44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 6:53:19 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
I would remind the hon. member that we do not use members' names in the House.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
The Prime Minister said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly.” Obviously. He added, “This is not the first, second or third option.” What are the three options that were supposedly considered? We do not know.
During a national crisis, the important thing is to show leadership. When a crisis occurs, a leader acknowledges that it is something difficult, that it is not easy for society, but that they think they should do this or that and that this is the way to go. That is what leadership is. Leadership is making decisions and telling us which way we will go.
As for the decision before us, seven Canadian provinces are against invoking this act. Is this what leadership looks like?
Thinking about that this week reminded me of the film 12 Angry Men. Has anyone seen that movie? It was an international hit adapted from a play by Reginald Rose. 12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama about a man on trial for murder. There are 12 jurors. The film begins as the jurors are meeting. Everyone thinks the defendant is guilty. The evidence is overwhelming. Everyone is anxious to go home, since it has been a long trial. Eleven people say he should be convicted, but one juror raises a doubt. He says no and questions the truth. He says the truth lies in another direction. Over the course of two hours, he slowly convinces everyone of his point of view, of what the truth is. He thinks the defendant is innocent. Now that is a leader.
Seven provinces oppose this legislation. The Prime Minister could have stood up and said that he thinks it is important and that it should be done for such and such a reason. That never happened. At no time did we see the Prime Minister show any leadership. That is what is missing.
I do not have time to talk about the October crisis, but I think members have understood what I am trying to say. This is a useless, totally disproportionate law that is not supported by a large part of the population. I have received thousands of emails from people who oppose it, thousands of emails from people who want us to vote against this legislation—
388 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:55:50 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, we must go to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:56:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I feel like I just attended an excellent bit of theatre. It was a very passionate performance.
My colleague gave the example of parking his car in a no-parking zone in Longueuil. The police comes along, he refuses to leave, and the police give him a fine. He claims that the police would call the towing company to have his vehicle towed. Is he aware that towing companies in Ottawa did not want to touch the convoy trucks for fear of reprisal and that this legislation was needed to encourage them to come tow the trucks away once the police gained control of the situation? It seems fairly obvious to me—
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:57:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, whom I am very fond of, is incorrect. All it would take is a court order. Just order the companies to go tow the trucks, and it is done. There is no need for a sledgehammer or a big club like the emergency legislation before us today.
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:57:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too was at the Summit of the Americas, but it was quite a different situation. There were thousands of people storming the perimeter fence, the crowd was launching projectiles into the fence and there were imported black balaclava-clad professional protesters on hand. We saw none of that here. It was very peaceful. People were welcoming everyone. I certainly felt no potential violence when I was walking back and forth.
The member also agrees that the thresholds were not met to invoke this act. Why does the member think the Emergencies Act was invoked, given that there was no rationale?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:58:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am going to go in a different direction because I think it is important. There is one thing we have heard very little about in relation to this crisis.
We have heard a lot about extremist groups that infiltrated the protests. This is true and has been documented. These extremist groups exist, and we must combat them. However, there are other ways to do so. We did not need the Emergencies Act.
We have heard a lot about children being used as human shields. The media has really sensationalized this.
There are people outside who simply wanted to express their frustrations over what they have been living with for the past two years. I share that frustration. Everyone is fed up and tired. The health restrictions have been hard on people.
We, as members of Parliament, are relatively privileged. We probably have homes that are big enough to live in. Many of the people who are outside right now live with eight people in a one-bedroom apartment, and it is not easy going through this pandemic with all of these restrictions.
If, instead of tarring everyone with the same brush—this is Canadians we are talking about after all—the Prime Minister had listened to people all along, we might have been able to resolve this crisis in another way.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:59:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question I would like to ask my colleague is the following: Should the attack organized against our democracy by the extreme right, and financed from beyond our borders, be taken seriously?
