So V ote

Feb/20/22 8:37:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from La Pointe‑de‑l'Île for his excellent speech and pertinent answers. I also thank him for agreeing to share his time with me, which he did reluctantly but in a spirit of fairness. I would like to start by joining other colleagues before me in applauding the outstanding work of all the police services, which demonstrated extraordinary professionalism in this weekend's operations. I salute in particular the Parliamentary Protective Service, which we can all agree took very good care of us despite the high levels of stress right now. Like my colleague who spoke earlier, I, too, want to commend the interpreters, who have had to deal with the House's changing schedule these past few days and who are doing a terrific job. I know that we are placing a heavy burden on the interpreters who interpret from French to English. I do not know how things are going for those interpreting the other way, from English to French, but I can say that we are extremely grateful for the work they do. I think that anyone who goes into politics does so in order to effect change, whether big or small. We try to make our mark. Some will achieve this through local actions on behalf of their constituents. Others will achieve this by passing laws that will change our way of life or change the world more significantly. Consider, for example, the bill to be introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît. It will make Émilie Sansfaçon's dream come true by extending eligibility for employment insurance benefits for people with serious illnesses to 50 weeks, rather than the meagre 26 weeks the Liberals have proposed. Sometimes politicians' actions will have international significance, as is the case for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and his efforts on behalf of Raif Badawi and the Uighurs. I imagine that the desire and the need to leave one's mark are even greater when one is Prime Minister. I have to say, the current Prime Minister has his work cut out for him. What will this Prime Minister be remembered for? The question is all the more relevant now, when we are obviously at a historical crossroads. Quebec and Canada are experiencing a health crisis the likes of which has not been seen since the Spanish flu more than 100 years ago. This is the type of crisis that requires the kind of leadership we cannot find just anywhere. Has the Prime Minister shown leadership? I think this has been a recurring theme in this debate. I think the Prime Minister acted as if nothing were wrong. He buried his head in the sand, hoping in vain that the storm would pass. By refusing to support this law, the Bloc Québécois is in no way minimizing the crisis we are in. It has been ongoing for weeks. It is real and historic, although it seems to be clearing up on Parliament Hill. Could the crisis have been avoided? Yes, of course, if the government had, from the very beginning, shown the type of leadership we keep talking about and if it had assumed its responsibilities. It had and still has a range of perfectly suitable measures at its disposal. It could have applied various measures from the very beginning. It could, for example, have sent more RCMP officers, as the Ottawa police requested. We would not be here now if these measures had been taken from the very beginning. I particularly want to stress the incongruity and pointlessness of this government invoking the Emergencies Act. In the current context, the way this situation developed, the act is being used more as a distraction, so we forget the government's inaction and lack of leadership. It did nothing for weeks, but then, all of a sudden, it is an emergency and we must act immediately. Now it is telling us anything goes, do not ask questions, watch it go, it is taking care of it. With this government, every crisis is the same bad movie. The storyline is easy. First, it ignores the problem, closes its eyes and says the problem will resolve itself, as if by magic. Then it blames someone else, like the city, the province or a nation. Eventually, it takes its head out of the sand, usually too late, and improvises something, a solution that could have been implemented long before everything escalated. In my opinion, invoking the Emergencies Act today shows that the government does not have the backbone needed to manage a crisis. It does not see them coming. When they happen, it is incapable of managing them. There is proof enough of that. On another level, we can look at what is going on in several departments right now, in particular immigration and employment insurance. Fires have broken out in many places, but no one in this government seems to be able to put them out. That is rather worrisome. Instead of stepping up and showing leadership in a time of crisis, the Prime Minister opted for a disproportionate show of force with the Emergencies Act. We, as members of Parliament, cannot be complicit in this dog-and-pony show. Could the government not recognize that there is currently no real need to apply this exceptional act? This is not a preventative act. It is meant to be applied to resolve an imminent or current crisis. The situation is essentially resolved, though. The siege and the occupation have been ended. Applying the act under the current circumstances would create what I would definitely call a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, provincial governments and, in this case, the City of Ottawa, have other options to resolve the crisis. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge was removed before the order came into effect. The border at Coutts has been reopened. The siege in Ottawa is over, fortunately. Our police forces are capable and united, and all they want is to get the appropriate request, equipment and mandate. We saw what they were capable of when they joined forces to deal with a crisis. They were superbly effective this weekend. I think the government wanted to beat its chest and make an impression so people would forget how low it has sunk and how it failed to show any initiative in the past few weeks. The deed is done. The government cannot maintain such an act by citing preventative reasons. There is no “just in case” in the act. Earlier, I heard the argument that the chief of police and the mayor of Ottawa said the act had given them useful tools that they were thankful for. No doubt that is the case. I have a nine-and-a-half-year-old son. If he asks me for a calculator to do his math homework, that will help him, but I do not think that is the point. Rather than stubbornly trying to invoke an act with a disproportionate impact and scope, which creates a precedent that neither Quebec nor the majority of stakeholders would want or approve of, is there any hope that the government will finally assume its responsibilities and show some common sense by choosing the path of dialogue, at the risk of coming up against differing opinions? We can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the time is fast approaching when we must let old wounds heal. We will have to make every effort to rebuild the bridges between us. Too many friends have drifted apart. Brothers, sisters, cousins no longer speak to each other because of the divisions caused by this crisis. Fixing that will take a lot of work. I think that what we need to do now is look forward and examine the deeper root causes of the problems we have seen over the last few weeks. They need to be addressed without delay to avoid the turmoil of a possible future crisis. Earlier, I asked what kind of legacy this Prime Minister will leave to history. I only have one answer: The ball is in his court because, for now, we might remember him the same way we remember other prime ministers who have let Quebec down over the years. I will spare members from having to hear the examples because there are many that come to mind. There is still time for the Prime Minister to do something different. He could be in the same league as the great leaders who led this country through world wars and other crises we have faced in the past. He could be a great leader, a unifying force, a reassuring presence to those who agree with him as well as those who will take a little convincing that he knows what he is doing. One way for him to leave a legacy would be to increase health transfers and give the provincial and Quebec health care systems a chance to recover. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have said this ad nauseam, and the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have been unanimous in calling for it. A better-funded system will mean fewer deaths the next time there is a public health crisis. It will protect our health care systems from becoming overburdened and give us a chance to make it through crises. It might even put a little shine back on the Prime Minister's reputation and leadership.

