44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 11:00:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to stand in the House today and talk about inflation. I would prefer to stand in the House today to defend the mothers, fathers and seniors who have suffered so much since the beginning of the pandemic and who are facing all sorts of really difficult situations. However, because of this Prime Minister's inaction, because he chose to protect his career rather than listen to Canadians, we are here today discussing a law that is being invoked by Parliament and the Prime Minister for the very first time since its enactment in 1988: the Emergencies Act.
This day will go down in history, but not for the right reasons. It is very disappointing. The Prime Minister says he is invoking the act to manage the blockades and protests happening in downtown Ottawa, at the border crossings in Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson, Manitoba, and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. He said it again this morning.
I would like to point out to my colleagues that we must take these precedents into account. The weight of these events calls for prudence on our part. However, only the blockades in Ottawa remain. All of the other blockades ended or were ended without the need for the Emergencies Act. For 15 days, the Prime Minister took no real action to defuse the protests. He did not listen to the discontent, fatigue and demands being expressed by the protesters and Canadians. He preferred to take extreme measures as a first resort.
In short, the Prime Minister failed to meet the high threshold provided for in the Emergencies Act to justify its invocation and application. For that reason, the Conservatives will be voting against his decision. Invoking the Emergencies Act is one of the most important decisions a member of Parliament can make. Its predecessor, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times: World War I, World War II and the October Crisis, which Quebeckers remember all too well.
It is our prime responsibility as parliamentarians to protect our democracy. This includes Canadians' right to elect their representatives, the right to disagree with the government, and the right to express that disagreement publicly.
We know that these protests are causing problems for many Canadians, especially residents of Ottawa and local businesses. It is extremely hard for them. They are the collateral damage of a situation that extends far beyond the streets and people of Ottawa. We acknowledge that. As we have often said, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. The illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully. It is time to de-escalate the situation, not only in Ottawa, but across the country. Unfortunately, as many experts and analysts have said, the Prime Minister's actions could have the complete opposite effect.
Let us start at the beginning. How did these events start?
They started when the Prime Minister decided to politicize an election, to trigger an election in the middle of a pandemic, and then decided to force truckers to get vaccinated when there is no scientific proof that it was the right thing to do. We put the question to the government. We asked the Minister of Health on what expert testimony he was basing his decision to force truckers to get vaccinated. The government consistently avoided the question. It never answered, but it did not back down. It kept the rqeuirement in place, despite all the problems it was causing for our economy and supply chains, and despite the size of the movement it created.
When the protesters arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister went into hiding for a week and, when he came out, he did not attempt to de-escalate the situation. Instead, he insulted the protesters and Canadians who did not agree with him. That is what happened.
The Prime Minister called them racists and misogynists. He even said that their point of view was unacceptable. That happens often in the House. Every time somebody says something the Prime Minister does not entirely agree with, it is instantly clear that he finds it unacceptable.
As far as I know, more than half of Canadians did not vote for him in the last election. However, they are still Canadians, and they are entitled to their opinion. They are Canadians who expressed their views and still have the right to do so. Voting against the Prime Minister is acceptable.
I have heard opinions from everywhere, in my riding, on social media, over the phone and in emails. We received a lot of emails this week. The people expressing their views are our neighbours, our constituents. They are Canadians who want to make their voices heard and who should be able to do so. However, since the Prime Minister does not agree with them and does not like their opinion, he simply decided not to listen to them.
The Prime Minister stigmatizes and divides Canadians every chance he gets. We know that he refused to meet with any of the truckers or their representatives. He did not discuss their concerns with them. He did not even apologize for the insults he hurled at all the protesters outside and right here in the House.
Apologies are not for people who do not agree with him. He ignored what people have to say and waited for the crisis to get worse and worse and worse. He could have done something. He had plenty of tools at his disposal.
The first tool is himself. As Prime Minister and head of state, he could have listened to Canadians. The first tool he could have used is himself as head of state. He chose to act like a petty politician. Instead of listening, he chose to give himself more power, to expand the government's powers. That was a bad decision. The Prime Minister's leadership in this case has been deplorable.
This week, he even said, and I quote: “Invoking the act is never the first thing a government should do, nor the second. The act is to be used sparingly and as a last resort.”
No one thinks that the Prime Minister used even the first, second, third or fourth options. He has not convinced anyone of the need to invoke the Emergencies Act when almost every expert, analyst and police chief said that they had all the tools they needed.
