44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 4:52:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I remind members that the Emergencies Act states that the government must have done everything possible. However, before invoking the act, the government made no attempt to co-ordinate the various police services. That is proof that the nuclear option, as some members are calling it, was used without justification. The work was not done.
The only measure not permitted under existing legislation is the requisitioning of tow truck services. My colleagues demonstrated that. The invocation of the Emergencies Act is smoke and mirrors and an attempt to remedy the government's poor management of the crisis.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:55:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the interesting question. I answered that question directly in my speech.
I said that I am very worried that a request from a province or city that had failed to respond to a national crisis could become a justification to use the act. Failure is not one of the criteria set out in the act. All available resources must have been exhausted first.
Unfortunately, there were some problems and complacency on the part of police. A police chief resigned. However, that should not be a reason to justify such a strong legislative measure that has such potential to arbitrarily violate fundamental rights.
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 4:56:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has never sanctioned what has been happening in the streets of Ottawa. These are reprehensible acts. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to commend the law enforcement officers who have done excellent work and who finally got the resources they needed today to respond adequately.
The problem is that this should have been done a long time ago. The problem is that the government and the Prime Minister were insouciant. This government cannot make decisions.
Chantal Hébert, who has covered many governments over many years, said on the radio yesterday that each successive government in Canada has become increasingly centralist and that the current government has reached the height of centralism. This government is incapable of acting or making a decision.
We understand that the Prime Minister was required to isolate, but based on his lack of decision-making, you would think he has long COVID.
What happened with the Emergencies Act is a publicity stunt, as only this Prime Minister knows how to do. The problem is that we are setting a dangerous precedent. The seal has been broken. I fear and we fear that in future another government will be able to justify their decision based on what is happening in the streets of Ottawa to invoke the Emergencies Act when the issue is local and partisan and when it suits the government. By using it under the current circumstances, we are tarnishing Canada's reputation even more.
The precedents speak for themselves, but the Bloc Québécois is lending them its voice. I would like to give an example and talk about the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in April 2001, where three‑metre-high security fencing was erected for four kilometres in a densely populated residential sector, where security forces were provided by the Sûreté du Québec, the Quebec City police, the RCMP, CSIS, the Canadian Armed Forces, where protesters were organized, financed, motivated and questioned the authority of the state. They derailed a proposed free trade agreement. No state of emergency was declared at the time because the governments, including the federal government, were prepared. That is what happens.
Here we have a government that does not govern, that is unable to make decisions, unable to appoint an ambassador to Paris, unable to issue calls for tenders on time for the rail transportation projects that Quebeckers are waiting for. It is a government that has not issued a decision on Huawei when all of its trading partners have already done so. One sometimes wonders whether this is a government that is capable of doing anything at all.
What happened in the streets shows us that our assumptions may have been right. Yes, the Bloc Québécois has asked questions. The Bloc Québécois asked for a crisis task force. The Bloc Québécois took action. We have been accused of asking politicians to control the police. On February 7, the Ottawa police chief requested an additional 1,800 officers. The government’s response was to send 275 officers, and only 20 of them were assigned to the protests. As a percentage, this means that 1% of the Ottawa Police’s request for more officers was met. That is a 99% failure. That is measurable relative to what the Ottawa police themselves asked for while there was still time to act.
Yes, we can collaborate. Yes, we can use existing laws. Yes, we can punish these reprehensible acts. That is why the motion adopted by Quebec's National Assembly, which asked the government not to apply the Emergencies Act to Quebec, also insisted on the need for the federal government to collaborate with the provinces.
If one thing proves a lack of collaboration, it is this: the CAQ, the Liberal Party of Quebec, Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois and even the Conservative Party of Quebec MNA unanimously supported the motion. The “new liberal democratic party of Canada” coalition, however, will take no notice.
They say we need this law. We need it to freeze bank accounts and apply economic pressure.
I hope it is understandable that I am worried about a government feeling obliged to invoke emergency measures so it can block truckers' funding. Much worse things can happen; I hope they will not, but I am extremely worried.
