Debates of Feb. 21st, 2022

Emergencies Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the honourable member has been very selective in what he has mentioned. The reason we know who the donors are right now is that they were leaked. Somebody hacked the account of the GiveSendGo platform and released that publicly. That is how we know. It adds to the urgency of our taking action to ensure that these funds from outside sources are not infringing on the decisions of this House and on the will of Canadians.

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley North.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to participate in today's debate and to share some of my thoughts with my hon. colleagues on the current situation in Ottawa.

These past weeks have been incredibly difficult for the residents of Ottawa. They have been stressful and the residents have suffered a great deal. I would like to begin by thanking the police forces from across the country who have stepped up and returned the streets of Ottawa to its residents. Officers from Quebec, Durham, Toronto, Sudbury, Calgary and Vancouver have all demonstrated incredible professionalism and coordination while working to end an illegal occupation that choked the city of Ottawa for more than three weeks.

While work has been under way around the clock beyond these walls to clear the streets full of trucks, vehicles, debris and fences, we as MPs have been in the chamber debating this motion to confirm the declaration under the Emergencies Act. It is important to point out that we are debating and voting on the use of an Emergencies Act, because I have been hearing some of my hon. colleagues across the way directly comparing the Emergencies Act to the War Measures Act. That is not a fair comparison.

One important difference between these two acts is that the War Measures Act did not require parliamentary oversight. The Emergencies Act does, in fact, require parliamentary oversight. I want to recognize the former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government and the parliamentarians of the 33rd session for their hard work and thoughtfulness, which is reflected in this piece of legislation. A lot of thought and wisdom have gone into making it effective while protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter and the Bill of Rights. Thanks to them, the Emergencies Act requires the oversight of Parliament and asks MPs to have a fulsome debate and then vote.

I have heard repeatedly from my colleagues from the NDP that they will only support the government's use of the act if it is used in a responsible, proportionate and targeted way, and only if it is clearly necessary to restore the order and peace for Canadians most affected by these illegal blockades, especially those who live in Ottawa. I think that is a very reasonable approach. I think the majority of Canadians would expect this kind of thoughtful, deliberate approach from their representatives.

With that, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties for engaging in this wholehearted, good-faith debate. Their passion and perspectives form the basis for the democratic parliamentary oversight that is required by this legislation.

I have received many questions in recent days on how this act works, what safeguards it has and why it is necessary at this time. I believe it is important for Canadians to understand what their government is doing, and what mechanisms are in place to keep our democracy healthy. Let me speak to these questions.

The Emergencies Act, which became the law in 1988, is a federal law that can be used in response to an urgent, temporary and critical emergency that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians and that cannot be dealt with effectively by any other federal, provincial or territorial law.

Under the Emergencies Act, police are given more tools to restore order in places where public assemblies constitute illegal and dangerous activities, such as blockades and occupations, as we have seen in Ottawa and at critical border crossings across the country. These tools include the ability to designate and secure places where blockades are to be prohibited, such as borders and other critical infrastructure. The Emergencies Act also allows the government to make sure essential services are rendered, for example, in order to tow trucks blocking roads. In addition, financial institutions will be authorized or directed to render essential services to help address the situation, including by regulating and prohibiting the use of funds to support illegal blockades.

Let me speak to the safeguards that are built into the Emergencies Act.

Before it can be invoked, all provinces and territories must be consulted, and they were.

Both the House of Commons and the Senate must vote on the declaration. If either chamber of Parliament does not vote in favour of the declaration, then it is immediately revoked. This is what we will be voting on tonight. A special joint committee of both the House of Commons and the Senate must be established to review the government’s actions under the act on an ongoing basis.

The declaration expires within 30 days unless there is an extension, which both the House of Commons and the Senate would have to approve. After the emergency has ended, the Emergencies Act requires the government to hold an inquiry and table a report to each House of Parliament within 360 days after the expiration of the declaration of emergency.

I also want to be clear about what this act does not do. The Emergencies Act cannot be used to call in the military. It cannot be used to limit people’s freedom of speech. It cannot be used to suspend fundamental rights or override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it does not prevent people from exercising their right to protest legally.

Recently, I had the pleasure of joining expert panellists while in discussion with the ethnic media about the use of the Emergencies Act. Despite our different political views, everyone on the panel overwhelmingly agreed that the act is justified and necessary. That is because the rule of law is fundamental to Canadian democracy and Canadian society. Our country was built on laws written to maintain the collective safety and prosperity of Canadians. That is why people from every corner of the globe come to Canada to build their life and family.

