44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 12:59:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as you know, the Conservatives and the Bloc are voting the same way, in other words against the Emergencies Act.
That being said, I would like to understand something. In 2012, 10 years ago, the student crisis took hold in Quebec. Of course, that crisis did not concern the federal government, but Conservative Party supporters said on the radio that it was time to get out the batons. They took a hard line.
During the Wet'suwet'en protests, the Conservatives said that they had gone on long enough, that it was time for forceful intervention. Once again, they took a hard line.
In 2020, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion calling on the Prime Minister to apologize to the victims of the War Measures Act in October 1970. Again, the Conservatives took a hard line and voted against our motion.
Now, we are facing the trucker crisis. As soon as the Conservative base is affected, suddenly the hard line is not so hard. It melted away as quickly as the polar ice cap is melting as a result of climate change, which, according to the Conservatives, does not exist. Why is that?
199 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Karl Marx said that history repeats itself at least twice. The first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce.
For Quebec, the War Measures Act is part of a tragic memory. Today, after three weeks of crisis, including one where he was completely absent, the Prime Minister needs to live out his “just watch me” moment by playing tough guy to salvage his failed leadership, which has been criticized by two of his own members.
Let us summarize. In the days leading up to the protest on the weekend of January 29, the organizers said that this would not be a simple protest but a Woodstock, and it would last until all health measures were lifted. This sent a very clear message. It was no secret that the truckers were not there to lodge their complaints in the time it took to tour the neighbourhood and then leave. They were there to stay. “Woodstock” means it will last a long time.
The Prime Minister then took some time to deal with his cold. A few days later, he broke his silence to insult and stigmatize the truckers, hurled some more epithets and went back to bed.
During the first week, one could almost imagine that the crisis was good for the government, politically speaking. It even led to the swift and unimpeded ouster of the official opposition leader. However, the immediate political gain soon gave way to disbelief that the situation was turning against the government. The longer it went on, the more it became clear that the Prime Minister had no idea what to do about this hot potato.
For two and a half weeks, the Prime Minister offloaded the problem onto the Ottawa police. To varying degrees, all political parties were calling on the Prime Minister to act, of course, and promoting very different solutions.
On February 7, the former Ottawa police chief, who was still in the position at the time, asked the federal government for 1,800 additional officers. In the end, the RCMP sent just over 275 officers, but mainly to protect the Prime Minister and Parliament Hill. According to the Ottawa police chief, only 20 officers were assigned to the protests.
The City of Ottawa reached out to the protest organizers to ask that some of the trucks be moved to make life a little easier for residents. Why did the feds not pick up the phone?
Where was the federal government in all of this? Frankly, no one was flying this plane. Even the most basic level of leadership would have been to create a crisis task force to coordinate all of the levels.
Is this any surprise, given how this government and this Prime Minister have managed previous crises? Just think of the railway crisis with the Wet'suwet'en or the early days of the COVID‑19 crisis in 2020, when almost everyone was calling for the borders to be shut down in the face of a virus about which we knew very little. Very little was known about it at the time. Nevertheless, the government decided to let things be. In the case of COVID‑19, this government let things get so bad that Valérie Plante, the mayor of Montreal, decided to go to Dorval International Airport herself. Now, in 2022, nothing has changed.
Now, all of a sudden, at the very moment when many health measures were being lifted and provincial, federal and municipal government authorities had managed to remove other occupations, the turtle now thought it was the hare. The Emergencies Act, the successor to the War Measures Act, was going to be invoked, even though the Prime Minister had proclaimed for three days that he would not use it. As soon as things were starting to get resolved without the federal government, it wanted to make sure it went on record as having done something. Talk about an admission of failure.
The Emergencies Act gives the government special powers. The government can issue an order for the regulation or prohibition of travel, the use of specified property or any public assembly that may reasonably be expected to lead to a breach of the peace. It can designate and secure protected places, assume the control, and the restoration and maintenance, of public utilities and services, and authorize or direct any person to render essential services and provide reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered.
It can also impose, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both, or, on indictment, a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment not exceeding five years or both.
To be clear, the Emergencies Act is not illegitimate in and of itself. A state of exception is an integral part of democracy. Any government that wishes to confront crises it hopes will be temporary by definition must have measures to deal with states of exception.
However, the state of emergency being short-lived and temporary, these measures must be time-limited. We recognize that it is not optimal and is not intended to be permanent. The situation may require the suspension of the usual democratic system to fix a problem that calls for an especially rapid response. Everyone knows that. I am sure every party in the House will agree.
The Emergencies Act is typically used for disasters, states of emergency and international crises or when the country is at war. It can be applied justly—that is important, it absolutely can, that is not even debatable—but only as a last resort. In this case, there are other measures available.
