So V ote

Feb/17/22 11:37:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no lack of humility in Rosemont. I would invite the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie to look at the views of the Quebec National Assembly, which should matter to him at least a little. His Québec Solidaire friends are against this, as are the Liberals, the Parti Québécois and the CAQ. The only person in Quebec who is right is the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie. I am rather concerned, but I would remind him that, in 1970, the NDP leader voted against the War Measures Act.

104 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 11:35:17 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more traumatizing than rising to speak after the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Yesterday I asked government members to show some sensitivity. I understand that does not come easily to them, because when we asked them to apologize for the Canadian abuses a few months ago, they practically laughed in our faces and denied our history. We were the last, along with the Acadian people, to wait for an apology. I do not expect any miracles, but I am asking them to be sensitive to the fact that Quebeckers have an uneasy relationship, not with the humanitarian role of the army—we were happy to welcome them because many Quebeckers are members of the forces—but with legislation that takes away freedoms and is the spawn of the War Measures Act, albeit a watered-down version in scope and nature. We do not like that. It worries us. We have been through this, so we are asking for a bit of understanding.

170 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 11:32:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the past few years has taught us one thing: What is said in general terms is less likely to be implemented than what is written. Based on recent experience, I am not really interested in what the Prime Minister says. I am looking at what is written. The texts says it applies across Canada. There is no nuance or restriction. The Prime Minister said that he would consult the provinces. That is odd because earlier he said in English that the government would consult and perhaps collaborate with them but that if he intended to go in somewhere, he would do it. He could change the text and acknowledge provincial jurisdiction, since seven premiers said that they do not want this measure to be implemented. However, he should do the opposite, that is withdraw the text and replace it with one that states what he can do and what he is prepared to do to help Ottawa now, so he can put an end to this farce, this political cover-up of his own mistakes.

181 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 11:30:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is illegal to stop a heavy truck on the white line in the middle of the street, except for about a minute and a half when the light is red. These protesters gave notice in advance that this was their intention, and they were allowed to come anyway. The Ottawa police got a little worried and requested assistance, which they were not given. They were told that 275 RCMP officers were going to be sent in, but that they would be reserved for Parliament and the Prime Minister, who was beginning to find it difficult to get around and was less inclined to come to Parliament. The Prime Minister himself said that the Ottawa police had all the necessary powers to intervene, until he realized that what he was saying did not make sense. In every province, each level of government has police forces and state of emergency legislation that provide all the necessary tools. We need to stop saying that the current situation cannot be resolved without the use of the Emergencies Act. This scares people into calling for the act to be invoked. The provinces could, and can, intervene, as has been seen everywhere except here around Parliament.

