44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 12:09:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
I am against invoking the Emergencies Act.
I commend the work of the police officers, who have shown remarkable composure and professionalism. I hope this illegal occupation will end without violence.
Many protesters have made the reasonable choice to leave. However, a fractious group is still refusing to go home. It is possible they are extremists. They are the ones who came to occupy, not to protest. It is to be expected that they will be difficult to remove, but none of this justifies using the Emergencies Act.
To invoke and enforce the act, two things must first be demonstrated. First, that there is a dangerous and urgent situation. Second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation under existing laws. I do not believe this to be the case.
Faced with such a situation, I think it is important to distinguish between an exception, in other words, something that only occurs once and will not reoccur, and a precedent, which is something that is expected to happen again. I do not think we should make a precedent out of an exceptional situation.
I personally believe that invoking the Emergencies Act is the direct result of a terrible lack of vision and leadership. With that in mind, the question that remains is this: How did we get to where we are today?
We all knew that the truckers were coming. We all knew that, once they were here, it would be difficult to remove them. Did all of us really know that? No. The Prime Minister said that the right to protest was important, and I agree. I also agree that everyone should be able to express themselves freely. That was before the protest became an occupation.
Throughout the first week of the occupation, the Prime Minister was quick to lecture us, saying that he could not direct the police, that the police had to submit their requests and that it was the police's job to control the situation. That is why the police chief asked for 1,800 additional officers, but he got only a few dozen. That is when the occupation became really entrenched. Was it a lack of vision on the part of the Prime Minister, carelessness, flippancy or a lack of leadership? Who knows.
To understand the situation—and I propose that we discuss it in order to explain it—it is worth noting that this ill-advised decision is a logical extension of previous decisions, which were all equally clumsy.
The current Liberal government was elected in 2015 on promises for a better future, one where transparency would be a priority and where Canada would reclaim its place on the international stage. That was in 2015, and the Liberals were saying that Canada was back.
It was definitely a breath of fresh air and there was hope for better days. The Prime Minister met with world leaders and graced the front pages of celebrity magazines. The whole world admired his youthful good looks and colourful socks.
Hope appealed to Canadians, but all was not well. In January 2017, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner began an investigation into the Trudeau family's vacation on the Aga Khan's private island, and that investigation resulted in a reprimand from the commissioner.
It was the first time a prime minister had been reprimanded by a Conflict of Interest and Ethics commissioner. The first Trudeau report, because there would be others, was shameful for a prime minister—
605 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:13:08 p.m.
- Watch
You are absolutely right, Madam Speaker. That was the name of the report.
After this rebuke, the Prime Minister tried to justify the unjustifiable by responding that he was sorry, that he was responsible, that he would do better in the future and that he would make sure to have his vacations approved by the commissioner. In short, it was a cop-out we would hear many more times in the future.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:13:59 p.m.
- Watch
Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I fully agree.
The context that I am bringing here allows me to draw a line, which for the moment is drawn as a solid line but where we can see the dots that are connected. I will shorten my remarks on the line in question.
A little later, the Prime Minister was still making headlines about ethics and the SNC-Lavalin affair. When we read the report, we learned that the commissioner had tried to meet with him a hundred times, but that did not happen. In my opinion, this is avoidance. There too, he was not responsible for anything.
That has continued; this line is continuous and that is what we need to see. In 2020, as we know, the federal cabinet chose WE Charity to administer the Canada student service grant. There were ties between that organization and the Prime Minister's family, namely his children, his wife, his brother, and so on. The Prime Minister did not shoulder the blame in that situation, but we know what happened next. I mention all of this to say that the Prime Minister has a troubled relationship with ethics, with the concepts of what is right and just, which brings us to the Emergencies Act.
In my opinion, in these situations that I briefly described, the Prime Minister demonstrated a complete lack of judgment, and that is not what we expect from a leader. Even recently, on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the Prime Minister chose to go surfing rather than to pay tribute to a people he personally chose to honour. Is that an ethical failure? Certainly not, but it shows a lack of judgment. Once again that is not what we expect from a leader. The most recent example of a lack of judgment is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I am listing these failures in order to draw attention to the Liberal mindset. In my opinion, repeated errors in judgment and contempt are part of their DNA. When we have contempt for an object or person, we believe they are unworthy of respect or esteem. I will give three examples of contempt relating to the office of Prime Minister, the institution of Parliament and the people.
At the beginning of his mandate, the Prime Minister showed contempt for his office with the costumes he wore. He should understand that he is not acting in a play.
As for contempt for the institution of Parliament, the ethics breaches that I mentioned and the audacity of calling an unnecessary vanity election come to mind.
As for contempt for the public, after actively doing nothing, the Prime Minister uselessly invoked the Emergencies Act, which is not something that the provinces wanted or found to be useful under the circumstances—as my colleagues have clearly shown—because most of the powers used so far by police officers already existed at the provincial and municipal levels.
It is a strong-handed measure that is actually an admission of weakness. In fact, it is a textbook case of hubris—my friends know my background in philosophy. Hubris is when somebody becomes too vain, cocky or intoxicated with power, and eventually loses control and risks making poor and potentially fatal decisions.
The Prime Minister has made an art out of adding insult to injury through his lack of substance, numerous ethics breaches, poor judgment, contempt, arrogance and hubris.
The Prime Minister called an unnecessary snap election and invoked the Emergencies Act for no good reason, which did not help in Coutts, in Windsor, or even in Ottawa. That, to me, is unacceptable. How did we end up here? If we have been paying any attention at all, and add up the lack of judgment and leadership, it is hardly surprising that we are here today discussing this legislation.
When I look at everything that the Prime Minister has done, it seems to me that over time he has started to confuse public interest with political games, public interest with personal interest.
The Emergencies Act is the wrong response, a response lacking in leadership to a situation that required maximum leadership. The Emergencies Act, as I said, is a strong move, but it is an admission of weakness. Rather than bringing out the nuclear weapons, I think that he should have acted sooner. I wonder whether the Prime Minister should put the legislation in question to a free vote in order to see what all members of the House really think.
Before he racks up one too many lapses in judgment, I encourage the Prime Minister to ask himself whether he still feels like governing.
781 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:19:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
Police discretion is important. The police must be able to act within the bounds that they find acceptable.
The current powers delegated to the municipalities and the provinces would have been able to cover most of the situations that have occurred. The problem is that they did not act soon enough.
I do not think that the issue is a lack of authority. I do not think that there has been a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
The fact that we are unaware of certain parts or sections of the act is indeed worrisome.
If we are to support it on Monday, as planned, I demand that we be allowed to read the whole text.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:22:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing.
We are not abandoning anyone. Contrary to what the member is insinuating, we are not the ones talking about “anglophones”, “francophones”, “racialized” and “non-racialized” people. We are talking about everyone. We have to deal with this situation for everyone, as complete equals.
The member's comment is malicious. I do not agree.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:23:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. We have to be very careful.
This kind of legislation can serve the public good, but it has to be more specific. This one does not meet the fundamental criteria.
37 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:52:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with what my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge said. I understand why he rejects this law.
If this act was not the answer, what was? Was it leadership? Was it vision? Was it a law?
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:19:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can only agree, for the most part, with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
People have the right to protest, but not to occupy. Harassment, economic loss and tragedy are unacceptable. As we agree on the end goal, I have a question for him.
Is this the best way we could find—
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:20:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. The end goal is to restore order. We share that goal and agree entirely. We fully agree that the harassment, the tragedies, the disruption of people's lives and the economic losses are unacceptable.
Now, if we want to restore order, is this the best way, or is it the only avenue left after so much inaction?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
