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 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 8:18:07 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 9:00:29 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Quebec and I agree. She talked about two points. We have talked about two points this week too: We are looking for point one and two of what the government did before invoking the Emergencies Act. We cannot seem to get that answer. There is no justification for it since we did not have step one, two or three introduced before this motion.
At the end of the day, we agree that this is a step too far, especially, as I mentioned, given the financial ramifications to Canadians and especially when the government wants some of these changes to be permanent, which we certainly do not agree with. As I have stated, it is definitely overreach by the government.
125 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
- Feb/20/22 12:25:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord.
The Talleyrand quote “all that is excessive is insignificant” could have been said today about the situation we are debating in the House.
Yes, we are in the midst of a crisis, but the federal government chose to enforce an act by proclamation, which would allow the state to infringe on citizens' rights. Although the government could have taken many different paths, it chose to break out the heavy artillery. All that is excessive is insignificant.
The Liberal government claims that the Emergencies Act is necessary to resolve this crisis, but in reality, it needs to use this act because it was unable to properly manage the crisis from the outset. This type of act is meant to be used exceptionally, especially if it was designed to apply to Quebec. The War Measures Act may have gotten a new name, but it still brings back bad memories for Quebec.
If I may, I would like to provide a brief history of the introduction and use of the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. The War Measures Act was introduced and came into force in 1914, at the beginning of the First World War. Its purpose was to give additional powers to the government in the event of a war, invasion or insurrection. The act was used again in 1939 because of the Second World War.
The third time the government invoked this law—we still remember it in Quebec—was during the October crisis in 1970. Immediately following the adoption of an executive order issued during the night at the request of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, the army took to the streets of Montreal in large numbers, striking terror and fear in the hearts of all Quebeckers. That was when their rights and freedoms were trampled on. In total, 497 Quebeckers were arrested and thrown in jail without reasonable cause or recourse. It happened before I was born, but the people have certainly not forgotten: “Je me souviens”.
In 1988, the Emergencies Act replaced the War Measures Act. The new act changed the way the federal government can use extraordinary powers in times of crisis. Since it was passed, the government has never invoked it, so why now?
To answer that question, let us look closely at the present situation and the invocation criteria for this act. To have the right to invoke the act, the government must prove two things: first, that a dangerous and urgent situation exists; second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation with any other existing law.
First, is the current situation dangerous and urgent? The government does not meet this requirement for the unilateral application of the act. Allow me to demonstrate. On January 15, 2020, proof of vaccination against COVID‑19 became mandatory to cross the Canada-U.S. border. Two weeks later, on January 29, a truckers' movement opposed to this measure decided to gather and protest on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. So far, it all seems reasonable, because the right to protest and freedom of expression are guaranteed by both the Quebec and the Canadian charters of rights and freedoms.
The protest that was supposed to last a few days at the most turned into an occupation of the downtown area. At that point, the government should have dealt with the situation. Instead of taking action, the government washed its hands of it, claiming that crisis management was the Ottawa police's responsibility. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and the next day, on February 7, the Ottawa police force requested assistance from the federal and Ontario provincial governments. On February 11, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency, granting additional resources and powers to law enforcement services. The federal government continued doing nothing, except to polarize the public with inflammatory statements.
Let us keep in mind that in addition to the Ottawa siege, border blockades were set up in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, in such places as Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia.
However, these situations were resolved through existing laws. The same was obviously true for the protests in Quebec City.
As to whether this was an urgent and critical situation, if the situation was cause for concern, that was only true in Ontario, specifically in Ottawa, and nowhere else, especially not in Quebec. The Emergencies Act was to be used in a reasonable and proportionate manner, as the government had announced. That is clearly not the case.