This attack is intended to intimidate our fellow Canadians and force Parliament to close because of security threats. Should it be taken seriously? Should we take serious measures at all levels?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:00:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, of course we should. However, there are provisions in the Criminal Code that can help us do it. We do not need an act like the one we are discussing tonight.
We are aware of the situation. In the United States, Donald Trump sends funding across the globe. His influence extends to many countries, and it is considerable. We absolutely must fight back against that.
However, we already have the tools to do that. We do not need the Emergencies Act to fight this. We have done it before, perhaps we have to fight a little harder now, and we will do so in the future as well.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:01:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by commending my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech and, more importantly, for finally agreeing to share his time with me.
It is with great concern that I rise today to participate in this historic debate. I would like to begin with a quick question. How do my colleagues feel when they see the images of the charging horses and the confrontations that have been playing on a loop on television for hours now?
Personally, I am wondering how we got to this point. I know that I am not the first one to say it, and that many of my colleagues have already talked about this, but I want to reiterate that we are still against applying the Emergencies Act across Canada.
First of all, I want to remind members that I have a degree in applied policy studies from the Université de Sherbrooke, which has helped make me a staunch democrat. I cannot help but wonder and worry about the message that the government is sending with the use of this measure, which undermines our democratic system.
Second, I will address the risk of radicalization, and third, I will talk about respect for jurisdictions and the demands of Quebec and the provinces and territories. One thing is certain, I will not be standing on a soap box, like some others have tried to do.
From the standpoint of democracy, we must ask ourselves whether this act really should have been invoked. In order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate two things. First, it must demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists. Second, it must demonstrate that ordinary laws cannot adequately address the situation.
As to the first condition, yes, there is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation. That situation is limited to Ontario, however, and specifically to Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois is not against applying the act, but it should be applied only where there is an occupation, which did not happen in Quebec. I know other members have already made this point in the debate, but it is worth repeating: This use of this act is not to be taken lightly. Its application must therefore be measured and balanced.
Another thing that worries me is that a broader application of this law than necessary could set a dangerous precedent. At this point, I have a few more questions. For example, why is the Prime Minister determined to apply this law everywhere, especially when he himself has said many times that it will not be used where it is not necessary?
The Prime Minister also stated, here in the House and in the supplementary documents pertinent to the motion, that he was concerned that other blockades would be set up elsewhere in Canada, particularly given the galvanizing effect of social media. As I will argue later, I believe that this legislation is actually one of the things fuelling support for protesters on social media.
No matter how hard I try to look at this issue from every angle, I simply do not see the real and imminent danger of the current situation in Ottawa happening elsewhere. Such historic legislation should never be invoked “just in case”.
I can only assume that the debate would be quite different if the motion had been limited to the province of Ontario. The government could have easily obtained a majority of votes in Parliament. The only reason we are here debating this now is that the government dragged its feet, as it has too often done since the beginning of its mandate.
This could have been addressed using ordinary legislation, with proper coordination and effective collaboration among police forces, as we have seen in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Why did the government not emulate what was done elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec before invoking the Emergencies Act?
Furthermore, if we look back a bit to try and see what we could have done, we will see that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, the crisis at Caledonia, the events of September 11, the COVID‑19 pandemic or any other dispute in Canadian history.
Using the act too liberally or too broadly, or applying it needlessly, poses a real risk of sending the wrong message to the political class, and above all to Canadians.
The government has been aware of the facts for a long time now, since some protesters turned into occupiers who were here to say. It simply continued to say that the responsibility of managing this crisis fell to the Ottawa police. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and, the very next day, the Ottawa police asked the province and the federal government for reinforcements. That was more than 12 days ago.
The Bloc Québécois wanted constructive action from the start. If the government had listened even just a little bit, if it had truly wanted to show political leadership, and if it had sat down at the table with representatives, if it had established a plan to intervene or simply helped come up with a plan, we probably would not be here.
I was listening to a constitutional expert this morning. He explained quite clearly that we already had the means to intervene. The highway safety code, the City of Ottawa bylaws, the Criminal Code and a tripartite collaboration would have allowed the different police services to coordinate in order to reinforce existing laws.
