Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by wishing all Canadians a happy family day. Today is supposed to be a day for Canadian families to celebrate and enjoy being a family, with all the peace and prosperity that they deserve. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister chooses to be the sole architect of this crisis, which we have been talking about for the last few days.

We stand at a crossroads in the House today. It is by this motion, and no other, that this Parliament, and the men and women in the House of Commons today, will be remembered. During the First World War, Canadians saw the War Measures Act imposed for the first time. Under that act, more than 8,500 men, women and children of Ukrainian background were interned in 24 camps across the country. Many of them had been born in Canada.

Their rights, including the right to vote, were ignored by the government of the day, and Parliament and the people of Canada remained silent to those injustices. It was only in 2005, with the passage of the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act, that some redress was made to the descendants of those who were abused by the government, acknowledging that what was done was wrong.

In early 1942, the government of Canada used the War Measures Act to intern more than 21,000 Japanese Canadians. They were held for the duration of the Second World War. Their homes and businesses were seized and sold to pay for the detention. Once again, Parliament and the people of Canada remained silent about the mistreatment of citizens. It was only in 1988 that the then prime minister Brian Mulroney apologized for this wrongful act by the Canadian government.

The last time the War Measures Act was used was during the October Crisis of 1970. The government of the day imposed it because of a perceived insurrection, which turned out to be much less of an insurrection than the government had imagined. Hundreds of Quebeckers were ousted from their beds in the middle of the night and held without a trial, only to eventually be released without apology. Their supposed crime had been to show support for an unpopular idea, which was Quebec's independence. The government of the day lumped them together with those who had committed the crimes, unable to separate the difference between beliefs and actions.

If that sounds much like what has happened in Canada over the past few weeks, that is because it is. The government does not seem able to grasp that it is possible to disagree with a policy and to protest against that policy without being dangerous to society, so it invoked the Emergencies Act. As former NDP leader Tommy Douglas famously remarked in 1970, it is like “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”. The government has failed to prove any justification for this action. In effect, it is using the most draconian piece of legislation at its disposal to fix a parking problem in downtown Ottawa.

Members of the government ask us to trust them on this matter. They tell us that their actions will remain consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They tell us that there are no plans to call in the army.

Pardon me for looking at the government's track record and taking those statements with a huge grain of salt. I am sure government members are sincere and believe what they are saying. Unfortunately, as we have seen, their actions are frequently quite different from the high ideals of their words, and it is by their actions that they will be judged, not by their flowery language.

I would challenge any member from the government side to explain how freezing the bank accounts, without a warrant, of persons who have not been charged with a crime is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Does the action apply only to those who have illegally parked their vehicles in downtown Ottawa? What about their families? Does it extend to those who have liked the “freedom convoy” on Facebook? How far will the Prime Minister go to silence those who disagree with his policies? We should just watch him.

We have all heard stories about the government's no-fly list, which prevents thousands of people with alleged terrorist connections from air travel. We all agree that such a list had a purpose. However, that list of names is just that. It does not include passport numbers, dates of birth or other information to better identify those who may not fly. That means we regularly hear of those who are banned from air travel because their names are on the list, but they are not the ones who are targeted. A five-year-old child with the same name as a terrorist had no redress when turned away at the airport.

Forgive me for wondering how we can trust the government to freeze the bank accounts of only those who have taken part in the Ottawa protest. It would be simple to arrest those on the scene. Instead, it is making it more complicated, and it is sure to make mistakes. Telling Canadians that the government respects the Charter of Rights will be cold comfort when it makes those mistakes and starts seizing the bank accounts of people who have no connection to the protests. Canadian citizens who have done nothing wrong will have the government seizing their assets, and they will have no redress.

Government members will tell us that this could not happen. I ask members to remember the no-fly list and ask themselves if they believe it.

Over the past week, I have received hundreds of phone calls, as I am sure is the case for every member in the House, not just from constituents, but also from other concerned Canadians. Some are angry at the state of our country. They do not understand why the federal government is not following the science in bringing an end to various mandates. They demand action.

