44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 10:43:37 a.m.
- Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. In my previous question, I asked the member for Oxford, who also happens to be on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, if he had read the emergency measures regulations, to which he said that he had not.
Could the member confirm whether the places listed in subsections 1(a) to 1(f) of the regulations, such as airports and international bridges, have been under threat, which necessitated the declaration of the Emergencies Act? Indeed, do they continue to be a security risk? Qujannamiik.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:44:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, absolutely, and I would like to thank my colleague for bringing that up.
Our infrastructure was under threat and continues to be under threat in this country. That is why it is so important to make sure that we vote in favour of the implementation of this act today. This is a time-limited act. It is targeted to where it is needed. Therefore, I think it is absolutely the best measure to have in place to be able to curtail what is happening in our country today.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:44:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to enter into this discussion this morning after the last few days. I thought the member for Brampton North made a number of very compelling points.
In reflecting on an insurrection, in a lot of the debate over the last number of days, some members in this place have said to others, “Well, what makes you think they could be capable of succeeding in an insurrection?”
I would ask the hon. member for Brampton North this. In any reasonable universe, is the test for sedition how likely it is that it would succeed?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:45:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague and to the House that we have received lots of warnings, and we are continuing to receive warnings, from our security and cybersecurity experts that Canada and many democratically elected governments are under a real threat. We have seen proof of that here within our own borders. Weapons and armour have been seized. Plots have been revealed. That should be enough to wake us all up.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:46:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Twice I referenced the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, and I referenced a specific provision that was in a schedule while the act is in force. I came to learn from a very sharp-eyed person that the schedule is not in force, so I withdraw my comments that were made with respect to section 21 in that schedule.
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:46:27 a.m.
- Watch
That is duly noted.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montcalm.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:46:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
I taught political philosophy for 30 years. The democratic ideal is at the heart of my political involvement. That is why I am a sovereignist, because the political sovereignty of the people is the very foundation of the democratic ideal.
The debate that is coming to a close today is one of the most serious debates I have ever participated in in the House, because the Emergencies Act is the most powerful and coercive action that a nation governed by the rule of law can impose in a democracy.
Government by decree is the antithesis of the exercise of legislative power. Such decrees cannot be made based on feelings, frustration with what others are saying, or ideological differences—whether far left or far right—or simply to cover up incompetence on the pretext of a legal vacuum.
It is not with joy in my heart or without emotion that I rise today. I never would have thought that the 10-year-old-boy from a working-class neighbourhood of Montreal who was forced to walk by armoured tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns every morning for the duration of the October crisis, because his school was right next to the police headquarters on Parthenais Street, would end up in the House of Commons 52 years later debating the Emergencies Act.
I remember the fear and the intense climate of suspicion that gripped the neighbourhood every time there was a police operation or arrest, whether or not it made the news, involving people we considered to be perfectly ordinary, like us, with no criminal record and far from being terrorists, as we rightly thought.
Despite the emotion I am feeling by recalling this memory, I never would have failed in my duty to add my voice to that of my colleagues in this debate that started long before January 29, in the wake of a global health crisis that has affected our lives, everyone's quality of life, that has left thousands of families in mourning, that for two years now has challenged our sense of solidarity and mutual goodwill and that gives new meaning to the old adage, “One person's freedom ends where another's begins”.
This should lead us as parliamentarians to be more careful than ever not to set a precedent, but also to be as thorough as possible in order to maintain the increasingly fragile trust the public has in their democratic institutions.
The issue here is not the opinions or the interpretation that different people can have of democracy or freedom. As we saw in the streets for 23 days, and in many other countries of the world throughout history, people can say and do many things in the name of freedom and democracy. However, in a country governed by the rule of law and in a self-proclaimed free and democratic society, the legitimacy of the government's power in relation to its citizens must be guided by and measured against a fundamental question that must be answered to prevent abuse of power.
What are the limits to the government's power to intervene?
My questions arise only out of the desire to understand the necessity of invoking this act. I would point out that it is special legislation, which, let us not forget, was developed in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act so that the executive branch, meaning the government, any government, regardless of its political stripes, can never again claim the absolute power to trample rights and freedoms for political purposes, nor engage in abuse of power with impunity.
I recognize that it is not the same act. Much like Thomson and Thompson are not the same, these acts are not the same. With this act, however, the government has brought out the heavy artillery. In 1988, parliamentarians created some safeguards, and one of those safeguards was us, as members of Parliament. We have a duty to question the legitimacy of the Emergencies Act, which was invoked in response to a situation we all now know, when the government stood by for 21 days.
To all those who claim we are living in a dictatorship, I do want to point out that totalitarian and dictatorial regimes rarely hold the kinds of debates we have been having today. These types of debates are the essence of a parliamentary democracy, of a representative democracy, but we also have to live up to that responsibility and maintain credibility. Unfortunately, the sequence of events and the failure to implement the necessary measures in response to the siege of the federal capital do not justify these orders.
