44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 21, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/21/22 6:23:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the crisis, it seemed there were political considerations underlying the government's radio silence.
My colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe is a whip. Whips ensure that their party members vote according to the party's instructions.
However, we do not yet know of any instructions from the party in power, nor do we know if this evening's vote will be a confidence vote or not. What does my colleague think of this radio silence now?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:24:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today at a press conference the Prime Minister suggested, which he did not have the courtesy to do in the House but did so in front of the media, that a matter of this importance would of course be a matter of confidence before the House.
This is again a threat to his own caucus to keep the members in line, and a threat to the NDP. How mightily it has fallen. It is no longer the party looking after the working class. He is strong-arming both the NDP and his own backbench MPs through fear for an election that nobody wants at this time.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:25:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this being Family Day in Ontario, I want to start by wishing a happy Family Day in particular to my family, my wife Vanessa, my son Mason, who is probably playing video games right now and my two very young ones, Vivian and Frankie, who are probably watching this. I cannot wait until I get to leave today and come home, but they had better be asleep by the time I get there. I will see them in the morning.
I have been listening to this debate for the past four days, and I have heard a lot of different things being said in the House. I want to get into the details of those, but before I do, I want to take the opportunity to thank the men and women from police forces across the country. The manner in which this operation in Ottawa particularly was handled was nothing short of the gold standard in terms of how policing operations, such as this, need to happen. I thank them for everything that they did to make Ottawa stay safe during the removal of the occupiers.
I will start by saying I have been perplexed since the beginning of this with the position of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is the party that tells people it stands up for law and order, but the way that it has been responding to this particular issue is absolutely astounding. I am not even talking about this vote or this debate. I am talking about the way that it has responded to everything that has happened within the last three to four weeks.
Members have been encouraging occupiers not to leave, telling them to stay in Ottawa because what they are doing is working, when they know full well that they are breaking the law. That brings me to a very important point. It is this concept of the difference between an occupation and a protest. We have heard, day after day, Conservatives get up in the House and talk about this as a peaceful protest. The member who spoke shortly before me, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, said it was a lawful protest. It was not a lawful protest. This was an occupation.
I find it remarkable that they would take this position. The irony is that the longer it went on, and the more they encouraged it, the more emboldened those outside became. I have a ton of respect for the NDP member for Windsor West who got up time after time when people, in particular Conservatives and the Bloc, would say there were no problems at the Ambassador Bridge. There were no problems in Windsor. Everything there was fine. He must have corrected the record about 20 to 25 times in the past four days that it was not the case. He said it was only a two-kilometre drive from where he was sitting, but somehow they were not able to take the word from him.
I have heard a number of outrageous and false statements in the House over the last four days. I will start with the one that probably got the biggest reaction out of me. The member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex referred to what was going on over the last three weeks as “Canada Day times a thousand”. She said that. She is quoted in Hansard. Members can see the video. She said that it was like Canada Day times a thousand. Can members believe that? I wonder if the residents of Ottawa feel the same way.
The member for Regina—Wascana, who replaced Ralph Goodale, said in the House, sitting right over there, that he did not see any problem. He said he walked up Metcalfe Street and did not see al Qaeda or the Taliban, as if that is the standard by which the party of law and order measures what an emergency is.
The member for Haldimand—Norfolk said that we somehow live in an authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorship. This is a parliamentary democracy. She is sitting in the House.
The member for Foothills said all that the occupiers at the Coutts border crossing wanted was to be heard. Thirteen people were arrested in conjunction with the seizure of weapons and ammunition.
The member for Abbotsford, although he is just one example, as so many of them said it, referred to what is going on right now as martial law. Martial law is when the military is literally walking on the street. Martial law means the military has taken over the civil duties of the police. That is absolutely ridiculous.
I have heard from a number of members, including the member for King—Vaughan, who talked about bank runs, suggesting that there will be bank runs out there, because people suddenly want to take all the money out of their accounts. If that happens, it would be based on the misinformation that they have been spreading.
The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie talked about suspending civil liberties. That is conflating the War Measures Act, the previous act, with what we actually have in the Emergencies Act.