The provincial premiers said the same thing more than once. They said that they were able to manage the situation and asked the federal government not to throw fuel on the fire by invoking the Emergencies Act. That is what happened.
How did the Prime Minister go from totally ignoring the protesters directly to invoking the Emergencies Act?
We hope that history will tell, because the Prime Minister and his ministers will not, and, unfortunately, the current crisis was the direct result of the Prime Minister’s lack of leadership.
The Conservatives proposed an option, a reasonable approach. We asked the Prime Minister to present a plan to announce the lifting of the vaccine mandates, a plan to end the health measures. That was not unreasonable. All of the provinces, all of the other governments in Canada are doing that.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister dug in and chose to do nothing, to ignore his experts. He should not be surprised to learn today that the protesters and Canadians are fed up with his lack of leadership. That is the reality we find ourselves in today. The Prime Minister prefers to do whatever he wants and continues to refuse to present a plan.
The government should not have the power to close Canadians’ bank accounts. The government should not have to invoke the Emergencies Act when there are other tools to resolve situations like the one that exists in Ottawa right now.
The Prime Minister failed. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will be judged, not by us, but by generations of Canadians to come.
1333 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:11:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, the official opposition is the official opposition.
This Prime Minister had the tools to work with the provinces and send additional police officers in response to the City of Ottawa's request when the City of Ottawa made that request. Ministers could have intervened, but they did not.
The question the member is asking the official opposition would perhaps best be put to his own Prime Minister. Why did he do absolutely nothing at the beginning of this crisis? Why did he let things get this bad? That is the question. The lack of leadership is not on our side, it is on that side.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:13:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec has said that invoking the Emergencies Act could add fuel to the fire by further polarizing the population. He made it clear to the Prime Minister that the act should not apply to Quebec. He does not think we need it. He does not see how it would improve the social climate at this time.
I can also reference the premiers of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Alberta. The premiers sent a clear message to the Prime Minister that they do not want his Emergencies Act and are capable of managing their own affairs in their provinces. Why is the Prime Minister not capable of doing the same?
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 11:15:38 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the pandemic began, I have had the opportunity on countless occasions to listen to speeches and presentations from my hon. colleague using a little tool called Zoom, on a little computer. I have heard the member defend the Liberal government several times on this little screen.
Hiding means not answering questions. It means refusing to take a stand. That is what the Prime Minister did by hiding. He hid from his responsibilities. He did not hide at home; he hid from his responsibilities. He could have spoken out. He had every opportunity to do so.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:20:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian, I am disappointed today.
This morning, the Prime Minister finally deigned to speak in the House of Commons, this sacred place of Canadian democracy, following his decision to invoke the Emergencies Act throughout Canada. He had a unique opportunity to justify his decision to use this extreme legislation in order to bring an end to the crisis that he himself created. He failed. He failed to demonstrate that existing laws were insufficient to stop the illegal acts.
My question is clear: Why is this government using such radical legislation with the sole purpose of protecting the Prime Minister’s leadership?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:22:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance should update her talking points. The Windsor blockade is gone. It is done. The Emergencies Act was not required.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that foreign groups were supporting the demonstrations here in Ottawa. Last week at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the deputy director of intelligence for the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada stated there was no evidence to back up those claims or even any indication of suspicious transactions.
Why is the Prime Minister justifying his decision on the basis of facts that, according to his own experts, do not even exist?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 2:23:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me say it again: There are no longer any blockades at the border. The issue was resolved without the Emergencies Act. That is the reality.
This is the first time in Canadian history that the Emergencies Act is being invoked. This legislation's predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used only three times: during World War I, World War II and the October crisis.
The Prime Minister said just last Friday that no additional measures were needed, and then all of a sudden on Monday, boom, he invokes the Emergencies Act.
Can anyone in this government tell us what happened between Friday and Monday to make the Prime Minister do such a 180 in just a few hours?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 5:19:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois was quite eloquent and truthful. I enjoyed his reference to trilogies.
We have seen three different governments over the past few weeks and three completely different Prime Ministers, but there were several trilogies, including the one at the beginning that he mentioned. It also happened in this crisis and, if we start looking around, I think we will see several trilogies.
Which trilogy does my colleague think we are in now? Is it the magic of Harry Potter or rather Back to the Future that will let us know what will happen tomorrow based on what has already happened?
I ask because I have not been impressed by what I have seen from the Prime Minister today or last week or in any of the trilogies so far. What does my colleague expect to see in the coming weeks with the Prime Minister?
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