The Basel Institute on Governance has already indicated that FINTRAC, Canada's financial crime intelligence and monitoring system, does not have enough people, enough money or enough resources and that it cannot do enough to prevent financial crimes. Moreover, Canada is known internationally to lack the ability, or perhaps the will, to crack down on the people who commit these crimes. This is the 21st century, yet the government says it does not have 21st-century tools to deal with 21st-century threats, so when it comes to truckers, bring on the emergency measures.
What else is there? The government needed the Emergencies Act to requisition tow trucks. What kind of leadership is it when even tow truck operators do not want to fall in line? That is really bad.
Obviously, the legislation exists for a number of reasons. There are circumstances in which it must be used. The crisis must be national in scope. It has to be a last resort, and right now this is not a last resort situation. There were other remedies that should have been used, but they were not. I am convinced that more could have been done. The facts speak for themselves.
Some will argue that the Ottawa police chief, who yes, of course, has a tough job to do, said that the extraordinary measures brought in by the legislation have been useful. What the Ottawa police chief said was that the municipal, provincial and federal states of emergency were useful. Other levels of government started doing their job before the federal government did its job.
I look forward to questions from the government side, which will argue that this was useful and that the police were given additional tools. First of all, the operations that are taking place could have been carried out with more personnel as reinforcements. Second, Parliament exists, we as legislators are here, and legislation that covers emergency measures is already in place precisely because police should not always be given all the tools they want. That is what democracy is all about: the exercise of legislative power over the executive and the police.
I could name a whole range of powers that the police once had, but no longer have, that might have been useful for them today, powers that they no longer have precisely because, in a democracy, these powers are not given unless the situation is desperate.
Throughout this crisis, I have been waiting for this government to show some leadership. I have been trying to understand how the decisions were made. I been trying to understand where the government's head was at. After quite a bit of searching, I just gave up.
1208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:10:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I hope you will allow me to forgo my colleague's little lesson on logic.
Security experts are telling us that communication is the most important tool in such operations.
For two to three weeks, we asked that a crisis task force be set up and that the minister conduct briefings. The Liberals did not make a decision about that. They do not make decisions.
The Ottawa police chief told us yesterday that the more officers are available early in a crisis, the less violence there is later. The Liberals made no decisions and this is the result.
I see that my colleague is working at home. Perhaps he forgot his logic in the lobby.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:23:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question to the hon. member is this: Does she not see a problem when millions and millions of dollars of foreign funds are flowing in to support organizers who openly call for the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Canada? Does she not see this foreign inflow of dollars to those who do not respect our democratic processes as a problem that actually is a national crisis?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:45:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Shefford.
I must confess something: I am exhausted. I am completely exhausted. I am intellectually, physically and mentally exhausted.
It is 6:45 p.m. on a Saturday night. I should be having supper with my wife and children at home, but I am here, in Parliament, discussing legislation regarding a national emergency, when there is no national emergency. It is over. There are no more people in the streets in front of Parliament. The trucks are gone, the people are gone. The crisis is over.
I have no problem with spending hours and nights talking about housing, seniors, health, climate change or any manner of important topics. I would spend my weekends here. I would camp here, with my sleeping bag. I would sleep in Parliament for all those worthwhile issues that are so important to people.
I am searching for the national crisis. Where is it?
We are still looking. We are looking for the national crisis. We keep looking for it, but we cannot find it. The outrageous truth is that there is no crisis.
I would like to commend the police outside. For 24 hours, they have been doing truly incredible work. I am not sure if members have seen them, but step by step, they have been slowly advancing. They had a strategy. That is the crux of the Bloc Québécois's argument. What tools do they have, now that the act has been in effect for the past few days? What more do they have now?
If they were able to do that now, then the government needs to explain to us how the police managed to carry out this strategy that they were unable to implement before.
I was there in 2001 at the Summit of the Americas. The police did roughly the same thing as they did today. They used pepper spray a bit, not too much. They advanced slowly. They managed to get the protesters under control. It went very well. There was no special legislation.
358 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:53:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
The Prime Minister said, “Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly.” Obviously. He added, “This is not the first, second or third option.” What are the three options that were supposedly considered? We do not know.
During a national crisis, the important thing is to show leadership. When a crisis occurs, a leader acknowledges that it is something difficult, that it is not easy for society, but that they think they should do this or that and that this is the way to go. That is what leadership is. Leadership is making decisions and telling us which way we will go.
