44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 6:39:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech. He has demonstrated that the government did absolutely nothing, or very little, before declaring an emergency.
This leaves the impression that this emergency declaration is basically an attempt to save face for the government and the Prime Minister, who did absolutely nothing for some 20 days.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:42:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech.
Earlier, my Liberal colleague referenced the theatre in response to my colleague's unsuccessful attempt to find the crisis here. Personally, I think the Prime Minister is the one who is hard to find.
In my opinion, the real theatre we are seeing here is the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in an attempt to hide its own incompetence.
What does my colleague think about that?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:08:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary asked whether anybody had realized that the trucks had been cleared since the emergency measures were invoked.
Did she realize that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared without the emergency measures? Did she not notice that the border in Alberta was cleared without the emergency measures and that weapons were actually seized there? Did she not realize that this means that the emergency measures are not needed to clear this up?
Finally, as the parliamentary secretary for intergovernmental affairs, did she realize that Quebec and seven out of ten provinces did not want this legislation?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:06:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague suggested that our political party has narrow interests. I urge him to temper his remarks and to look at the work that the Bloc Québécois does in the House.
If he wonders what the point of our presence in the House is, and if he wants to know what we do, I will tell him that we stand up for our nation because, if we were not here to do that, few people would. Since we have been here, we have demonstrated that we work constructively in the collective interest, after all.
During his speech, my colleague kept referring to a gathering that has gone too far. However, his party, which is gradually turning into the left wing of the Liberal Party, voted last week against the motion to phase out the health measures.
Can he explain that to me?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:23:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
The situation is serious. People are concerned. They are contacting us. I have received all sorts of messages. The vast majority are from people asking us not to support this special legislation. People are saying that they do not want us to support this unacceptable law.
We have also received messages from people asking how they can support the protesters. Those messages are fewer in number, but we have received some. Still other messages ask me how I can abandon people who are fighting for their freedom. These messages are coming from all over, but these people all have one thing in common. They are all worried and unhappy with the situation.
Let us ask ourselves why. How did we get to the point where our society has become so divided? I am sure that all my colleagues in the House are also receiving all kinds of messages. We are doing our best to answer them. We are explaining our positions. Generally, it is fine.
How did we get to this point? It is because we do not have a leader. The government is sowing division. Let me put it this way: The government had the audacity to use the collective distress of a certain group of people for political purposes, and it let those people settle in.
We could have handled the situation differently. It is always easier to say that in hindsight, of course, but we know it can be done. We have seen it elsewhere.
What did it take? It took a leader. What is the difference between Quebec City and Ottawa? Earlier, someone said that other cities had learned from Ottawa's experience. Beyond that, Quebec City had the benefit of a mayor and a premier who spoke to each other, created a crisis task force, coordinated police forces and recognized the demonstrators' right to protest. These things were completely missing in Ottawa. Ironically enough, the most reviled of those people were the ones who protested the longest. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. I am speaking to the heart of the issue.
How can someone who is the Prime Minister, the head of state, throw fuel on the fire right from the outset and insult Canadians? Perhaps the Prime Minister did not agree with their message, but these people are Canadians.
A head of state must must be able to calm things down. I am not talking about giving in either, but, first of all, he should not have insulted people. Second, why not at least meet with the the truckers' official representatives? This has been mentioned several time in the debates. Ninety per cent of them are vaccinated too. For the most part, they did not agree with the protest. The Prime Minister did not meet with anyone.
Every time there is a crisis, this Prime Minister hides and waits for things to blow over. In times of crisis, the 338 elected members of the House of Commons have a collective duty to come together and work for the common good. To do that, something has to happen. Someone has to be willing to talk to us. We cannot always be dealing people who only want to score political points.
That just does not work. We all saw the images from yesterday and today. I want to once again commend the police forces, because this is not an easy job. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Everyone finds this sad.
How could the government allow the entire city to be occupied for 23 days? Think of Ottawa's residents and small businesses. We abandoned them.
Being Prime Minister is not about recognition. It is not about having a illustrious title and another trophy on the shelf.
Being prime minister is fraught with consequences. It comes with a very heavy burden. One must be worthy of the position. I am sad to say that no one saw the Prime Minister for three weeks. What happened? He went into hiding, hoping this would pass. It was not the first time this has happened.
Someone else mentioned this earlier today. I remember the blockades in support of the Wet'suwet'en Nation that took place not too long ago. No one talks about it, because it happened before COVID-19. It is as though we have forgotten everything before COVID-19.