Many more, though, are afraid. They are afraid of the direction they see Canada taking. They see division in the House of Commons and in the country. Many blame the Prime Minister for creating those divisions. Others blame politicians.

One woman I spoke with, a senior citizen, was in tears. She loves Canada. She is horrified at what we are becoming. After two years of the pandemic, she feels helpless. She is looking to Parliament to show leadership, and what she sees is a government attempting to divide Canadians instead of unifying them, a government that denies the right to peaceful protest for anyone who disagrees with its policies, a prime minister who is too afraid of others' viewpoints to even meet with them on Zoom.

I encourage all hon. members, as we cast our vote today, to consider their place in history, remember the abuses by governments past and ask ourselves if the situation at hand warrants the method being used by the government. Let us put aside our different political party identities and come together to vote as Canadians.

The nation is watching us now. Will we pretend that we are living in 1917, 1942 or 1970, or will we show that we understand that, in 2022, Canadians must not be abused on a whim of a prime minister? History will remember our actions.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the question the member just asked: Will we continue to pretend that we are living in the past?

It seems that the member opposite and his Conservative colleagues are, in fact, living in the past as they continually reference the War Measures Act and comments Tommy Douglas made about that act in 1970. We are here to debate a very different act, the Emergencies Act, which was introduced, in fact, to address the very concerns the member raised with the War Measures Act and, may I remind the member opposite, by a Conservative government.

Why do the member opposite and his colleagues continually reference an act that is no longer on the books in Canada? They are creating confusion, anxiety and concern among people, when we really should be focused on the act we are debating today, which is the Emergencies Act.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member can call it by whatever name, at the end of the day, the action and the effect of it is what will be remembered by Canadians for generations to come. Let us not divide on this issue of the name, as the Prime Minister, her boss, has been doing in dividing Canadians for the last years, and we have seen the outcome of that right now. That is my answer. I hope that hon. member will be able to stand on the right side of history and vote against this draconian bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which I found to be very interesting at times. Obviously, for different reasons, the Bloc Québécois is also against the application of the Emergencies Act, which we have been debating since Thursday, but that is not exactly the issue I wanted to address with my colleague.

As my other colleague said in her question, he mentioned the War Measures Act several times. He talked about moments in history when this legislation was invoked for different reasons. Obviously, this did not fall on deaf ears. I heard his commentary on the sad events that happened in Quebec in 1970. He also noted that many Quebeckers were unjustly arrested, sometimes while in bed, in the middle of the night, for no reason, and were arbitrarily detained, often for several weeks.

If the Bloc Québécois moved another motion calling on the government to apologize to those Quebeckers who were victims of the War Measures Act in 1970, would my colleague approve our motion this time?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can see that the Bloc Québécois and Quebeckers remember that dark chapter when people were arrested without any link and victims were lumped together with criminals. At that time, what was done was unnecessary and it was done on an imaginary basis. I will support an apology to Quebec and Quebeckers, because I believe that chapter of our history has to be turned forever.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for Edmonton Manning for an excellent speech.

I took note particularly of a comment the member made about following the science and this Prime Minister's refusal to follow the science when it does not fit his narrative.

I am wondering what message my colleague would give to NDP members who have always been champions of civil liberties and who are now seeing the liberties of Canadians trampled under foot. What would he say to the NDP about voting with their conscience and about remaining true to the values that they say are important?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I was listening to a speech of an NDP member who was talking about the far right and the far left. I will call members of the NDP today the far lost. They are lost and do not remember their history. Quebec is remembering the history, but the members of the NDP are not. I would call on those members to vote no today just to be on the right side of history.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I go to debate, a little while ago somebody yelled out “time”. When people yell out while other people have the floor, it is not proper. First of all, the timing is up to the Speaker. It is not up to members within the chamber. As well, I do have a clock in front of me. I am very conscious of the time, and I think I have been very fair. I ask those members who feel I have not been to approach me me so I can address it.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

I have listened intently to the debate that has taken place in the House now for several days, and I come today with my intervention as a legislator, as a member of my community and as a mother.

Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl once said, “Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness.” The protection of our democratic institutions and the fabric of this country require for us to be responsible in this moment.

We can all agree that we came to this House to represent our communities and their rights under the Charter, which include the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and protest, and the right to be safe and secure in our homes and places of worship. These democratic freedoms that we cherish and enjoy as Canadians are exercised and anchored within the rule of law.

As a mother and member of my community, I know we are exhausted and frustrated by the devastating impacts of the pandemic. Many of us have experienced trauma, and others are grieving the loss of a loved one among the over 34,000 Canadians who have died due to COVID-19.

We can agree that the majority of Canadians, communities, families, mothers and fathers, health care workers, essential service workers and business owners, have come together and have been unified to support one another, to take care of each other these past two years, day after day, in the simplest of ways. They have done this by wearing masks, by maintaining health protocols and social distancing, and, yes, by getting vaccinated, including 90% of Canadian truckers.

All the tools that we as federal, provincial and municipal governments have utilized have been with only one primary goal in mind: to keep one another safe and healthy in this unprecedented global pandemic and to be united in a fight for the collective health and safety of one another and of our most vulnerable, the immunocompromised and the elderly.

We have come to agree that the convoy of people who came to Ottawa unimpeded to speak their minds over the duration of three weeks of occupation became an illegal blockade. It included members who intimidated residents, threatening their safety and security. Its leaders called for the overthrowing of this government and its replacement with leaders of their choosing, and they are affiliated with disturbing alliances to white supremacy, racism and, yes, anti-Semitism.

We can agree that Canadians were shocked, horrified and traumatized to see the memory and tragedy of the Holocaust diminished and weaponized to justify this insurrection, be it through yellow stars worn on coats or, as Canadians were pained to see, white supremacy flags brazenly flown with Confederate or Nazi flags by some in the crowd. The language of organizers in their social media feeds spouted hate and vitriol, demanding a removal of government time and again, and let us not forget that the tragedy of residential schools was trivialized to justify these illegal protests.

We can agree that all of these acts harm the fabric of our democracy, our governmental institutions and our unity. They also harm the trust we have in one another as Canadians.

We have been asked if the threshold was met to invoke the Emergencies Act. The test to justify this difficult decision is that there has to be a threat that is national in scope and that current tools are unable to address. We can acknowledge that the arrival of hundreds of truckers at each location across the country, blocking critical infrastructure, is a harm and a threat, be it to the borders themselves, impacting jobs and the livelihood of families, or in the form of the hundreds of millions of dollars of our economic trade that were impacted. It was a harm and a threat, on a more personal level, to the mother I spoke to, whose autistic child had to be taken to the emergency room due to the incessant honking of horns that were causing him to self-harm, or to the man, on one of the first nights of the occupation of Ottawa, who died in an ambulance because it could not get through.

We can agree that a degree of foreign funds, nearly 50% of the millions raised, was fuelled not by the desire to protest vaccine mandates but by a desire to drive white supremacist populist agendas that are a threat to our democratic institutions, and was potentially donated by foreign agents, political movements and individuals from beyond our borders. We must address this.

We can agree that the pervasiveness of these blockades has been national in scope, impacting borders and communities from across the country. These were not peaceful protests. This is clear by the weapons seized at the Alberta Coutts border and the 12 arrests of those charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

We have been asked if this is a first, second, third or last resort. If we are to examine the engagement and timelines of the very public sharing of information as this situation unfolded, we can agree on the following: Municipal and provincial jurisdictions were offered assistance and tools by this government on the first day these illegal blockades took hold. The government was clear in its regular and daily communication with local authorities on the resources it could provide if asked to do so.

