SoVote

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

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé

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

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC)

Feb/20/22 8:20:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I should start by saying that I am opposed to the government's invoking the Emergencies Act, and I will be voting against this motion when it comes up for a vote tomorrow evening. I will now explain my reasons for doing so. The invocation of the Emergencies Act, formally known as the War Measures Act, is an extremely serious matter that rightfully concerns all Canadians. This is only the fourth time in history that either of these acts has been invoked, and I certainly hope that it will be the last for the foreseeable future. The first time the War Measures Act was invoked was during World War I, the second time was during World War II, and the third and most recent time was during the FLQ crisis of 1970. For context, I would like to speak a little more about this most recent invocation of the War Measures Act, in 1970, during the FLQ crisis. The Front de libération du Québec, or FLQ, was by any objective measure a terrorist organization. The FLQ plotted and carried out dozens of bombings. The FLQ robbed banks. The FLQ performed kidnappings. The FLQ murdered a total of eight people and wounded dozens more. Finally, after all the bombings, all the bank robberies, all the kidnappings and all the murders, the federal government decided that this matter could no longer be left to local law enforcement officials; it decided to invoke the War Measures Act in October 1970. To this day, scholars, historians and even politicians who were there at the time remain critical of the decision by then prime minister Pierre Trudeau to invoke the War Measures Act in 1970. Instead, they argue that the matter should simply have been left to local law enforcement officials. NDP leader Tommy Douglas was very critical of the decision on the floor of the House of Commons, noting that the Liberal government of the day did not provide one shred of evidence to support its claim of an apprehended insurrection. Don Jamieson, Pierre Trudeau's transport minister, wrote in his memoirs years later, “In concrete terms, we did not have a compelling case to put forward.” In his opinion, invoking the War Measures Act was simply a way for Pierre Trudeau to make life difficult for his political opponents. In the Journal of Canadian Studies, Professor Dominique Clément has argued, “The universal suspension of human rights is, in retrospect, the most damning indictment of the government's decision to invoke the War Measures Act.” Richard Gwyn, one of Pierre Trudeau's biographers, argues, “Trudeau smeared irredeemably his reputation as a champion of civil liberties. No other prime minister has been so severely criticized for crushing civil liberties.” There is a strong argument to be made by historians and academics that even the FLQ crisis, with all of its bombings, bank robberies, kidnappings and murders, did not justify invoking the War Measures Act, and that these matters were best left to local law enforcement officials. Therefore, if it is highly questionable as to whether the War Measures Act was justified in 1970, then what is the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act today? What are the protesters in downtown Ottawa and on Parliament Hill doing that would justify the invocation of this act? Well, for starters, they have bouncy castles. I have walked through the crowd of protesters almost every morning on my way to work on Parliament Hill and I can confirm that there are bouncy castles, but bouncy castles do not justify invoking the Emergencies Act. Bouncy castles in the middle of the street are a matter for local law enforcement. Many of these protesters and truckers have parked their trucks illegally and have been blaring their horns all night long. I think these trucks should be ticketed and towed, but the need to ticket and tow some vehicles does not justify invoking the Emergencies Act. Ticketing and towing vehicles is a matter for local law enforcement officials. There has also been an incident of someone jumping up and down on the National War Memorial. There has been another incident of someone putting an upside-down flag on the Terry Fox statue. There have also been reports of local residents being intimidated and harassed. I certainly condemn all these activities, but none of this justifies invoking the emergency measures act. These are matters for local law enforcement, nothing more. In order for the act to be invoked, I think it is important for Canadians, including members of this House, to understand the threshold that must be met. Section 16 of the act reads, “public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”. It says a “national emergency”. The noisy truckers and the bouncy castles out on Wellington Street do not constitute a national emergency. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: They are not there anymore. Mr. Michael Kram: Then they especially do not. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I have walked through the crowds out on Wellington Street almost every morning on my way to work since the convoy arrived, and I lived to tell about it. There is no al Qaeda. There is no Taliban. There are no North Korean special forces looking to take over the government. This is a matter for local law enforcement officials, and it is wrong for the government to try to make it out to be anything more than that. If the protestors out on Wellington Street are best left to local law enforcement, then that raises the following questions: What should the federal government be doing? How can the federal government best respond to this whole situation in a positive and constructive manner? I think the federal government needs to get to the root cause of the frustrations we have all been feeling over the last two years. Of course, I am talking about the pandemic restrictions that have been disrupting the lives of Canadians. The government would do well to come up with a science-based and evidence-based plan to safely and responsibly wind down pandemic restrictions at the federal level. This is exactly what the Conservative opposition has been calling on the government to do for some time. In fact, every provincial government has already presented a science-based, evidence-based plan to gradually wind down most, if not all pandemic restrictions, in a measurable, quantifiable manner based on metrics, benchmarks and milestones. It is time for the federal government to do the same. If the government would focus its efforts on coming up with a science-based and evidence-based plan to responsibly wind down pandemic restrictions, that would be infinitely more beneficial to the quality of life of Canadians than invoking the emergency measures act to deal with noisy truckers and bouncy castles.