The declaration of the state of emergency in Ontario by the Ford government on February 11 had already given significant powers to the Ottawa police and the provincial police. Again, the federal government should have realized that, but instead it decided to bury its head in the sand and hide when the situation was serious.
At this time it seems that the blockades might be over before the Emergencies Act is implemented. We therefore cannot really link the act to the end of the blockades.
What is more, each crisis includes a risk of radicalization. Obviously, we hope that everything will end without violence, but we are also aware that as the number of protesters decreases, the closer we get to the hard core, even extremist, group. These are very likely people who have nothing to do with the spirit of the January 29 protest. The remaining participants in the crowd are increasingly unstable and unpredictable. We are right to wonder what ideas the occupiers will leave with, because they currently feel emboldened by their supporters and have financial backing. We have seen how well organized they are.
This summer, I was reading a book about the new age of violent extremism and radicalization in western democracies entitled Le nouvel âge des extrêmes? Les démocraties occidentales, la radicalisation et l'extrémisme violent, edited by David Morin and Sami Aoun in collaboration with Sylvana Al Baba Douaihy. I am interested in this issue, especially since it was studied last spring at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am the vice-chair, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where I have participated as a substitute. The tone is set from the first paragraph of the introduction, and it has informed my arguments on the effects of the Emergencies Act, which runs the risk of throwing fuel on the fire. In his book entitled The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth History 1914-1991, published in 1994, Eric John Hobsbawn wrote that the century was not ending well. You do not need to be a prophet of doom to recognize that the 21st century is not off to a much better start.
In the last two decades we have seen a wave of Islamist terrorists, several civil and international conflicts, millions of victims and displaced people, a major migrant crisis, the rise of violent far-right populism and the acceleration of climate change. To this bleak portrait we must now add the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a global health crisis.
Furthermore, Quebec said that it wanted nothing to do with this act. The protest held in Quebec's capital showed that problems can be prevented when there is strong political will. I want to commend law enforcement for their professionalism and for their exemplary responses. The question here is not so much about the Emergencies Act itself as it is about the reasons why the situation got to this point. The question answers itself.
I have one last thing to say. When I think of the Liberal government, the image that keeps coming to mind is of a firefighter arsonist. The Prime Minister has favoured the wait-and-see approach. He let the situation drag on and deteriorate but did nothing. True to form, he stood by and watched it all happen. He also insulted and dismissed the protesters by tarring them all with the same brush. Now, he has invoked the Emergencies Act to make it seem that he is putting out the fire he himself started, but instead he is adding fuel to the fire, stoking the flames of hate and division.
1563 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:10:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I respect the member opposite, but I am going to take strong disagreement with one point that she and her party have made repeatedly in today's debate, which is that there is no crisis.
I think we are in agreement that the blockades still exist outside the chamber, so in Ottawa there clearly is a problem. We know that on February 14, the declaration was put into force. On February 16, we know that in Windsor, there was an attempted resurrection of the blockade, which was thwarted successfully, which was great, but reports are showing that even today the Surrey border is again being closed on account of blockades. Clearly, the protest continues and the problem has not been resolved.
Does the member opposite agree that indeed these tools are required in order to address what is clearly a national problem that must be regulated in order to ensure that the economic security, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of our borders are not compromised by unlawful and illegal blockades?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:11:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I think I have demonstrated in my speech that this is not a national crisis, but one that is limited to Ottawa.
Elsewhere, such as in Quebec City, the crises that occurred were resolved, because there was co-operation. Right now, both the police and the governments have all the tools that they need to act. In Quebec City, there was coordination between the Quebec department of public security and the mayor, who had the political will, who showed leadership, and who warned protesters that unruly behaviour would not be tolerated. There was none, because there was coordination with the Quebec City police. This was also the case elsewhere, in different places, and in different positions.
