44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 10:25:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, I have no sympathy for what has been happening on Ottawa streets for the past three weeks. Fortunately, after 22 days of siege, the crisis may be over. As we speak, the police are dispersing and arresting the occupiers.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank all the police forces for their courage, patience and professionalism. We have our fingers crossed, but we may well have avoided the worst. Let us be honest: We feared the worst, and the worst is still possible.
Since the beginning of the siege, the Bloc Québécois has recognized the right to protest, but not the right to occupy, to intimidate, to engage in hate speech, and so on. As I said, I have no sympathy for what has been happening for three weeks on the streets of Ottawa. However, my lack of sympathy should not colour my judgment when it comes to the use of the Emergencies Act. That is the national crisis. What is happening outside is extremely serious, but the police are dealing with it thanks to their well-coordinated efforts, not the federal government.
The national crisis is that, for the first time in history, the Prime Minister is invoking the Emergencies Act, an act that has never been used since being enacted in 1988, 34 years ago. This legislation limits fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of association and freedom of movement. It allows the federal government to intervene in Quebec territory, as well as in Quebec infrastructure, such as hospitals, dams and vaccination centres. It goes against the will of the Quebec National Assembly, which is unanimously opposed to its application in Quebec. It allows the government “to take special temporary measures that may not be appropriate in normal times”. The Prime Minister has claimed the right to take inappropriate measures. As parliamentarians, we must determine whether he has truly been able to justify taking these measures.
The Prime Minister is making a historic mistake by invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time ever. I repeat: This is the first time in history it has been invoked. That is why the Prime Minister's decision has two effects that will mark the future: trivializing and setting a benchmark. I say trivializing because he is using this act, even though he has not demonstrated that it meets the necessary emergency criteria at all. It is written in black and white that the Emergencies Act must only be invoked if the government is facing a national crisis that threatens its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity. That is serious. It almost describes a state of war. As we know, this legislation is an updated version of the old War Measures Act.
However, the crisis in Ottawa is not national. It is confined to downtown Ottawa and the neighbouring cities, such as Gatineau. Yes, there are other demonstrations in Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario, and there was even a flash in the pan in Quebec City, but everything was resolved by law enforcement with the tools they already had. The simple truth is that every time governments and police forces have worked properly, in co‑operation, they have prevailed. We are crossing our fingers, but the same scenario seems to be playing out in Ottawa. Each jurisdiction already seems to have all the tools to intervene.
Dialogue is impossible when, upon seeing a convoy of protesters arriving in the federal capital and setting up in front of the federal Parliament to oppose a federal policy and call out the Prime Minister, the federal government spends three weeks saying it is the city's problem.
Moreover, Canada's territorial integrity is not under threat. What is happening is extremely reprehensible, but it is not an invasion.
Furthermore, there is no threat to Canadian sovereignty. Once again, we have our fingers crossed, but the police seem to have the situation under control.
What has been missing for the past three weeks is that the federal government should have been at the helm, carefully managing the crisis. Now it is embarrassing to see the government claiming that it had no choice but to resort to emergency measures. Over the past three weeks, we have watched the occupiers of the capital of a G7 country set up a hot tub, saunas, bouncy castles and street hockey games. Everyone who is present here has seen it first-hand.
Who in the House can seriously claim that every possible effort had been made to resolve this crisis? Does anyone really believe that?
That is why the Prime Minister is normalizing the use of the Emergencies Act. He is setting the precedent that the criteria to be met to use this legislation are discretionary.
He is setting the precedent that it is acceptable to use this legislation without the consensus of the House and maybe even without a majority. He is setting the precedent that it is acceptable to use it against the will of Quebec and most of the provinces. He is setting the precedent that the federal government can essentially use this legislation to say that it did something after three weeks of inaction.
The Prime Minister is using the Emergencies Act in an arbitrary and divisive way for purely political reasons. This normalizing will be used as a benchmark for every successive prime minister. The Prime Minister is charting a course for every future government. In the future, every political player who faces a crisis will look at how the Prime Minister of Canada invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022. They will all look at his decision and see that the bar for invoking the emergency measures is not as high as the legislation suggests.
Political posturing and pressure in times of crisis threaten to again lower the bar a little bit more, always just a little bit more. This will serve as a precedent for all future governments for assessing things like the funding of environmental movements; grassroots campaigns against climate change; student protests; tense labour disputes; protests on civil rights, self-determination or racism; or highly charged debates, such as a nation aspiring to independence. It will serve as the benchmark.
That is why we must be prudent. That is why we must conduct ourselves as statesmen and stateswomen and rise above the fray. We must consider the consequences of our decisions on more than just the situation right under our noses. We must foresee the long-term consequences and think several steps ahead. We must separate our opinions from the legislative decision, the immediate political situation from the legislative decision. As politicians, that is the only way to respect the contract between citizens and the state.
We cannot control the future. I do not know who will be governing the country in 10 years. I am optimistic enough to hope that all future prime ministers will be careful, compassionate, discerning and aware of the impact of every decision they make. However, I have no guarantee of this. I am profoundly disturbed that the political significance of a last-resort emergency measure, a nuclear option, is being downplayed today and for all time.
