44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 1:02:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Outremont.
Today I rise to deliver what may be the most important speech I have given since having the privilege to serve the people of Kings—Hants in the House. Today, we as parliamentarians are debating whether the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act on Monday was justified. I submit, for my colleagues in the House and indeed all Canadians watching, that the threshold required to trigger the Emergencies Act has been objectively met and perhaps exceeded.
As the Prime Minister has said in the House, a decision of this nature is not taken lightly. However, the situation we have seen across the country is serious and warrants a response that is proportionate to the impact we have seen on all Canadians. Let me be very clear: I am in full support of legal protests in this country. It is a constitutionally protected right and, indeed, I have spoken with some of my own constituents who, in their own way, have demonstrated their displeasure with the government's protocols to date. However, we have to delineate between lawful protest and individuals who refuse to abide by the rule of law, who have occupied Ottawa and who have blockaded our key border crossings.
I believe it is incumbent on all of us to look at the facts and to try to be objective. We have seen a group of individuals in Ottawa occupy the city for three weeks now. This is despite orders from law authorities to disperse and to go home. The key organizers of the Ottawa occupation have openly espoused their goal of overthrowing the government, and of meeting with the Governor General to form a coalition.
We have had blockades across the country at key border crossings that have targeted the country's trade relationship, including at Windsor, Coutts and Emerson. At Coutts, the RCMP found weapons and body armour. How can one conclude that this was simply a peaceful protest?
The Minister of Public Safety outlined to the House this morning what impact these were having across the country economically. There have been hundreds of millions of dollars a day in economic harm. Blocking of critical infrastructure and critical trade routes hurts everyday Canadians, and impacts our food security and our supply chain. There has been a targeted impact on the Ottawa International Airport, and the organizers of the “freedom convoy” have expressed their desire to re-establish blockades and occupations elsewhere, even if they are taken down by police.
We also know that these activities are being financed by international sources. I ask this, for members of the House: Do we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to take action on internationally financed assistance to organizers of activity that is not only illegal, but represents a threat to Canadian security and the rule of law? I, for one, believe we do. I want to be crystal clear. This is being done to target activities that are illegal and threatening the economic health of the country and the rule of law and order.
For those whose intent is to raise issues about government policy, I have no issue. For those who continue to be a part of illegal blockades here in Ottawa or elsewhere, they do not have the ability to do so. These measures are being implemented because of their unwillingness to abide by the law.
What is the public emergency order being invoked under the Emergencies Act? What does it actually mean? The Conservatives would have people believe that this government is limiting all freedoms. These measures do not take away freedoms. The Bloc members would suggest that this is akin to the War Measures Act, and are seeking to drum up memories of the FLQ crisis. This is not the War Measures Act. It is not taking away the rights of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not calling in the army. This is a specific measure to give additional powers to police and provincial authorities to maintain law and order, to monitor financing, including from foreign sources, that is being used to block and undermine critical infrastructure, and to ultimately remove the blockades and occupations that exist across the country.
Let us examine the actual measures in the order. They include the regulation and prohibition of public assemblies that lead to a breach of the peace and go beyond lawful protest. I want to be clear: Lawful protest can continue. Designating and securing places for blockades are to be prohibited.
The measures also include directing persons to render essential services to relieve impacts of blockades on Canada's economy. This could include such things as tow trucks that could be requisitioned, of course for compensation, by government authorities to help with removing trucks and vehicles that are blockading key infrastructure.
They include authorizing or directing financial institutions to render essential services that relieve the impact of blockades, including regulating and prohibiting the use of property to fund and support the blockades that are undermining economic security in the country.
There are also measures enabling the RCMP to enforce municipal bylaw and provincial offences where required, and the imposition of fines under section 19 of the Emergencies Act.
I submit to the House that these measures are specific, time-limited and geographically focused. The measures will be overseen by a joint parliamentary committee and, of course, must be supported by a majority in the House to remain in force.
I previously mentioned that policing is in the domain of municipalities and the provincial government. Since day one, our government has worked, and continues to work, directly with municipal and provincial authorities and their law enforcement. We have answered calls for additional resources. We helped create integrated operations, and provided additional RCMP officers to try and deal with blockades.
Leading into Monday's decision, it was clear that the provincial and municipal authorities had been unable to address the situation. Ironically, members of the House were calling on us to show federal leadership. Some Conservatives, after openly encouraging illegal activity to continue, were asking the government to stop the blockades. These measures are designed to do exactly that.
