44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 28, 2022 11:00AM
- Feb/28/22 11:04:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and subsection 61(1) of the Emergencies Act, I am tabling, in both official languages, the proclamation revoking the declaration of a public order emergency.
I ask that these documents be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5).
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 12:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that we needed an impartial committee to shed light on the matter. I agree.
I would like to know what motivated the government to go ahead with the Emergencies Act knowing that it was a very divisive issue and that its time had perhaps passed. There was no longer an emergency. At the time, was not the government’s motivation to restore the Prime Minister’s image, since he took action only last week and failed to properly assume the important role he could have played in this crisis?
In my opinion, an impartial committee to shed light on what happened should also take a look at this aspect. I wonder whether the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons agrees with me on this.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 12:34:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it was a very difficult and unstable situation.
It was obvious, not only from the events in Ottawa, but also the blockades at the border crossings, that this was a threat to the country. It was absolutely essential that the government took action. Fortunately, the situation is now stable here outside the House of Commons, at the border and throughout the country.
Powers like the Emergencies Act are not often used, but it was necessary to do so at the time. It is also important to say that use of the act was very limited, not only in terms of time, but also geographically.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 12:38:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances of the Emergencies Act have certainly been one of the more significant debates in which I have participated in this place. I welcomed the Emergencies Act, and one of the reasons I felt comfortable voting yes for it was that the parliamentary oversight process was rigorous, in the sense that there will be a committee and there will also be an inquiry.
I would put forward this notion to the hon. government House leader. One of the worst things that has happened to Canadian democracy has been the emergence of people believing in “alternative facts”, as the Trump White House used to say. If we think that one set of people in this place have already made up their minds so firmly that they cannot be reliable in investigating, I think that is a wrong supposition. Obviously Conservatives are part of the committee, but I would make the point that the hon. member for Kitchener Centre and I are also an opposition party in this place. We respect each other a lot, but we did not vote the same way, and I respect my colleagues across the way who did not vote the same way.
If a committee of all people in this place, including the Green Party, was able to come to a report and give it to Canadians, could we then stop having different sets of facts, really explore what happened, and get past that idea? I get emails from constituents who say that nobody assaulted the workers or the homeless at Shepherds of Good Hope, yet I know it happened. How do we get to an agreed statement of facts if we decide that one set of people in this place are not really open-minded?
295 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:21:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is the government's actions that should be held to account here. It is the government that decided to invoke the Emergencies Act. We need to find out what thresholds were met. We also need to understand, as I said, that there is a strong level of anger and anxiety that exists and that it has manifested across this country because of what people have been dealing with over the last two years. What we saw in Ottawa is the same thing we are seeing in Barrie—Innisfil and in other parts of the country.
We need to look at not only the manifestation of what has gone on, but also the government's actions. It is the one that invoked the Emergencies Act. The government is the one that has to justify it and be accountable for this. That is where the focus should be, in my opinion.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:26:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that the Prime Minister did not even have the courtesy of introducing the Emergencies Act within our symbol of democracy, which again shows contempt for our institutions. We have seen this pattern of contempt continue throughout the six and a half years of the government.
The other thing I would say is that what we are proposing in our amendment, to have a Liberal member from the House and a Conservative member from the Senate, is a reasonable proposal. It is just as reasonable as our scrutiny of regulations proposal was at the beginning of these discussions, which leads us to the hammer being dropped today.
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:37:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. I think that the committee’s mandate is exceptional, as I mentioned in my opening speech, since I do not think we have had the occasion to study the use of the Emergencies Act very often in the House.
Since world events have been pressing upon us week after week in the past two years, I am convinced that future members of the House will look back in a few years on what we did. We need to send them the right message. Yes, we will need all the information, because the committee’s report will probably be studied for many years to come.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:40:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about the creation of a joint committee, which is important because it is the next logical step to the Emergencies Act, an exceptional measure. I am using the Prime Minister's words to make sure that people are not saying that the member for La Prairie is exaggerating again.