203 words

All Topics

Feb/17/22 11:28:19 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between offering additional powers to other police forces and taking powers away from other levels of government so they can be handed over to one's own police force. Once again, the government is performing some gymnastic manoeuvres with a few extra twists, which would outdo any figure skating routine in Beijing. When measures are necessary, are appropriate, and restrict freedoms, the government should explain and justify them, rather than claim that they do not restrict those freedoms. Whether these actions are justified or not, the government is claiming that seizing someone's bank account or preventing someone from walking down a particular street does not restrict their freedoms. There are things that are obvious, but this government is a master of claiming the opposite of what is obvious and repeating it among its members.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/17/22 11:16:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by reminding our friends across the aisle that we are in the middle of a pandemic and our friends to our right that I would like to hear myself speak. The pandemic has claimed victims. Some have died, while others are struggling with very serious health problems. Some people are living in a state of anxiety. Some people saw their purchasing power markedly decline because of the inflationary impact of the pandemic, whether it be permanent or temporary, structural or cyclical. Seniors were hit hard by the pandemic, as were the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces. Of course, handling unusual and unprecedented situations sometimes involves trial and error. We try things that do not immediately work, and sometimes this approach, these trials and errors, can sow doubt. I understand. That is the case for the health restrictions, for the health measures around vaccination and the regulations that required, as well as for the travel restrictions. That is reasonable and understandable. The answer to all this is, and should always be, information, even if that does not always work and the dissemination of good information remains relative. Unfortunately, the management of the pandemic was undermined by the federal government’s obsession with taking over Quebec’s and the provinces’ powers, imposing conditions outside its jurisdiction, and even subjecting the pandemic to multicultural values. All of this does make things more difficult to understand. It creates confusion among Quebeckers and Canadians when what we need is quality information. It is also what led to the opposition that emerged in the forms we have been seeing in recent weeks. Fear, doubt and opposition to a government’s ideas and policies are legitimate. Protesting to express them is legitimate. Sedition and insurrection are not legitimate. Is refusing treatment legitimate? Is endangering other people’s lives by refusing treatment or vaccination legitimate? Yesterday, I voluntarily went for my third shot. I was free to do so, and in so doing I was protecting and helping bring back freedom for other, more fragile, people, especially those in seniors residences, who are awaiting the day when they can feel safe enough to leave the house. Freedom requires striking a balance between individual and collective freedoms. Doing this requires judgment, and that is not currently on display in all parties. Freedom is a test of leadership, the test of freedom. The Prime Minister failed this test because of ideology. He sought to subjugate collective and individual freedoms, to crush the identity of a nation under that of all nations, to deny the nation and talk of a postnational state. He is continuing the work of his father. He is denying Quebec, he is completing the transformative work of trivializing the Quebec nation. Speaking of freedom, that was the purpose of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the charter of individual rights, the charter that denies French, secularism and the freedom of education, the one that seeks to censor social networks. Though they are an alarming cesspool of profanity these days, they remain a place of free expression, except for hate propaganda. The charter denies collective rights, the collective identity and the nation. Naturally, the Prime Minister stands up for individuals and then he drops the ball. Freedom is becoming “freedumb”. Driven by fear, doubt and insufficient information, freedom is taking on the appearance of right-wing extremism, which condones anything in excess, encourages civil disobedience, flirts with violence and pollutes social media—and yet the Prime Minister continues to drag his feet. It is in his nature to actively do nothing in times of crisis. It is part of his ideology to show contempt for differences and fan the flames of division. He just does not get it. Ottawa is under siege. The flag of Prime Minister's country is now being associated with the worst of the worst. He needs to take action, but, as usual, he does not know how, so he pretends to take action. He puts on a show. He deflects people's attention, covers up his failures, and moves a motion that is as heavy-handed as it is useless, a thinly disguised version of the War Measures Act. Thank heavens, it is a watered-down version of the original. The Prime Minister keeps repeating that the charter freedoms are not being infringed upon. If the Emergencies Act did not infringe on any freedoms, it would not exist. By its very nature, it infringes on freedoms. The Prime Minister's role is not to deny that the act infringes on freedoms but to justify it and explain why it is being used. The Emergencies Act was not needed for the Ambassador Bridge, not needed for the border in Coutts, not needed for the seizure of weapons in Coutts, and not needed in Quebec. Ironically, Quebec does not want the Emergencies Act enforced on its territory, but the Sûreté du Québec has been called in for backup in Ottawa. They should put that in their pipe and smoke it. The Prime Minister is saying that the act will be enforced geographically, but that is not how it works. He can say it as much as he wants, but that is not how it works. This is a Canadian act, in keeping with Canadian tradition. As with other traditions, the copy is always a poor imitation of the original. The Quebec National Assembly wants nothing to do with this act, nor does the Government of Quebec. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour. Conservatives in Quebec are not in favour, either. I am meeting with the NDP leader this afternoon to discuss. Could there be some way for us to come to an understanding? Only the Ottawa Liberals want it, because the ones from Quebec do not. If Ontario wants this act, that does not make it useful. This could all have been done differently, but that falls on them. Quebec obviously wants nothing to do with it. The Prime Minister has failed the test of collective freedom. On this, he has a sorry record. He often fails the test of freedom. He abandoned Raif Badawi. He has ignored the Uighurs. He is complicit with Spain against Catalonia. He sneers at Quebec's linguistic aspirations. He sneers at Quebec's secular aspirations. He sneers at freedom of expression and education if it is not in line with what he thinks and says. He starves provinces that do not meet his conditions with respect to health care. Even in security matters, the Prime Minister acts first and foremost by interfering, by grabbing powers that do not belong to him and by intervening in ways that, despite what he says, are not warranted as things now stand. All of Canada, except for the crisis in Ottawa that he himself engineered, sees this. He has failed the test of freedom of expression, because he has yielded the word “freedom” to his worst enemies: the far right and, more importantly, ignorance. Freedom is a progressive value; freedom is a national value; freedom is a Quebec value; freedom thrives on truth. Vaccination is a tool of freedom. It is imperfect, of course, but it remains the least bad solution. The sooner we accept it, the sooner all the health measures can be lifted. Worse, by his failure, he has abandoned the sick to manage a crisis that is completely of his own making. As for me, I will always defend freedom, especially the freedom of my nation. Quebec is free to make its own choices.