The Emergencies Act is an extreme decision that came after two weeks of initially treating this as a minor problem. The government allowed the situation to fester. They let things go off the rails and deteriorate, and then suddenly they cried wolf. It was an about-face.
Why not use regular legal recourse and regular legal institutions? If the occupation of downtown Ottawa is illegal, then why do we need an exceptional law instead of just enforcing the regular laws?
Let us look at some examples. Protests were held on February 4, 5 and 6 in Quebec City. There was no siege, no occupation. The city was prepared. Law enforcement made their arrangements. The Quebec City police service allowed trucks to drive within a certain perimeter, which had been planned, but it made sure to enforce municipal bylaws. The fundamental right to peaceful protest was fully respected, but it was also clear that protection and security would be provided to all, both protesters and residents alike. Did we need the Emergencies Act in Quebec City that day? The answer is no.
On February 13, 13 people were arrested at the border crossing in Coutts, Alberta. They had weapons, including military-style semi-automatic firearms, body armour, and large capacity magazines. One of the leaders of the group had even made videos calling for people to take up arms against the government, but the blockade was taken down and the border crossing is open today. Did we need the Emergencies Act to do this? The answer is no.
As far as I know, threats and calls for insurrection are already illegal and were illegal before the Emergencies Act.
On February 14, the Ambassador Bridge blockade, one of the biggest flashpoints in this crisis, came down. Was the Emergencies Act needed for that? The answer is no.
There is always a way, using the conventional legal tools available. As far as I know, blocking a street and inciting violence are always illegal. Do we need special emergency legislation to remind us of the obvious? The answer is obviously no.
The provinces and municipalities already have the means to act. The federal government does too, if it could be bothered to do so, but that is another story.
The worst part is that the government order will have serious consequences, the most important of which is that it will divide the population. Much as the Prime Minister did when he insulted the protesters at the beginning of the crisis, he is putting a heavy partisan spin on the events, thinking that he will probably come out on top of this unhealthy polarization.
Perhaps the fire is slowly burning out, but there is nothing like adding some fuel to rekindle it. I hope the government is ready for the renewed populist anger and frustration that lies ahead. The government has not only shifted the problem, it has made it worse. Seven out of ten provinces are openly opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
The Quebec National Assembly unanimously voted to express its opposition to and rejection of the application of the Emergencies Act on Quebec soil. All parties backed the motion: Coalition Avenir Québec, the party in power; the Parti Libéral du Québec, which I would like to point out is not a sovereignist party; Québec Solidaire, which is not considered to be sympathetic to truckers' positions and claims; the Parti Québécois; and the Parti Conservateur du Québec member. The entire Quebec legislature stated with one voice that it would not go where the government wants to lead us. This is the message we are repeating in the House.
In Quebec, the trauma is real. As we know, in 1970, 500 people were detained without due process. They were workers, mechanics, booksellers, activists, poets, artists, free spirits whose only crime was to want Quebec's independence. This was all made possible by the proclamation of the War Measures Act by a so-called champion of rights and freedoms, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Ottawa never published the official list of the people arrested under that law.
The invocation of the War Measures Act resulted in 32,000 warrantless searches. Of the 500 people arrested, 90% were released without charges, and 95% of those charged were eventually acquitted or had their charges dropped. Today we even know that the list of innocent people who were arrested was drawn up by Ottawa. The police had asked Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, who were known as the “three wise men”, to fiddle with the list, removing some names and adding others. That is the kind of thing that happens in a banana republic. René Lévesque stated that the Trudeau government of the day had behaved like a totalitarian government in peacetime. He was quite right.
These are different times, and every context is unique. The old War Measures Act was not inherently illegitimate either. It was used twice, for the two largest, most tragic global conflicts of the 20th century. The use of the War Measures Act was not warranted in October 1970, however. We now know that the RCMP commissioner at the time had confirmed that the investigations were going well, that the police forces were co-operating and that measures like those in the War Measures Act, in particular the mass arrests, would slow the investigation into the events that October.
The report on the events of October 1970, written by Jean-François Duchaîne and released in 1980, confirmed that the idea of calling in the Canadian army came from the law enforcement community, but that the idea of using the powers set out in the War Measures Act did not come from the RCMP. In other words, according to the RCMP, which is hardly a separatist think tank, the problems could have been fully managed under ordinary laws, without suspending the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.
Does the use of special legislation for partisan purposes remind anyone of anything? In 2022 as in 1970, in both cases, its use could have been avoided by simply turning to the conventional institutional rules of the rule of law.