My question to members in the House who are criticizing the government for making available time-limited tools under the Emergencies Act to support law enforcement is this. What intermediate step would they suggest the government should have undertaken? Beyond asking the Prime Minister to meet with individuals who fly flags that say, “F.U.C.K. Trudeau”, who want to overthrow a democratically elected government, and who have stated that they will not leave until their demands are met, what security measures would they have suggested this government should have undertaken? That is the key question. As my constituents have rightfully pointed out, it is easy to be an armchair critic, but I have yet to hear many constructive measures from the other side of the House on how to deal with the current situation.
I support the government's measures. They are reasonable, they are balanced and they are proportionate to the circumstances we have seen. They are focused on giving tools to police in jurisdictions across the country to resolve illegal blockades that are hurting everyday Canadians.
It is extremely important for all of us to remember that these are tools that are available. This order is in effect for 30 days. This is to make sure that we have the ability to address the circumstances that we have seen. I would hope that all members of the House believe that this is an important measure so that we can make sure that the blockades, the economic harm and, frankly, the lack of law and order that we have seen in certain elements in this country do not continue.
1317 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:11:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Prime Minister has already invoked the Emergencies Act. What we are debating in the House is whether or not we believe that his invocation of the act should be endorsed or revoked. In order for the House to endorse the invocation of the Emergencies Act, two very high thresholds need to be met. The government, at the time that this legislation was introduced, set a very high bar on purpose. The Emergencies Act is like a fire alarm that can only be activated when the glass has been broken, and we should only allow the glass to be broken when it is justified.
The Emergencies Act is only to be used when there are threats to the security of Canada that are so serious that they constitute a national emergency and cannot be addressed using any of the laws or tools that are currently on the books. This invocation fails on all counts. There are no threats to the security of the country. There is a noisy protest happening around Parliament Hill, but it is not impeding the ability of Parliament to function, as we can see clearly today. The House continues to sit. MPs walk through the protests every day. The Prime Minister holds press conferences mere steps from where the truckers have set up their rigs and their signs.
This protest is not even a threat to the continued security of the House of Commons, let alone the security of Canada. It is also not a national emergency. The protest stretches over a few city blocks of downtown Ottawa. Has it been disruptive? Yes, it has. Should the trucks move on or be moved at this time? Yes, they should. Does the Emergencies Act need to be invoked to allow that to happen? Absolutely not. There are more than enough powers granted to enforcement agencies to allow them to manage the situation and resolve it peacefully.
We have seen this at the border in Coutts, at the Ambassador Bridge, in Surrey and in Emerson. All of those incidents were peacefully resolved using existing police and government powers. The predecessor to this act, the War Measures Act, was only invoked during World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis. These are seminal moments in Canadian history. What we are seeing right now in Ottawa does not even come close to the level required to take this draconian response.
Conservatives will oppose this overreach. The Bloc Québécois has indicated that it will oppose this overreach. Liberal MPs will do what the Prime Minister tells them to do, as they always have and always will. Therefore, it comes down to the votes of the NDP to determine whether or not the House will endorse using the Emergencies Act to suspend the civil rights and civil liberties of whomever the Prime Minister deems to be a designated person engaging in an illegal protest.
In 1970, when Pierre Elliott Trudeau used the War Measures Act to send in the army and suspend the civil liberties of Canadians, the NDP stood in opposition to it. The vote was 190 MPs in favour and only 16 against. NDP leader Tommy Douglas, who I am quite sure I have never quoted before, said, “This is overkill on a gargantuan scale”. Calling the emergency legislation an act of panic, he went on to compare the invocation of the War Measures Act to using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. The exact same quotes could and should be used to describe the Prime Minister's gross overreach by using the Emergencies Act today.
Numerous former NDP MPs have weighed in in disbelief at what their party is prepared to endorse, recognizing the dangerous precedent this will set for future governments to crack down on their own citizens protesting the direction of a future government. Today's NDP is joining the Liberals in endorsing the use of legislation that takes away the rights of Canadians the government disagrees with. Today's NDP members are willing to sacrifice their own principles to provide comfort to a Liberal Prime Minister who has none.
