SoVote

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/20/22 7:45:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's passion. I have no doubt about his sincerity in representing his constituents. I have seen it over and over in my six years of being here and his 20 years of being here. The government needs to provide solutions to the issues the member brings up. What solutions does he advise the government are required in his particular situation?

67 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/20/22 7:46:05 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincere question and the work that we have done before in pushing border issues in the United States. We need more of that in this country. First, we would need an emergency plan to take barriers down and put them up when necessary, and compensation for businesses in the municipality. Right now, the municipality is on the hook for over $10 million for policing. Most importantly, we need a safe border task force so we can work operationally with the businesses, residents and people who need connections at the border as they travel. Those are things I have proposed for many years, and I will continue to do that. Those are solutions I believe would be helpful to take the edge off some of the frustrations Canadians are feeling.

134 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 7:46:53 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, part of what led us here was complicated messaging without clear demands. I wonder if the member would like to comment on the fact that truckers in this country are facing real issues. They continue to be frontline heroes who deliver goods and support our supply chains across the country. I ask the member to comment on how things got so complicated and which groups are being represented here. It is really the worker inequality in this country that should be addressed. Would he comment on that?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/20/22 7:47:37 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the jurisdictional football that people have watched take place with COVID is symptomatic of what I have seen in politics as a municipal city councillor, and it has continued to plague us. I asked the government to do a vaccination program for truckers, similar to what provinces were doing in advance. The government refused to do that, so there has been no centralization of some of the programs that have taken place, even though the federal government has been presented with solutions. Those are the things we should get in front of. We are always on the defence. To be frank, we need to stop the jurisdictional wrangling. The Ambassador Bridge sits on a road in the city of Windsor that goes to an interprovincial highway and then goes to the 401. Who is going to protect those roads? Who is going to pay when convoys are still coming here and the mayor receives a bomb threat for taking a stand? These things are not right and they are not helpful, and that is why I support corrective action now before things get worse.

186 words

All Topics

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Feb/20/22 7:48:51 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West. I have heard the concerns he is talking about from Joyce and Mohammed, among others. I feel for my colleague who has not been able to see his daughter. The order has been in effect since Monday, but we see that the situation in his community has not been fully resolved. I know that my colleague will be voting in favour of the application of this legislation, but what about his community? Was the situation in his community resolved as a result of the order that has been in effect since Monday? Can its use be justified?

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/20/22 7:49:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is part of it. It is certainly a reflection. It is also why I have been speaking so repeatedly to this issue: It is because the Bloc and the Conservatives continue to say that things are fine in this corridor, but they are not. I am not being partisan in pointing that out. It is part of their talking points and it keeps coming up over and over again and it is wrong. I also believe there are other reasons. The financing issue is significant. We will find out later on through a public inquiry, an inquiry that I really want, that there were American-paid protesters in the protest in Windsor. We know that Americans were there. There were all kinds of different influences taking place, and I want a full investigation into those matters. A public inquiry is very important, because it involves not only Parliament but the general Canadian population, and it is accountable more than before. I think this is one of the reasons the Prime Minister did not even want to do this at first, because a full public inquiry would shed some light on a very difficult issue.

197 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 7:50:39 a.m.
Watch

I just want to make a comment that we are doing pretty well, but we could shorten our questions and answers so more people will have an opportunity to speak. The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

41 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

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

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 7:59:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her speech. However, I want to point out that her comparison with the War Measures Act is inaccurate because we are talking about another act here. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that, for the Bloc Québécois, respecting areas of jurisdiction is only important from time to time. The member is asking us to act when she knows full well that, without the Emergencies Act, that is not part of our jurisdiction. Our NDP colleague from Windsor just told us that his community is in crisis. We know that Premier Doug Ford is incapable of dealing with the situation. How can she claim that we are not in a crisis situation? There may not be a crisis in Quebec, but there is one in Ontario, especially in Windsor.

139 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot

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

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:02:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I am somewhat baffled by the comments I just heard from our Liberal colleague. The Liberals pick and choose what applies to us and claim that the Emergencies Act is there to be used but will have no impact on the provinces that decide not to use it. Does my colleague agree that an emergency measures act that applies from coast to coast to coast will have consequences even in provinces that have decided not to use it and, more importantly, have said they do not want it imposed on their territory?

104 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot

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

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/20/22 8:03:43 a.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

7 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Feb/20/22 8:03:54 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, flags of the far-right Québécois ethnonationalist group La Meute have been present at the occupation here in Ottawa and at related protests across the province of Quebec. La Meute, or the Wolf Pack, was founded in Quebec by two former Canadian Armed Forces members, Éric Venne and Patrick Beaudry. I call on the member for the Bloc to take this opportunity to denounce Le Meute and join my call for a secretariat or some other office to report on the radicalization in our Armed Forces and police.

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:15:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know what the Bloc Québécois's position is, after polling shows that 72% of Quebeckers support the government's measures. Furthermore, this is not only a problem in Ottawa. As the member for Windsor West just explained, the threat to our borders and key infrastructure is not over. The Ottawa police chief explained this weekend how important the emergency measures were in dealing with the situation in our nation's capital. I am voting in favour of these measures because I want to provide adequate tools to our police forces, whose job is very difficult. When the member speaks to police officers in her community and to members of the Sûreté du Québec, how will she explain that she does not want them to have the same tools to ensure their safety during illegal blockades?

150 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

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

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:17:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. She clearly explained that the government did nothing to prevent this situation. The Prime Minister did not try to use diplomacy. He did not call President Biden to reach an agreement. He did not provide the police resources that were requested. I believe that the provinces and police services can currently address any situation that may arise. Does my colleague share my concern about this urgent motion, which allows the government to put in place any other authorized measure that has yet to be identified? Is she worried about this?

96 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 35