As for the decision before us, seven Canadian provinces are against invoking this act. Is this what leadership looks like?
Thinking about that this week reminded me of the film 12 Angry Men. Has anyone seen that movie? It was an international hit adapted from a play by Reginald Rose. 12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama about a man on trial for murder. There are 12 jurors. The film begins as the jurors are meeting. Everyone thinks the defendant is guilty. The evidence is overwhelming. Everyone is anxious to go home, since it has been a long trial. Eleven people say he should be convicted, but one juror raises a doubt. He says no and questions the truth. He says the truth lies in another direction. Over the course of two hours, he slowly convinces everyone of his point of view, of what the truth is. He thinks the defendant is innocent. Now that is a leader.
Seven provinces oppose this legislation. The Prime Minister could have stood up and said that he thinks it is important and that it should be done for such and such a reason. That never happened. At no time did we see the Prime Minister show any leadership. That is what is missing.
I do not have time to talk about the October crisis, but I think members have understood what I am trying to say. This is a useless, totally disproportionate law that is not supported by a large part of the population. I have received thousands of emails from people who oppose it, thousands of emails from people who want us to vote against this legislation—
388 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:58:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am going to go in a different direction because I think it is important. There is one thing we have heard very little about in relation to this crisis.
We have heard a lot about extremist groups that infiltrated the protests. This is true and has been documented. These extremist groups exist, and we must combat them. However, there are other ways to do so. We did not need the Emergencies Act.
We have heard a lot about children being used as human shields. The media has really sensationalized this.
There are people outside who simply wanted to express their frustrations over what they have been living with for the past two years. I share that frustration. Everyone is fed up and tired. The health restrictions have been hard on people.
We, as members of Parliament, are relatively privileged. We probably have homes that are big enough to live in. Many of the people who are outside right now live with eight people in a one-bedroom apartment, and it is not easy going through this pandemic with all of these restrictions.
If, instead of tarring everyone with the same brush—this is Canadians we are talking about after all—the Prime Minister had listened to people all along, we might have been able to resolve this crisis in another way.
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:01:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by commending my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech and, more importantly, for finally agreeing to share his time with me.
It is with great concern that I rise today to participate in this historic debate. I would like to begin with a quick question. How do my colleagues feel when they see the images of the charging horses and the confrontations that have been playing on a loop on television for hours now?
Personally, I am wondering how we got to this point. I know that I am not the first one to say it, and that many of my colleagues have already talked about this, but I want to reiterate that we are still against applying the Emergencies Act across Canada.
First of all, I want to remind members that I have a degree in applied policy studies from the Université de Sherbrooke, which has helped make me a staunch democrat. I cannot help but wonder and worry about the message that the government is sending with the use of this measure, which undermines our democratic system.
Second, I will address the risk of radicalization, and third, I will talk about respect for jurisdictions and the demands of Quebec and the provinces and territories. One thing is certain, I will not be standing on a soap box, like some others have tried to do.
From the standpoint of democracy, we must ask ourselves whether this act really should have been invoked. In order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate two things. First, it must demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists. Second, it must demonstrate that ordinary laws cannot adequately address the situation.
As to the first condition, yes, there is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation. That situation is limited to Ontario, however, and specifically to Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois is not against applying the act, but it should be applied only where there is an occupation, which did not happen in Quebec. I know other members have already made this point in the debate, but it is worth repeating: This use of this act is not to be taken lightly. Its application must therefore be measured and balanced.
Another thing that worries me is that a broader application of this law than necessary could set a dangerous precedent. At this point, I have a few more questions. For example, why is the Prime Minister determined to apply this law everywhere, especially when he himself has said many times that it will not be used where it is not necessary?
The Prime Minister also stated, here in the House and in the supplementary documents pertinent to the motion, that he was concerned that other blockades would be set up elsewhere in Canada, particularly given the galvanizing effect of social media. As I will argue later, I believe that this legislation is actually one of the things fuelling support for protesters on social media.
No matter how hard I try to look at this issue from every angle, I simply do not see the real and imminent danger of the current situation in Ottawa happening elsewhere. Such historic legislation should never be invoked “just in case”.