The order attached to this invocation is far-reaching. Canadians who have been involved in completely legal and legitimate protests that have taken place over the past weeks could be retroactively caught up in this dragnet. Canadians who donated small amounts of their own money or gave home-cooked meals to truckers on their way to Ottawa could be caught up in this overreach. What does the Prime Minister say to those who have raised those concerns? “Just trust me. Give me the benefit of the doubt.” Trust is earned, and the Prime Minister deserves none.
The emergency order allows the government to freeze and seize bank accounts without legal recourse. The government is encouraging banks to never do business again with any of the protesters. It allows for the suspension of insurance products and the seizure of private property. It proposes up to five years in jail for people who are advocating for an end to government restrictions.
Let us think about that for a minute. People who are fighting for freedom, using their rights as free citizens to criticize government policy, could be thrown in jail for up to five years. They could have their ability to provide for their families taken away. They could have their mortgages revoked. They could lose their homes. This has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with punishing those who have dared to speak against government policies. We are sent here to protect the rights of Canadians, not to take them away on the flimsiest of excuses or to punish those who embarrass the Prime Minister.
There are many who will say “good riddance” to the protesters, and many who will cheer on their financial ruin. Clearly, while there are many supporting the protests, there are many other Canadians who are disgusted by them. Indeed, many Liberal supporters are cheering on the Prime Minister's strong-arm tactics against our fellow Canadians. They will point to public opinion polls, showing that people agree with the government's decision to put the boots to those who are embarrassing them on the streets of Ottawa, to put the protesters back in their rightful place and to serve as a warning to others that there are consequences for daring to question or push back against the government.
I will remind the House that many of the darkest chapters in our history, many of the things we look back on in disbelief and shame, and many of the suspensions of freedoms and liberties that past governments have brought down upon our own people were cheered on by the majority of Canadians and the majority of MPs, and were justified in these halls. That does not mean they were right. It does not mean they were just. Indeed, I believe that if we allow this to stand there will be a time when a future prime minister rises in this place and apologizes for the actions of the current Prime Minister in this case.
The Prime Minister has made a purposeful, political choice to create the division we see in this country today. This has been confirmed by the Liberal MP for Louis-Hébert. Instead of seeking understanding and common ground, the Prime Minister sought political advantage through division. When his pollsters told him he could turn vaccinated Canadians against unvaccinated Canadians, friend against friend, neighbour against neighbour and family member against family member, he jumped at the chance.
He spent the entire election pitting Canadian against Canadian. He called those who disagreed with him racist misogynists who should not be tolerated and a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views”, as if being the Prime Minister or being a Liberal gave him a monopoly on what acceptable views are. He inflamed the situation in Ottawa with his rhetoric and then went into hiding. He continues to divide for partisan advantage. Now he wants the House to simply roll over and allow him to steamroll the rights of Canadians he disagrees with, and he wants to use a tool he has no justification to use.
The use of the Emergencies Act and its order in this case are unjustified. The thresholds have not been met. Its invocation will only serve to further deepen the divisions that have been purposely sown by the current Prime Minister. Invoking the Emergencies Act will not resolve a national crisis. Indeed, it may create one.
It is time to stop using the powers of government to punish those who have made difficult, unpopular decisions about their own health. It is time to stop going down the Prime Minister's path of division and instead choose the path of healing and reconciliation. The first step on that path is the rejection of the use of the Emergencies Act against our fellow citizens. We must vote against this motion and instead work together to lower the temperature, give Canadians back their rights and work together to heal the divisions in our land.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a previous life as a teacher, when I presented a topic, I always gave my students some background to help them understand.
Today, I am going to provide a bit of history about the current situation, and I am obviously going to put the spotlight on the Prime Minister, because we believe that he is the one who is responsible for how things currently stand.
I am a former member of the Quebec National Assembly, where I sat from 2012 to 2018. I faced two premiers, Ms. Marois from 2012 to 2014, and Mr. Couillard from 2014 to 2018. They showed me what a premier is like, in the National Assembly and elsewhere. Both premiers loved the thrust and parry of parliamentary debate, showed up ready for question period and had fun engaging with and trying to persuade their opponents.
During the 2019 federal campaign, when I saw the Prime Minister on the hustings, I honestly thought that he was energetic, that he was determined, and that he was in top form. I expected him to be like that in the House. He was not.
When we began sitting here, something struck me. It is not something that often comes to mind, but here we have the chance to work with people who are seen on television, people who are recognizable in public. We are often asked what we think of this or that person. I tell them the truth, because I am a Bloc member. When the Liberals come up, for example, I am quick to point out that so-and-so is very nice, and I say nice things about people in the House in general.