1284 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/17/22 10:27:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about everyone agrees with the intention of putting an end to the siege of Ottawa. It is just about the only hostile protest still going on in Canada. Although the intention is a good one, the means being used may not be. Quebec dealt with protests in Quebec City without the Emergencies Act. In Coutts, not only did the border reopen without the Emergencies Act, but weapons were seized without it. The Ambassador Bridge was reopened without the Emergencies Act. The situation in Manitoba was resolved without the Emergencies Act, and there are other examples. How can the Prime Minister claim from the beginning of his speech that there was no other way to intervene? Why did he not exclude the provinces and Quebec, which do not want to be subject to or use the powers of this law?

145 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/16/22 3:01:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that summary the Prime Minister just delivered is, in a way, a summary of his own failure. Is he aware that an act as important as the Emergencies Act requires some consensus in the House? The official opposition is against it. The Bloc Québécois is against it. Once again, I urge the NDP to give this matter some careful thought. Does the Prime Minister realize there are other ways to handle this and that he lacks the legitimacy to impose this act on Quebec?

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/16/22 2:59:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to the investments made by the federal government during the pandemic. I would remind him that these investments are being made with borrowed money, money that belongs to Quebeckers and Canadians. He is leaving a debt to Quebeckers and Canadians, and he should have incurred it without trying to impose conditions before making much larger health transfers and the mistakes of the past few days. He showed no shame in also referring to some of the darkest moments in the recent history of his country. Does the Prime Minister realize that we do not need him to go to the bank and that we do not need the Emergencies Act to contain the crisis in Quebec?

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/16/22 2:43:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Prime Minister actually understands how truly difficult things are for ordinary people. Does he realize that health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces? Does he realize how little he had to do in that regard? Does he realize how much he has messed things up? Does he realize that the energy that should be put towards combatting the pandemic is now being spent on fighting a security problem that should have never happened under his watch?

87 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/16/22 2:42:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I invite the Prime Minister to read his own order before reading out his answers to questions in the House. It does not say that the provinces have a choice. It says that the federal government chooses where it will or will not take action. Second, I invite members of the NDP to seriously reflect on this given the history of their party, which courageously opposed the War Measures Act in 1970. Third, it is shameful to compare the use of the Canadian army in Quebec for humanitarian purposes to the Emergencies Act. Does he realize that turning away—

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/16/22 2:31:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's job is to serve Canadians, and he is not supposed to achieve that by doing Quebeckers a disservice. Canada's current Prime Minister, of all people, should be aware that Quebeckers are particularly sensitive to any reference to this thinly disguised spawn of the War Measures Act.

53 words

All Topics