What colleagues can and should understand is that as the federal government, we continued to do the work that our jurisdiction and authority allowed us to do. That is how we protected and respected the Constitution, the charter and the authority of all levels of government as a democracy, working together to evaluate capacity each and every step of the way during the illegal blockades.

The occupation of downtown Ottawa and the Windsor and Coutts borders posed a unique threat by the tactics used, be it the trucks themselves, the lethal weapons found or the tremendous economic impact.

Finally, I say this both as a legislator and as a mother, the horrifying images of the children who were put in harm's way time and again in the name of protest, who were sent as human shields, required this Emergencies Act to be implemented. We have an obligation to our constituents, our businesses, our communities, our families and yes, our children, to protect them from such harms.

To that end, in order to continue to build on these efforts, the federal government made the responsible and reasonable decision to ensure that this situation could be brought under control so Canadians could get their lives back.

We know that these tools were necessary. We know this from the interim chief of police for Ottawa, Steve Bell, who said so clearly in his statement last Friday: “With the new resources we've seen flowing in from our policing partners, the new tools both the province and federal government have put in place, and our new integrated command centre...I believe we now have the resources and partners to bring a safe end to this occupation.” They have done that, and they will continue to do so.

Without this act, law enforcement from Vancouver, Sudbury, Toronto, Halton, York Region, Quebec and many other jurisdictions, including the OPP and the RCMP, could not have been mobilized in this manner to answer the call of Ottawa police for 1,800 officers to assist on the ground. We thank each and every one of them for their service and their swift action. It was professional, strategic and measured, and kept the peace while dismantling the illegal blockades and removing protesters, restoring the city of Ottawa back to its rightful residents.

This is a defining moment for law and order and for democracy to be upheld. It was not taken lightly, and the measures we have proposed are temporary, strategic and necessary to ensure that all levels of government and law enforcement from across Canada can work together for Canadians. There will be much discussion, inquiry and review of the implementation of these measures in the coming months, as there should be, for this is an unprecedented decision and a responsible, reasonable one.

It will also be a time of deep reflection on where we are as a country when white supremacy, populism and anti-Semitic, racist and anti-democratic action can rise so swiftly among protesters and mobilize others under a banner of freedom that was anything but.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, the only Liberal member who has the right to speak freely, just turned what should have been a vote of conscience into a vote of confidence.

We can see from our discussions with the Liberal members that many of them are uncomfortable with these extreme measures now that the truckers are gone. Could my colleague set aside what she thinks and the speech she just gave and tell us how she feels about the fact that the Liberal members are not being allowed to vote according to their conscience on such a historic matter? Does that make her uncomfortable?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, each and every one of us will vote. How we choose to vote and what we decide at that moment are based on the serious moment we are in as a country as we represent our communities, our families, our businesses and our constituents. I encourage the member to think deeply and wisely, as all of us in the House will do, on how we choose to vote on this important Emergencies Act today.

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

Madam Speaker, last week in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister made deplorable comments, accusing the member for Thornhill of standing with those with swastikas. Those comments were rightfully called out by the member's predecessor, Michael Levitt, a well respected member of the House of Commons who never resorted to the kind of partisan approach that we have seen from the Prime Minister or even, at times, from this member. Michael Levitt said on Twitter that it is disappointing to see the swastika politicized in the House of Commons or anywhere else.

Is the member willing to stand with Michael Levitt and recognize that the Prime Minister's comments last week to the member for Thornhill were inappropriate?

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is this Prime Minister and this government that have been prepared to take a hard and uncomfortable look at the history of racism and exclusion in this country. Be it the firm commitment to the path of reconciliation with first nations, the apology to the Italian community for the internment of its members in World War II, or the apology to the Jewish community and to the passengers of the St. Louis, we must remind all Canadians that when we divide and when we say “none is too many”, the consequences are tragic.

These are our uncomfortable truths. I would invite the member and his colleagues to get uncomfortable and do the work, the collective and judicious work, of recognizing that conveniently dismissing a few bad apples or ignoring the disturbing white supremacy and racism that was in front of all Canadians and at the root of the leadership of these illegal blockades, are something that needs to be addressed and explained to all Canadians.