The proportionate, geographically targeted and time-limited measures in the Emergencies Act are necessary to protect residents, businesses and public institutions in the nation's capital and in border towns across the country.

My constituents are pleased with the work of the men and women in uniform and are happy that peace and order has been restored for the people of Ottawa after weeks of torment.

For weeks, Canadians have seen illegal blockades occupy their streets, disrupt their daily lives, harass people in their neighbourhoods, harm small businesses and threaten the ability of hard-working Canadians to put food on the table. For weeks, billions of dollars in cross-border trade has been disrupted, putting thousands of people’s jobs and livelihoods on the line. For weeks, millions of dollars of foreign funding has flowed in from around the world to destabilize our democracy, while evidence of increased ideologically motivated violent extremism activity has mounted.

The Emergencies Act is necessary to keep our communities safe, to protect people’s jobs and to restore confidence in our institutions. That is why I will be supporting the motion for the confirmation of the declaration this evening.

Finally, Canadians have suffered significantly over the past two years. They are frustrated. They are tired. They have carried the weight of a global pandemic on their backs for two years now. As we near the end of this terrible public health crisis, exhausted Canadians are looking for hope, hope that we must deliver as leaders of our communities and honourable members of Parliament.

I still remember in the very early days of the pandemic when we all gathered to pass emergency financial legislation, which went a long way to support Canadians who were facing some of the darkest days of their lives. I hope we can set aside our differences and try to work together like that again to ensure transparency and accountability during this emergency and, more than anything, to give hope to Canadians again and restore confidence in their public institutions

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has stated his reasons for voting for this motion and I take him at his word.

I will mention two other members of his caucus, the member for Louis-Hébert and the member for Beaches—East York. The member for Beaches—East York indicated that he will be voting for it because it has been made into a confidence motion. I believe the member for Louis-Hébert indicated that he is not sure whether it has been made into a matter of confidence, which is to say that any Liberal MP who votes against it will be expelled from caucus for voting against their caucus on this matter.

I wonder if I could get some clarification. Has the memorandum been sent out to Liberal MPs indicating that this is a confidence measure and that their careers will be over and they will be kicked out of caucus if they vote against it, yes or no?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can only speak for myself. I said very clearly in my statement. It does not matter if it is a confidence vote or not a confidence vote. I am supporting this motion for what it is and what it does for the people of Ottawa and for the people of Canada. I think it is the right thing for the government to step in and invoke the Emergencies Act. It ensures accountability and allows us to get through this.

That is my reason for supporting it. It is not because it is a vote of confidence. To me, it would not make a difference.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He said, among other things, that there are safeguards built into the act, and they include consultation with the provinces. Seven out of 10 provinces said that they did not want the act to be invoked. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. The Government of Quebec said that it did not want the act to be invoked. However, the motion does apply to Quebec.

I want to come back to the matter of a confidence vote. There is at least one member of the House who said that, if this is a confidence vote, then he would vote in favour of the motion, but that if it is not, then he would vote against the motion. It is very important for legislators to have a clear answer. In approximately two hours, it will be time to vote. We have had a lengthy and intense debate on this issue over the past few days.

Does my colleague agree that it is time for the Prime Minister to tell us whether this is a confidence vote? After all, we will be voting in two hours.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, for a couple of days now in this House we have been listening to debate based on different views of this act. Today, there is something new: the confidence vote. As a member of this House, I truly believe our decision should not be based on whether it is a confidence vote or not. If someone wants to support this bill, they support this bill. If someone does not want to support this bill, they do not support this bill.

I think what is important to talk about tonight is whether someone thinks it is going to restore order and peace for Canadians and for residents of Ottawa.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on this. I did listen to his speech, and the speaking notes were clearly prepared for him.

Has the member thought about the mechanics of what is happening here regarding Canadians' financial accounts? I have great experience in getting the actual crowdfunding platforms approved in Canada. Everything the government is pretending it is doing with these crowdfunding platforms is already part of our FINTRAC mechanism.

If that was the case, why would you try and disguise your intent here by pretending that does not exist already? If I prove to him that was the case, would it change his—

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

We have a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that you are trying to disguise your intent here and the member is speaking to you in such a tone, and he probably should not do that.

In addition, it is probably not entirely appropriate for him to be suggesting that somebody else prepared someone's remarks in here, unless he knows that for a fact.

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

The points are noted.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies. I think the member across is exactly right.

