44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 20, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/20/22 8:15:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know what the Bloc Québécois's position is, after polling shows that 72% of Quebeckers support the government's measures.
Furthermore, this is not only a problem in Ottawa. As the member for Windsor West just explained, the threat to our borders and key infrastructure is not over.
The Ottawa police chief explained this weekend how important the emergency measures were in dealing with the situation in our nation's capital. I am voting in favour of these measures because I want to provide adequate tools to our police forces, whose job is very difficult.
When the member speaks to police officers in her community and to members of the Sûreté du Québec, how will she explain that she does not want them to have the same tools to ensure their safety during illegal blockades?
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:49:59 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we know, the Ottawa police asked for 1,800 extra police officers, but the federal government sent only a handful.
Can the member explain that?
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 12:56:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kanata—Carleton.
I rise today to take part in this historic debate in the House of Commons on the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I want to begin by thanking police chief Pam Mizuno and the men and women of the Windsor police force. The operation to clear the blockade of our community’s lifeline, the Ambassador Bridge, was professional, effective and, above all, peaceful. They restored order at home and provided the blueprint for the peaceful operations in our nation’s capital.
I thank the Ottawa police force and its police chief, Steve Bell. I thank the OPP and RCMP, and the police forces from communities across Canada, be it Peel, Durham, Calgary or beyond. Through the bitter cold of an Ottawa winter, when all they wished for was to return home safe with their families, they met the challenge with courage, professionalism and restraint. They have restored the rule of law and returned Ottawa to its residents. I thank them.
I thought carefully about what I wanted to say today in the House of Commons, not wanting to repeat too much of what has already been said. Last weekend, my family flew in from Windsor to join me in Ottawa for a special ceremony at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland. My father Richard was being honoured with the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, which was presented by the Polish ambassador, Dr. Andrzej Kurnicki, on behalf of the President of Poland.
The Cross of Freedom and Solidarity is given to members of the democratic opposition movement in Poland, and to members of the Solidarity movement who were imprisoned or killed by the communist authoritarian regime in Poland, including during the imposition of martial law. My father was a member of the Solidarity movement, the first free and independent trade union in the Soviet bloc. He was the chair of Solidarity in a factory of 7,000 workers. They fought for the rights of workers and citizens.
On December 13, 1981, the communist dictatorship of Poland declared martial law on its people. Civil liberties were suspended. Communications were cut, both within Poland and to the outside world. Thousands of tanks, armoured vehicles and armed soldiers poured into the street. At 20 minutes past midnight, the police came to our door and arrested my father. For two weeks, our family did not know whether my father was alive or whether he was dead.
It was only many days later, when my mother was in an outdoor farmer’s market picking up groceries, that a kind and courageous police officer carefully approached her. He told her not to turn around and not to look back. He slipped a note from my father into her pocket, written on a cigarette paper. It said, “Don’t fret; I am alive, and I am being held in detention.” Thousands of Solidarity members were rounded up that night, and during the subsequent years of martial law, many were killed.
During the ceremony, my father dedicated the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity he received to the memory of his cousin, Jozek Widerlik. Jozek was a 24-year-old shipyard worker, shot and killed by the military police coming out of a Gdansk shipyard during the protests in 1970. That same system that arrested my father and killed his cousin dubbed my father an enemy of the state. Canada gave us safe harbour, and in 1983 my family arrived at Pearson airport as political refugees.
Why do I raise my family’s story today? For one, that ceremony at the embassy and my father’s experience under martial law weighed heavily on my thoughts, because two days later we were debating the invocation of the Emergencies Act. It is a discussion and a decision I take seriously and with caution, but I support the rule of law and giving our law enforcement the tools they need to restore the rule of law, and I support these measures. Most telling is that my father supports these measures.
As members can imagine, we have talked a lot about the situation in Canada, and I am grateful to have that opportunity in these difficult times. However, I also raise my family’s story because I have heard many people during the protests, and here in this House, compare the Emergencies Act to martial law and to communism. Such language only inflames. It does little to advance our understanding of the Emergencies Act, and it cheapens the contribution and memory of the thousands, like my father, who fought communism and suffered under martial law.
It is important here to talk about the democratic safeguards in place that distinguish the Emergencies Act. The first point that bears repeating is what these measures are not: This is not the use of military forces. These measures do not displace the local and provincial law enforcement. The operations in Ottawa clearly demonstrated that.