The Liberal government's lack of leadership caused to the situation to deteriorate. Each day of inaction strengthened the protesters' position. Each day required more effort to enforce the law and each day the Prime Minister refused to take action, choosing to throw fuel on the fire with disparaging statements. As a result, the offenders were allowed to organize. They were allowed to set up tents, toilets, kitchens, cafeterias, a stage and barbecues. They even let them install a hot tub. A hot tub impeded the smooth functioning of democracy in a G7 nation.
By allowing the situation to fester, the Prime Minister gave the protesters time—time to fortify their position, time for radicals to get from one coast to the other or to cross the border, and time for foreign elements seeking to destabilize democracy in Quebec and Canada to raise funds in support of the offenders. Had action been taken earlier, we would not be here in Ottawa on a Sunday. We would be home with our constituents, which is where we should be.
Invoking the Emergencies Act is a massive smokescreen, a diversion to trick Quebeckers and Canadians into looking elsewhere so they will forget how things got to this point. It is unnecessary, dangerous and disproportionate. To be clear, the January 29 protest no longer has anything to do with the die-hards who decided to place the House under siege. Those who continue to resist, if any, are extremists who should have been contained by law enforcement long ago.
Now let us turn to the second criterion for invoking the Emergencies Act. The situation must be such that ordinary laws cannot address it.
Could the crisis have been addressed with existing laws? The answer is yes.
These protesters had been breaking the law for weeks. All the police had to do was enforce the laws already in place, and the whole thing would have been over in two days. The government had plenty of options. The Criminal Code is full of offences that were committed by the protesters.
Subsection 63(1) talks about “unlawful assembly”; section 64 defines the term “riot”; section 68 deals with people who fail to peaceably disperse and depart from a riot; section 430 talks about “mischief”; subsection 181(1) describes “common nuisance”; subsection 423.1(1) talks about the intimidation of a journalist; and section 129 talks about the obstruction of public officers or peace officers.
Some police authorities claimed recently that the only solution was the integration of the various police forces involved. However, there is no need for the Emergencies Act to request reinforcements and coordinate efforts. The RCMP, the Parliamentary Protective Service, the OPP, municipal police forces from neighbouring cities and even the Sûreté du Québec were already working together, and this legislation was not required.
As for the claim that the occupation could not be dealt with using ordinary legislation, as I have demonstrated to the House, the Criminal Code was already more than adequate to deal with the threat.
The government decided to use legislation by proclamation, in other words without consulting the opposition parties or allowing the smallest amendment. By ignoring those who were elected by the majority of the voters, this minority government is undermining its legitimacy and proving its detractors right. The Prime Minister decided to ignore the verdict of the voters, who gave him a minority mandate. He is acting as though he was granted all the power. That is not what the voters chose.
The government could use the act in specific locations, when the provinces request it. Quebec made it clear to the federal government that it wanted absolutely nothing to do with its emergency measures. Several Canadian provinces did the same. Rather than consult the provinces and Quebec, the Liberal government chose to impose an act that applies across Canada.
This law therefore cannot be limited. It is foreign to the reality of Quebec. It should not apply to Quebec.
1466 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:37:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I agree that this is a huge smokescreen. As I said in my speech, there was no need for this legislation.
Given its minority status, the government does not have the democratic legitimacy to impose such a far-reaching measure. The Emergencies Act cannot legitimately be applied because it does not meet the two criteria necessary to invoke it.
As representatives of the Quebec nation, we in the Bloc Québécois have the legitimacy to oppose it.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 4:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Canadians came through each of these tests, all of them emergencies, many involving deaths, injuries, significant and expensive property damage and major economic impacts, without the legislation that is designed only for crises where there are no other options, which we debate with heavy hearts today. Canadians always unite to defend our safety and security without violating the rights and civil liberties so many of our relatives fought and died for, which define us as a country and are the bedrock of our peaceful, free democracy.
