- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Louis-Saint-Laurent
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $128,105.00
- Government Page
- May/3/23 2:52:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not have the honour or dignity to provide a clear answer to a very precise question, then we will need to default to the parliamentary secretary. The Vienna Convention is very clear. Article 9 gives a country the full authority to expel any diplomat it wants. Since Monday, Canadians have been aware that a diplomat from Beijing acted in an unacceptable manner toward an MP. To attack an MP is to attack all MPs and Canadian democracy as a whole. When will the government send him packing?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 2:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our country is a country of law and order that respects international agreements. Article 9 of the Vienna Convention states that a country may without having to explain its decision expel a person declared persona non grata.
The question is very simple. Since at least Monday, Canadians have been aware that there is a so-called Chinese diplomat here who should be expelled. Why has the government not done that yet?
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/22/22 11:26:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise here as a member of Parliament, but first and foremost as a man and a citizen of this world. As a citizen, what I saw yesterday was completely unacceptable. We see intimidation all around us, but I do not recall ever seeing it this bad.
I am also speaking as a former journalist. I was a journalist for 20 years, including six years as a parliamentary reporter at the National Assembly. I even served as president of the National Assembly's parliamentary press gallery for over a year. I know what a great privilege it is to be a journalist, and even more so when you have direct, daily and even physical, immediate access to our elected decision-makers.
We must have zero tolerance for intimidation of this kind, especially since this individual has access to places we frequent. The member did a good job describing the reality of the situation. As a former journalist, I call on all journalists to take a very strong stand against this utterly unacceptable situation.
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, Canada is grappling with a major crisis that is affecting all Canadian families.
This is the first time in over 30 years that inflation has hit 5.1%. This affects all Canadian families but, unfortunately, we are not here this evening to talk about something that is having a direct impact on all Canadian families. We are here to talk about an act this government wants to invoke. This act is unnecessary, the circumstances do not meet its criteria and it sets precedents that could end up hurting us in the future. Seven of the 10 provincial governments and seven of the 10 provincial premiers have rejected it. It is therefore not appropriate. The act I am talking about is the Emergencies Act.
This act was made almost 35 years ago and has never been invoked. I will explain why it has never been invoked, why it should not be invoked now and why the government has chosen to invoke it anyway. I will explain why, unfortunately, it has the Prime Minister's petty partisan fingerprints all over it.
Before getting to the matter at hand, I want to say two things. First, I want to thank the police forces who are keeping people safe here in Parliament, in Ottawa, and across the country with honour and dignity. I want to thank them. In the same breath, and I will immediately admit to my conflict of interest as a former journalist, I can only harshly condemn those who are attacking or intimidating journalists who are currently working in difficult circumstances. I am thinking of the miscreant who assaulted the TVA reporter last night. Like a coward he attacked her from behind. This situation is completely unacceptable and intolerable in our democratic life. Let us hope that the police forces can find this individual who acted in such an unacceptable manner.
Let us now talk about the Emergencies Act. The leader of the official opposition, our Conservative leader, was very clear when she said that we are the party of law and order and that we believe that the trucks must leave. That is the position of the Conservative Party concerning what is currently going on in Ottawa. Illegal blockades are not acceptable.
We have to remember that three weeks ago, when this all started, the first rally that took place was much less serious than people were saying. I am not the one saying this. I would like to quote a tweet from Radio-Canada, which is hardly a conservative organization. On January 30, the French CBC tweeted:
Slogans, dancing and fireworks: far from an insurrection, the thousands of people gathered in Ottawa protested in good spirits.
That is how Radio-Canada described the beginning of the protest that took place in Ottawa. Unfortunately, three weeks later, the protest has become an occupation and is no longer unacceptable. An illegal situation has no place in our system of law and order. There is no such thing as somewhat or partially illegal. Something is either legal or illegal. There are thousands of ways to express opposition to something. It is important not to deliberately choose the wrong way.