Somebody asked me what I thought of the Prime Minister. I said he seemed nice, I did not talk to him much, and he really did not seem to like his job. That really struck me. He would show up in the House at question period and give people the impression they were bothering him. He did not seem keen on being there. I do not know how else to describe it. He is the Prime Minister of a G7 country, after all. If it were me, I would be turning cartwheels all over the place, but I got the sense he would rather be somewhere else. I figured he was just going through something, or maybe he ate something that disagreed with him.
Then along came a crisis and, as they say, when the going gets tough, the tough men and women of this world get going. Our PM certainly had a tough go of it during his 2019-21 term, and things have not eased up.
I am going to speak very quickly about two crises. First, there was the rail crisis. When the Wet'suwet'en protested, there were rail blockades across Canada. The Prime Minister was on a trip, and he was told that he should return because things were not going well in Quebec and Canada. He told people to leave him alone because he was on a trip.
The crisis seems to have three episodes, somewhat like the Indiana Jones trilogy. In the first episode, he asked that he not be bothered because he was on a trip. When he came back 10 days later, he did not seem all that interested in intervening, and he said that it was up to the provinces to resolve the crisis—when it was a national problem that fell under federal jurisdiction.
It is ironic, because he always seems to have fun tinkering with provincial jurisdictions, sticking his nose in, demanding all kinds of things, and lecturing and preaching to everyone. However, he does not seem interested in his own matters. It is a bit odd, and it seems as if he always wanted to be the premier of a province, such as British Columbia.
In the second episode, we told him that the Bloc was focusing on finding solutions, and we proposed some for him to consider. However, he spent the next 10 days saying that it was up to others to solve the problem.
In the third episode, he listened to the Bloc, and, in the last days, he did what we asked of him and the situation was resolved. However, he did not seem all that interested.
The coronavirus arrived with a vengeance. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, as you were there. It started with China, then Iran and Italy; travellers from those countries just waltzed into Canada as they pleased.
We were calling on the Prime Minister to do something, to close down the borders, to require tests and quarantines, but he did nothing. I guess we could call it compulsive inaction. It was as though he were asleep and had to be nudged to do something.
Ultimately, and even as I say it I cannot believe it, Valérie Plante went to the Montreal-Trudeau airport to say that enough was enough and they needed to stop letting people in and start testing people. Think about it. The mayor of Montreal stepped in for the Prime Minister because she could see that this was wrong. Again, we have to wonder if he was even interested.
Here we are with a third crisis, and this is a big one. I looked outside a few minutes ago, and I have to say that going out to play on Wellington Street right now does not sound very appealing.
Again, there are three steps, a trilogy, if you will. Step one is to add fuel to the fire. This all started a while ago, not just in the past day or so. I want to read a quote about what was happening during the last election campaign, and I hope my colleagues will be able to guess who said it:
I can't help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve [of] and during the last election campaign....a decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize.
He went on to say:
I fear that this politicization of the pandemic risks undermining the public's trust in our public health institutions. This is not a risk we ought to be taking lightly.
Who said that?
Was it the Conservatives? No. Was it the Bloc? No. Was it the NDP? Of course not. Let me tell you. It was the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert. I imagine he is not the only one among the Liberal members who are asking themselves “Should I do it?” Even they are wondering.
On September 16, on a program in Quebec called La semaine des 4 Julie, the Prime Minister added fuel to the fire when he said:
[People who] don't believe in science...are very often misogynistic and racist....And then we have to make a choice, as a leader, as a country: Do we tolerate these people?
When he starts conflating and stigmatizing, that is a problem. It only adds fuel to the fire. Then he goes on to say that vaccination is being made mandatory for truckers.
We know that 90% of truckers are vaccinated, but convoys are heading out from all across Canada. That comes as no surprise. The trucks did not appear on Wellington Street out of nowhere. They arrived from somewhere, they arrived from British Columbia. We know that Canada is a big country. A guy who leaves British Columbia in his truck will be at it for quite a while. He will also rack up Petro Points in no time.
The truckers then arrive in Ottawa, but that is not exactly surprising, because they said they were coming. This is another quote by the Prime Minister, adding a little more fuel to the fire on January 29:
Canadians are not represented by this very troubling, small but very vocal minority of Canadians who are lashing out at science, at government, at society, at mandates and public health avice.