Canada has been a beacon to the rest of the world for our respect of enshrined rights, like free expression and peaceful assembly, and for a commitment to protect and defend them in the face of threats and emergencies. We look back on times when that balance was tipped with shame and apologies. That beacon's light has dimmed during the last six years. Today, it is nearly extinguished by the actions of the Prime Minister. He is setting a dangerous and unwarranted precedent, evocative of the response of authoritarian regimes to dissent, protest and opposition.
The Prime Minister created this crisis from beginning to end. He called the marginalized 10% of Canadians who have chosen, for various and private reasons, to not be vaccinated “misogynist”, “racist”, “science deniers”. He said Canadians who travelled to Ottawa to demonstrate and ask for an end to government mandates and lockdowns are conspiracy theorists who hold unacceptable views. His actions imply that they are terrorists. Terrorism, by the way, must involved bombings, shootings and kidnappings, as legally defined, none of which have happened in Ottawa in the past three weeks. Of all these fellow Canadians, he actually bemoaned that they take up space and asked, “Do we tolerate these people?”
Let me say that I hope there is room for every Canadian to exist, to take up space, no matter their views on vaccines or any government policy, whether I agree with them or not. Whatever happened to respect, tolerance and diversity to resisting the tyranny of the majority? It is chilling to think a prime minister would wedge, divide and stigmatize his fellow Canadians for his personal partisan purposes, but so he has done. More than a few people from Lakeland have pointed out that it sure went from a fringe minority to an emergency in a hurry. It would almost be amusing if it weren't so grave.
Let us remember what is going on here. Three years in, we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world and untold government-caused harm to families, businesses, mental health, kids' learning progress, jobs, relationships, travel. After so much isolation, fear, stress, confusion and restrictions, for which there was inconsistent or no evidence of efficacy, the Liberal government refused to do what many developed countries and most provinces are doing already, which is to end the increasingly pointless mandates. Conservatives simply asked for a plan to do so two weeks ago, and the Liberals said no. The Prime Minister attacked and then refused to meet or hear from Canadians with whom he disagrees, and he has imposed his heavy-handed will despite the strong opposition of seven provinces.
The Emergencies Act was never designed nor intended to be used to limit the rights of Canadians who express opposition to government measures. I confess that I do have trouble seeing how parked trucks, bouncy castles, a big daily barbeque, ball hockey, Canadian flags, singing and donations for the homeless in front of Parliament meet these criteria. The Emergencies Act requires threats to the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada, including serious violence against persons or property and impediments to democracy are a “urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces or territories”.
Does this all add up? Well, the short answer is no. First, provincial governments and law enforcement has already used and can continue to use existing measures and tools to disperse protests and clear borders in B.C., Manitoba, Quebec, the Windsor-Detroit bridge in Ontario, and in Alberta, where a group with firearms were disavowed by demonstrators and the mayor confirm was not connected with them. This was all done through negotiation with law enforcement and, frankly, with common Canadian decency, all before the Emergencies Act was invoked.
Second, we MPs have been coming right here to do our jobs in the literal seats of Canadian democracy every day for the last three weeks, except for the Friday after the Emergencies Act was imposed. Third, the recent clearing of protesters from Ottawa on charges such as mischief used existing laws, while even the lawyer who secured the injunction against honking, with which truckers complied, is against the Emergencies Act.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association puts a fine point on it. It said:
This law creates a high and clear standard for good reason: [It] allows government to bypass ordinary democratic processes....
Governments regularly deal with difficult situations, and do so using powers granted to them by democratically elected representatives. Emergency legislation should not be normalized. It threatens our democracy and our civil liberties.
The CCLA has taken the government to court over it.
The impacts of the Emergencies Act are wide-ranging and severe, and violate fundamental Canadian values. Regulations stipulate that kids who have been hanging out happily, as if they were at a carnival, will not be allowed within 500 metres of their parents or guardians if they are involved in protests. The Liberals evidently believe separating children from families or guardians is legitimate. Anyone who does not agree can get a $5,000 fine or five years in prison while Canada is under the Emergencies Act. The same penalties will apply to anyone who participates directly or who brings aid, such as food or fuel.