The Emergencies Act has existed since 1988. It has never been invoked or implemented by any government. As the Prime Minister of Canada says, it is not a law to be taken lightly. It is not the first, second or third option, but rather something to be used when the situation is extremely serious and important. That is what the Prime Minister said. Perhaps he should have reflected on his own words before he invoked the Emergencies Act. The Prime Minister has been asked the following every day: What were the first, second and third things he tried before invoking the Emergencies Act?
He is incapable of saying anything that even slightly resembles an answer to the question. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister.
The Emergencies Act does not even meet his own criteria. This act must be invoked only when there is a serious threat that keeps the government from functioning. Apart from yesterday, the House has always been able to sit. The Prime Minister—although I am not permitted to say it—was in the House and stood on this very floor to answer questions. The government continued to function. This act must be invoked only if we feel that our territorial sovereignty and integrity have been undermined. This has not been the case. Yes, there have been some problematic situations, which I will speak about later, but they have been dealt with using the ordinary laws we already have, without having to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The Prime Minister told the House that he had consulted with the premiers.
He did not actually consult the premiers. He informed them of his decision. That is why seven premiers, seven provincial governments, are opposed to this act.
The truth is that the current situation and what has been happening across Canada over the past few weeks can be dealt with under the existing laws, without the use of the Emergencies Act.
The actions that the government is proposing to take under the act include freezing accounts and assets and directly interfering in people's bank accounts, which could be used for illegal purposes.
Immediate action can be taken under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. We do not need the Emergencies Act. As for threats to Canada's sovereignty, direct action can be taken under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code without any need for the Emergencies Act.
Subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Code covers the much-talked-about situation with the tow trucks. It gives the police the right to ask anyone who does not have a reasonable excuse “to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace”.
The Emergencies Act, which includes such extreme measures, need not be invoked since subsection 129(b) of the Criminal Codes does the same thing. There is no need to used the act given that existing laws are already been applied.
In fact, the situation in Ottawa is unfortunately not unlike what has happened elsewhere in the country. We saw the same problems with blockades at the border in Coutts, Alberta; Emerson, Manitoba; Surrey, B.C.; and at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario. Those four crises were resolved using existing laws.
How were they resolved? In those areas, we saw real leadership, police forces helping one another to act directly, and a coordinated effort supported by politicians that led to action being taken.
Yes, in Coutts, weapons were discovered that that could worry everyone. When I myself saw this cache of weapons, I wondered what was going on, because it was dangerous. However, the weapons were discovered, and the people will be punished under existing laws without there being the need to resort to the Emergencies Act. We must be vigilant in that regard.
Members will recall that the War Measures Act was used for the last time in 1970. The now-repealed War Measures Act looked nothing like the act we are debating today. The new Emergencies Act was drafted by the Conservative government under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and introduced by the Hon. Perrin Beatty in 1988.
The Emergencies Act has never been invoked, even during major demonstrations at events like the G7; the G20; the Summit of the Americas, which I attended as a journalist; the Oka crisis; the COVID‑19 crisis; and September 11. These extraordinary events could have been used as reasons to invoke the Emergencies Act, but it was not invoked.
The Liberal government, however, invoked this law over what has been happening in Ottawa. It did so because this government is unfortunately led by a Prime Minister who is, above all, guided by partisanship. This is nothing new.
I remind members that during the SNC‑Lavalin scandal, the Prime Minister let partisanship take over when he stuck his nose into a legal matter. That is appalling.
The same thing happened with the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, when he did everything he could to prevent the truth from coming out and being available to everyone.
Remember that an election was called to bring in a vaccine mandate for public servants when there was no scientific advice on such a thing. The same thing happened with the truckers. There was no public health advice or scientific analysis to justify the vaccine mandate.
The government did nothing for 17 days before deciding to act. Curiously, on February 11, it said that everything was in place to act without invoking special legislation, but then on February 14, it decided to invoke the special legislation.
This is a Prime Minister who stigmatizes, divides and insults Canadians. These are not my words, but those of the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert. What Canadians need is real leadership and a prime minister who brings people together and unites them, not someone who stigmatizes people who do not think like him.
1538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
