44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 2:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to my colleague's speech, and I have two questions for him.
I did not hear him talk much about his position on the right to demonstrate. I would like him to clearly express whether he believes the right to demonstrate is important.
In addition, Wellington Street in Ottawa has been cleared by law enforcement agencies that coordinated and worked together.
Does the member think that the Emergencies Act is still necessary, considering the situation now?
The act may be useful, but is it absolutely necessary?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:55:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I was pleasantly surprised that she did not affirmatively state that she would be supporting the governing party's use of this law and that she set out conditions for supporting it.
I would like to know her opinion as a member of Parliament. Police have now removed the blockades at the border crossings. As of yesterday, Ottawa is practically free of protesters. That being the case, does she still believe that the act is useful, necessary or essential today?
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:40:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to join my colleague from Manicouagan in thanking the police. I also want to take a moment today to thank the interpreters who have been providing service to us from 7 a.m. until late into the night since Thursday morning and will continue to do so until tomorrow, Monday. I want to recognize them and sincerely thank them.
I am the 22nd Bloc Québécois member to speak about the ratification of the Emergencies Act. I listened carefully to the debate. This is a moment that will go down in history. It is the first time that parliamentarians have been called upon to approve the use of the Emergencies Act. So far, my Bloc Québécois colleagues have shown that law enforcement had all the tools it needed to take strong action sooner in order to put an end to the occupation in Ottawa.
I hope that all members of the House are aware of the incitement to hatred, hate propaganda and defamation that we have seen from some convoy leaders. Such actions are unacceptable and already prohibited under the Criminal Code. Everyone in this House knows that it is already illegal to occupy a city; intimidate residents and local merchants; and push, intimidate and spit on reporters. Those things are already prohibited and illegal under the Criminal Code. We are already able to investigate the inflow of foreign money in order to destabilize the political order.
I am proud of my colleagues and their nuanced thinking. They reminded us that we all agree that the situation in Ottawa became illegal and untenable a long time ago, that we never should have gotten to this point, and that we have been witnessing a clear and serious lack of leadership, as my colleague from Manicouagan so aptly stated. We agree that something had to be done about the occupation in Ottawa. However, what we have been debating for the past few days and will continue debating tomorrow is the ratification of the Emergencies Act, and that is where opinions differ.
Essentially, do we agree to this special act being applied as ordered by the Liberal government across Canada as a whole? Were the extraordinary powers of the Emergencies Act really absolutely necessary to resolve the impasse in Ottawa?
The Bloc Québécois has argued that it was dangerous to downplay invoking this act across Canada, without considering that the emergency was different in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We have shown that, in our opinion, the government did not prove beyond a doubt that all criteria were met to invoke emergency measures. We established that this improvised use of the act created a precedent that could be dangerous.
Today, I would like parliamentarians to realize that the Bloc Québécois's position is rooted in the unanimous voice of the National Assembly. Quebec's elected officials, including its ministers, all rejected the invocation of the Emergencies Act by unanimously passing a motion in the National Assembly. On February 15, Quebec spoke with one voice.
I will repeat that all elected Quebeckers, one by one, opposed the invocation of the Emergencies Act in Quebec. That is fundamentally how one can interpret the position of the Bloc Québécois, because it is in a way the underlying reason for our opposition to confirming the Emergencies Act, which applies to Quebec.
As François Paradis, the Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, can attest, this unanimous support comes from the five different political parties and all independent members. I think that means something. The message could not be any clearer.
I am proud of my caucus, which, throughout this debate, has given a loud and clear voice to the legitimate wishes of the Quebec National Assembly. I hope my speech will make the members of this House grasp the significance of a unanimous vote in a national assembly and in the legislatures of other provinces.
I am proud of my caucus, which has shown some nuanced thinking in a context that leaves little room for nuance, something that has been missing in these debates and in this pandemic. I call on everyone here to be very careful about making generalizations.
This motion is about ratifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act, not about the cause the protesters were defending. There is a bit of mixed messaging in some of the speeches we have heard from our colleagues in the opposition parties.
We have spoken rationally, but also from the heart. I am really proud of our contribution to the debate, which made members think. In response to our questions, we have learned that even certain members on the government benches do not seem 100% convinced of the need to invoke this last-resort act. When agreeing to invoke special legislation, it seems to me we must be convinced of the necessity to do so, of the fact that using the law is essential.
Personally, I am confident in my vote and I know that on Monday night, I will vote no to this extraordinary legislation. On Monday, in addition to all the political and legal arguments that my colleagues have presented, the Bloc Québécois will vote in line with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. That, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with the fundamental essence of our political commitment.
With respect to the unanimous will of the National Assembly, I will add that I would have also liked to see that unanimity in the House. I would have liked to see parliamentarians from all parties discuss the proclamation on emergency measures before, not after the fact. I would have liked to see a more elevated and serious discussion.
Unfortunately, we saw partisanship and insinuations of support for the far right and even racism. We have heard it. This seems to be bigger than we are. We have seen it: the petty politics, the insults, and the bad faith are far too commonplace in the House of Commons, even during an historic debate.
We have the opportunity to rise above. We have a duty to rise above. I invite my esteemed colleagues to ask themselves whether they are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the only way, whether they are comfortable incorporating the Emergencies Act into the modus operandi of government crisis management and whether they truly believe that our democracy will be stronger for it.
I invite them to think about it because our debate is not about what happened in the streets of Ottawa. From the beginning, this debate has essentially been about our democracy.
1126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:51:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my whip colleague for the question.
This allows me to clarify that the people who were part of the convoy or the hundreds of people who occupied the streets did not all have the same message. They were not a monolithic group, but we seem to have forgotten that when we focused our attention on one group over another.
Like my colleague, I have seen testimonials and I have spoken to people who were in tears because they wanted to withdraw from the convoy but were stuck. We have seen and heard all sorts of things.
The important thing today is that the streets are empty. The occupation is over. We no longer need this legislation. It is no longer useful, vital or necessary to manage the crisis that is coming to a close.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:53:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, frankly, I am flabbergasted by my colleague's question.
From what I understand, he is saying that the provinces did not do a damn thing and stood by while the situation got worse, and that the good old federal government had to come in to whip the troops into line and invoke special legislation to get them to do their jobs—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:54:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I think the member for Kingston and the Islands is running out of arguments. He has been here arguing for a long time. He is tired and is now taking things too far.
All of the police forces came together, teamed up, joined forces and worked together. They are the ones who managed to push the protesters back, with support and coordination from their command centre. It was not special legislation or an order that came in to save the day.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