My question stands. Will the member across answer whether he would reverse his position on this if we prove that what the government is pretending is happening here is not in fact the case?

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert, as my hon. colleague is, in FINTRAC and crowd-based funding. What I know is that through cryptocurrency and online platforms, there are millions of dollars from foreign destinations flowing into Canada to support illegal blockades, which is not right. We have very limited information about that. This is not good for our democracy and I am glad—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today, which is a very serious, historic day in our country. We are literally making history today by debating the government's ability to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is a critical vote. Twelve people will decide history today.

As we know, the Liberals have a minority government, so they need 12 votes and only 12 votes to decide the future of this country and the precedent we may be setting today. That is when we look to the Green members and the NDP members. Their voices are more powerful and more important today than at any other time that I have been a member of Parliament. The power they wield today will determine the future of our country. It is really important for people at home to recognize that this is a pivotal moment in our country.

Earlier today I spoke in the House about how important the role of the NDP members is here. We know that in 1970, Tommy Douglas, one of the most adored and revered politicians in Canadian history, voted against the War Measures Act when Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought it in. Yet, today, we see serious indications that the NDP members will be voting with the son of Pierre Trudeau to prop up his government and support the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I urge them to reconsider. The importance of what we are doing today, the precedent we are setting, to be able to freeze bank accounts of political dissidents, cannot be understated.

We are here today to debate the Emergencies Act and whether or not we need it, but a week ago when the Liberals brought it in, they claimed that the threshold was met, that there was a national emergency that jeopardized public safety and our economy. However, since that time, all the blockades have been cleared. The Ambassador Bridge has been cleared and the blockade at Coutts, Alberta has been cleared. Those two, by the way, were cleared without the emergency powers, and the one in Emerson, Manitoba as well. Huge props to the RCMP in Manitoba, who did a phenomenal job of lowering the temperature, peacefully negotiating with protesters, and resolving the conflict without the need for emergency powers.

The Ottawa police and other police forces cleared the protest this weekend in Ottawa. The reasons they cited for—

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

Order. If hon. members would have their conversations in the lobby, I would appreciate it. The hon. member is making a speech.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

The blockades had been cleared. The Liberals did not need the emergency powers for that.

When it comes to Ottawa, the police have also cleared that out. However, we consistently hear ministers and members from the other side say that they need these emergency powers to end the unlawful blockades in Ottawa. That is what we keep hearing and yet, when we look at the RCMP list that was published on its website, which was retweeted by the Minister of Public Safety just a few days ago, with respect to the laws of the Emergencies Act that the police used, none of them were to clear the unlawful protest. It was the banking power that the RCMP claimed it needed. That is the only power the RCMP has cited.

That makes sense because we know police do not need the emergency powers to clear an unlawful protest. They do not need them to suppress a riot. They do not need them to clear a bridge or a piece of critical infrastructure. All of those powers were readily available to the RCMP and other police forces and to governments, yet they were not used. We are not sure why that is. We have yet to receive a clear answer on that. All we have heard is they needed these emergency powers, these unprecedented powers. As I said, the RCMP only quoted the financial measures.

I want to talk quite a bit about the financial measures because to me this is the most critical piece of the Emergencies Act. We are talking about providing the federal government the power to freeze people's bank accounts if the government does not agree with their political opinion. We heard that first-hand from the Minister of Justice on national television last week. He said that if someone supports a political position he does not like, they should be very concerned. He said that. People can look it up.

Is that really what we are going to do in this country? If there is a protest or some sort of demonstration that the government does not agree with, it can freeze their bank account, or, sorry, it can order the RCMP, who orders the bank who orders them. That is what the Liberals have been saying. It is not them; it is the hands-off.

We are voting on the power to freeze bank accounts of political dissidents today. This is why it is so shocking to me that the NDP, the party of protests, is looking to support the Emergencies Act today. It shocks me. In any social media feed of NDP members of Parliament, we see they have gone to countless protests, yet we see that the New Democrats are supporting the government's ability to freeze bank accounts.

I want to talk about the human impact of freezing someone's bank account. What does that really mean? It means that when they go to the grocery store to buy food, their debit card does not work. When they go to the gas station to fill up their car to get to work, their credit card does not work. When they go to an ATM to pull out some cash to take their spouse out for dinner, no money comes out. When their mortgage payment comes out, when their gas payment comes out, when their MTS bill, if they are in Manitoba, comes out, there is no money in the account. It is frozen. The government can freeze all of someone's assets. That is how significant this authority is, which may be given to the Liberal government today.