As someone of Ojibway descent, I thought by now we had agreed in Canada that it is morally repugnant and wrong for the government to separate children from their parents or guardians unless the adults are harming them. How callous of the Liberals to be prepared to ensure those Canadians are deprived of food and fuel. Apparently, pets are targeted as well.
The Emergencies Act enables the freezing of the personal and business bank accounts of anyone directly or indirectly linked to the protests without a court order or due process. The rules will cover cryptocurrencies and crowdfunding platforms also. It is already happening to my constituents. One guy who never came to Ottawa or donated 25 bucks. Another woman's business account was shut down. She said that it is “devastating” and describes, “We can't pay our employees or our bills. How will people live? We had no part...sent no money.... Our bank does not know when it will be up and running again”. So much for localized, targeted action.
Meanwhile, security and military experts actually say that there are no suspicious activities or credible threats identified with any of the protest-related financial transactions, and the only rationale the government has shown are assertions from the CBC. That is truly shocking.
The Emergencies Act is already violating rights to mobility, association and assembly. Big fences are already keeping Canadians away from here, a building that is theirs, grounds that are theirs. It is the people's place, the very place of all where they ought to be able to express their views on government policies and law. Gatherings around legislative buildings and national monuments, public assembly near critical infrastructure, official residences, government buildings and war monuments, other than lawful advocacy protests or dissent, much of which has now been criminalized retroactively, are banned.
Canadians cheering all of this on must really consider how they would view these measures if the cause was one they liked and if the government was one they did not. If their perspective changes, the unjust moral implications are blindingly clear.
Much has been said of the Conservatives and law and order. Let me explain my view. I believe in the rule of law and in freedom, so I am for individual rights, limited government, personal responsibility and social co-operation. I am against squashing dissent; authoritarian policies; tyranny, even if it is popular; and using police to achieve these ends.
The CCLA stated, “Protest is how people in a democracy express and share their political messages.... Many protests are disruptive. It is possible for a gathering to be both disruptive and also peaceful and nonviolent. Disruptive protest while often unlawful...can be the most effective way of raising awareness.”
Through history, countless wrongs have been lawful and justified by governments and citizens. Basic rights and freedoms have been illegal. The side in favour of the invasive, unforgiving, unyielding power of the state and against the sovereignty and freedom of individuals over themselves and their lives that is never right.
One day we will be judged for this and the Conservatives will be on the right side. I hope every MP will be as well.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:36:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am certainly not one to wade into how the politics in Quebec work, but I am pretty sure that there is not a single member in this House who ever thought the Bloc Québécois would vote in favour of this, just given its position, generally speaking, when it comes to national legislation like this.
Having said that, this member's attempt to conflate the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, just like the Conservatives have done, is disingenuous at best and an attempt to completely misinform the Canadian public at worst. This member should know full well that the War Measures Act actually removed civil liberties that were afforded to Canadians. This piece of legislation specifically states in it that the Charter of Rights must be upheld, which is the defining feature between this and the War Measures Act. How can this member continue to perpetuate this misinformation?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:38:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Of course, our opinions differ.
Patrick Taillon, a respected law professor at Université Laval who is well known in Quebec, told Radio-Canada today that it is not enough to argue that a law is useful based on what the Ottawa police chief says. He pointed out that the government also has to show that the use of the act is necessary or essential, saying, “That is where the government is at a disadvantage, because it is difficult to prove that it is necessary or essential when the normal legal tools were not used during the first 14 days of the crisis.”
Why go from doing nothing to the most radical solution? We are not convinced that the government tried everything before getting to this point.
In short, why did the tortoise turn into a hare?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:05:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am only talking out of one side of my mouth.
When a province asks the federal government for help, as was the case at the Summit of the Americas in 2001, where the RCMP was deployed in large numbers in Quebec City to support the Quebec City police and the Sûreté du Québec, was the Emergencies Act invoked? No, it was not.