The necessary tools were available, and the Emergencies Act was not. All it does is add fuel to the fire and feed hatred and division.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:12:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Shefford spoke thoughtfully about how we got here. She alluded to comments the Prime Minister made, casting a broad brush to all of the folks who came to Ottawa and the millions of Canadians who supported them.
Would she agree that the Prime Minister, had he tried to extend an olive branch, listen and engage in dialogue, it could have at least turned down the temperature, but instead, the Prime Minister escalated the situation?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, I addressed this issue.
The Prime Minister should not have been acting like a political commentator, making inappropriate comments. He should have acted like a political leader, led an all-party committee to get everyone around the same table, and come up with a peaceful solution.
All he accomplished by doing that, as I said, was to make the situation worse. That is typical of him. We saw it with the Wet'suwet'en crisis. The Prime Minister has this tendency to let things drag on and let crises escalate, hoping that everything will magically resolve itself.
That is not how things work. We need a leader who can bring people together to find solutions in a crisis.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned this, but I wanted to give her a chance to elaborate.
When there is a crisis, everyone needs to do some soul-searching to make sure that it is not too late to do the right thing.
I have to wonder whether the protesters became entrenched because they were egged on by certain politicians and also by the words of the Prime Minister, which made people feel abandoned, unimportant and shunned from society.
I would like my colleague to talk about that, but also about how everyone, on both sides of the House, has some soul-searching to do.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her important question.
As politicians, we definitely needed to listen to the different voices that were heard loud and clear during the protest. This was not about commenting, taking sides or taking a stand. Our goal was to bring the various parties together.
My colleague talked about the lessons we can learn from all of this. What we need to remember is that we need to listen, but more importantly, that we need to bring everyone together, for example, through the all-party committee we talked a lot about.
We could have brought many people together, held—
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:15:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thought that we lived in a democracy in Canada, but in a democracy, the government cannot suspend people's rights, freeze people's assets or seize their bank accounts just because they disagree with them. That is what we are seeing today. That is what we are seeing with the application of the Emergencies Act.
That is why, when we vote on this on Monday night, I will be opposing this completely unwarranted infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and I will do so for three reasons.
The first is the government failed to understand why this is happening. The second is the government failed to know what to do about it. The third is, most importantly, the government has absolutely failed to provide any legitimate justification for this unprecedented overreach.
I will start with the last reason, because we need to talk about what is required to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. Using the Emergencies Act demands a true threat to national security, such as the threat of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective, or the overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
We have the government arguing to invoke legislation that is designed for things like a foreign invasion, a civil war or a terrorist attack. I ask, is this a civil war? Is it a terrorist attack? Is it a foreign invasion? It would be very difficult for anyone to argue that it is any of those things.
It is also required under the act that something needs to seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. Notice the importance of the word “and”. It would require that all of those things, the sovereignty of this country, its security and its territorial integrity, to be threatened, and the Government of Canada to feel that its ability to preserve those things would be impossible without its use.
Can it really be argued that our territorial integrity and sovereignty as a country are at risk here? Again, we are not talking about a foreign invasion or a terrorist attack. We are talking about illegal acts that are happening. People are blocking streets and roadways, and that is clearly illegal. It needs to end, but it does not constitute the need for the use of the Emergencies Act.
One of the things we can do to look at the reasons why this is not justified is to look at some of the other examples of situations where this act has not been warranted and has not been applied. I have heard lots of talk about disruption of daily life in Ottawa. I have heard lots of talk about potential threats of violence. That has been littered throughout a lot of the speeches that we have from Liberal and NDP members to try to justify their voting for the use of this act.
If we use that as the barometer, think about the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto. In that instance, we had 10,000 protesters. We had police cars that were flipped over and set on fire. We had millions of dollars of damage to local businesses and we 97 police officers were injured. Despite all of that, the use of the Emergencies Act was not warranted. I am not arguing that it should have been. There are other ways to deal with situations like that. The Emergencies Act was not used in that situation, so the arguments that we are hearing about these disruptions of daily life and things like that are pretty flimsy.