It is very unclear. I have received so many emails about this. We know this began as a peaceful protest, one of the largest, if not the largest, pan-Canadian demonstrations we have ever seen as it rolled across the country. Thousands of people turned out to show their support. Estimates say there were 15,000 people on Parliament Hill that first Saturday. Thousands of Canadian families donated small sums of money to voice their support for a political movement that was fighting for their right to bodily autonomy, to make their own medical choices and to hold a job regardless of their health choices. There were thousands of people.

When this was announced one week ago today, the finance minister explained how the government can freeze bank accounts. Do members want to know the terror and the anxiety felt by those thousands of people who participated in a lawful protest that very first day and people who gave $50 three weeks ago to a convoy? Do members want to know what kind of terror that brings to someone?

I have constituents saying they are pulling out tens of thousands of dollars from their bank accounts. I have a veteran, a very dear friend of mine, possibly the sweetest older man people will ever meet, who served our country valiantly for 28 years. Although he is very pro-vaccine, he supports the right for others to choose, so he gave the convoy $50 two weeks ago. He cancelled his credit cards because he is so terrified the government is coming for his money. I have constituents who are hiding cash under their beds. That is how terrifying this power is.

The lack of clarity has been astounding. It was just today, seven days after that initial announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister about freezing bank accounts, that she finally clarified that if it was before Tuesday, February 15, there was nothing to worry about, as it was not retroactive. It was just from that Tuesday.

Why did it take her seven days to make that public declaration? What kind of sadistic pain were the Liberals looking to inflict on people who innocently supported something that they believed in and has given them more hope than anything else in the past two years? It is shameful.

What is really shocking is that there is no due process in this. There is no court order. It is only if someone has been suspected. The CBC reported that today. If someone is suspected of supporting the convoy, they can come for that person's bank account. This is unbelievable.

It is interesting, because the Liberal government is in power now, but there are going to be other parties in power. Do we really want the federal government to have the power to say, “We don't agree with your protest. You can't go buy groceries. We're going to freeze your bank account.”

How many demonstrations are from environmental groups or social justice groups? Let us really think about this. Peaceful protest is one of our rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I stand by every peaceful protest. I stand against illegal blockades, and we have been very clear about that all along. Those have to end, but people have every right to peacefully protest, and thousands of Canadians supported this protest across the country when it was perfectly legal, lawful and peaceful.

The Liberals are asking us just to trust them. “Just trust us, there's parliamentary oversight”, as if that means anything. This Parliament asked four times for those lab documents from the Winnipeg lab with all those shenanigans going on with the Chinese Communist Party. We never got them. He prorogued Parliament. He called a snap election both times to get out of scandals of his own making and he thinks that we are going to trust that parliamentary oversight is going to be enough to keep his government in check? I do not think so.

I will end with this. Our party, the Conservative Party of Canada, will be voting with the fullest power of our ability against giving this Liberal government the power to freeze political dissidents' bank accounts. Absolutely, without question, we will be voting against that. Absolutely.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed in the hon. member's comments just now, because I arranged a briefing for her Thursday night with departmental officials, including finance, the RCMP and FINTRAC. She was told quite clearly in response to her questions that these measures took effect on Tuesday of last week.

I am just wondering about her constituents reaching out to her. It was not just today that she found out when it came into effect; it was actually last Thursday night. I am just wondering why she is implying that she did not know, when in fact she was well aware of it last week.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I was briefed last week. What is interesting is that when the department officials say one thing and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada says another, I'm not quite sure whom to believe. Were the department officials mistaken or was it the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Canada who was withholding that information? I honestly was not sure. I am really glad she came out today, because I have been telling my constituents that I had been hearing that it was just from the 15th onward, yet we are also hearing across the country that other bank accounts have been frozen. We have no clarity on this.

Why were they withholding this information? Why were they not being more forthcoming? The Deputy Prime Minister has the attention of the nation any time she wants. Why did she not make this publicly clear? Is she just trying to punish Canadians? Does she enjoy traumatizing them? I do not know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, who talked about lack of clarity. That is an understatement.

With less than two hours to go until voting time, members on that side of the House are unable to tell us whether or not this is a confidence vote. One of their members, the member for Louis-Hébert, just told us he will vote differently if it is a confidence vote.

We will be casting a very important vote on a very important matter less than two hours from now. Should we not know by now if it is a confidence vote?

