44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 17, 2022 10:00AM
- Feb/17/22 8:48:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He did a great job of explaining things. I could never have made a speech like that. He did a great job of explaining the difference between the Emergencies Act, which we are debating now, and the War Measures Act in 1970.
That said, emergency legislation, even if it does not apply in Quebec—which is still uncertain—is still retraumatizing for Quebeckers. It seems highly likely that it will apply in Quebec. I myself participated in movies about those days. There are plays and books about it. Once I was even a part of a performance about the trial of Michel Chartrand, “le procès des cinq”, which was after 1970.
People have not forgotten. That is pretty obvious right now. Our offices are getting calls from thousands of people telling us to vote against it. They could not care less about how it is written. What they care about is what it means, and that is what scares them.
Could my colleague comment on the trauma triggered by this bill?
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:49:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the trauma is there, and we must not think of the trauma as illegitimate or irrational. It was an extremely serious situation, for many reasons. We in the Bloc Québécois even moved a motion on our opposition day in 2020 on the 50th anniversary of the October crisis. We simply wanted an apology for the victims. There was no sympathy on our side for any form of criminality.
There were victims in that crisis, and we know that federal leaders were called upon to fiddle with the list of people to be arrested. Many people do not realize how very serious this is.
RCMP officials said at the time and again a few years later that things did not need to go that far, that the existing institution could have taken care of it. However, it seems that psychological warfare was used. Unfortunately, it has had long-lasting side effects.
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:50:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was quite gobsmacked while listening to the member's speech, particularly because the member started by saying that the Government of Canada should have acted sooner. The Bloc Québécois normally has a lot of respect for jurisdictions. We were there to support municipalities. We were there to support the provincial governments that asked for our assistance, with additional forces and creating an integrated command. We were there right from the start. Had we done something sooner, they would have been screaming that we were overreaching as a federal government.
His own critic for public safety, on Monday, said that the federal government needed to show leadership. Does he not think the federal government is showing leadership by creating tools that allow the provincial governments to use their discretion to stop protests across the country, including the ones at Lacolle that are being contemplated by provincial police in Quebec?
It is great that the member mentions the National Assembly of Quebec, because 72% of Quebeckers agree with this measure. What does the member have to say to them?
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:51:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions there.
To begin with, a poll is a poll. It is talked about, negotiated, studied and disputed. We did not analyze the details of the methodology. The important thing to look at is the question being asked.
I am sure Quebeckers agree that the act should apply in Ontario or other places where it is needed, but the act does not say that. In its current form, the order will apply everywhere.
That is what I tell Quebeckers. I tell them that the National Assembly is 100% the legitimate legislature of Quebeckers. That is where their representatives are. Every political party, regardless of its political affiliation, says so. It is clear, simple and precise. There is no debate. In fact, a vote in the House is a lot more scientific than a poll. Let us be clear about that.
We have taken a lot of time to explain that. We are asking the government to take action, but it seems that the members opposite are unable to take action without interfering.
As soon as we tell them to take action, it is as though all courses of action are equal. That is not what we are saying. For example, the government could have provided the City of Ottawa with the resources it was asking for. It could have done many things.
One thing is for sure. I have explained it many times. I spent 20 minutes explaining it. I even explained it in response to some questions. There is a difference between actions taken in accordance with existing legislation and actions taken in accordance with special legislation. The real problem here is that the existing legislation was not used, yet the government invoked special legislation.
293 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:53:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will ask the member a question on policing. Some members tonight have talked about a slight inconvenience and annoyances, but others have spoken about the fear in the community. As we have all seen, the police have not been able to address crime and have not been able to enforce bylaws for municipal-level infractions.
I wonder if the member could tell us why he thinks policing has not been enforced in this situation in Ottawa.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:54:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from what I saw, the police in Quebec City managed to enforce the law. They managed to enforce the law at the Ambassador Bridge and in Alberta, when they arrested people who had weapons. There are several examples of where the law was enforced.
There has been a serious management and leadership problem in the very region we are in right now. It is as simple as that.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 8:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a historic and unprecedented situation facing our country. For the first time since its passage in 1988, the Emergencies Act is being invoked by the Prime Minister. The law outlines a type of situation that would merit its invocation. It notes that it must only be used during an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada that are so serious as to be a national emergency.
While it is the Prime Minister's decision to invoke the act, it is the duty of members of the House who have been placed here to either reject it or ratify it and ensure, if the measures are taken, that they are justifiable and appropriate.