Both Houses of Parliament must have the opportunity to debate and vote on the act within seven days of its invocation. The act automatically expires after 30 days, but Parliament can shorten its duration at any time. A joint oversight committee must be set up to oversee the operation of the act, and a public inquiry must be held immediately after the expiration of the act to analyze the basis for its invocation and its execution. Finally, and most importantly, all measures of the Emergencies Act must be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The right to protest peacefully is sacrosanct, a cornerstone of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is a fundamental part of who we are as Canadians. We know that civil liberties organizations are already challenging the invocation of the act, and that is a good thing. We should challenge it, question it and debate it as MPs, as journalists, as civil society and as Canadians.
The key question many people ask is this: Does the threat meet the threshold? To answer that, I will provide another perspective, the view from my hometown in Windsor. There, a five-day blockade of the Ambassador Bridge shut down the very lifeline of our community, which is cross-border trade.
That blockade disrupted 400 million dollars' worth of trade that crosses the bridge every single day. The hurt this inflicted on our community is beyond measure. Thousands of workers in auto plants were sent home because parts could not get through; businesses were brought to their knees; farmers could not get their produce to market; small businesses along Huron Church Road, like Fred's Farm Fresh market, to this day remain heavily impacted because of the barriers still in place; children cannot go to school; residents struggle to get groceries or access health care, and Windsor police resources continue to be diverted away from community policing to secure the bridge. Those are just the immediate impacts. The long-term impact on investments and jobs in my community is unknown. The scale of disruption to businesses and livelihoods and to our national economy meets the threshold of a national security threat.
Another important question being asked is this: Are these measures necessary?
Ottawa's police chief answered that question on Friday when he said unequivocally that both the provincial and the federal emergency powers were critical to the peaceful end of the protests. With measures like those to keep children from protest areas, measures that disrupt the finances that fuel the protests, and measures that prevent the occupation of critical infrastructure like the Ambassador Bridge, the Emergencies Act provides tools that help authorities to uphold the rule of law and keep the protest from spreading and taking hold in our communities.
However, it is important to emphasize that these measures are not imposed on communities that do not need them. These measures will be felt only by a few hundred unlawful protesters in communities like Ottawa, Windsor and Coutts, where disruptions took place.
A remarkable scene unfolded yesterday. Outside the gates of Parliament, hundreds of police officers were peacefully restoring public order and the rule of law on Wellington Street, which had been occupied for over 21 days. Metres away, inside the doors of the House of Commons, Parliament was in action, exercising democracy, debating the Emergencies Act.
The rule of law and democracy are intertwined and interdependent. One cannot exist without the other. The source of our democratic government is the ballot box, not the barricades, and here I want to return to the Cross of Freedom and Solidarity, for Pope John Paul once said, “There is no freedom without solidarity.”
Solidarity means responsibility, not just for oneself but responsibility for others, looking out for our neighbour and being aware of how our actions impact the lives of those around us. Canadians who got vaccinated exemplified that credo. It means, at times, the willingness to give up a little of our freedom to protect the lives, safety and well-being of others. Sometimes it is about the willingness to give up something more. The greatest symbol of freedom in solidarity is a few short steps away from Parliament Hill, where we Canadians gather every November 11. Let us return to that spot, for it is there, in times of turmoil and trouble, that we Canadians will always find our compass and our way.
1582 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:07:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I liked the tone of the speech given by the member, my former colleague on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, with whom I have had the opportunity to share many thoughts.
Nevertheless, I will ask him the same question I asked my other colleague earlier. Where and how do these emergency measures give police rights and powers that they did not already have?
Before these emergency measures were invoked, were police forces from different municipalities not allowed to work together?
Could police officers not issue fines?
Could police officers not enforce court orders?
How do these emergency measures give the police new powers?
What are the new powers?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 5:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all municipal and provincial police forces, to the officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and to RCMP officers.
I am thinking in particular of the Sûreté du Québec officers who were deployed to resolve the impasse, although we cannot yet say it is over. They acted in exemplary fashion at a time when the eyes of the whole world were riveted on Canada—for the wrong reasons, unfortunately.
I thank all these people for their dedication.
I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.
Speaking of looks, since I just mentioned how all eyes were on Canada, I have always admired the work of editorial cartoonists. The art of editorial cartoons has been part of political discourse since the invention of the printing press in the western world in the late 18th century and early 19th century. It is a counterpoint. An editorial cartoon sums up a political situation with a single, strikingly clear image; the picture tells the whole story. Such a cartoon captures the very essence of a person or event in a humorous way, although that humour can often be biting or cynical. Editorial cartoons are not necessarily designed to convey truth or fact in a single glance, but rather to give the reader pause. Editorial cartoons are meant to inspire necessary and meaningful reflection.