Obviously, we are talking about two completely different types of protests. I am not trying to lump them together or draw a comparison. However, I remember that the blockades began in one place, but the government did absolutely nothing. Nothing happened. Our Prime Minister was in Africa, trying to win votes for Canada to get a seat at the UN. He never got it. He did not care about what was going on at home. He came back 10 days later. The crisis had grown, and it was much more difficult to manage.
We proposed solutions. We proposed that law enforcement, the RCMP, be withdrawn. We also proposed negotiations. In the beginning, the government wanted nothing to do with our proposals. What did it ultimately do to resolve the crisis? The government listened to the Bloc Québécois's recommendations.
I am very disappointed to say that this time no one listened to us at all. During the early days of the crisis, we called for the party leaders to meet. We also called for the creation of a crisis task force and a committee. There needs to be a discussion. Something needs to happen. We need to talk to our constituents, who are fed up and can no longer cope with the restrictions that have been in place for two years. That is the real situation. That is what happened.
I have a feeling—and it is just a feeling, not something I know for sure—but when I look at this from an outside perspective, I wonder why not let a demonstration go on in my capital in front of Parliament. It would make people unhappy and perhaps cause division within some of the opposition parties where there is some tension. It worked to some extent. After that, the protesters will get tired and leave. If they do not, then the government can intervene and will come across looking strong. That was an error in judgment.
What consequences did waiting have? More people ended up coming and sticking around. Everything ended up being blockaded. It was at that point that the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the borders started.
Suddenly, there was a dramatic turn of events. The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. I am not sure if my colleagues know this, but almost $400 million worth of goods move across the Ambassador Bridge every day. If Ottawa residents have to put up with honking for a month, then that is no big deal. I am not saying that the bridge used for commerce should be left blocked, but I am drawing a parallel between the two.
The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. Thrown into a panic, our poor Prime Minister started saying that this had to stop. That is when the police moved in, without using the Emergencies Act. That is the big difference. We did not need this law.
The same thing could have been done in the City of Ottawa. After it has dragged on for more than 20 days, it is much more difficult to move. We saw it in the last few days. It was predictable. This is a sad situation. It should not have gotten to this point. People have the right to protest, but they need to follow the rules while doing it. People have the right to protest, but they cannot occupy a city for a month. People have the right to go about their lives. This is not right.
Caught in a bind, the Liberals came up with a way to help the government and the Prime Minister save face by invoking this law as a publicity stunt. This is the first time that this has happened since 1988. In fact, this law has never been invoked before. Personally, I am deeply disturbed that it was invoked this time.
Of course, today's law is not the same as the 1970 law. I will not conflate the two. What bothers me a lot is that this sets a precedent. Now whenever a government gets into a political tight spot, it will use this law. What will happen five or 10 years from now, when another government, regardless of its political stripe, wants to use it? That is the question, and that is why we will be voting against it.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:34:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am well aware that the Prime Minister is not the one who manages the police.
I would like to ask my colleague a question in return. Does he understand that sometimes it would be nice to have a leader who can bring people together?
The person leading a country needs to talk to people. The member is saying that the government talked to the protesters two years ago, but I think it could have talked to them again this time.
My colleague is asking whether I am aware of what this organization is involved in. We know all that, and I hope that the speech I gave earlier was not misinterpreted. That was not the issue. The reason this happened is that the government failed to take action for 23 days.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:36:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him.
I will again draw a comparison to how things work in Quebec. The Premier of Quebec did not control the Quebec City police. He met with the mayor to talk about what they would do and how they would organize everything. It is just about getting out in front of a situation, trying to plan and, of course, getting people together.
My Conservative colleague made a very good point. That impulse has to come from somewhere.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:37:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand. The question was not very clear.
Is he suggesting members of the Bloc Québécois never talk about the people of the Outaouais?
The people of the Outaouais most certainly were inconvenienced by blocked bridges. Of course there are people with family and friends on the Ottawa side.
However, it was downtown Ottawa that was occupied. The horns were blaring in downtown Ottawa. That is why we have been talking more about Ottawa. We are in Parliament, which is in Ottawa, and the trucks were here in front of Parliament.
I hope the member is not suggesting that we do not care about Quebec because that would be an ill-advised suggestion.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:13:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to a poll.
Does he not get the impression that 72% of people were actually simply in favour of ending the protests because they have been going on for too long? Perhaps people got that impression because the government failed to take action for three weeks. I think that is what is happening.
I would like to hear what he has to say about that.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:42:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we often hear the Liberals say that they want to help, that they are proactive and so forth.
I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that, when the Ottawa Police Service requested 1,800 additional officers, the federal government sent in only 275 RCMP officers and only 20 of them were assigned to the protests.
Would responding to that request not have been a much more practical way of supporting the city?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
