44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 10:42:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the minister said that he was proud to move this motion, that he was proud to be the first Minister of Public Safety to invoke the Emergencies Act since it came into force in 1988. I am wondering how he can be proud to enforce a law that limits the fundamental rights of Quebeckers and Canadians.
We heard the Prime Minister say that this was the last resort. Unfortunately, I do not think he used all of the tools at his disposal before we got to this point. I would like to know what other approaches he could have taken before invoking the Emergencies Act.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:12:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that makes me really mad. When the Prime Minister said he was going to invoke the Emergencies Act, he said it would be geographically targeted and the government would intervene only where justified.
The Premier of Quebec made it clear that his government does not want the Emergencies Act applied on its territory. The National Assembly unanimously stated the same.
According to the text of the order, however, it applies across Canada. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has said one thing and done the opposite. Earlier, he said the scope of the act is reasonable and proportionate. Does my colleague agree that it is actually unjustified and unjustifiable?
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 12:15:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.
I think that everyone on this side of the House agrees that this is a measure of last resort. However, I do not think we are there yet. There are many other tools that could have been used first. It seems to me that this trivializes the Emergencies Act. I am not a legal expert, but it does not take a lot of research to find tools in Canada's Criminal Code that the government could have used before resorting to the Emergencies Act. Why not press criminal charges against the people who were blocking the bridges? Here, people are no longer participating in a legal protest; they have Ottawa under siege. Why were criminal charges not laid?
I would like the minister to explain to me why he did not use the other tools at his disposal under the Criminal Code before invoking the Emergencies Act.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:40:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly is unanimous: Quebec does not want the Emergencies Act.
Even though the Prime Minister said that his order would be geographically targeted, we see that it covers all of Canada. It applies not only to Quebec, but also to Quebec infrastructure such as hospitals, dams and vaccination centres.
There is no crisis in Quebec, as evidenced by the fact that the SQ is helping in Ontario. On what basis does the Prime Minister believe it is necessary to suspend fundamental freedoms in Quebec just because he has lost control of the siege in Ottawa?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:41:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the situation at the Ambassador Bridge was resolved, as were the situations in Coutts and in Manitoba. The situation in Quebec was always under control.
The only place where this situation is still ongoing is Ottawa, the Prime Minister's own back yard. The national crisis is over. There is no reason to use the Emergencies Act or limit fundamental rights across Canada.
The Prime Minister's opponents are calling him a dictator, which is clearly not true, but does he realize that he is validating their claim? That is irresponsible.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:42:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec does not need it and does not want it.
Why is the Emergencies Act being used? According to the act, it is for “the protection of the values of the body politic and the preservation of the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the state”, but none of that is under threat. According to the act, there must be a national emergency. This is not the case.
The act provides the authority “to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. Canada’s territorial integrity is not under threat. There is no national emergency. Why, then, use the Emergencies Act?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
