44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 1:10:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague raised a few interesting points in her speech earlier. I do not have time to comment on her whole speech, but I would like to ask her a quick question.
One point she raised really struck me. She made a number of arguments in favour of using the Emergencies Act.
Here is the question I would like to ask her. Why did the government decide to invoke the Emergencies Act here and now in 2022?
How many times has it been used over the past 30 years? How many crises have been resolved without this act? What makes this crisis so much more significant than all the others? Why is the act necessary in this case? Why could the situation not have been resolved without it?
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 1:53:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to react to my colleague's speech. I need to express my disagreement with many of the things my colleague brought up in his speech, even though we will likely vote similarly on this motion.
I would like some further explanation.
From what I understand, some of the people who were protesting on the other side of the street were there for legitimate reasons, but others were no choir boys. His speech gave me the impression that he thought they were all wonderful people. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.
We are talking about the Emergencies Act, but I did not hear him talk about this act. I think this is a serious situation. I for one did not wander the streets carrying a Canadian flag.
Does he think that the protesters were all choir boys?
What does he think of the Emergencies Act?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:24:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Jonquière.
I want to begin by saying that I did not walk down the street in front of Parliament waving a Canadian flag. I did not block the street by parking my car in the middle of it. I have never agreed with the people who decided to occupy the city. However, even though I did not agree with them and I felt it was important to follow the public health guidelines, I still think that invoking the Emergencies Act is an extreme move for this government to take.
I am sad today. I am sad because we are in a situation of extreme polarization. We are wondering how we got to this point. We might say that the COVID-19 pandemic played a role. We might also be wondering whether the government did anything to try to reduce this polarization. I do not think it did.
It is unfortunate, because the government let a bad situation drag on without addressing it. As the saying goes, the longer we wait, the worse things will get. The government did nothing to address the situation when the protesters set up across the street. Instead of trying to ease tensions and find ways to de-escalate the situation, it decided to add fuel to the fire. I think it did this because it was politically advantageous.
These people across the street were there to express their frustration. They were there to say that they are tired of the health measures. We understand. I too am tired of the health measures, but I also recognize that we need to live with and continue following these measures until they can all be lifted.
The government had a different view, however. It chose to villainize the protesters, as though it were us against them. It wanted to keep adding fuel to the fire because it was politically advantageous. We saw how that played out. Instead of showing empathy, the government chose to insult these people by doing absolutely nothing and not even trying to put an end to what was happening.
This worked in the beginning, because the leader of the Conservatives ended up leaving. The Conservatives were caught up with their own issues, having had their contradictions exposed. No one could really figure out if they were for or against the health measures. No one could tell whether they were for or against the convoy of protesters. Some were opposed, while others supported it. It was a tough time for the Conservatives as political foes.
What did the government end up doing? More nothing. It washed its hands of the whole thing and allowed the situation to deteriorate, knowing it would throw the Conservatives into turmoil. The sad thing is that the government's role is not to just stand by and be partisan. Contrary to what we have seen, it should not be partisan at all. This government adopted a partisan approach instead of dealing with a situation and improving social cohesion so we can all get along better and more forward as a society. That is the problem.
Then the government skipped a few steps. After washing its hands of the whole thing, it suddenly found itself in the spotlight. Everyone was wondering how it was possible that people could settle in for weeks with no response from the other side and why the government was just hurling insults at these people without really trying to resolve the impasse. That is what we saw.
It seemed to me that, by choosing to play with fire, the government was running the risk of getting burned. Its lack of leadership was obvious. Then the pyromaniac decided to pass itself off as a firefighter. It decided to pretend it was taking action and looking for a way to end the situation. It decided to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The Premier of Quebec did not want it. The National Assembly unanimously voted against it. Seven out of 10 provinces said they did not want it, and that is kind of a big deal. When all those stakeholders are telling the federal government it is going too far, it seems to me the government should be able to read the room, listen to people and find some other way to address the issues.
We proposed a solution to the government. We asked it not to apply the act in Quebec or to apply it only in specific areas. The government was not interested because it wanted to play politics with the Emergencies Act. It was so urgent that the government sat on its hands for weeks and did not try to resolve the situation.