A shining example of the mastery of this informative visual art was published yesterday, around the same time, in the Journal de Montréal by cartoonist Ygreck. Of course, I cannot show members this cartoon without breaking the rules of the House, but I will describe it for them instead. Everyone will just have to use their imaginations. Describing something is just a different way of showing it. At the end of my speech, members will see that the things I have said that gave them pause are actually strong arguments as to why I am voting against the order.
First of all, I would like to set the stage for the cartoon and talk about where it takes place.
First, we have the Prime Minister's office, which has a desk and a chair. The chair is moved to the right to free up space underneath the desk. The desk has a few things on it.
On the left, there is a picture frame and a landline telephone. In the frame, there is a photo of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, thePrime Minister's father, who is covering his eyes with his right hand, a gesture of dismay everyone can recognize. It is commonly known as “facepalming”.
On the other side of the desk, there is a pink teddy bear—some may see a resemblance with a Care Bear. Behind the teddy bear, there is something that looks like a mug in the shape of a unicorn head.
The Emergencies Act is front and centre on the desk and appears to be freshly signed by the Prime Minister, since there is a pen lying across it.
When I said that the desk chair was placed to the right, it was to make room below the desk for the Prime Minister, who is hiding there and dressed like Waldo, from the acclaimed “Where's Waldo” puzzle books. I will remind members that the purpose of the game is to find Waldo, who is camouflaged by his surroundings. The Prime Minister is crouching and looks worried, looking out at the readers and asking them, “Is it over?” with his fingers crossed. The Prime Minister is wondering about the state of the country he is supposed to be governing: “Is it over?”
Let us focus on certain details concerning the two focal points of the scene I described earlier, the setting and the character. Members will recall that the Emergencies Act looms large on the desk. I remind them that on the left, there is a photo of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose hand seems to be disavowing what his son has done. Although the reasons why Trudeau Sr. invoked such a law are his own and do not interest me anyway—we are talking about a depiction—it goes without saying that the cartoon clearly and colourfully conveys that it is a mistake. In my view, it points out that it is a mistake to use, for the first time in the history of Canada, a legislative measure passed in 1988 that is a modernized version of the War Measures Act, an act that has a significant, and I daresay even traumatic, place in the collective psyche of the Quebec nation.
Not only has this new version of the act never even been used by any government, but also, using it now is way out of proportion to the situation. As everyone knows, the blockades in Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Emerson, Coutts and Vancouver were dealt with before the order was released on February 14. Only Ottawa, specifically the seat of government, not the whole city of Ottawa, was occupied until today. Now the occupation is over.
What this means is that an instrument of last resort was ordered to resolve problems that absolutely did not create a need for the Emergencies Act in the first place, because the necessary tools were already available. Moreover, the issues had already been addressed everywhere but in Canada's capital.
In addition, six Canadian provinces plus Quebec, whose National Assembly unanimously passed a motion, categorically refused to allow the application of the Emergencies Act on their territory.
That was the backdrop against which the government issued its February 14 order to invoke a completely unnecessary and disproportionate measure to address a situation that was no longer even a situation. The whole thing is utterly absurd. To paraphrase my colleague from Joliette, this is like me using a nuclear weapon to destroy a mosquito that did not even land on my arm.
Let us turn our attention to the objects sitting to the right of the War Measures Act on the Prime Minister's desk in the cartoon, specifically the pink stuffed animal and the mug in the shape of a unicorn's head. Of course, Ygreck's cartoons about the Prime Minister are often peppered with objects that are reminiscent of childhood and an imaginary world, and that evoke a certain naïveté. In this case, they are used pejoratively, perhaps intended as harsh criticisms of the Prime Minister, as they emphasize what could be described as his magical thinking: believing that his abstract wishes are all it takes to solve concrete problems, without him ever having to do anything. The pink teddy bear and the mythical horned animal, representing the power of love and purity, respectively, reflect the Prime Minister's tendency to refuse to take reality into account, to flee from it, thereby shirking his responsibilities.
The Prime Minister's undeniable tendency to shirk responsibility is conveyed by his clothing, as he is dressed like the “Where's Waldo" character, as I mentioned earlier. This is someone who hides in the crowd at all times and is hard to find. He looks like Waldo cowering under his desk, using it like a toy bunker, with his fingers crossed for good luck. The Prime Minister's chair is symbolically empty. Basically, the Prime Minister is nowhere to be found.