I can only assume that the debate would be quite different if the motion had been limited to the province of Ontario. The government could have easily obtained a majority of votes in Parliament. The only reason we are here debating this now is that the government dragged its feet, as it has too often done since the beginning of its mandate.
This could have been addressed using ordinary legislation, with proper coordination and effective collaboration among police forces, as we have seen in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Why did the government not emulate what was done elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec before invoking the Emergencies Act?
Furthermore, if we look back a bit to try and see what we could have done, we will see that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, the crisis at Caledonia, the events of September 11, the COVID‑19 pandemic or any other dispute in Canadian history.
Using the act too liberally or too broadly, or applying it needlessly, poses a real risk of sending the wrong message to the political class, and above all to Canadians.
The government has been aware of the facts for a long time now, since some protesters turned into occupiers who were here to say. It simply continued to say that the responsibility of managing this crisis fell to the Ottawa police. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and, the very next day, the Ottawa police asked the province and the federal government for reinforcements. That was more than 12 days ago.
The Bloc Québécois wanted constructive action from the start. If the government had listened even just a little bit, if it had truly wanted to show political leadership, and if it had sat down at the table with representatives, if it had established a plan to intervene or simply helped come up with a plan, we probably would not be here.
I was listening to a constitutional expert this morning. He explained quite clearly that we already had the means to intervene. The highway safety code, the City of Ottawa bylaws, the Criminal Code and a tripartite collaboration would have allowed the different police services to coordinate in order to reinforce existing laws.
The declaration of the state of emergency in Ontario by the Ford government on February 11 had already given significant powers to the Ottawa police and the provincial police. Again, the federal government should have realized that, but instead it decided to bury its head in the sand and hide when the situation was serious.
At this time it seems that the blockades might be over before the Emergencies Act is implemented. We therefore cannot really link the act to the end of the blockades.
What is more, each crisis includes a risk of radicalization. Obviously, we hope that everything will end without violence, but we are also aware that as the number of protesters decreases, the closer we get to the hard core, even extremist, group. These are very likely people who have nothing to do with the spirit of the January 29 protest. The remaining participants in the crowd are increasingly unstable and unpredictable. We are right to wonder what ideas the occupiers will leave with, because they currently feel emboldened by their supporters and have financial backing. We have seen how well organized they are.
This summer, I was reading a book about the new age of violent extremism and radicalization in western democracies entitled Le nouvel âge des extrêmes? Les démocraties occidentales, la radicalisation et l'extrémisme violent, edited by David Morin and Sami Aoun in collaboration with Sylvana Al Baba Douaihy. I am interested in this issue, especially since it was studied last spring at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am the vice-chair, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where I have participated as a substitute. The tone is set from the first paragraph of the introduction, and it has informed my arguments on the effects of the Emergencies Act, which runs the risk of throwing fuel on the fire. In his book entitled The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth History 1914-1991, published in 1994, Eric John Hobsbawn wrote that the century was not ending well. You do not need to be a prophet of doom to recognize that the 21st century is not off to a much better start.
In the last two decades we have seen a wave of Islamist terrorists, several civil and international conflicts, millions of victims and displaced people, a major migrant crisis, the rise of violent far-right populism and the acceleration of climate change. To this bleak portrait we must now add the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a global health crisis.
Furthermore, Quebec said that it wanted nothing to do with this act. The protest held in Quebec's capital showed that problems can be prevented when there is strong political will. I want to commend law enforcement for their professionalism and for their exemplary responses. The question here is not so much about the Emergencies Act itself as it is about the reasons why the situation got to this point. The question answers itself.
I have one last thing to say. When I think of the Liberal government, the image that keeps coming to mind is of a firefighter arsonist. The Prime Minister has favoured the wait-and-see approach. He let the situation drag on and deteriorate but did nothing. True to form, he stood by and watched it all happen. He also insulted and dismissed the protesters by tarring them all with the same brush. Now, he has invoked the Emergencies Act to make it seem that he is putting out the fire he himself started, but instead he is adding fuel to the fire, stoking the flames of hate and division.
1563 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:11:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I think I have demonstrated in my speech that this is not a national crisis, but one that is limited to Ottawa.