1599 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 8:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously an excessive law will provide effective tools, but does that mean they are justified? Does it take a baseball bat to smash a mosquito, or would a fly swatter or even a hand do the trick? This calls for a measured, predictable, proactive response. It is best to let people do their jobs and give them the tools they need when they need them. We saw this crisis coming. It took weeks to plan the convoy. We knew days in advance that it was coming to Parliament Hill. It was predictable and could have been stopped. We have had protests in Quebec and Canada before. This is not the first. It could have been handled just fine without this law, which I feel is excessive.

128 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 8:50:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question. I must say that I completely agree. There are things that may take longer, but they lead to the same outcome. Bank accounts can also be frozen by applying for a court order if there is good reason to do so. I spoke earlier about predictability and about having a little bit of foresight on events that are going to happen. This one was very predictable, by the way. Again, I think that this law is excessive. I always find it a little odd to agree so fully with my Conservative colleagues, but it is a good thing from time to time.

114 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 8:51:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona and tell her that I am extremely impressed by her question in French. I congratulate her. Yes, I think that we are currently reaching what I would dare call an end to the crisis. It is not the time to turn the page and close the books. I think that tools need to be put in place in order to deal more effectively with future situations such as the one we have just gone through. I completely agree with the idea of bringing in legislation to address money laundering, particularly the financing and the sites of this type of activity. We could certainly debate it in the next few weeks.

120 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 8:53:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do not know where he heard me say that the use of the Emergencies Act is being trivialized. That is not what I said, but I do think that it is excessive. The act is far too powerful a tool for what we needed at the time. I am not saying that the use of the Act is being trivialized, but I do condemn it for the overreach that it represents.

81 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 10:19:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The Emergencies Act is only meant to be applied in the event of an existing or imminent crisis. The situation taking place on Parliament Hill for the past three weeks appears to have been cleared or is well on the way to being cleared. Does my colleague still think it is necessary to enforce the Emergencies Act?

66 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 10:54:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway was a bit impertinent towards Quebec. In fact, he stated that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause to violate the rights of its own citizens. My colleague has shown either his ignorance or his contempt. Either way, that is unacceptable. I will nevertheless ask him a question. What is happening at this time could create a dangerous precedent. Will the NDP be able to oppose this act if, in 10 years, a more right-leaning federal government is in power, and we again go through, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, events such as those of 10 years ago, in the spring of 2012, when large numbers of students were protesting and slightly more radical groups infiltrated the protests?

128 words

All Topics