It is possible for a province to ask the federal government for help in order to get more officers from the RCMP, for example, or from other police forces, without involving the Emergencies Act. I think that what the Premier of Alberta said was that he wanted help but did not need the Emergencies Act to be invoked.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:07:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, from the very first day, what was the truckers' intent? It was to protest against a rule change brought in on January 15 that prevented unvaccinated truckers from travelling between the United States and Canada, even though this had been allowed for two years. Quebec has 9,000 unvaccinated nurses working in the health system.
Yes, the Conservative Party did believe that it was a laudable request. It was open to discussing it, but the government and the Prime Minister wanted nothing to do with it. That was the problem. Naturally, we were prepared to welcome these people who were coming to Ottawa to say that the rule that went into effect on January 15 was a problem for them.
Four or five days later, I tweeted that the protesters' message had been heard, that they could leave and that we would do something else. I did that, and so did other colleagues. Our position is very clear: We never did anything to encourage the siege of Ottawa.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:24:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Drummond.
As we all know, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to invoking the Emergencies Act, especially as written in the orders, since the measures would apply to Quebec, even though the Quebec National Assembly, including the provincial Liberals, voted unanimously to oppose the imposition of emergency measures within its borders. As we all know, what Quebec wants, the Bloc wants.
Special legislation must not be used lightly. Its application must be measured and proportionate. The Prime Minister himself said many times that the act would not be used where it was not necessary. Therefore, why did he apply it to the whole country? Seven out of 10 provinces said no to the Prime Minister because they felt they had the necessary tools and resources to manage the crisis. Here is what the Quebec National Assembly said in its motion:
That the National Assembly be concerned about the current disruptions in Ontario and around certain federal border crossings;
That it affirm that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Québec;
That it ask the Canadian government to not apply the federal Emergencies Act in Québec;
That, lastly, the National Assembly reiterate the importance of close collaboration between the federal government and the Québec government, in particular to ensure peace of mind and safety for citizens in the Outaouais region who are affected by the ongoing demonstrations in Ottawa and who could have to bear the brunt of any further deterioration of the situation.
During the protests in Quebec City on the weekend of February 4 to 6, the municipal authorities were able to manage the situation very well without any major problems. There were no problematic protests in Quebec. One week before the arrival of the convoy in Quebec City, the City of Quebec published a detailed press release that listed the measures that would be taken. Hundreds of protesters and about 30 trucks moved around the city during that weekend. The Quebec City police service, the SPVQ, tolerated their presence but enforced municipal bylaws. The city diverted traffic from certain streets so that the downtown would not be completely paralyzed.
After the demonstration, the SPVQ held a press conference at which it said:
We believe...that we have fulfilled the commitment we made before the events began, which was primarily to facilitate and protect the right to lawful and peaceful protest, while keeping protesters, road users, users of public spaces, and residents safe, in addition to enforcing...laws and regulations.
The Liberal Prime Minister could have shown this kind of leadership as soon as it became clear, the Monday after the protest started, that the truckers were not leaving. In fact, he could have done it as soon as the convoy was announced, given all of the people who were involved. Some of them were even saying all along that they wanted to overthrow the government. The government could have taken much stronger preventative measures, but the Prime Minister chose to wait and the convoy grew. The protesters set up hot tubs, bouncy castles and a wooden structure in front of city hall, but nothing was done.
Because the Prime Minister refused to take action, the convoy started catching on across the country and even on other continents. The Liberal government seemed to always be one step behind. It did not start focusing on the Ambassador Bridge situation until the White House called.
Back in Ottawa, the government waited for a call from the Ottawa police and did nothing to reclaim the parliamentary precinct. The government dragged its feet, even as the City of Ottawa was asking for reinforcements. The Ottawa Police Service was asking for an additional 1,800 officers, but the federal government sent just a handful. Furthermore, most of the 275 RCMP officers who had been sent were assigned to protect ministers and Parliament. Just 20 of them were assigned to deal with the protests.