The act enumerates four circumstances that would justify the use of its powers. Let me outline those emergencies described in the act, and hold the circumstances of the current standoff up against these provisions, to see if today's situation meets any of these criteria.
Criteria one involves espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada, or such activities directed toward and in support of such espionage and sabotage. I have seen no clear evidence that blockades have been infiltrated by spies or other acts of espionage, nor has the government brought any such evidence forward to the House.
Criteria two involves foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada, and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person. The Prime Minister has alluded to foreign funding by individuals, however it remains unclear how this is detrimental to the interest of Canadians. There is no foreign country that is financing or otherwise supporting the blockades financially, and that is the test. If the Prime Minister believes it is a foreign government funding this, then he has an obligation to share that with the House.
Criteria three involves activities within or relating to Canada, directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or properties for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological objectives within Canada or a foreign state. There has been no concerted, violent effort made by any members of the blockade. In fact, we saw mostly peaceful removal of the protesters on the Ambassador Bridge. Isolated acts of violence do not equate to full-blown acts of violence that are aimed at achieving political objectives.
Criteria four involves activities directed toward undermining, by covert, unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
Every day I have been walking to my office and to the House of Commons, like all MPs, unimpeded by protesters. To be sure, they have effectively blocked several streets, created a lot of noise and made life more difficult for those of us living downtown. Well, what has happened in downtown Ottawa in the last three weeks is nothing remotely close to the violent overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act explicitly prohibits the use of these kinds of powers on lawful protests or dissent. If the present circumstances do not warrant using the act for the first time, they absolutely pale in comparison to the previous times the act's predecessor was invoked.
I was a legislative assistant to the government that created this act to replace the War Measures Act to prevent the suspension of charter rights and government overreach. Through our long history, there are only three other times this has happened, during the two world wars and during the October Crisis, when there was an armed insurrection and a diplomat and a politician were kidnapped. Pierre Laporte was murdered and bombs were set off in Quebec.
It was a horrible experience and, even still, some called it overreach. Does a traffic jam on the street in front of Parliament Hill merit the same type of response as those three incidences? Of course not.
The act must only be used as a last resort. That is what the Prime Minister said. If this measure is his last resort, what were his plans A, B and C, because we did not see them. Did he make himself available to meet with the delegation of protesters to hear them out? Of course not. Did he dispatch a delegation of his ministers to meet with them, any key caucus members or senior officials other than the RCMP? Of course not. The government's report to Parliament on the Emergencies Act consultations confirms this.
There are 58 engagements on that list. I searched through the details of the 58 engagements. Did I find a reference to one government official, one minister or the Prime Minister meeting with Canadians on this? No, I did not. The government and the Prime Minister had meetings with themselves, not with Canadians. They went from sitting on their duffs in unproductive meetings to implementing the most heavy-handed act available to government. The Prime Minister said he did not take it lightly, but the evidence in his own documents shows otherwise.
The government does not need the Emergencies Act to arrest illegal protesters. This is done often, just ask the Minister of Environment. Cutting off the funding of an illegal activity does not require the Emergencies Act. The proceeds of crime legislation deals with that. The deputy director of FINTRAC, in a statement before a parliamentary committee, said that there is no evidence of foreign extremist financing behind these demonstrations. There is no need then for the Emergencies Act to stop foreign funding.
For 21 days, the federal government has had the regular legislative tools to deal with the Ottawa protests, but it has not used them. It has not stopped one jerry can of fuel, one hot tub or one barbecue propane container from being carried through the protest right by the police. Meanwhile, provincial governments in Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. used standard policing tools to dispense with the protests.
Days before the convoy had even arrived in Ottawa, the Prime Minister was stigmatizing and vilifying the participants. He called them racists and misogynists, a fringe minority that holds unacceptable views. This is how the Prime Minister operates. He divides, stigmatizes and drives wedges between himself and those who do not agree with him, and he does it for the most naked of political reasons. He thinks it makes for good politics for himself and the Liberal Party, and that it goes over well with his base.
This is not a prime minister for all of Canada or all Canadians. This is a very selective prime minister, one who picks and chooses his causes based on the degree to which they further his vain, glorious self-image or the interests of the Liberal Party. Not long ago, the Prime Minister calculated that it would be in his interest to opine on the agriculture reforms that were being proposed by the Government of India, the world's largest democracy and a fellow member of the Commonwealth.