Any parallel has its limits, of course. I am aware that the Emergencies Act differs significantly from the War Measures Act, which it replaced in 1988. We know that, so there is no point using it as an argument.
The preamble to the new act refers to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is largely symbolic, because the old War Measures Act also had to comply with these documents even though it did not symbolically include references in its preamble.
One other big difference is that Parliament must now decide whether to invoke the new act within the next seven days. That is why we are debating here and why we will be voting on this subject soon.
I do not want anyone to misconstrue what I am saying and suggest that I think the situations are identical, because that is not the case. However, despite the major differences between these two laws, as well as the different time periods and contexts, one truth remains. The government is irresponsibly trivializing an extraordinary piece of legislation that has radical provisions, which may be justified, but are radical nonetheless, by using it when there is nothing to indicate beyond all doubt that we had to make use of this last resort. It is as simple as that.
If there is any evidence to suggest that all legal avenues and current statutes, whether federal, municipal or provincial, are no longer sufficient, we would like to see it. It must be tabled and the government needs to convince us. We will be the first to reconsider and study this legislation, if that is the case, but we need to be convinced. So far, we have seen no such evidence. This is an inappropriate use of the legislation.
One thing I know for sure is that the current government's chaotic handling of this crisis will likely be taught in history books for years to come as a monumental mess. It will also undoubtedly be studied in leadership schools as a perfect example of what not to do.
Great captains are made in rough waters. The Prime Minister is certainly no great captain, but we will not let him or this government sink the ship.
We in the Bloc Québécois clearly oppose this unnecessary, unfair and unjustified proclamation of the Emergencies Act.
2404 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:46:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we will leave the shame and guilt aside.
I find it unfortunate that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has so little appreciation for his mother-in-law. I hope she is not watching. We salute her nonetheless. At least he said he loved her.
I find it odd that he did not hear us say that it was illegal, because we did. In my speech, I specifically stated that if it was illegal, it was also illegal before the Emergencies Act was invoked. We were telling the government to act, but within the scope of existing laws. It is that simple. There is no need for special legislation to remind us that something that was already illegal is still illegal. We do not need special legislation to state the obvious.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:47:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we cannot make dead men speak. However, and I clearly said this when speaking about both situations, there were real and existing difficulties in both cases.
In both cases, the use of the War Measures Act or the Emergencies Act is not justified. We have institutions. We have police. We have the army. We have laws. Occupying a city, or kidnapping a minister, as was the case, is illegal and was already illegal. There is no need for a special law to to reaffirm this. Everyone knows it.
The government could quite simply use the ordinary institutions and laws to respond to the situation.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:49:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the trauma is there, and we must not think of the trauma as illegitimate or irrational. It was an extremely serious situation, for many reasons. We in the Bloc Québécois even moved a motion on our opposition day in 2020 on the 50th anniversary of the October crisis. We simply wanted an apology for the victims. There was no sympathy on our side for any form of criminality.
There were victims in that crisis, and we know that federal leaders were called upon to fiddle with the list of people to be arrested. Many people do not realize how very serious this is.
RCMP officials said at the time and again a few years later that things did not need to go that far, that the existing institution could have taken care of it. However, it seems that psychological warfare was used. Unfortunately, it has had long-lasting side effects.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:51:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions there.
To begin with, a poll is a poll. It is talked about, negotiated, studied and disputed. We did not analyze the details of the methodology. The important thing to look at is the question being asked.
I am sure Quebeckers agree that the act should apply in Ontario or other places where it is needed, but the act does not say that. In its current form, the order will apply everywhere.
That is what I tell Quebeckers. I tell them that the National Assembly is 100% the legitimate legislature of Quebeckers. That is where their representatives are. Every political party, regardless of its political affiliation, says so. It is clear, simple and precise. There is no debate. In fact, a vote in the House is a lot more scientific than a poll. Let us be clear about that.
We have taken a lot of time to explain that. We are asking the government to take action, but it seems that the members opposite are unable to take action without interfering.
As soon as we tell them to take action, it is as though all courses of action are equal. That is not what we are saying. For example, the government could have provided the City of Ottawa with the resources it was asking for. It could have done many things.
One thing is for sure. I have explained it many times. I spent 20 minutes explaining it. I even explained it in response to some questions. There is a difference between actions taken in accordance with existing legislation and actions taken in accordance with special legislation. The real problem here is that the existing legislation was not used, yet the government invoked special legislation.
293 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:54:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from what I saw, the police in Quebec City managed to enforce the law. They managed to enforce the law at the Ambassador Bridge and in Alberta, when they arrested people who had weapons. There are several examples of where the law was enforced.
There has been a serious management and leadership problem in the very region we are in right now. It is as simple as that.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