Commentators in Quebec are practically unanimous in saying that the Prime Minister was absent and invisible from the beginning of the conflict, when the City of Ottawa was asking for help. The federal government did not even try to speak directly with the organizers, unlike the City of Ottawa, which was successful in getting the trucks out of certain residential areas. The City of Quebec was also able to get protesters to co-operate.
Instead of considering this option, the Prime Minister kept disparaging the protesters, lecturing them and lumping everyone together. The hon. member for Louis-Hébert, himself a Liberal, condemned the lack of dialogue and the politicization of the crisis, which the Liberal government amplified for political gain.
In terms of public safety, there is little evidence that the government took all possible and necessary measures to put an end to the blockades before imposing emergency measures.
The only reason we are here debating this law today is because the Liberal government did not act quickly enough. The situation could be summarized as follows: The government did not try anything, and, not knowing what to do, it invoked the Emergencies Act when almost all of the occupations were over.
Almost all of the blockades had been dismantled or were on the verge of being dismantled when the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act. That shows that it might not have been necessary and that the authorities had all the tools they needed. Almost all of the blockades on the Ambassador Bridge and in Sarnia, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Emerson, and Coutts, Alberta, had already been cleared.
The Prime Minister explained to the House and in the documents appended to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the mobilization happening over social media. An act like this is not meant to be invoked when the government thinks that something might happen. It is invoked to deal with a real or imminent situation. It might even be said that the Liberal government is adding even more fuel to the fire with these emergency measures, allowing extremists to cry dictatorship.
The situation could easily have been resolved without these emergency measures. I salute the excellent work done by all of the police forces involved, including, of course, the Sûreté du Québec. We saw that what was needed was effective police coordination and collaboration. It could have been achieved, and was certainly beginning to be achieved, without the application of emergency measures.
An editorial in Le Devoir called the emergency measures “too much, too late”. It called it another blunder by the Prime Minister because, once again, he failed to listen to Quebec or the provinces.
There was no justification for the emergency measures from the beginning. They are even less justified today, now that the blockades in Ottawa have been almost completely cleared. We must therefore vote against the emergency measures.
1172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:34:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a poll of about 300 people. In any case, what does my colleague think about the fact that the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously against the use of emergency measures?
After seeing what has been happening in Ottawa for the past three weeks, it is only natural that people want it to stop. However, putting an end to this situation does not require emergency measures.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:35:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleagues often say in Parliament that they are in talks with the Government of Quebec, but there is a difference between talking and really listening and discussing.
As my colleague said, seven out of 10 provinces are against using the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister says he consulted everyone and managed to get a consensus, but that is far from the case.
66 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:54:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway was a bit impertinent towards Quebec.
In fact, he stated that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause to violate the rights of its own citizens. My colleague has shown either his ignorance or his contempt. Either way, that is unacceptable.
I will nevertheless ask him a question.
What is happening at this time could create a dangerous precedent. Will the NDP be able to oppose this act if, in 10 years, a more right-leaning federal government is in power, and we again go through, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, events such as those of 10 years ago, in the spring of 2012, when large numbers of students were protesting and slightly more radical groups infiltrated the protests?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:55:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Emergencies Act is relegated to specific circumstances, and every time it is possibly invoked, it needs to be carefully studied.
I wonder if my hon. colleague is worried that the provinces might use the notwithstanding clause more often. Is he worried about a slippery slope? Of course, the notwithstanding clause is only engaged when there is an acknowledgement that the charter rights of citizens have been violated. Otherwise, we do not need to use the notwithstanding clause. That was my point, and I just wonder if he should have a conversation with his provincial colleagues in Quebec to warn them that using the notwithstanding clause may lead to a slippery slope if they are tempted to do it again. I do not think that is a valid—
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