Quebec had protests too. They were handled, and the situation went back to normal. A bridge was blocked, but then it was unblocked without the use of emergency measures. It seems as though Ottawa simply lacked the will.
Many critics spoke of a “health dictatorship”. I obviously disagree, but, by invoking the Emergencies Act, the Liberals kind of gave them a leg to stand on. The member for Louis-Hébert recently went so far as to say that he was uncomfortable with his government's decisions and positions because it was politicizing the pandemic. Earlier today, we learned that member is not alone. Other members within the Liberal ranks feel the same way.
As my colleague from Mirabel noted, the government knows it is in trouble. Members of its own caucus are challenging its actions. MPs in the House are challenging its actions. To us, it looks like things are not going well for either the Liberals or the Conservatives. The NDP is on the fence; nobody knows yet. It has been very hard to understand that party's position lately.
The government said it was prepared to use strong-arm tactics to ensure success. Maybe it went too far, but it will never admit that. Maybe there are people on the inside who felt that way. The government decided to make this a confidence vote. Maybe it thinks people will be afraid of triggering an election, so they will toe the line and it can say it was right all along. My colleague from Mirabel shared a very interesting analysis. He said the government had decided to change this from a vote of conscience, which would have allowed people to do their own analysis of the situation and vote in accordance with their real, sincere thoughts and feelings about it, to a confidence vote.
That is an excellent explanation of what happened every step of the way. Every time the government had an opportunity to do the right thing and make the right decisions, it opted to politicize things instead. I really do not get it. The only thing the government managed to do since the start of the protest that became an occupation was haul out the nuclear option, the Emergencies Act, a law that has not been used since 1988, the year I was born. We got through all kinds of crisis situations, but not this one. This one was impossible. The government could not handle it. A few hundred people parked in front of Parliament, and the situation was out of control. The government could not deal with it. That surprises me.
I am not saying extremist elements were not present. I am not saying it was not dangerous. What I am saying is that the government let things go. The government did nothing at all. That is shameful. It tried to persuade us by forcing our hand, but the truth is it was not very persuasive.
Had the government managed to persuade us, to prove that this act was indeed necessary, then why are we still debating it when it has been in effect for seven days already?
Even this morning, it was not clear whether the government would be able to get a majority to adopt the motion. It has been a tough road. We can see that the government is not in control of the situation, even after dropping the nuclear option that is the Emergencies Act.
I want to extend an invitation to all members of the House. When it comes time to vote later, rather than voting under threat, rather than voting with a gun to our heads—because the government is always trying to push the envelope and polarize and politicize the situation—I invite them to vote according to their conscience and to ask themselves whether it was worth it.
Is invoking the Emergencies Act absolutely necessary?
We do not think so.
1449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:35:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the question from my colleague.
I have the impression that this debate on the Emergencies Act, which is a serious, important piece of legislation with far-reaching consequences when it is invoked, is being used as an opportunity to do some Quebec bashing. That is unacceptable.
I will not answer his question because, personally, I think it is below the belt.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:36:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, for some reason, the government sat on its hands throughout the entire crisis. It did not do a single thing. It did not lift a finger.
Instead, the Prime Minister insulted the protesters and hid in his basement. At some point, he woke up. Suddenly it became urgent to bring in the Emergencies Act to resolve the situation.
It seems like he tried to save face instead of truly trying to resolve the situation.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:37:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my response to the member is that when we look at Wellington Street and elsewhere around the country at this time, we can see that all is quiet.
Do we still need the police to continue their work? Yes, certainly.
Do we need to continue to be vigilant with respect to foreign influence? Yes, certainly.
However, personally, I do not feel particularly threatened at this time, and I am not convinced that ordinary folks, who are at home right now, are feeling particularly threatened.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 3:38:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. With respect to the Liberal caucus, we may find out in a few years. When people write their memoirs 10, 15 or 20 years later, we often discover things.
We already know that at least three members are not very comfortable with the position of their own government. We also know that, until this morning, the NDP was not very comfortable with the government's position.
Magically, after the government decided to make this a vote of confidence, the NDP bolstered its support. It was unclear previously. I have the impression that the NDP's change in position has something to do with the threat of a vote of confidence.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