Elsewhere, such as in Quebec City, the crises that occurred were resolved, because there was co-operation. Right now, both the police and the governments have all the tools that they need to act. In Quebec City, there was coordination between the Quebec department of public security and the mayor, who had the political will, who showed leadership, and who warned protesters that unruly behaviour would not be tolerated. There was none, because there was coordination with the Quebec City police. This was also the case elsewhere, in different places, and in different positions.
The necessary tools were available, and the Emergencies Act was not. All it does is add fuel to the fire and feed hatred and division.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, I addressed this issue.
The Prime Minister should not have been acting like a political commentator, making inappropriate comments. He should have acted like a political leader, led an all-party committee to get everyone around the same table, and come up with a peaceful solution.
All he accomplished by doing that, as I said, was to make the situation worse. That is typical of him. We saw it with the Wet'suwet'en crisis. The Prime Minister has this tendency to let things drag on and let crises escalate, hoping that everything will magically resolve itself.
That is not how things work. We need a leader who can bring people together to find solutions in a crisis.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:13:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned this, but I wanted to give her a chance to elaborate.
When there is a crisis, everyone needs to do some soul-searching to make sure that it is not too late to do the right thing.
I have to wonder whether the protesters became entrenched because they were egged on by certain politicians and also by the words of the Prime Minister, which made people feel abandoned, unimportant and shunned from society.
I would like my colleague to talk about that, but also about how everyone, on both sides of the House, has some soul-searching to do.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:42:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech.
Earlier, my Liberal colleague referenced the theatre in response to my colleague's unsuccessful attempt to find the crisis here. Personally, I think the Prime Minister is the one who is hard to find.
In my opinion, the real theatre we are seeing here is the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in an attempt to hide its own incompetence.
What does my colleague think about that?
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:33:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is very passionate when we talk about fairness in politics. This is what we ought to do right now. When there is a crisis, I know it is not very easy, especially for me, to put aside any partisanship. However, folks, what we have to address today right now is a health crisis. If we want to work together, we need to put aside our partisanship and especially not make any amalgames, as we say in French.
Please work all together for all Canadians.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:34:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal government, we never considered invoking the extreme measures act. The thought never even crossed our minds.
I would like to once again remind the member that this kind of dubious association is inappropriate, especially in such a delicate situation with security implications. Let us do our best to set partisanship aside, even though we may sometimes be tempted to go there.
I would remind the House that, during the crisis the member referred to, nobody on this side of the House suggested using the extreme measures act as the government is doing now.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:47:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the problem with the Liberal Party: Every day the story changes. Every day the reason it needs these powers changes. We know from legal experts that it does not need these powers to stop blockades. The powers exist. No government, since Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Prime Minister, has required this. We have had 9/11, the Oka crisis and the G20 in Toronto. Never has a Prime Minister gone this far to punish political opponents.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:38:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on Friday, I listened to my colleagues for nine hours. Today, I have been listening to them all day right from 7 a.m., even though I went to bed at 3 a.m. because I was writing this speech, and even though I will be here until midnight.
I have noticed the extent to which the polarization that I see on social media has crept into the House. I had difficulty writing this speech, which says a lot, because anyone observing me even a little in the House knows that I am constantly writing.
It is difficult to find the words to avoid polarization with all these emotions present. Emotions are running high, and I am hearing a lot of heated comments in the House at present.
It was not easy to write this speech because the invocation of the Emergencies Act is a historic event that will set the bar for its invocation in the future. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that its use will not be taken lightly in the future just because it has been taken lightly today.
Canada has experienced some very dangerous, critical and urgent situations. Almost all of my colleagues have mentioned the Oka crisis, the rail blockades in 2020, the Caledonia crisis, September 11 and COVID‑19.
I want to make one thing clear right now. I never have and never will have sympathy for extremists, on either the right or the left. I have never had sympathy for hate speech or threats. I was outraged and shocked to see Nazi and Confederate flags. I felt sick with anger. I will never minimize threats that someone may receive. I have been threatened myself after a member of Parliament spoke to the media and shared misinformation regarding a vote in committee.
All day yesterday, I responded to hundreds of emails, and every single one of them was calling on us not to enforce the Emergencies Act. I was getting emails not only from my constituents, but also from people in Calgary, Vancouver, Burnaby, Prince George, Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and even Ottawa. The people of Ottawa have been most affected by this situation. All that was missing were some emails from Prince Edward Island.