1167 words

All Topics

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Disability Inclusion, Lib.)

Feb/20/22 8:28:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us hear from local law enforcement. In this case, it is Ottawa's chief of police, Steve Bell. He said, “Without the authorities provided to us through these pieces of legislation, we wouldn't be able to be doing the work we are today.” Does the Conservative Party disagree with the Ottawa chief of police?

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Kram

Feb/20/22 8:29:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize that these protests and these demonstrations have not been limited to Ottawa. There have been similar protests and demonstrations all across the country, and every other municipal police force seems to have been able to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. The other police forces seem to know how to do crowd control, how to divert traffic and that sort of thing. I think it would be beneficial for the Ottawa police department to learn these best practices from other police departments and learn to do it how everyone else has.

101 words

All Topics

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Michael Kram

Feb/20/22 8:30:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of lessons to be learned by the Prime Minister. His rhetoric has certainly not helped the situation in the slightest. I saw on TV that the Prime Minister said many of these protesters are racist, sexist, misogynistic and hold unacceptable views. The Prime Minister's rhetoric has not helped the situation in the slightest. It would be eminently more beneficial if we had a better prime minister to deal with this situation in a positive and constructive manner.

84 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/20/22 8:31:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is lovely to finally have a chance to speak, having been here since 7 a.m., and I will be here until midnight. I am trying to make up my mind on how I am going to vote. With a sincere effort to remain respectful, I must tell the member that it does not help when the crisis in Ottawa is minimized to a problem of bouncy castles. It was an occupation. It caused millions and millions of dollars of damage to this city and its residents. Honking horns all night actually qualifies, under the Geneva Convention, as torture. One is not allowed to do that to prisoners. The people of Ottawa have been imprisoned by occupiers. They may not have known what they were doing. This is quite likely for many of them, especially the ones who seemed so surprised they were ultimately going to get arrested. Non-violent civil disobedience has a long tradition, which I will not go through, that includes knowing one is going to be arrested because one is breaking the law and has done this on principle. Could we not at least agree what occurred here in Ottawa was, from the moment those large 18-wheelers started occupying whole streets so the people of Ottawa could not go about their day-to-day lives, a crisis? It was badly handled and I will not disagree with that. If we look at the place where we were last week, how would we have solved that without the powers in the Emergencies Act, particularly to compel tow truck drivers? One of his colleagues on those benches directed me to section 129 of the Criminal Code, which I know is obstruction of a police officer, but it does not fit the circumstance.

298 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Kram

Feb/20/22 8:32:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope the hon. member does vote against the invocation of this act. We can agree this whole situation could have been handled better, as we have seen with other police departments in other cities across the country. There certainly is a role to be played for law enforcement. We cannot have law and order break down. I did say in my speech I condemn the jumping up and down on the National War Memorial and the intimidation of local residents. Again, these are matters for local law enforcement and do not justify the national emergency spelled out in the Emergencies Act.

105 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 35