One Nazi flag, one Confederate flag and one gun is too many.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was really moved by the answer the member just gave. We have been continuously hearing from the opposition today that this is a peaceful protest, that the protesters all meant well, and that the protesters were just having a carnival here for the last three weeks. It is continuing to minimize the seriousness of what is really going on.

I would like the member to elaborate on why we cannot overlook the signs that were out there.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, throughout these three weeks, with the leadership and the organizers, we have to look at the root to understand the cause. We can look at Pat King, Tamara Lich or other members of the leadership who spoke, and we see the history of their language on social media, of the racist, white supremacist, anti-democratic statements they have made time and again. They rallied those around them, people from a different cause, who were tired, like many, from this pandemic, and used and weaponized them for something that is much deeper and darker.

We need to address that in this country. The weapons found at Coutts show it. The badges show it. We will continue to stand up against it and speak out against it in the House and in this country.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today. This evening I will be voting in favour of confirming the invocation of the Emergencies Act to restore peace, order and good government.

We are country of the rule of law, protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have heard a clear and urgent plea from my constituents and Calgarians alike. They want illegal and disruptive protests to come to an end. The actions of a small group of protesters have impacted working truckers, business owners and thousands of law-abiding residents.

We are making significant progress towards recovery from the pandemic. Unfortunately, the actions of a few have taken us in the wrong direction, away from freedom and towards disorder. Local authorities in both Alberta and Ontario were unable to restore order for weeks. They allowed protesters to cause massive economic damage, with border blockades alone disrupting millions of dollars in trade.

Last week, at our transportation infrastructure committee meeting, the impacts of that trade were highlighted. At Coutts, for 18 days, they were $48 million a day, for a total of $864 million in trade lost or deferred. At the Ambassador Bridge, for six days, there was $2.4-billion worth of impact to our economy. If we look at the impact on the Pacific Highway or at Emerson, there was a substantial cost to our economy, coast to coast. It was billions of dollars.

Then we should think about the people impacted: the small businesses whose goods and services have not come because of these blockades. Many small businesses in Calgary are saying it will take weeks or months to get the supply chain back to a normal working order, impacting their businesses' ability to open and provide goods and services to Calgarians and Canadians.

I have had the opportunity to speak to many truckers during this time. One of my constituents, Kabir, who lives in Calgary Skyview, was caught in the blockade at Coutts. He could not get back into the country. He could not pass that blockade. This had a tremendous impact on him. He was not able to deliver those goods and services, and make those deliveries of groceries and medical supplies, like many of his colleagues were doing in the province of Alberta. It also took him away from getting back home to his family after being away for 10 days. It disrupted his future job opportunities to deliver to other parts of the country and back into the U.S. That is one of the truckers from my constituency, and there are many more who have been impacted by these illegal disruptions.

My thoughts go out to the family who was on their way home to Medicine Hat to visit to their loved one. Their mother was ill and unfortunately passed away. Because of the blockade at Coutts, they were unable to make it home to see their loved one one last time. This had an impact on me. The impacts of these illegal blockades were financial, but they also had a cost to the lives and families of many.

On the Coutts border specifically, law enforcement agencies initially chose to negotiate and de-escalate the situation until they were faced with radicalized and heavily armed extremists, who were soon charged with conspiracy to commit murder. The police found guns, ammunition, body armour, and a threat to attack our law enforcement authorities.

These events underscored the urgency of action. Invoking the Emergencies Act had an immediate, positive effect on restoring order. Law enforcement agencies from across the country were mobilized and have restored order to Canada's capital.

Border blockades have been dismantled, allowing vehicles to move freely and maintain critical supply chains. Protest organizers have been arrested. It is also apparent that alt-right organizations participated in organizing these protest movements. These are forces that promote conspiracy theories and disinformation to radicalize individuals. Some of these radicalized individuals have shown up at my private residence to intimidate me and my family.