It goes on. Now we have to pay attention. The Prime Minister got COVID‑19. I agree, we have to isolate when we get COVID‑19. I understand that, and I hope he was not too sick. It does not seem like he was.
People in isolation can sometimes make appearances over Zoom or make calls, but no, not him. On January 31, during his first public appearance since the beginning of the siege and the occupation of Ottawa, he said the following, adding a little more fuel to the fire:
We will not end this pandemic by complaining. We will end it by getting vaccinated and listening to the best public health advice.
That is what he told protesters. I do not think that worked. Now we get to step two: looking for solutions. This could also be known as the Prime Minister's inaction fest.
Little by little, the stakeholders, including the Ottawa police chief and the mayor of Ottawa, tried to find a solution.
People saw what was happening in front of Parliament and thought that maybe it was not such a bad idea. They started protesting and blocking roads in other parts of the country. Some even tried in Quebec City. They stayed two days and that was the end of it. The situation in front of the House of Commons was left to deteriorate, and it set a bad example.
The Bloc Québécois is always coming up with suggestions. We usually end up having to press the government, but in the beginning we always make suggestions. The Bloc Québécois has done so from the beginning. We made six suggestions, including talking to trucker representatives, even those who are vaccinated and who are against this movement, and trying to reach out to the people protesting, but the Prime Minister did nothing.
On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency because it wanted the government's help. It was as though it was signalling to the federal government that things were not going well.
My father used to always say, once a Liberal, always a Liberal. He never met the member for Louis-Hébert. Even Ernest Lapointe, Mackenzie King's lieutenant used to say that he was not a Quebecker, he was not a Canadian, he was a Liberal. Even former Liberal Allan Rock criticized the current Liberal government's lack of leadership. Things are not going well.
On February 7 we were anxiously awaiting the Prime Minister's return to the House. We were just like kids waiting for Santa to arrive. We thought that the Prime Minister of Canada would have been advised to come up with a solution and that he would propose something. Plus, since he was scheduled to speak for 10 minutes, he had the time to give us some good news.
What he proposed was that the protesters should go get vaccinated. That is it. That is step two: inaction, a lack of leadership.
The good news is that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared, in response to pressure from the White House. In Manitoba, southern Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia things were eventually resolved. Quebec also had some protests, and the mayor of Quebec City and the Government of Quebec made sure that nothing got out of hand. The only blockade remaining is the one in front of the House of Commons, where we await the end of this upheaval. We support the right to protest, but we do not support an occupation. That is unacceptable.
I call step three the “atomic bomb.” We have reached the stage where the Liberals know that they have lost badly. It is like a midget player who gets shut out by a pee-wee. He knows that he really blew it. He walks away, his cap by his side, and goes home without talking to anyone. His girlfriend is in the stands, but he pretends that she is not there.
This is probably what the government thought, that it had looked like a fool for 10 days, and that it would unleash the atomic bomb and look like heroes. That is not how things work at all.
Six out of nine provinces, Quebec, the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Quebec National Assembly have said that they want nothing to do with this. Even Québec Solidaire, the party that is very fond of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, said that they want nothing to do with it. Everyone has said it, except the NDP.
Despite this, the government has invoked the Emergencies Act. We are still in a situation where we see that the government already had tools. The Prime Minister told us that he would not unleash this atomic bomb until he had used tools one, two and three. However, he has not used tool one, two or three.
He has gone from acting like Pontius Pilate, doing nothing and washing his hands of the whole business, to dropping an atomic bomb. It is as though there is no in-between. However, there are indeed things in between. We saw it at the Ambassador Bridge. We have seen it in other provinces.
We all have a childhood hero. Mine was Batman. For some people, it was Zorro or some other superhero with incredible powers. I am pretty sure the Prime Minister's childhood hero was Pontius Pilate. He had this magical ability to wash his hands. The Prime Minister wanted to be just like him. In fact, his hands got all chapped from washing them so often. That is the kind of Prime Minister we have. He is like Pontius Pilate with OCD. That is what we have, unfortunately.
I would be remiss if I did not talk about the NDP members, our great moral arbiters. Here is what Svend Robinson said about their position on Twitter: “The NDP Caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act. Today's NDP under [its current leader] betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. Shame. A very dangerous precedent is being set.”
This statement illustrates the once-quiet strength of the NDP, a leftist party that defended workers and people who needed help, not the government.