This legislation scares them very much, and they have the right to be listened to, to be heard and to get answers. Section 3 of the Emergencies Act states that the government must demonstrate that there is a dangerous and urgent situation that cannot be effectively dealt with ordinary laws. However, the order does not demonstrate that existing intervention powers are inadequate.
In other places, law enforcement used the tools it was supposed to use, municipal bylaws, highway traffic acts and the Criminal Code. That is what should have been done here from the start. Some might say that there was no way to predict the future or know what was going to happen.
Of course Ottawa served as an example to others, but Ottawa was indeed aware of the situation. Many of my colleagues in the House of Commons mentioned that extremist groups have been on social media for two years. They also mentioned that on social media and in the media, there was talk of a convoy 70 kilometres long. The warning went out one week before the convoy arrived, which should have been enough time to plan and figure out how to contain the situation before it got out of hand the way it did. This type of action is possible through coordination, teamwork, the creation of an emergency response team, collaboration and visionary leadership.
The Prime Minister also explained to the House and in documents attached to the motion that he feared that other blockades would go up elsewhere in Canada, given the associations and the mobilization that is possible on social media. However, the act makes it clear that it must be invoked not based on hypothetical events, but on the presence of real danger.
The act is to be used when the police are unable to enforce the laws and bylaws available. Right now, I feel that the act is more of a positive move than a reasonable one. A reasonable move would have been to recognize that the problem lies primarily in Ottawa and not elsewhere in the country.
Several incidents have been cited in the House to persuade us that the Emergencies Act is necessary. On February 17, the theft of a trailer full of weapons in Peterborough was mentioned. At 1:55 p.m. that day, the member for Parkdale—High Park drew a connection between that theft and the protest that was going on at the time in Quebec City. That was on February 17. However, the trailer was found on February 16. It was wrong to couple the two together. That is misinformation. This incident cannot be used to support the invocation of the act.
On the same day, the crane truck that was parked in front of the Prime Minister's office was considered a threat. It is no longer there now, but if it was a threat, why was it not moved from the start? The Criminal Code is clear. Paragraphs 423(1)(a) to 423(1)(g) of the Criminal Code deal with such incidents, threats and intimidation. The vehicle already would have had to be moved under the existing Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.
Members talked about the threats in the videos. I saw those videos, and I did not like what I saw. My colleague talked about this earlier. We have known about some of these Facebook groups for two years. I cannot understand why they were not shut down in accordance with the Criminal Code.
I know of seven sections of the Criminal Code that could have been used to silence the people who made those videos and bring them to justice because what they were doing was illegal: paragraph 261(1)(a); subsection 423(1), which I talked about earlier; subsection 46(2); subsections 59(1) to 59(3), paragraphs 63(1)(a) and 63(1)(b); and subsection 72(1). There are plenty of them.
For money coming from the United States and possibly, according to sources, from extremist supremacist groups, sections 83.02, 83.03 and 83.04 of the Criminal Code cover that. Section 83.11 says that banks can freeze assets. We had all the legislative tools we needed to address the crisis before it turned into a 23-day occupation.
To sum up, all law enforcement needed was coordination and the ability to call in tow trucks. The Criminal Code covers that too. With a court order or an order from the Attorney General, the tow trucks would have had no choice but to act, and they would have been supported.
In a crisis, we must all weigh our words and our actions carefully, whether we are MPs, the Prime Minister, law enforcement officers, mayors, municipal councillors or protesters. During a crisis, we must take the time to balance our emotional and rational selves. Too much of one or the other is not a good thing. Inaction can be just as damaging as sudden or extreme action. On both sides of this issue, consultation, collaboration and coordination between the various police forces were possible without applying the Emergencies Act. It took planning and leadership.
It was possible to arrest people who threatened others without applying the Emergencies Act. It was possible to arrest the ringleaders without applying the Emergencies Act. I could go on much longer. I have another two pages of examples.
The police asked for help as far back as February 7 and 11. Leadership and consultation are what this protest needed, and that is what police forces are providing right now.
We do not need to create a precedent.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:52:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my speech yesterday and today, I listened to the debate.
There is ample agreement that the situation was urgent. However, where we do not agree on the act is that there is no national crisis. This is a local crisis. That is the difference.
51 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
