44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 7:50:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to the people in my riding of Thérèse‑De Blainville, and thanking the many constituents who have sent messages of support for the position taken by my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I on the blockade in downtown Ottawa and in this debate on the Emergencies Act.
People have very legitimate questions, worries and concerns. We have listened carefully, and they have been heard. We also heard their heartfelt pleas that they never again wanted to experience or be afraid of experiencing the worst, that is events such as those of 1970, when the War Measures Act was invoked. The collective trauma and the fear experienced are still vivid and painful memories for an entire nation, namely, the people of Quebec.
I forgot to mention that, in the spirit of solidarity, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Repentigny. We stand twice as united.
Of course, the Emergencies Act is not the same as the War Measures Act. We know the difference. The former is nevertheless the spawn of the latter, as our leader so aptly put it. Although these two acts must not be conflated, they do have one thing in common: They are both special laws. This means that the exception should not be the rule or become the norm in dealing with situations or events that can be resolved using other means, whether political or legal, or through laws already in place. Any government that is even considering using the Emergencies Act must demonstrate unequivocally that all avenues have been pursued and all options have been exhausted.
Isaac Newton said that we should only be certain about what can be proven. I am certain that the Emergencies Act is not necessary because the government and the Prime Minister have failed to prove that it is.
On the first day of debate in the House, the Prime Minister described the Emergencies Act as targeted, proportionate and reasonable. That same day, I described it as the opposite. This act is disproportionate and unreasonable. How can he claim that it is targeted when, in fact, its scope is from one end of Canada to the other, whether we need it or not?
One thing the act requires is consultation with the provinces. Even though seven of them said no, even though the Premier of Quebec said no, even though the National Assembly unanimously said no, the federal government does not care. It does not give a fig. That is bad.
To hear the Prime Minister tell it, this is a law of last resort to be used once options 1, 2 and 3 have all failed. Those options did not fail; they were not even tried.
Plans for a protest at the Parliament of Canada in the national capital were announced over three weeks ago now. We knew a convoy of truckers was coming from as far away as Vancouver, bearing a message for the federal government. What steps did the federal government take to prepare? Nobody knows. Did the federal government analyze the potential impact of the protest based on the messages it was expecting to hear from the protestors? Apparently not. It seems to have opted for a wait-and-see approach, which led the protesters to believe they were welcome in Ottawa and could make themselves right at home.
Once the protesters were settled in in front of Parliament Hill and on main downtown arteries, the only thing the Prime Minister deigned to say was that they were a fringe minority. After that, there was no sign of him. A few days later, things got worse. We acknowledge that. We condemn what happened. We do not tolerate these incidents. At that point, the Prime Minister said that it was not up to the government, that it was up to the City of Ottawa and its police service.
Funnily enough, around the same time, I heard a City of Ottawa police officer saying that the police were speaking to protesters, but that the protesters were not interested in talking to the police because they wanted to speak to the Prime Minister. That short message spoke volumes.
In the House, we urged the government to take action and we proposed such solutions as creating a crisis task force, requesting a meeting with the opposition party leaders and the Prime Minister, and emphasizing that coordinated action was necessary. That would have been possible and, in fact, it proved to be possible when law enforcement coordinated their efforts and took down the protest in front of Parliament Hill in two days. No one had been able to take down that protest for three weeks.
The City of Ottawa requested an additional 1,800 police officers, and the federal government sent them 275 RCMP officers. The Prime Minister and his government had options and chose to let the situation drag on. What is worse, the government now wants our blessing for its inaction and is calling on us to vote in favour of using the Emergencies Act, a piece of legislation designed to be used in exceptional circumstances. We will not support the use of this act, because the evidence is clear that the government dropped the ball. Once again, one too many times, the Prime Minister and his government proved themselves to be incapable of managing conflicts.
There is no crisis in the country right now that warrants invoking the Emergencies Act. Yes, for the past 24 days there has been a protest-turned-blockade that is interfering with the peace of mind and safety of downtown Ottawa residents. We condemned this protest and continue to do so. However, the situation can and could have been dealt with long before, with the powers that the police already have and with the legislative tools already available.
The Emergencies Act was passed in 1988, over 30 years ago, and to this day it has never been enacted. The fact that the government is invoking it now is proof of its failure in managing the crisis. We cannot endorse it, because this government has failed to demonstrate that it is needed. Nor can it be considered a “just in case” option.
I heard the Minister of Justice say that this legislation is being invoked in case the protesters come back or in case the situation in Windsor becomes destabilized. The Emergencies Act is there to deal with an ongoing situation, not to prevent one in the future or to act retroactively on a past situation. The minister should know that, because it is an essential principle of natural justice.
There is one option that we would support, and that is for the government to withdraw this motion and to admit that it was wrong. That would take courage and humility. If that is not possible, we would be satisfied with an apology from the Prime Minister. We know that he is capable of giving them.
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:00:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not falsely conflate the two acts, but the trauma does still remain in our collective psyche. It makes no difference. There is no crisis. That is what is being falsely conflated. The Emergencies Act applies all across Canada to situations that are not crises, like the one we are experiencing.
The situation in Windsor has been resolved because the police managed to resolve it, and yes, it still needs to be stabilized, but the police must do that. We saw that it worked. Do we have to wait for President Biden to call the Prime Minister again to resolve the matter, because that makes it more important?
Jurisdictional issues are not an excuse for incompetence and the inability to coordinate all the resources that would have been necessary to deal with the situation in Ontario.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:02:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I find even more irritating is that they are downplaying the situation. We, the parliamentarians, are being asked to adopt a motion to confirm the proclamation of the Emergencies Act, but they are downplaying its scope.
They are acting like we are voting on an ordinary bill, but it is anything but. It is an extraordinary bill. I really do not understand why the other side of the House is resorting to this law, which has never been applied in over 30 years. They decided that it is the solution and that it is okay to use it. Someone is complaining on the other side of the street? The Emergencies Act will fix that. It is inconceivable. It is disgraceful. In a democracy, it is truly—
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:04:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would love to get rid of all injustice and all the far-right groups and splinter groups that might infiltrate protests originally meant for a good cause.
I have participated in protests. We can condemn everything that should be condemned, but that cannot be the basis for adopting the motion and saying that we agree with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. We have to analyze it for what it is, not for what it is not. The Emergencies Act is not going to stop weapons at the border and prevent them from entering our cities and killing our youth. That will require a tough approach, and we must act.
The Emergencies Act will not resolve all the inequities and all the violence that my colleague mentioned.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:59:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will ask my Conservative colleague whether he agrees with me on two things—not that he has to.
Especially since yesterday, I have noticed that the government has been constantly giving us the same two arguments. First, that a poll of 300 people shows that Quebeckers approve, and second, that the City of Ottawa has said that the use of the Emergencies Act was necessary.
In the member’s opinion, why is the scope of the Emergencies Act being downplayed?
What reason will we hear tomorrow in the House for why we should support invoking the Emergencies Act?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:05:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I got shivers listening to the member's speech because special legislation, in other words, the Emergencies Act, cannot be invoked every time there is an illegal protest.
There are already rules in place in every province for these kinds of events. Consider, for example, the Maple Spring that happened in Quebec 10 years ago. According to my colleague, under the act, Ottawa could have come to Quebec City and shut it down.
That is completely inconceivable. Does my colleague agree?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