In the ensuing diplomatic spat that resulted from his unsolicited and righteous remarks, the Prime Minister justified his intervention in the domestic affairs of the world's largest democracy by saying, and I know the government is listening, “Canada will always stand up for the right of peaceful protest anywhere around the world”, except apparently at home. The Prime Minister passionately supports the principles of free speech and peaceful protest. It is just the practice of free speech and peaceful protests that he opposes, especially at home in front of the symbol of free speech and democracy, Parliament Hill.
Conservatives sympathize with those Canadians who have been affected by the blockades. Critical trade links were halted, but have now been restored, and many small businesses have had to shut their doors in light of the protests. The protesters here in Ottawa brought a message and that message has been heard. The Conservatives have heard them. We will stand up for them and for all Canadians who want to get back to normal life. We will not stop until the mandates are ended.
Canadians have sacrificed so much. We all know that. Every member of Parliament has heard and seen first-hand the sacrifices. However, in a country more divided than ever, the Prime Minister has decided to purposely politicize the pandemic for his own gain.
1430 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:05:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the member's remarks, I felt like we were living in two different worlds. It is not lost on me that he kept talking about these peaceful protests that ended quietly and through dialogue. I saw the news, and in Coutts, Alberta, they ended because there was a huge cache of weapons. That is something that is quite concerning to all Canadians. He was talking about the premiers who could do this without emergency powers. In Ontario, they actually enacted—
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:05:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18 are being violated. I cannot hear the minister trying to ask a question because of the heckling from the people she is trying to ask the question of.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:06:08 p.m.
- Watch
I have stopped the clock. I will allow the minister to ask her question again, and I do ask members, that if they have other questions and comments, to wait until it is their turn. I am sure the member for South Shore—St. Margarets can answer without the help of his colleagues.
The hon. minister.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:06:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, while I always appreciate the comments, I do appreciate the opportunity to ask this question.
The member was talking about premiers who were able to do this without emergency measures, but in Ontario last Friday, the premier actually brought forward a state of emergency, which comes with extraordinary powers. They were then very supportive of the federal government bringing this forward because of the extraordinary damage to our economy and the security of Canadians at border points, as well as right here in Ottawa. What I hear from the members opposite is a complete disregard for the safety of people in Ottawa.
When will the member recognize that people are unsafe and they are scared? It is our job, as parliamentarians, to protect them.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:07:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister. We do live in two worlds. Your world, where you watch the CBC to find out what is happening—
27 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
Please address comments through the Chair.
The hon. member.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:07:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the minister and the government watch CBC to get all their news. In our world, we actually go and talk to people. We go to the protests at the borders, where the people are, to find out what they are saying to try to represent them in Parliament. We do not just sit in West Block talking to each other in those ineffective meetings, which always happen on the government's side and that produce absolutely nothing. The government went from zero initiatives to the most draconian piece of legislation that exists in this country, and—
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:08:05 p.m.
- Watch
I do want to get to more questions and comments.
The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:08:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have been listening to my colleagues since this morning because this is an extremely important issue.
What I am hearing does not make sense. It is like a book without a cover or anything written inside. Some people think everything is sombre and sad, but others are living in a magical land of unicorns. Where is the middle ground?
Could my colleague tell me what measures should have been taken sooner, based on that middle ground?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:08:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister should have actually enforced the existing laws and tools he has before him without using the act. I am hearing from members opposite that it is not his job. That is the problem with the government. Nothing is its job. Whether it is inflation or this crisis, it is always somebody else's fault.
My colleague from Nova Scotia, who I respect a lot, has also said that it is not our problem, that we did not create the economic crisis we are in. I am sorry, but you did. That is your excuse for everything in this House.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:09:34 p.m.
- Watch
I would like to remind the member he is not to use the word “you”. That would prevent me from having to get up so often to redirect him.
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I heard some words around this House today saying that people are not talking to constituents, that people are not talking to workers, and that members of Parliament are not talking to their communities. I just want to say that we are. What I am hearing is that people have been traumatized by this.
I wanted to ask something of the Conservative Party and the member who says they will stand up for the occupiers. Will they endorse illegal occupations going forward, or is it just this one they are supporting?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 9:10:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not think I said that. What I said is that we will stand up for ending the mandates.
In her relationship with the Liberals and supporting bringing in a reduction in people's freedoms, I would pose a question to her. Why is she not listening to the people she is hearing from who are complaining about wanting these mandates reduced and relieved? Provinces are doing it. Provinces out west are doing it. All kinds of provinces are doing it. The government is ignoring and continues to ignore the needs of Canadians who want to get back to a normal life. It is putting its own political agenda ahead of everybody in order to try to wedge and divide us.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