I would like my hon. colleague to share her thoughts on that.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I would like to also thank the Bloc Québécois for standing strong and voting against this abuse of democracy today.

This is a really good point that we need constituents at home to hear. The Prime Minister today decided that this vote is going to be a confidence vote. If members do not vote in favour of his motion, he is going to call an election. That is his respect for the democratic process today. He is strong-0arming his own backbench MPs, who have been saying, “Look, I didn't want to vote for this but I'm going to have to, because it's going to be a confidence vote.”

What impact do members think that is having on the NDP as well? They have been very clear that they are not quite sure if they are going to vote in favour, but how are they going to vote against it if it plunges the country into an election? That is the dignity the Prime Minister is giving this House. That is his respect for democracy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the wonderful member for Kildonan—St. Paul. We share space in the same province.

I want to talk a little about the finances. We know that prominent Republicans in the U.S. have voiced their support for the protest, including Donald Trump. Ottawa police are concerned with the significant amount of money supporting the convoy. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton criticized GoFundMe, which he said “failed to deliver Texans' money”, really demonstrating international interference.

I know the member's colleagues have talked about supporting protests. Certainly I know about all the visceral anti-indigenous comments that I have had to hear from the Conservative Party over the past couple of days, but I do not think this is about anti-mandate versus pro-mandate—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Manitoba. I have a lot of respect for her and her advocacy.

Although the member did not quite get to her question, I know that members of the House, particularly NDP members, Liberals, and the Greens for sure, have gone to protests. Actually, the leader of the Green Party was arrested for blockading a road to a pipeline construction site four years ago, so should we be freezing her bank account? No, of course we not be freezing her bank account.

I am not looking at the NDP or the Liberals for supporting protests whose leaders have said extreme things on line, but if that is the standard we want to be setting today, by all means people can start digging through their social media feeds and could be finding a ton of extremist language from leaders of protests that many members of the House, including NDP members, have attended.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is a good prime minister?

A good prime minister cares about all of the people and all of the citizens he represents. A good prime minister takes every opportunity to bring people together and build consensus, thereby providing peace and harmony in the social fabric of the nation. A good prime minister will consider numerous factors in making decisions that are in the net best interests of everyone. A good prime minister puts the needs of the nation and its citizens ahead of the needs of his or her own political interests. This is especially true when issues of gravity and magnitude are before the nation.

A good prime minister de-escalates and reduces tensions and fosters co-operation and agreement wherever possible in the governance of the nation. A good prime minister does what is right and just without demonizing or belittling those who disagree with him. A good prime minister understands the concept of majority rule with respect to minority rights. A good prime minister would admit when he is wrong and change course before it is too late.

I do not believe we have a good Prime Minister. I believe we have a Prime Minister who cares more about his political fate and political future than he does about the needs of his citizens. I believe we have a Prime Minister who looks at moments of crisis as political opportunities to be used for political benefit, rather than managing the crisis and bringing peace and harmony back to the nation. I believe we have a Prime Minister who picks and chooses the facts or the science that supports his ideas and his ideology rather than looking at all sources of information and providing good governance for everyone. I believe we have a Prime Minister who does not understand the consequences of the decisions he makes.

It should have been entirely predictable in mid-August of 2021 that the politicization of mandatory vaccinations would divide the nation. A good prime minister would say this is not an issue that we should be politicizing and that we should never bypass people's charter rights and freedoms and force law-abiding Canadians to do something they fundamentally disagree with, even if many other Canadians disagree with them.

It should have been entirely predictable that when someone only accepts a particular source of science that confirms their beliefs and rejects and challenges all other sources, they are bound to make mistakes and fail the citizens of their country. I am referring to the science of mental health. Right now our nation is struggling. It is one thing to struggle against COVID-19, but it is quite another to struggle against the powers and forces of the people's own government working against them.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is widely accepted in the field of psychology. It is the theory of human motivation. The bottom of the pyramid of needs is represented by physiological need, such as food, clothing and shelter, as well as the need to belong and to be loved. A good prime minister would know these basic concepts and their impact on Canadians. A good prime minister would know that denying people the ability to travel and see their loved ones, their children and grandchildren, their parents and grandparents and other family members, and to participate in celebrations of life, weddings and other important milestones, would have a detrimental psychological effect on the nation. It is traumatizing.

