44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 7:17:14 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brantford—Brant for his speech.
He just answered my question when he said that there was no legal vacuum. Everything was in place.
I will ask the following question instead. What lessons can be learned from what happened over the past month?
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:05:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to greet you so early in the morning, but we have to acknowledge that what is happening now is also very unusual. I also want to greet the House staff who are here early this morning, making it possible for us to work. I thank them.
We are here to declare emergency measures or, better yet, to not declare emergency measures. The exchanges and comments over the past few days between members present in the House or attending remotely cover the entire spectrum of opinions, but I do not think I am wrong when I say that this government order leaves no one indifferent, as evidenced by the many emails my office is getting, even on the weekend.
The Emergencies Act takes on special meaning in the current context. I would like to note from the outset that the Premier of Quebec has made it clear that he does not want the act to be applied in Quebec, and he even secured a unanimous vote to that effect from the National Assembly of Quebec on February 15. For the people of Quebec, this is a bit of a touchy subject. It was 185 years ago to the day that the Patriotes were thrown in jail. I just had to add that little historical aside.
Let us now get back to the seven of the 10 Canadian provinces that told the Prime Minister on February 14 that they did not want this legislation invoked within their borders because they have the necessary tools and resources to manage the crisis and because invoking it would only add fuel to the fire. Newfoundland and British Columbia were in favour of this tool, but they do not need it. Therefore, the order should only apply to Ontario, if the province deems it necessary.
Invoking the Emergencies Act is a dangerous step to take. It is a legislative tool whose consequences must be carefully weighed, with an eye to the future. The self-styled “Freedom Convoy” did not sneak into Ottawa, as quiet as a mouse. After leaving British Columbia, the convoy got bigger and bigger. The traffic and the commotion it caused all along the Trans-Canada Highway could not have gone unnoticed. A momentum developed at the very heart of the convoy's partisan and politicized core. The convoy made its affiliations crystal clear, so it was able to rally supporters along the way.
By failing to prepare for what it knew to be a large convoy heading for the Canadian capital, the government did not keep its options open for dealing with what became a security issue for the parliamentary precinct and for the people of Ottawa and the neighbouring region of Quebec.
As several observers have noted, when the government waits 20 days after the arrival of the convoy to invoke the Emergencies Act, what is the point of that order?
I am asking because the fact that the Prime Minister took a few calls here and there and made the choice, when the convoy arrived, to offload intervention onto municipal and provincial police services is a clear indication of lack of leadership and, I have to say, incompetence. The convoy settled in in the parliamentary precinct and was widely condemned for its impact on the locals. In no time at all, it had spawned offshoots all over the place, including an occupation at the Ambassador Bridge.
The infamous convoy left its mark, even internationally. It instigated action at Fort Erie, Coutts, Emerson and Sarnia. Provincial law enforcement took the necessary steps to gradually and successfully disperse the blockades.
It took a call from the White House to the Prime Minister for the latter to start really thinking about this and for the bridge to Michigan, a key North American trade corridor, to be cleared. The Prime Minister decided against mobilizing Parliament Hill law enforcement and the RCMP when the convoy arrived. There was no attempt to prevent the convoy from occupying the area, no concrete bollards, no barricades, no roadblocks. At no time did the government appoint a representative to negotiate with the convoy's spokespeople.
When the Ottawa police asked for 1,800 federal officers, 275 were provided, of which only 20 were for the protests. Ottawa is not like other cities. Canada has a Prime Minister who has done virtually nothing to defend his country's capital. Was it not predictable that there would be public frustration with the health measures?
It was. We understand the fatigue of everyone who did what they felt was their civic duty: showing support for their community by getting vaccinated, so we can put this pandemic behind us. These people are exhausted. This also causes frustration for those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. We understand that. We are all going through it. What we are going through is nothing less than an ordeal.