How did we wind up here? According to the Emergencies Act, the government had a responsibility to consult the provinces and report on those consultations to establish that there was a nationwide emergency. Seven out of 10 premiers opposed the use of the Emergencies Act in their provinces because they did not feel it was necessary. Two of the three other premiers said that they did not need this special legislation.
What national crisis are the Liberals talking about when they continue to claim that the Emergencies Act must absolutely be confirmed? We are hearing that it is useful, but it must be proven indispensable. Even the Quebec National Assembly saw fit to distance itself from the process and unanimously adopted a motion against the application of the law in Quebec. It reads:
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.
The Government of Canada has ignored the requirement to demonstrate a national emergency. How can it claim a national emergency when seven premiers say they do not need this legislation? How can we draw any other conclusion besides that the usual laws were sufficient?
I can understand that the members sitting on the government side feel obliged to support their government's shaky logic and failure to provide the required proofs. However, I am of the opinion that there should be a free vote on such a fundamental issue.
This minority government did not do its homework, but because it has the support of the NDP, it does not matter if it fulfills the obligations set out in the act. As we speak, the siege in Ottawa has ended. The so-called national crisis that the government failed to demonstrate no longer exists. In the circumstances, I wonder if the NDP is aware that by voting with the government, it is an accomplice to setting a dangerous precedent by accepting such a low bar and that, one day, a majority government may use it to do something even worse.
The government failed to fulfill another requirement, that of demonstrating, in accordance with section 3 of the act, that any other law of Canada, the regular laws, cannot effectively deal with the emergency situation of this alleged national crisis. Not only did the government not prove this, but it did not even try. My colleagues from Joliette and Rivière-du-Nord eloquently and methodically explained that existing legislation was sufficient to resolve the situation and that seven out of 10 premiers were opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in their provinces, because they had the situation under control. This clearly demonstrates that the conditions of section 3 were not met.
In conclusion, I invite members of all parties to vote according to the highest principles that should limit the exercise of the government's power to ensure its legitimacy and guarantee the rule of law. This will result in a parliamentary democracy where not only can the general will of the people be expressed, but also where different points of view can be heard, rather than being relegated to the streets.
1429 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:56:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member cited the Quebec National Assembly and the unanimous motion. The Province of Alberta wrote Ottawa asking for assistance. It specifically cited towing. The Province of Manitoba pleaded with Ottawa to get engaged and assist, which was only two or three days prior to the enactment of the Emergencies Act. However, both of those provinces say it is not necessary. There could come a point in time when it could be necessary and it would be an option. It is a tool for law enforcement and others to consider.
What does the member opposite have to say about my home province of Manitoba in particular, which was pleading for federal involvement, even though today it says it is not necessary?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:57:39 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a very specific and targeted order would have been sufficient to address the towing issue. The government did not have to get out the heavy artillery and invoke the Emergencies Act simply because it would be useful. The act should only be used when absolutely necessary.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:58:15 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it should be underlined that, while the Government of Alberta clearly had been engaged with the federal government, at no point did it asked for the imposition of the Emergencies Act. As my colleague pointed out, a majority of premiers, including the Premier of Alberta and the Premier of Quebec, opposed the use of the Emergencies Act.
We have a situation where a bare majority of parliamentarians, as far as we know, support the use of the Emergencies Act, and a majority of premiers and many members of Parliament are very concerned about it. This sets a very dangerous precedent.
Is the member aware if the Quebec government is contemplating participating in legal action, along with Alberta, against the use of the Emergencies Act in this case?
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:59:07 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have no idea, but it is clear that the order does not meet the criteria set out in section 3 of the act.
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:59:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to tell my esteemed Bloc Québécois colleague that I completely agree that it is important that we vote on this today. It would be better to have a free vote, and I am wondering if the Bloc Québécois agrees with that.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 10:59:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, obviously, my colleague understood the questions I asked earlier.
I think that our colleagues opposite should indeed be able to vote freely, without any party lines, on an issue as important as this one. Invoking the Emergencies Act is the ultimate act that the executive branch can take, and it should therefore respect our legislative authority.
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:00:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, could what we saw and went through this weekend lead Canadians to lose confidence in their government?
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:01:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the police did a remarkable job this weekend. However, even though the chief of the Ottawa Police Service found the Emergencies Act helpful, I think the police operation could have gone ahead even if the Emergencies Act had not been invoked, simply by using the laws that were already in place.
In that regard, it is possible that people are losing confidence in their democratic institutions. However, it is important that whatever happens in the streets can be discussed in this parliamentary forum. If we do not live up to the highest standards of democracy, these debates will end up taking place in the streets.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:02:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out that I realize that we are repeating ourselves. According to a communication sciences principle, a message needs to be heard at least 20 times for it to become embedded in the collective psyche. Accordingly, I am honoured to be the 25th or 26th Bloc Québécois member to speak on behalf of our party.
I applaud the commitment of all my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to once again echo the unanimous voice of the Quebec National Assembly to demonstrate that the use of the War Measures Act is not warranted in the context of the protests that occurred over the past three weeks in Ottawa.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:02:49 a.m.
- Watch
I would remind the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix that we are not debating the War Measures Act.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:02:58 a.m.