A good prime minister would also know that one cannot deprive people of their basic physiological needs: food, clothing and shelter. A good prime minister would never take away the right of his citizens to work and earn a living to be able to pay for food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their loved ones. A good prime minister would not use the powers of the state to coerce citizens to abide by his policies against their free will. A good prime minister ought to know the trauma that this would cause in the population of the nation. A good prime minister would know that this trauma, over a period of months and now approaching two years, would leave people in a position where they have nothing left to lose.

A good prime minister knows that when people are traumatized and in crisis, they have two options: fight or flight. A good prime minister should know that at times like this, his words matter. I think the Prime Minister does know, and he also knows that when he name-calls and degrades Canadians who disagree with him, it hardens people's resolve and inflames tensions.

The mental health and social damage done by the imposition of mandates cannot be measured the same way that COVID cases and hospital counts can be measured, but a good prime minister would know his people and their sufferings and find solutions for all his citizens. It was entirely predictable that the politicization of vaccine mandates would create this trauma and inevitably force Canadians to cower or to fight. A good prime minister would never put his citizens in this position. A menacing prime minister would do this on purpose for his own political gain.

Here we are, with, at best, a careless and reckless Prime Minister who does not understand the consequences of his choices and actions or, at worst, a malicious Prime Minister whose only concern is winning the game of political division, and who is now invoking the most powerful law of the land: a law meant to be used for the absolute worst moments in our nation's history. It is not to be used by a Prime Minister to grab ultimate power to crush those who dissent and would dare stand and challenge him, embarrass him and humiliate him.

This power is immense, but this power has to meet certain thresholds in order for it to be used, and the government has not met that threshold. There is no police action being taken right now where the powers did not already exist for the police to break up blockades and restore peace and order. Every police officer in Canada has the full authority of the Criminal Code, in every part of Canada, to address any crime in progress. The Criminal Code has numerous provisions in it to end blockades and illegal protests. The argument the government is making is that the RCMP needed the ability to write parking tickets and enforce municipal bylaws in order to break up this blockade. A good Prime Minister would know that his citizens are not so stupid as to believe this argument.

However, the most fearsome power the government has claimed is that of using the banks and financial institutions of this country to deny Canadian citizens from effecting transactions from their bank accounts. Everything we do in our lives as citizens requires the ability to transact. Virtually every freedom we exercise as citizens has behind it a financial transaction. We have the right, or at least we used to have the right, to free speech and peaceful assembly, to worship as we choose and to travel without restrictions in our nation. All of that requires money. We are all, as Canadians, innocent before the law until proved guilty in a court where evidence is cross-examined before a judge, and none of us, as Canadians, could be punished without the due process of law, until now.

By invoking the Emergencies Act, the government has chosen to restrict the freedom to financially transact for those Canadians whom the government disagrees with. Without the freedom to transact, Canadians lose all of their freedoms. Our freedom of speech might involve paying for an Internet service provider, so that we can post messages on social media, paying for the use of a cellphone or a landline, or paying to print signs or brochures. Our freedom to protest would likely involve paying for gas, flights, signs, placards and hotel rooms. Our freedom to worship would include being able to make donations that pay for the salaries of staff and worship leaders, and the facilities they congregate in. All of this now is subjectively enforced by financial institutions without due process according to the whims of the government of the day under this emergency order. A good Prime Minister would never do this.

A good Prime Minister would use the existing laws of the land and the existing institutions of the land to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. The overreach is massive.

The threat to the nation it claims to address is minimal, so much so that numerous provinces have already said they want nothing to do with this massive intrusion on the rights and freedoms of Canadians; so much so that civil liberties associations, members of the legal profession and objective media are questioning this power grab; so much so that even members of his own caucus have stated they are only supporting this measure because it is a matter of confidence before the House, not because it is premised in the letter or spirit of the law.

I will be voting against giving the Prime Minister a continuation of this power. The Prime Minister has menaced the lives and livelihoods of my constituents ever since he was elected in 2015. He has hamstrung any growth, hope or optimism of the natural resource sector in Alberta. He has created tax and regulatory burdens that drive away investment, and created so much uncertainty that capital investment businesses and people have fled central Alberta to more prosperous places in the world. He is menacing our ability to afford home heating, groceries and every other required cost of living for food, clothing and shelter, vis-à-vis his carbon tax and inflation. Seniors, working-class families and those on fixed incomes are being asked to choose between food, medication and shelter. A good Prime Minister would never put his citizens in this position.

Canadians know that protests, blockades and civil unrest are a symptom, not the underlying problem. The problem is that Canadians do not have a good Prime Minister.