When the Prime Minister said that he was invoking the act, he said that it was the ultimate tool and the last resort, so much so that this law's predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used only three times in Canadian history. The Emergencies Act has not been used since it was created in 1988. It needs to remain an exceptional measure.
I welcome the creation of the joint committee to examine what was done before the act was invoked. We need to conduct a review and find out what happened beforehand in order to determine whether the use of this ultimate tool was justified. Obviously, we are in favour of this exercise. It is mandatory, but we still want to say that we think it is an excellent idea.
If the committee is to look back at what happened, it must absolutely examine the crisis as a whole and explore what questions need to be asked as a result of those events. The first point I want to make is that even before the truckers arrived in Ottawa, they made it clear that they planned to protest in front of Parliament. Some of them left Vancouver in their 53-foot-long trucks, and they did not get here over night. Let us just say that if they were clean shaven when they left, they looked more like ZZ Top when they arrived. I do not know how many days it took, and yet people here were surprised and wondered what they were going to do.
Why did it take so long to figure out how to let them protest here but without actually taking over and occupying the city? There had to be a way. Quebec City managed to do it, and it could very well have been done here, too.
During the first two weeks, we hardly saw the government, and the Prime Minister was pretty much absent. First he added fuel to the fire, but then said it was up to the police to resolve the matter. It will be important to paint an accurate picture of the government's actions. Was the government's inaction as bad as it seemed? Some questions need to be asked.
People can be like ducks. They can appear calm and still on the surface while paddling like mad under the water. Was that the case here? Was the government paddling like mad or did it do nothing? It is important to look at what actually happened.
Did the government use every tool at its disposal before using this last resort? Did it reach out to the various police forces? Did it offer any assistance? When the chief of the Ottawa Police Service said he needed help from the federal government, was that request acted upon? What was done?
If the committee is to do a decent job, it must answer those questions and look at what measures were actually taken. I could go on and on because we have so many questions.
The Emergencies Act was invoked on February 14, but the government did nothing with it until five days later. I wonder why. When it finally took action, did it use the legal tools available? Could authorities have done what they did on that weekend without using the Emergencies Act? In other words, was it necessary? We do not know and we wonder.
The following Monday, after the people left, we arrived here and were told that it was awful, and that we absolutely needed to continue using the legislation. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois wondered, and rightly so, what we were fighting against, and who we were intervening against with this legislation. There was no one left outside.
They tried hard to convince us. They twisted themselves into a knot. At one point they said that the situation is unacceptable and we absolutely must keep enforcing this legislation. The Liberals and the NDP wanted everyone to know that this was essential.
However, on the Wednesday, 42 hours later, the government announced that it no longer needed to invoke the act after all. It was like a balloon at a porcupine party; 42 hours later, the whole thing was suddenly over and the act was no longer needed.
That makes no sense. Can we find out what happened? On Monday evening, the government was saying that it absolutely had to intervene, even though we could not see why. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, since you were there, playing close attention and thinking the speeches were good. You were probably a bit surprised when the government, which was pushing to still invoke the act on Monday evening, decided it was no longer necessary by Wednesday.
For these reasons, it is extremely important to have a special joint committee to figure out what, exactly, happened, whether the invocation was worthwhile and, if this situation were to happen again, how the government could be more effective.
The Bloc Québécois's approach was simple. We wanted it to happen fast, we wanted to come to an agreement quickly and we wanted a neutral chair. Because all of the parties' positions were clear, we wanted a neutral chair that reflected the views both in favour and against.
This, therefore, made a single chair impossible, unless that person had a personality disorder. We then needed two co-chairs, one person in favour and one against, or two in favour and two against. That is what the Bloc Québécois was calling for. Above all, the Bloc Québécois was looking for a consensus.
Earlier, my colleague from the NDP said that his party's position was shared by two of the three other recognized parties in the House. I disagree. The Bloc Québécois was against it. Based on what my colleague, the official opposition house leader, said, he would not be okay with it either. I am not great at math, but one plus one equals two. There was more than one party against it. The Bloc Québécois was also against it because we wanted a consensus, but for that to happen, the chair would have to be neutral.