Quebec did not escape the protests spurred on by the Ottawa convoy, but the difference is that the Quebec government and the mayor of Quebec City both stood firm. They were not caught off guard like the Prime Minister. The municipal and provincial police were ready, even though they already had to manage the security logistics of the Quebec Winter Carnival. As a result, the city was not overrun. There were still angry protesters, but the leaders in Quebec and Quebec City did not allow them to set up hot tubs, skating rinks, barbecues, tents, and everything else that we could see in Ottawa.
Picture someone standing on the side of the road. A transport truck is approaching. They brace themselves. They know that if they do not get ready and take a step back, they will get a blast of exhaust and gravel right in the face.
That is what is happening to the Prime Minister. He is wiping the gravel off his face because he did not take the most elementary precautions. He and his government failed to make decisions, take action and provide assistance when it was needed.
Is it acceptable for a Prime Minister known for his indolent attitude to suddenly break out the heavy artillery?
This order in council is the government's last-resort attempt to cover for its failure to recognize what is going on, to cling to what little credibility it has left for its pseudo-strategy.
Although I am not on Parliament Hill, I still wondered every day what was going on. I did not understand this silence. I need someone to explain it to me.
What were the Prime Minister and his entourage waiting for to be proactive, to listen to and support the Ottawa police, to address the protesters at least once at the beginning ?
What was the Prime Minister waiting for to show the country that he “continues to work hard”, if I may borrow one of his favourite sayings?
Let us be clear. The Bloc Québécois values freedom of expression. However, this freedom has limits. It does not come with limitless rights. It does not come with the right to protest to the detriment of an entire population.
The Bloc is in favour of health measures as long as public health and medical authorities recommend them. What the Bloc condemns is what is before us now, in other words this worrisome display of negligence via legislation. We all know the expression “too little, too late”. This morning, I would change that to “too much, too late”.
My colleague from Joliette did a fine job yesterday morning outlining all the inconsistencies topping the list in this order. There is no need to repeat what he said. We are on the same page and have reached identical and complementary conclusions, as has the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, who spoke before me and shared her speaking time with me.
One thing is certain. What is needed right now is available through the existing legislation. Activating the Emergencies Act is neither justified nor required, unless the federal government is trying to get its hands on a tool that would inflame the situation. That is the last thing we need.
1375 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:16:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in my colleague's question. I could address each point separately, but I will focus only on the last point, about co-operation among police forces.
Before Christmas, the Bloc Québécois spoke out about illegal weapons crossing the border. We talked about the need for Canadian, American and indigenous police forces to work together to solve the problem.
Are we now meant to believe that it would take the Emergencies Act for all these police forces to work together to solve a problem? Come on. The reasons given to justify the use of the Emergencies Act do not hold up, since we already have all the tools we need in the existing legislation.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:18:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are very worried about the expanded powers that this act could give the government.
Once again, we are insisting on the fact that everything we needed was already in place. Laws such as the Criminal Code already exist and injunctions can be obtained. Everything could have been addressed in some other way. As proof, crises were resolved elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec.
We must be vigilant. We cannot let people challenge the rule of law, but, at some point, we must intervene and be proactive.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:19:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and riding neighbour.
I absolutely agree that the government is using this act to hide its complacency. I wonder whether, at some point, there was some political manoeuvring behind the decision to let the situation get as bad as it did.
The scope of this act is far too broad and that is being used to hide the Prime Minister's incompetence.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:29:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does not believe that protesters have the right to do whatever they want. They certainly do not have the right to protest in a way that hurts an entire community, but that is already in the past. I prefer to look toward the future.
What lessons should we learn from what has happened?
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:13:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Whitby gave a long speech that included a lot of points to ponder.
The Bloc Québécois believes intervention was called for. Had there been intervention, there would have been no need to invoke special legislation. However, what is past is past.
Still, we know the far right is on the rise, and the member talked about that.
Now let us talk about the future. The Emergencies Act was invoked without much thought, so where do we go from here? Will the government regularly invoke the Emergencies Act to thwart the far right?
Has my colleague given any thought to a plan for the future?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:20:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said the government has been very patient. I would say it has been incompetent.
I am going to ask the member a question that might help him explain why it took so long for the government to act. Were there perhaps any political considerations behind the government's inaction?
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
