44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 7:33:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her remarks, which are very relevant to me. Members will understand what I mean when I deliver my speech later.
My question is this. Considering that the Ambassador Bridge was cleared before this order was in effect, and with what just happened in the parliamentary precinct, where authorities managed to clear out protesters with the rules in place in the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act, does my colleague believe that the government is trying to score cheap political points with this legislation, which is in force even though members have not yet officially voted on it today?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:18:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a few moments ago, I heard that there is still a lot happening at the Ambassador Bridge.
Knowing that the blockade atthe Ambassador Bridge was dismantled before the act was invoked, does my colleague believe that the act, which is in force at this time, will be essential to completing the efforts, that is to continue ensuring the safety and peace of people in that area?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:46:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for some of the things he said, especially his appreciation of the work done by the police. I fully agree with him: they did fantastic work.
I would like to ask a question about the authorities and the police. I heard him say that public safety, jobs and businesses were very important to him.
We know that the siege lasted for over three weeks. Is my colleague telling us that the government could not deploy the 1,800 RCMP officers that the City of Ottawa was asking for in order to take action?
Does the emergency measure that made it so what happened a few days ago—
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:19:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.
On this day of debate on the Emergencies Act, I would first like to offer my thanks to all the staff in the House, namely the clerks, the interpreters, the pages, the security officers and the cooks, among others. I also thank the reporters and their teams, who covered the various protests.
Of course, I am well aware that we are going through an exceptional situation right now. I hope that all parliamentarians, especially the government members, are well aware of this. The vote that will take place in a few hours might create an important precedent.
We have been incredibly busy these past few days. We have been busy debating an unnecessary law to lift the siege in Ottawa, and I have been busy talking to the people of Laurentides—Labelle about the issues related to this bill. Hundreds of people contacted me to talk about their concerns and what they wanted done about the blockade that, unfortunately, lasted 23 days.
I would like to use my time to explain the reasons why we oppose the use of the Emergencies Act, which the government invoked in haste without proving that other legislative tools at its disposal did not work.
I absolutely understand that people are sick to death of the virus and the public health measures and rules that changed our lives. The situation had a direct impact on me too, just as it impacted caregivers, business people, parents and health care workers, among many others.
It is no secret that we will vote against the use of the Emergencies Act, and there are many reasons why.
On February 15, the elected members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion stating that no emergency situation justified the use of special legislative measures in Quebec and calling on the Canadian government not to apply the Emergencies Act in Quebec. Will the government respect the will of the 125 members of the National Assembly?
Even more appalling is that seven out of 10 provinces are against using this legislation. Obviously, Ontario requested it because that is where the siege was held.
The application of such legislation should not be taken lightly. It must be measured and proportionate. The Prime Minister himself said several times that the act would not be used where it is not needed. Why, then, does it apply everywhere?
The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the mobilization facilitated by social media. This type of legislation is not to be applied “just in case”; it is to be applied to deal with a real and imminent situation. The application of the act must be essential and necessary.
Every action taken in the past few days could have been taken with the tools provided under the Criminal Code. Arrests were made in coordination with the various police forces, which, in my opinion, should have been done in the early days.
What we needed was a head of state to coordinate interventions. Sadly, since being elected, I have seen no such head of state. Instead of getting out in front of a crisis, an issue, or a pandemic, the Prime Minister racks up conflicts of interest, as I saw when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. When the City of Ottawa called for reinforcements, the federal government dawdled. Here is how I would sum up the situation. The federal government did not try anything. Then, not knowing what to do, it invoked the Emergencies Act, once all the occupations had been cleared out. The authorities will continue their work.
The government was not too worried about the Ambassador Bridge situation until it got a call from the White House. That is kind of a big deal. Then the government did nothing until it got a call from the Ottawa police, which wanted an additional 1,800 officers. The feds sent in a handful of officers, basically just enough to protect ministers and MPs. Only about 20 officers were deployed to the protest sites.
It is important to note that the government cannot invoke the Emergencies Act unless it can demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists and cannot be handled by means of ordinary laws.
There is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation, but it is limited to Ontario. We wanted the act to apply only where the occupation was taking place, especially since invoking this act, if applied more broadly than it should be, will set a dangerous precedent. The Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, 9/11, or even the COVID-19 pandemic.
When someone is criticized for not taking action, they try to make people forget about their bungling by using a sledgehammer as a show of strength to impress people. However, politics is not a game where players come up with strategies for the simple and only reason of maintaining or regaining power.
If this makes people rather cynical, I would tell them “welcome to the club”. Applying the Emergencies Act when the situation is confined to one location, not across Canada, is overkill. What saddens me is that the voters will think that the Prime Minister saved Ottawa. I want to express my sincerest appreciation to police officers at all levels for the tremendous work they have done.
To all those who reached out to me regarding the use of the Emergencies Act, I want to say that the siege did indeed have to be stopped. Existing measures are what saved Ottawa. The Criminal Code and traffic regulations are what saved Ottawa. No, I will not vote in favour of the use of the Emergencies Act. Quebec's 125 MNAs do not want it to be used. The implications of this legislation are too great to use it as a way to take back control, just because a government failed to take action and lacks leadership.
I would like to remind members that the federal government lagged behind the provinces when it came to implementing measures to deal with the pandemic. One need only think of the management of the borders, or lack thereof, at the beginning of the pandemic. That was a good opportunity for the Prime Minister to show some leadership as a government leader, but he did not. That is unfortunate for him and for us.
1120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:27:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I look forward to talking to my colleague in French.
To answer her question, the point has just been proven. Removing the Ambassador Bridge blockade was possible because law enforcement took the bull by the horns and agreed on a strategy that could have been used in the early days of the blockade. Law enforcement coordinated their efforts and dismantled the blockade.
Was it because the Emergencies Act was invoked? The answer is no.
76 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:28:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for his very relevant question.
Indeed, we are waiting for the government to demonstrate that.
When a motion is moved to invoke the Emergencies Act, there must be an emergency, a danger to the public or a public health problem. Canada or its public health must be facing some sort of danger.
As I demonstrated in my speech, there have been so many other events with more serious repercussions on our society. How is it that after all this time, after three weeks with very little action, we decide to get out the hammer and go all out?
No, there is no need to invoke this act.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 9:30:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I think we need to put these issues into perspective. People also need to understand the role of the Bloc Québécois.
The Bloc has always maintained that the interests of Quebec are what matter most to the party. We support what is good for Quebec.
Did the Quebec National Assembly vote unanimously in favour of this law? The answer is no. It did not do so because the problem is limited to what is happening in Canada's capital.
It is crucial that the federal government listen to the voices of our elected officials and those of seven other provinces. What happened in long-term care homes in Quebec is completely different. I am sick of people conflating different issues.
134 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