Indeed, where was the Prime Minister before news of the crisis first broke? When it was first reported that the convoy was about to leave, once the convoy did set off, once it arrived in Ottawa and first settled in and once it became entrenched, the Prime Minister should have been there for Canadians, as he has been happy to repeat ad nauseam for the past few weeks. Yes, he should have been there, even with all his smugness, his arrogance and his contempt. Yes, he should have been there, even in what I would call his selective absence, that fascinating ability that some people have to decide when they will make an appearance without ever being really, fully present.
Rainbows or unicorns, I do not believe for one minute that the Prime Minister is that naive. I see a clear lack of leadership, since the most important quality of a leader is the ability to communicate. To communicate like a leader fundamentally means needing to persuade, if not convince, people. To be a leader means not only truly being there, but also being there to take action. A leader has to be an agent.
I will conclude with the question asked by the Prime Minister in this cartoon, which captures the essence of what we are seized with today in the House. Legend has it that the fires that have been burning from Quebec City to Vancouver have been put out these past few days by the magical power of the rhetoric surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was proportionately inflated by the cosmic emptiness of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership. Yes, a big balloon, an inflated measure might grab attention, but it is full of air and eventually deflates.
To answer the question of the prime minister character who asks whether it is over, I would say—
1580 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 6:37:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my remarks, I specifically said that the Ottawa interim police chief concluded that without the act, the police would not have been able to do what they did. Again, former Ottawa police chief Charles Bordeleau said that invoking the Emergencies Act allowed them to set up a perimeter, allowed police to deny entry to those trying to join the protest, allowed for the banning of bringing children and minors into the designated zone, allowed for the quick seizure of money and assets involved with sustaining the occupation, allowed for vehicles to be towed and allowed for the immediate swearing in of officers from outside Ontario as police officers, among other things.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:37:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from La Pointe‑de‑l'Île for his excellent speech and pertinent answers. I also thank him for agreeing to share his time with me, which he did reluctantly but in a spirit of fairness.
I would like to start by joining other colleagues before me in applauding the outstanding work of all the police services, which demonstrated extraordinary professionalism in this weekend's operations. I salute in particular the Parliamentary Protective Service, which we can all agree took very good care of us despite the high levels of stress right now.
Like my colleague who spoke earlier, I, too, want to commend the interpreters, who have had to deal with the House's changing schedule these past few days and who are doing a terrific job. I know that we are placing a heavy burden on the interpreters who interpret from French to English. I do not know how things are going for those interpreting the other way, from English to French, but I can say that we are extremely grateful for the work they do.
I think that anyone who goes into politics does so in order to effect change, whether big or small. We try to make our mark. Some will achieve this through local actions on behalf of their constituents. Others will achieve this by passing laws that will change our way of life or change the world more significantly.
Consider, for example, the bill to be introduced by my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît. It will make Émilie Sansfaçon's dream come true by extending eligibility for employment insurance benefits for people with serious illnesses to 50 weeks, rather than the meagre 26 weeks the Liberals have proposed.
Sometimes politicians' actions will have international significance, as is the case for my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and his efforts on behalf of Raif Badawi and the Uighurs.
I imagine that the desire and the need to leave one's mark are even greater when one is Prime Minister. I have to say, the current Prime Minister has his work cut out for him.
What will this Prime Minister be remembered for?
The question is all the more relevant now, when we are obviously at a historical crossroads. Quebec and Canada are experiencing a health crisis the likes of which has not been seen since the Spanish flu more than 100 years ago. This is the type of crisis that requires the kind of leadership we cannot find just anywhere.
Has the Prime Minister shown leadership?
I think this has been a recurring theme in this debate. I think the Prime Minister acted as if nothing were wrong. He buried his head in the sand, hoping in vain that the storm would pass.
By refusing to support this law, the Bloc Québécois is in no way minimizing the crisis we are in. It has been ongoing for weeks. It is real and historic, although it seems to be clearing up on Parliament Hill.
Could the crisis have been avoided?
Yes, of course, if the government had, from the very beginning, shown the type of leadership we keep talking about and if it had assumed its responsibilities. It had and still has a range of perfectly suitable measures at its disposal. It could have applied various measures from the very beginning. It could, for example, have sent more RCMP officers, as the Ottawa police requested. We would not be here now if these measures had been taken from the very beginning.
I particularly want to stress the incongruity and pointlessness of this government invoking the Emergencies Act. In the current context, the way this situation developed, the act is being used more as a distraction, so we forget the government's inaction and lack of leadership. It did nothing for weeks, but then, all of a sudden, it is an emergency and we must act immediately. Now it is telling us anything goes, do not ask questions, watch it go, it is taking care of it.