The Liberal motion proposes that the co-chairs be one NDP member, thus in favour, one Bloc member, thus against, and one independent senator, a Liberal, and thus in favour. If I have calculated correctly that makes two co-chairs in favour and one against. That is not impartial, and it is not what we are looking for. The Conservatives' amendment proposes that there be two co-chairs consisting of a Conservative senator, thus against, and a Liberal MP, thus in favour. We like that better.
We have seen the parties argue about who will serve as co-chairs. I can say that the Bloc Québécois has always sought consensus, and I am convinced that all leaders of the other parties will agree on that. That was and continues to be our position.
We must get to work quickly, and do so in the most intelligent way possible. There was a crisis and the government used a tool that we believe was disproportionate. We are asking to be convinced. It may be that behind closed doors the government will pull a rabbit out of a hat, which will convince us that its decision was not that crazy. It is possible, and that is all we want to find out.
That is why we are here. The Bloc Québécois will fully co-operate in order to get to the bottom of what happened and to ensure that this act will never be used again unless it is truly warranted.
1361 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 1:51:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one thing that has come to light throughout the course of this whole thing is how important it is for the government to be held to account for its actions in invoking the Emergencies Act. However, the government and the NDP seem to be holding some opposition parties to a greater account.
To the hon. member from the Bloc, how important is it for us to hold the government to account on this?
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:50:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Coutts, Emerson and Windsor borders were cleared before the Prime Minister invoked the Emergencies Act. It was not required for demonstrators to leave Ottawa either. Security and financial experts say there were no real threats to Canada and no suspicious financial activity. A lawyer who actually helped draft the act said it was unnecessary, that the burden of proof was not convincingly met and that there was “no evidence” of a threat to the security of Canada.
What changed between the Prime Minister supporting it on Monday night and revoking it on Wednesday?
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:50:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act was essential to law enforcement success in ending blockades and protests across the country. We always said we would not keep the act in force for any longer than was necessary, and we made good on that commitment. As we have said since the beginning, we are acting on the advice of law enforcement members and giving them the tools they need. We will continue to provide all of the enforcement tools that are required to maintain public safety.
I again want to thank all the members of the RCMP and law enforcement for the exceptional job they did.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:52:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Emergencies Act was brought in during the mid-1980s. In direct response to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, it provides for rigorous parliamentary oversight both in this place and in the other place. It also provides for review and, most importantly, the act requires that every measure that is undertaken under the act be compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will always respect the charter.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:52:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last Monday evening, despite the objections of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and even members of its own caucus, the government voted in support of the invocation of the Emergencies Act. By this time, the blockades and the protests had all resolved, yet unbelievably in less than 48 hours the government did a complete 180° and revoked the act.
My question is simple. What changed?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:53:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister used the Emergencies Act against protesters to freeze bank accounts, impound vehicles and arrest protesters, all of which could have been done with existing laws and bylaws. Canadians were led to believe that protesters were involved in acts of sedition and plots to overthrow the government, yet just charges relating to mischief were laid.
Other than dropping in poll numbers, exactly what changed in 36 hours for the Prime Minister to terminate the use of the Emergencies Act?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:55:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the government forced a vote on this country's first-ever use of the Emergencies Act. Forty-four hours later, on Wednesday, the government announced that it was revoking the declaration.
On Monday night, we were apparently facing the most serious national emergency of the 21st century. By Wednesday afternoon, however, the emergency had completely disappeared.
Could the minister explain, in detail, what happened and what kind of advice he got during those 44 hours, or will he admit that we never needed the emergency measures in the first place?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 2:55:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the use of the Emergencies Act was absolutely essential to allow law enforcement to put an end to the blockades and protests across the country.
We always said that the act would be enforced only for as long as necessary. As the RCMP commissioner pointed out, the Emergencies Act served as a big deterrent to the protests by incentivizing people to leave and giving the RCMP and its partners more authority in enforcing the law.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