Think about 9/11, in 2001. That is the very definition of terrorism. Air space was restricted. All flights in and out were cancelled. There was fear. I remember people saying things to me like, “Is this the beginning of the third world war?” and “Is this the end of the world as we know it?” Those were the kinds of feelings that people had at the time. I hear lots of people talking about being afraid of this situation, but it certainly does not compare with the fear that many felt then. I am not suggesting that the Emergencies Act was needed at that time either, but it tells us that it is probably not required in the situation that we are in today.
I have heard lots of arguments on the effects on the economy and critical infrastructure being blocked, things like rail lines, highways, border crossings and so on. I think the best comparison, looking at that kind of a situation, is when there were very similar types of blockades going on two years ago, pipelines and railway blockades that were going on across the country. Those went on for a few weeks at that time as well. All of those same arguments that are being made now, to justify the use of this act, could have been made had the decision been to use the Emergencies Act then. Again, I am not suggesting that it should have been used.
At that time, the Prime Minister said that we are a country that recognizes the right to protest, and we will ensure that everything is done to resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes. His aboriginal affairs minister at the time said we needed to ensure that we get to a peaceful solution that involved dialogue. I do not hear any discussion of trying to find a way to do that, to have a peaceful solution, to find dialogue. I actually believe that in this case, had there been some sort of dialogue with the folks who came with concerns to Ottawa, had there been some way to address those concerns, we probably would have seen this come to a very quick resolution. If I have time, I hope to speak to that in a moment or two.
I want to also raise an issue. There are many speeches I heard today and otherwise that claimed there is some threat to Parliament and, therefore, to our democracy. Yes, there is proximity to the Parliament. I have not seen anyone try to storm into the Parliament buildings. I have not seen any of those kinds of actions take place. They are here to make a point and, yes, there is an illegal nature to what has been going on. I absolutely make it very clear that I do not condone illegal acts, whatever the point that someone is trying to make.
It was in 2014 when Corporal Nathan Cirillo was killed at our National War Memorial by an armed attacker who then stormed our Parliament. Nobody suggested using the Emergencies Act at that time either. I am not suggesting that should have done at that time, but that was a far bigger threat to our Parliament and to our democracy than what we are seeing today.
We have a government that really fails to understand why this is all happening. It has its reasons as to why it is happening. Why it is happening is because people are sick and tired. They are frustrated. They do not see the justification for some of the things that the government is doing. We can debate all we want whether it is appropriate to engage in illegal acts. It clearly is not, in order to make that point.
There are many people in this country. Many people supported the convoys and the blockades, and they may have given $50. They are tired of lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. Is it really fair to argue that someone who had no idea that there would be any kind of illegal activity taking place should have their bank account seized or their assets frozen because they gave 50 bucks, mostly because they are just tired of COVID restrictions?
The government does not have a right to make decisions like this just because it disagrees with someone's point of view. The government failed to act on it when it could have. We gave it the an opportunity to end mandates or, at least, bring forward a plan to end all the federal mandates and restrictions. Had it done that, it would have been following in the footsteps of many provinces and many other countries. It would have been following the science and evidence, and what it shows.
The government chose not to do that. Instead, it has caused more fear and more division in this country. People are afraid. I have heard from many people who are scared because they gave maybe $50 or $100 to some of these efforts. The government is refusing to tell those people whether their bank accounts will be seized. That causes fear. That causes division, and that causes disunity. The government should be ashamed of itself for taking this step. I will be opposing it all the way.
1497 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member said that all the Prime Minister needed to do was to engage in dialogue and we could have come to a peaceful resolution with the occupiers outside while his premier, Jason Kenney, did not engage in dialogue at the Coutts crossing. The premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, did not engage in dialogue. The premier of Manitoba did not engage in dialogue at the blockade there.
I am curious. Can the member comment on whether it is just Liberal leaders who need to engage in dialogue, or does the member not see the hypocrisy in his statements?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