I would like to comment on what people have said about using this measure. A lot of people have said that it is pointless, that things work themselves out. When things work themselves out, it is because people already had the tools to deal with the problems, so why use this measure?
Some people said that governments are relaxing restrictions, some of them quite rapidly, so the frustration will just go away on its own. That is what The Economist says, not some amateur stand-up comedian. The Economist says this is dangerous because these measures can fan the flames of frustration.
I said earlier that, when the going gets tough, the tough men and women of this world get going. Out of the Great Depression, the worst crisis the world has ever known, emerged a hero, John Maynard Keynes, a brilliant economist and true humanist, a hero who changed the face of humanity.
John F. Kennedy become a hero because of the October missile crisis. During the Second World War, de Gaulle became a hero in France, while Churchill was Great Britain's hero. Of course there was Mandela, in South Africa, who fought for racial justice. There was also Gandhi. They have all earned their place in the history books. These people all experienced hardship, had to be strong and decided to take a stand. They have been an inspiration to the world and their nation.
We can see how the Prime Minister behaves in the various crises we are going through. These are major, serious crises. We are talking about the worst pandemic since 1919 and trucks in front of the House of Commons. It is terrible. I can say one thing. The history books will remember the Prime Minister not as a hero, but as someone who caved when faced with adversity.
2730 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 8:46:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to quote an NDP MP in the House, but considering the Honourable Tommy Douglas was from Saskatchewan, maybe I will do it this one time. In describing Pierre Elliott Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act, he said it was like “using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut”.
I am sure my colleague from the Bloc would agree that what is happening outside pales in comparison to what was going on in 1970. He referred to that in his comments. What does my colleague think the great Tommy Douglas would do if he were here in the House of Commons at this moment in time?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 10:59:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is, as always, an honour to stand in this chamber and address the issues that are impacting Canadians. However, I stand in this chamber tonight to speak to an issue that should make every one of the 338 members of the House take a moment to pause: the invocation of the Emergencies Act, an act passed in 1988, which was the successor to the War Measures Act.
If I could, I want to talk a bit about the history and why it is so important to understand that, in the context of where we are this evening. The War Measures Act was invoked three times in the history of this country: World War I, World War II and the FLQ crisis, under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I find it incredibly troubling that this is the context in which we find ourselves today. Wars and murdered politicians is the context for the debate that we find ourselves in here today.
The invocation of the War Measures Act was an extreme measure to deal with significant issues. I do not think there would be a member of this House who would not agree with the need for a mechanism like this to exist, because the reality is that there are instances where significant action needs to be taken. We see this Liberal Prime Minister invoking this Emergencies Act, taking and granting himself and his government unprecedented authority that includes significant things that suspend, for example, due process.
The members opposite do not necessarily like to consider the precedent of the decisions that they make. The precedent is being set by the invocation of this act that it is okay to suspend due process, a fundamental aspect of a modern democracy to ensure there are not things like unreasonable search and seizure. Although the members of the government talk about the Emergencies Act being subject to the charter, there are aspects of it that are allowed to be overridden because of what the Emergencies Act allows. It is important to acknowledge those things as we enter into this debate.
We see there is this seemingly flippant approach to such a serious issue, which is setting a precedent, that I would simply ask this question of the members opposite and members of the NDP who have indicated that they are going to support this: If this were former prime minister Stephen Harper who had invoked this act, would they be celebrating it? Would they be laughing in their seats? Would they be poking fun and seemingly enjoying the fact that they are taking away the right to due process and that they are suspending certain aspects of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? That is an important question that I hope every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the NDP considers carefully.
An unprecedented step was taken three weeks after the Prime Minister did nothing but inflame tensions in what is a time that Canada, I would submit, has never been more divided. The context for this is the fact that there are and continue to be protests taking place in the streets of Ottawa. The members opposite do not like to listen to this because it is inconvenient to their narrative, but I, along with my Conservative colleagues, have condemned the blockades, illegal activities and hateful imagery associated with it. The members opposite do not like that because it disrupts the divisive narrative that their leader continues to forward.
We have done that while also being the only party in this country that has been willing to actually acknowledge the fact that over the course of the last number of months there has been an unprecedented level of division that has alienated Canadians.
Now that is funny. The member opposite just said that we have somehow stoked these tensions. That member, I expect, when he goes to a Liberal caucus meeting next time around, would be quick to accuse—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
670 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
