44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 8:18:50 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Repentigny, the riding next to mine, for her excellent speech.
Even before the Emergencies Act was invoked, she had already spoken about the fact that a whole series of situations had been resolved, including those at the Surrey border crossing and the Ambassador Bridge.
Is the Emergencies Act just being used, to some extent, to hide the government's inaction with respect to the situation in Ottawa?
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:45:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, could my colleague tell us more about the potential repercussions of using the Emergencies Act when it is not required, as is being done right now?
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:49:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we know, the Ottawa police asked for 1,800 extra police officers, but the federal government sent only a handful.
Can the member explain that?
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:08:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The blockades had almost all been removed before the emergency measures came into force.
Could my colleague talk about the consequences of invoking the Emergencies Act when it is not required?
38 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:23:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we knew that there were extremists within the convoy when we first heard it was coming. We knew there were far-right groups involved. It seems they were allowed to settle in anyway. Once that happened, I think the Prime Minister could have showed more initiative and made sure that the police forces were coordinating their efforts, but nothing was done.
What does my colleague think about that?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:07:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's presentation, in which he gave examples of situations that appeared to be far more serious, but for which we did not invoke the Emergencies Act.
What does he think of the fact that, three days before invoking the Act, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that the police had all the tools they needed? Are the government and the Prime Minister not using this act to hide their incompetence?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:24:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond.
As we all know, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to invoking the Emergencies Act, especially as written in the orders, since the measures would apply to Quebec, even though the Quebec National Assembly, including the provincial Liberals, voted unanimously to oppose the imposition of emergency measures within its borders. As we all know, what Quebec wants, the Bloc wants.
Special legislation must not be used lightly. Its application must be measured and proportionate. The Prime Minister himself said many times that the act would not be used where it was not necessary. Therefore, why did he apply it to the whole country? Seven out of 10 provinces said no to the Prime Minister because they felt they had the necessary tools and resources to manage the crisis. Here is what the Quebec National Assembly said in its motion:
That the National Assembly be concerned about the current disruptions in Ontario and around certain federal border crossings;
That it affirm that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Québec;
That it ask the Canadian government to not apply the federal Emergencies Act in Québec;
That, lastly, the National Assembly reiterate the importance of close collaboration between the federal government and the Québec government, in particular to ensure peace of mind and safety for citizens in the Outaouais region who are affected by the ongoing demonstrations in Ottawa and who could have to bear the brunt of any further deterioration of the situation.
During the protests in Quebec City on the weekend of February 4 to 6, the municipal authorities were able to manage the situation very well without any major problems. There were no problematic protests in Quebec. One week before the arrival of the convoy in Quebec City, the City of Quebec published a detailed press release that listed the measures that would be taken. Hundreds of protesters and about 30 trucks moved around the city during that weekend. The Quebec City police service, the SPVQ, tolerated their presence but enforced municipal bylaws. The city diverted traffic from certain streets so that the downtown would not be completely paralyzed.
After the demonstration, the SPVQ held a press conference at which it said:
We believe...that we have fulfilled the commitment we made before the events began, which was primarily to facilitate and protect the right to lawful and peaceful protest, while keeping protesters, road users, users of public spaces, and residents safe, in addition to enforcing...laws and regulations.
The Liberal Prime Minister could have shown this kind of leadership as soon as it became clear, the Monday after the protest started, that the truckers were not leaving. In fact, he could have done it as soon as the convoy was announced, given all of the people who were involved. Some of them were even saying all along that they wanted to overthrow the government. The government could have taken much stronger preventative measures, but the Prime Minister chose to wait and the convoy grew. The protesters set up hot tubs, bouncy castles and a wooden structure in front of city hall, but nothing was done.
Because the Prime Minister refused to take action, the convoy started catching on across the country and even on other continents. The Liberal government seemed to always be one step behind. It did not start focusing on the Ambassador Bridge situation until the White House called.
Back in Ottawa, the government waited for a call from the Ottawa police and did nothing to reclaim the parliamentary precinct. The government dragged its feet, even as the City of Ottawa was asking for reinforcements. The Ottawa Police Service was asking for an additional 1,800 officers, but the federal government sent just a handful. Furthermore, most of the 275 RCMP officers who had been sent were assigned to protect ministers and Parliament. Just 20 of them were assigned to deal with the protests.
Commentators in Quebec are practically unanimous in saying that the Prime Minister was absent and invisible from the beginning of the conflict, when the City of Ottawa was asking for help. The federal government did not even try to speak directly with the organizers, unlike the City of Ottawa, which was successful in getting the trucks out of certain residential areas. The City of Quebec was also able to get protesters to co-operate.
Instead of considering this option, the Prime Minister kept disparaging the protesters, lecturing them and lumping everyone together. The hon. member for Louis-Hébert, himself a Liberal, condemned the lack of dialogue and the politicization of the crisis, which the Liberal government amplified for political gain.
In terms of public safety, there is little evidence that the government took all possible and necessary measures to put an end to the blockades before imposing emergency measures.
The only reason we are here debating this law today is because the Liberal government did not act quickly enough. The situation could be summarized as follows: The government did not try anything, and, not knowing what to do, it invoked the Emergencies Act when almost all of the occupations were over.
Almost all of the blockades had been dismantled or were on the verge of being dismantled when the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act. That shows that it might not have been necessary and that the authorities had all the tools they needed. Almost all of the blockades on the Ambassador Bridge and in Sarnia, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Emerson, and Coutts, Alberta, had already been cleared.
The Prime Minister explained to the House and in the documents appended to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the mobilization happening over social media. An act like this is not meant to be invoked when the government thinks that something might happen. It is invoked to deal with a real or imminent situation. It might even be said that the Liberal government is adding even more fuel to the fire with these emergency measures, allowing extremists to cry dictatorship.
The situation could easily have been resolved without these emergency measures. I salute the excellent work done by all of the police forces involved, including, of course, the Sûreté du Québec. We saw that what was needed was effective police coordination and collaboration. It could have been achieved, and was certainly beginning to be achieved, without the application of emergency measures.
An editorial in Le Devoir called the emergency measures “too much, too late”. It called it another blunder by the Prime Minister because, once again, he failed to listen to Quebec or the provinces.
There was no justification for the emergency measures from the beginning. They are even less justified today, now that the blockades in Ottawa have been almost completely cleared. We must therefore vote against the emergency measures.
1172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:34:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a poll of about 300 people. In any case, what does my colleague think about the fact that the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously against the use of emergency measures?
After seeing what has been happening in Ottawa for the past three weeks, it is only natural that people want it to stop. However, putting an end to this situation does not require emergency measures.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues often say in Parliament that they are in talks with the Government of Quebec, but there is a difference between talking and really listening and discussing.
As my colleague said, seven out of 10 provinces are against using the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister says he consulted everyone and managed to get a consensus, but that is far from the case.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:37:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the Ottawa Police Service said that the Emergencies Act was useful. However, as constitutional expert Patrick Taillon said, the act must not only be useful, it must be essential.
I think that everything we saw could have been done differently. For the past two weeks, we constantly asked the Prime Minister to meet with all stakeholders, to set up an all-party committee with all stakeholders in order take effective action on the ground.
I think we could very well have done that without the emergency measures. The government must not make a habit of resorting to these extreme measures for situations that can be resolved by other means.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:06:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think that it would take to revoke the emergency measures?
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 9:20:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for operations that call for multiple police forces to intervene, emergency measures are not needed.
Why were such operations not carried out sooner?
25 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
