opportunity I do not take lightly nor for granted. It is only in a few democratic countries like ours that the voice of someone like me would even be heard or carry any weight.

Over the last several days, we have heard many points of view on the invocation of the Emergencies Act and regarding the details outlined in the declaration of the act tabled in the House. After hearing much of the debate in the House and outside this place, I want to touch upon some key issues that have been misconstrued or misunderstood.

The first is that this is just a normal truckers' protest. Anyone thinking that is naive as to the elements that exist within this protest, so I will address that. I also want to address that this is not just a protest representing truck drivers. If people claim that it is, they really have missed the mark. I represent a large demographic of truck drivers in my riding, and these are not their real concerns. I will also address the issue of whether this act was necessary and whether it is still necessary at this time. Lastly, I would like to show the real difference that exists between the Emergencies Act and the War Measures Act.

Let us first address the claim that this is just a normal protest. If that is what people believe, then they are either naive or willfully ignoring the dangerous truths that exist within this protest. We have heard from many criminologists and cybersecurity experts over the last several weeks that this is not the intention of this protest.

We are not new to protests in Parliament, and neither is Ottawa. Ottawa is a place that has had protests for centuries, always consisting of people wanting their say on policy or wanting to have their issues heard. In fact, this government has never silenced the voices of those who wish to protest. I, myself, have protested many times on the Hill in my younger years, and I strongly believe in one's ability to do so.

However, blocking a city for over three weeks, shutting down its businesses, and disturbing the mental and physical health of its people is not a protest, not to mention the irreparable harm that has been done by shutting down our borders for over 18 days.

As the ambassador to the UN and former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Bob Rae, put it the other day, “A truck is not a speech. A horn is not a voice. An occupation is not a protest. A blockade is not freedom, it blocks the liberty of all. A demand to overthrow a government is not a dialogue. The expression of hatred is not a difference of opinion. A lie is not the truth.”

On my way in today, for the first time in quite some time, I felt some freedom. I am sure the people of Ottawa are feeling freedom today.

Furthermore, the protests have had varying ideological grievances, with demands ranging from ending the public health measures to overthrowing a democratically elected government. While the latter is non-negotiable, the public health restrictions have been put in place by most governments around the world to varying degrees, depending on the advice of their public health, the capacities of their health systems and the willingness of their governments to have high death tolls versus their desire to protect the vulnerable.

Public health is, and should be, every government's number one priority. This is not tyranny, nor is it authoritarianism. Those making these outlandish claims have really minimized what many people living in Canada experienced before fleeing from countries that have these types of regimes. Yes, we have all been inconvenienced. Yes, we are all tired and frustrated. The good news is that we are seeing a relaxation of measures across this country.

Despite what a few want us to believe, Canadians, in large part, have done all of the right things to help get us through this pandemic. They have gotten vaccinated. Over 90% of Canadians, and over 90% of Canadian truckers also, have been vaccinated. That is an overwhelming majority. Due to the work that they have done, we will soon see that many measures will be lifted.

The Conservatives may want to paint this protest as just truckers voicing their opinion, but it is more than that. It is an ideologically motivated group of people who, for weeks on end, had been plotting and planning the overthrow of this government and other criminal activities. We have seen that. A lot of people want to forget, but we saw it at our southern Alberta border. At Coutts, we saw over 13 individuals be arrested. When we take a look at their backgrounds, they are quite astonishing. The plans that they had in place to kill our federal RCMP officers are not something to minimize. We should understand the grave danger that some of these people pose.

We are also seeing congressional committees down south in the U.S. investigating Facebook and other social media giants to see where a lot of the push and motivation for this trucker convoy has come from. It has come from outside of our borders. A lot of the funding has also come from outside of our borders.

What is very interesting is the correlation that we found between those who supported the January 6 insurrection at the Washington Capitol, and those who have supported this trucker convoy. There is a great overlap. Over 1,100 of the same donors donated to both causes.

Furthermore, blocking our trade corridors is not just a protest. Blocking our trade corridors has had a substantial impact on the truck drivers who live in my riding, and on the auto industry that is also in my riding. Many workers have been displaced due to the protest. I hesitate to continue to call it a protest, because it has been a siege and occupation of our land.

There has also been a lack of transparency as to what the funds that had been raised by this convoy, this occupation, would be used for. Therefore, I think it was very important for the government to impose the Emergencies Act at this time, to make sure that we could stop that money from getting into the wrong hands. There has been a very big lack of transparency.

I know many will argue today that the borders have been cleared, and thankfully Ottawa for the most part has been cleared. This measure also allows us to make sure that this does not happen again within days. We are starting to see it in different places in this country, so we need to make sure we keep this act in place for the remainder of the 30 days.

The second thing that I wanted to talk about concerns the truckers in my riding. The truckers in my riding have been calling me, talking about the issues that they face. They have been facing long waits. They have been stuck at times without food or water at the borders. This is not fair. They have real issues. They have issues of pay. They have labour issues that they want addressed. If it were a real trucker protest, that is what the protest should have been about.

Some will argue that the Emergencies Act was not needed, but we have heard interim Ottawa police chief Steve Bell say that the Emergencies Act and the province's state of emergency provided the police with the resources they needed to push back the demonstrators. It provided them with the ability to block off the city of Ottawa so that further protesters did not come to encourage the siege. It has given them the tools that were necessary, and I would say that many of the premiers requested these tools all along—

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

We will go to questions now.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the spring of 2020, we saw rail blockades across the country. At that point, when Quebec was running out of propane and people were unable to heat their own homes across the country, there was no mention of the invocation of the Emergencies Act. What we did see in that case was an army of cabinet ministers going out across the country speaking to whomever they could in order to resolve the situation.

Why was that tactic not taken in this particular case?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this case, we had a series of blockades across the country closing our borders. These did irreparable damage: over $390 million of damage a day. The city was taken siege for over three weeks, not to mention that the mayors of the cities and the premiers were calling on the federal government to intervene and implement measures to give them the tools and resources that they needed. Even the premier of Alberta, although he is stating something else today, wrote to the federal government wanting us to do more. Therefore, the government has listened and done what was needed.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brampton North for her speech.

She talked about the tools that are now available and that we needed. I would like her to give me a list of the tools that were used and for her to explain to me why they were not necessary in Sarnia, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Quebec City and Coutts.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, in fact, Coutts was requiring them, and had a very difficult time getting the tow trucks that were needed. Many of the law enforcement agencies complained that this was a key problem they had. They were not able to get the private resources that were needed, but that has become a lot easier ever since the Emergencies Act was put in place. We heard right here, from Ottawa police chief Steve Bell, that the act and the powers that were given within it helped the police to achieve what they did over the last few days here in Ottawa. They would not have been able to stop people from coming into the borders of this city without these measures.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. In my previous question, I asked the member for Oxford, who also happens to be on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, if he had read the emergency measures regulations, to which he said that he had not.

Could the member confirm whether the places listed in subsections 1(a) to 1(f) of the regulations, such as airports and international bridges, have been under threat, which necessitated the declaration of the Emergencies Act? Indeed, do they continue to be a security risk? Qujannamiik.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I would like to thank my colleague for bringing that up.

Our infrastructure was under threat and continues to be under threat in this country. That is why it is so important to make sure that we vote in favour of the implementation of this act today. This is a time-limited act. It is targeted to where it is needed. Therefore, I think it is absolutely the best measure to have in place to be able to curtail what is happening in our country today.