As I have said before, I have no sympathy for what has been going on in Ottawa in the last three weeks, but that does not matter. I am opposed to the use of the Emergencies Act, despite what I have seen with my own eyes every day while coming to work. In the House, I am the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Every morning, I remind myself who I work for. I work for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. I will not support a reckless decision that could one day impact the rights of my constituents in Lac-Saint-Jean and all Quebeckers. I cannot trivialize invoking the Emergencies Act. I cannot carelessly chart this path for all future governments to walk on.
Frankly, I cannot be absolutely certain that the Prime Minister did not let his disdain for the occupiers influence his decision. I also cannot be certain that he was not influenced by the immediate political situation to make a decision that feels good today but will feel terrible tomorrow. I am not absolutely certain that he fully comprehends the impact of the legacy he will leave. I am also not absolutely certain that the NDP did not rush to support the decision in part because it too lacks sympathy for what has gone on in the streets of Ottawa. I am not certain that the NDP was not distracted by the immediate political situation, leading it to forget how important it is to protect rights and freedoms in the long term. The NDP seems to be thinking about what legacy it will leave today. That is good news.
We must remember the occupation of Ottawa as the crisis that led to proactive co-operation among governments and police forces. It must not be remembered as a crisis that normalized and set a precedent for the use of the Emergencies Act.
Let us make the right decision for the future of a healthy democracy, for the future of the social contract and for the future of the people we have the honour of representing.
1557 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:36:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would never trivialize hate speech. I want to make sure that my hon. colleague knows that.
My colleague stated that he too was not 100% certain that we were making the right decision. That is what he just said.
However, when it is time to make a decision as important as invoking the Emergencies Act, it is vital to be 100% sure that it is the right decision.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:37:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, when one is Prime Minister, one must listen to everyone who expresses an opinion anywhere in the country. I imagine that is part of the job. The main thing was that the Prime Minister needed to take action on day one of the protests.
I understand my hon. colleague's question, and I thank him for it, but if certain members of the Conservative caucus had not exacerbated the crisis, we might not be where we are today. The fact is, some Conservatives had photos taken with the protesters. They said that we should listen to them and encouraged them to hold the line.
Here is what happened. Lack of leadership on the Liberal side and encouragement on the Conservative side brought us to where we are now, here in the House debating an act that should not be invoked for this kind of protest.
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:39:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, I would never minimize hate speech. That is just not the kind of person I am.
I am worried about the future. I do not know whether, say, 10 years from now, the Reform Party will rise from the ashes like a phoenix and take over the Government of Canada. I do not know if that will happen in 10 years.
I also do not know whether, 10 years from now, when they look at what is happening now and what the government did in 2022 with the Emergencies Act, they will use it against an environmental movement blocking a street. I do not want that.
That is why MPs absolutely have to prevent the invocation of this act.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:36:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the debate is very passionate today, and I understand that. Personally, I prefer to examine the issues in a rational manner.
Let us look at this rationally. What is happening today is that we are using the Emergencies Act, which applies to all of Canada and therefore Quebec as well.
My hon. colleague, whom I thank for his speech, told us that we should listen to certain Ontario politicians.
I would say that he should listen to certain Quebec politicians, actually to all Quebec politicians, because the National Assembly is demanding that Quebec be excluded from the application of this act. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case.
In a rational manner, I would like to pose the following question to my colleague. Ten years from now, if a right-wing party was in power as the Government of Canada and a leftist movement wanted to protest and block pipelines that had been built, that party could base its actions on the decision made today, in 2022, by the current government. That party would point out that it had already been done by the Liberal government in 2022, and it could then—
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:06:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very passionate speech.
Earlier today I was asked a question by my Liberal colleague from Hull—Aylmer. He said that he was not 100% certain that the use of the act was the best course of action, but that there were more pros than cons for confirming the order.
My question is simple. Should we not be absolutely certain of the best course of action before enforcing an act of this magnitude?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:34:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. I appreciate my colleague in general, because I know he is sincere, honest and passionate.
However, we have different opinions on the issue at hand today.
Does he believe that all the legislative tools available to the various levels of government were used before the Emergencies Act was invoked today? If so, can he tell me which ones were used?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:05:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
When it comes to using special legislation like the Emergencies Act, I think we need to be 100% sure that it is the right decision, unlike what my colleague from Hull—Aylmer believes. Earlier today, he told us that he was not 100% sure that this is the right decision, but he wanted to make it anyway.
What does the act itself say? It says that all the other regular legislative tools have to be used before the Emergencies Act can be invoked.
Does my hon. colleague believe that is the case? Does he believe that we have already used all the legislative tools at our disposal? If so, can he name those tools?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:38:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
Earlier today, I was taken aback by certain comments. I almost fell off my chair, even though it is very sturdy. Two members of the Liberal caucus, the members for Hull—Aylmer and Don Valley West, told us that they were not 100% certain that invoking the Emergencies Act was the right thing to do. The blues will show that those were their very words.
My question for my hon. colleague is very simple: Does he believe, as I do, that before invoking the Emergencies Act, it is vital to be 100% certain that it is the right thing to do?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