With this government, every crisis is the same bad movie. The storyline is easy. First, it ignores the problem, closes its eyes and says the problem will resolve itself, as if by magic. Then it blames someone else, like the city, the province or a nation. Eventually, it takes its head out of the sand, usually too late, and improvises something, a solution that could have been implemented long before everything escalated.
In my opinion, invoking the Emergencies Act today shows that the government does not have the backbone needed to manage a crisis. It does not see them coming. When they happen, it is incapable of managing them. There is proof enough of that.
On another level, we can look at what is going on in several departments right now, in particular immigration and employment insurance. Fires have broken out in many places, but no one in this government seems to be able to put them out. That is rather worrisome.
Instead of stepping up and showing leadership in a time of crisis, the Prime Minister opted for a disproportionate show of force with the Emergencies Act. We, as members of Parliament, cannot be complicit in this dog-and-pony show.
Could the government not recognize that there is currently no real need to apply this exceptional act? This is not a preventative act. It is meant to be applied to resolve an imminent or current crisis. The situation is essentially resolved, though. The siege and the occupation have been ended.
Applying the act under the current circumstances would create what I would definitely call a dangerous precedent. Furthermore, provincial governments and, in this case, the City of Ottawa, have other options to resolve the crisis. The blockade at the Ambassador Bridge was removed before the order came into effect. The border at Coutts has been reopened. The siege in Ottawa is over, fortunately.
Our police forces are capable and united, and all they want is to get the appropriate request, equipment and mandate. We saw what they were capable of when they joined forces to deal with a crisis. They were superbly effective this weekend.
I think the government wanted to beat its chest and make an impression so people would forget how low it has sunk and how it failed to show any initiative in the past few weeks. The deed is done. The government cannot maintain such an act by citing preventative reasons. There is no “just in case” in the act.
Earlier, I heard the argument that the chief of police and the mayor of Ottawa said the act had given them useful tools that they were thankful for. No doubt that is the case. I have a nine-and-a-half-year-old son. If he asks me for a calculator to do his math homework, that will help him, but I do not think that is the point.
Rather than stubbornly trying to invoke an act with a disproportionate impact and scope, which creates a precedent that neither Quebec nor the majority of stakeholders would want or approve of, is there any hope that the government will finally assume its responsibilities and show some common sense by choosing the path of dialogue, at the risk of coming up against differing opinions?
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and the time is fast approaching when we must let old wounds heal. We will have to make every effort to rebuild the bridges between us. Too many friends have drifted apart. Brothers, sisters, cousins no longer speak to each other because of the divisions caused by this crisis. Fixing that will take a lot of work.
I think that what we need to do now is look forward and examine the deeper root causes of the problems we have seen over the last few weeks. They need to be addressed without delay to avoid the turmoil of a possible future crisis.
Earlier, I asked what kind of legacy this Prime Minister will leave to history. I only have one answer: The ball is in his court because, for now, we might remember him the same way we remember other prime ministers who have let Quebec down over the years. I will spare members from having to hear the examples because there are many that come to mind.
There is still time for the Prime Minister to do something different. He could be in the same league as the great leaders who led this country through world wars and other crises we have faced in the past. He could be a great leader, a unifying force, a reassuring presence to those who agree with him as well as those who will take a little convincing that he knows what he is doing.
One way for him to leave a legacy would be to increase health transfers and give the provincial and Quebec health care systems a chance to recover. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have said this ad nauseam, and the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have been unanimous in calling for it. A better-funded system will mean fewer deaths the next time there is a public health crisis. It will protect our health care systems from becoming overburdened and give us a chance to make it through crises. It might even put a little shine back on the Prime Minister's reputation and leadership.
1599 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:49:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to continue the logic of the Liberal member who just asked a question, I have to say that never in my life have I had a police force or an acting chief of police turn down more powers for their officers. I have never heard a police chief or a police force say that they would like to carry out searches without a warrant. I think that this is true for everyone. The police will never say no to more powers.
I would like to hear my Bloc colleague's views on that.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 10:08:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard that question a number of times in the last few hours of debate.
What I know is that there were attempts. There were meetings, calls and discussions. All kinds of efforts were made to try to make progress. Demands were made, and we responded to those demands. Additional police officers were deployed on three occasions before it got to this point.
I think this is an exceptional situation, and we are responding to it.
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 11:25:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is sad to see protesters spitting on police officers and harassing journalists. I am concerned about the spread of misinformation generally around the act as well. We have heard some of the protesters, and even members of the opposition, refer to the measures we are discussing as if this is the War Measures Act, which it is not.
Could my hon. colleague explain how this is not the case and assure Canadians that the Emergencies Act maintains their charter rights, as well as restore their confidence in our institutions?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