Our government is not taking this decision lightly. It has been debated intensely by elected members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Its impact will be reviewed closely by a parliamentary committee explicitly tasked with studying all aspects of this situation. Checks and balances are in place to ensure accountability.

I want to express my disagreement with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney's decision to challenge the federal use of the Emergencies Act. On February 5, Alberta's minister of municipal affairs sent a letter to Canada's Minister of Public Safety requesting federal assistance in removing obstructions from a provincial highway. Our government listened, and responded by including a provision in the Emergencies Act that orders tow truck drivers to move vehicles that are blocking roads. It is unfortunate that the premier continues to meaninglessly posture instead of putting the best interests of his province above his own political survival.

Our nation's capital was under occupation for more than three weeks. Non-state foreign actors have been actively engaged in undermining our democratic institutions. Canada was unprepared. I look forward to the continued vigorous debate in Parliament to investigate and hold responsible those who have caused direct and indirect damage to our security and to our economic interests.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is disheartening to see my NDP colleagues in the House support the gross overreach of the government that would weaponize these kinds of measures against them ideologically in the future.

Will the member opposite commit to making all documents, every single one of them related to the emergency declaration and its use, publicly available today in the House as part of a mandatory inquiry? I would like just a yes or no.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, there will be a parliamentary committee set up to discuss this and thoroughly review all impacts of this act in the days and weeks ahead. I look forward to working with the hon. member and having a good discussion on how to make sure that in the future we can work together to ensure good support for Canadians from coast to coast.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Bloc Québécois's position has been very clear from the start. We are against the use of the Emergencies Act. We believe that leadership was enough to resolve the problem and the situation in many places in Canada. That proved that this law is not necessary. The Bloc Québécois is against the use of this legislation, and the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously against it. We are therefore very comfortable with our position.

I would like to ask the only Liberal member from Alberta a question.

Does he not feel a little embarrassed to go against the Premier of Alberta's position?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we work together with municipal jurisdictions and provinces across Canada when we deal with national emergencies. No, I do not agree with the actions Premier Kenney has taken. He asked for help and support, we provided it and for political reasons he is now looking to resort to other measures to keep his base in the province and to play politics. It is very unfortunate that he is doing that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Ambassador Bridge is open right now. A private American billionaire owns that, however now the blockade is along the entire corridor. Under the Emergencies Act right now, it is being protected by municipal forces somewhat, but also by OPP and RCMP. Without that, it would be left to municipal resources alone.

I am wondering this. Does the member feel that is fair? If we do not have those types of supports, then there is a threat to the rest of Ontario and Quebec. For that corridor of 10,000 trucks a day to be susceptible and only be protected by municipal forces right now would be absurd.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. This a concern that municipal and provincial jurisdictions did not have the capacity to take action. Municipal governments, for 18 days at Coutts and six on the Ambassador Bridge, just did not have the resources to act, and that is why our government stepped up. It is about the actions that could transpire in Windsor and also impact the province of Quebec and other parts of Ontario. We need to support local municipalities and provinces, as asked and where needed.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted my colleague's comments on the weaponization of motor vehicles as, in effect, they are perfect instruments to intimidate citizens and the public. They are huge, people can sleep in them, they can get supplies and they can be eaten in. In fact, the police were afraid of what might be in those trailers, and it was not until the Emergencies Act was placed on the Order Paper that the police were able to get the resources and have the ability to end the blockade, which went from the Supreme Court of Canada all the way to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt, because we are running out of time. I did ask for a quick question. I am sure the member for Calgary Skyview can give me a quick answer. That would be great.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have seen the weapons that were found at Coutts. There were guns, ammunition and body armour, and these large vehicles could be used for further destructive damage. They could quite easily be used to ram through barriers and could also be used in other manners as well, so I am concerned about the vehicles on the streets of residential neighbourhoods in Ottawa and in other parts of the country.