- Watch
I apologize to all members of Parliament for this slip of the tongue. It was unintentional.
I will resume my speech.
If we confirm the application of this legislation this evening because of the situation we went through, we will be demonstrating that what is meant to be the last resort for a government is being used with complete disregard for the two key components that absolutely justify its use.
This will send a message to the public that if they decide to go through with a planned protest, the government will pretend not to know about it and allow the protesters to set up, get settled, disturb the public, shove and intimidate journalists, install hot tubs and occupy the streets for three weeks. It will not matter in any case, because the government will apply the Emergencies Act while the Prime Minister stays at his cottage.
I am sorry, but that is not how government management works. Planned protests are legitimate, permitted and even good to have in a democratic society when a segment of the population wants to share a message it considers to be urgent and important, whether we agree with it or not. It is our cherished democracy that allows it. Let us not forget the importance of this democracy. Trivializing it, controlling it or, worse, ignoring it sends a really bad message.
When there is an illegal occupation that includes illegally parking in the streets or setting up stages without authorization, if hateful slogans are being used against elected members and the press, then we need to ask law enforcement, our police forces, to intervene. The police services were the ones who were called to take action, to organize and to request support from their counterparts in neighbouring nations, for example those from the Sûreté du Québec. I want to commend them and thank them from the bottom of my heart.
Everything was done properly and with a great deal of respect for the protesters, who were emboldened by the passage of time and the dismissive attitude of their head of government. I found this situation difficult, since people need to be heard and listened to. They must be given some basic consideration, before an act like this is thrown at them. Let me be clear. I do not support the deplorable and punishable actions taken by some individuals. I condemn these actions, but I also condemn the lack of consideration and contempt the Prime Minister has shown for these people he was elected to represent and to whom he is ultimately accountable.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the police for their exemplary and extremely diligent interventions since the occupation started in Ottawa. They have been calm and effective, under the circumstances, given that there were many children on site. It was particularly sad to see the government stand by for so long knowing these children were there. The government is meant to govern, which requires being a leader, listening, being open and showing diplomacy. These are invaluable and appropriate tools that could have resolved this crisis or, at the very least, prevented it from escalating.
This leads me to say that it was not justified and that it will not be justified for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act. To have justification, two conditions must be met, in a very clear and, especially, unequivocal manner. First, there must be a dangerous and urgent situation. It can be said that it was dangerous and urgent, but who really caused it? Second, it must be impossible to address the situation with ordinary laws.
To justify invoking the act under the present circumstances, we would need to add one or two conditions to it that are just not there. I want to emphasize that if the House chooses to support the application of this act and if, in a momentary lapse, our NDP colleagues approve the use of this act, it is crucial that the Bloc Québécois obtain the exemption to that application of the act for Quebec.
To support my position, I would like to quote from an interview the Minister of Public Safety gave on the CBC.
He was asked the following question: Is there a link between the people arrested and the accounts that were frozen? Are they the same people?
Here is how the minister replied: These actions are taken by law enforcement; they are independent of politics.
I wonder then how the Emergencies Act has changed things. Voting in favour of invoking this legislation sends the wrong message not only to the public, but also to the rest of the world. All parliamentarians in this House will bear responsibility for the repercussions of invoking this legislation and the perception of its application in these kinds of circumstances.
We are talking about setting some kind of precedent, to which future governments in this place will have to refer. I would like to point out to our NDP colleagues that if they vote to invoke this legislation, they will be contributing to the normalization of its subsequent use, which will lower the perception of the importance of this legislation's nature as a tool of last resort.
If by today's actions the public's perception of this law, as well as that of the various responders, becomes distorted, that could pose a serious risk to everyone's safety in a future national crisis, which we do not wish for, but could well happen one day.
Everyone will remember this day. They will hear an announcement that the government voted in favour of the Emergencies Act and will say that the situation does not have to be all that critical. They will say that Parliament Hill will have to again be overrun by trucks and signs.
In the future, the public may overlook a real threat and, because we did not have the judgment needed today to correctly assess whether to use the Emergencies Act or not, we will be a party to this misguided lapse.
If the NDP is going to be irresponsible and vote in favour of applying this law, I would ask that the government at least not apply the act to Quebec and the provinces that expressed their keen desire that it not apply in their territory.
1060 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:10:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe the member is so wrong. What is happening, what has happened and the potential threat of what could happen is very real.
The shutdown of downtown Ottawa by an illegal protest and blockades has had a profound and negative impact in many ways. That is not to mention the blocking of the international border where literally half a billion dollars plus of financial activity daily was being blocked. We saw the loss of hundreds of jobs, going into the thousands, as a direct result. We saw a community, the nation's capital, being held captive.
The legislation is there to ensure that kids are forbidden from being used as part of a barricade. It is there to ensure there is a financial consequence for irresponsible behaviour.
Why does the Bloc not support the rule of law in Canada, which includes Quebec?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 11:11:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague opposite that the priority is not to neglect the rule of law, but to apply it correctly.
I will ask him the following questions.
Who let the barricades go up? Who let us get to this point as a result of a failure to act, complacency and lack of leadership?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