I want to talk about the Emergencies Act. The Emergencies Act was actually brought in by a Progressive Conservative government. Do not for a second think that those who are sitting across the way are actually a part of that party. Maybe you are, Mr. Speaker, but the rest of them are not.
The bill was seconded by my predecessor, Flora MacDonald, a true Progressive Conservative. It was nothing like the War Measures Act. The only connection it had to the War Measures Act was that it was meant to remove it.
It specifically says, and this is how it differs, that it is temporary. It is for 30 days or less, and it is subject to quick Parliament review. It takes 20 members to sign and ask for another debate. It is targeted and used only where needed. The War Measures Act was not. The Emergencies Act is proportionate. The responses used by the authorities within that act need to be proportionate to what the emergency is. The War Measures Act did not have that.
Most importantly, it upholds civil liberties. It upholds the Charters of Rights, which the War Measures Act did not do.
The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie said it suspends civil liberties, but that member knows better, because that was the War Measures Act and this is not the War Measures Act, despite the fact that many Conservatives have no problem conflating the two.
What does the invocation of the act accomplish? The most important thing, to me, and I have not heard anybody else saying that any other piece of legislation could have handled this, is that it made it illegal to bring a child into what was going on out front of this place.
It made it a criminal offence to do that. Why would anybody be against that when we saw what we witnessed out there for three weeks?
It restricted entry so that it allowed police to set up checkpoints, like they did around Ottawa, so that if someone's intention, their sole intention, is to come into Ottawa to participate in this demonstration and this occupation, they would not be allowed to do so.
It allowed for the seizure of money and trucks, and I will say, when it relates to the seizure of money and particular bank accounts, it is temporary and it needs to be continually reviewed.
To get to the point of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, the RCMP issued a statement today that said it has only turned over to financial institutions the names of the organizers and the names of those who had trucks or vehicles on the streets that were not removed. The member did not read the RCMP statement from today. If a member does not believe that to be true, they are blatantly saying the RCMP is lying to the public.
It also allowed for officers who were outside Ontario to be brought into Ontario, to be used in a jurisdiction outside their home province. I know Conservatives will say that all of this stuff could have been done with other laws, but guess what? Nobody else did it. The province did not want to do it.
In order to bring officers from Quebec into Ontario, there would have had to have been an agreement between the Ontario minister responsible and the Province of Quebec. They did not do that. What did Doug Ford do? He asked the federal government to please invoke the Emergencies Act so it could take care of this. That is exactly what happened.
I want to talk about some of the people who support this motion today.
The Conservative Party of Canada has a new-found admiration for Tommy Douglas. They have invoked his name more in the last four days in the House than I think they have since Tommy Douglas himself was here. By the way, Tommy Douglas's opposition was to the War Measures Act, not to the Emergencies Act.
I will read a quote from a modern-day NDP leader who is actually talking about the Emergencies Act. This is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1563 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:36:14 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I know there is an impassioned speech going on, but that is the challenge. We are getting close to the end, and I want to make sure everybody gets an opportunity to speak. This is a 20-minute period of debate. There will then be a 10-minute period for questions and comments. Let us save this until then.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:36:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Ed Broadbent said:
...we've heard of the importance of following the money. With the use of the Act, the federal government is able to do just that. The...Emergencies Act give[s]...the means needed to stop any flow of funds that could have made the situation much worse.
This is Ed Broadbent, a modern-day NDPer, who is talking about this act, not the War Measures Act. Even if some Conservatives are not going to listen to the NDP, I will quote some comments from their own.
This is Senator Vern White and Peter Mackay. They issued a joint statement, which states:
what we have seen in the occupation of Ottawa and blockages at border crossings is not the right of protest enshrined in our constitution, but illegal activity that represents a national security and economic threat to Canada. Leaving aside the stated manifesto of the organizers to overthrow the government, these protests are weakening our economy and disrupting the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
Senator Vern White went on to say the he supports the use of the Emergency Measures Act. Those are Conservatives who said that.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has stated:
The [Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police] supports the fundamental objectives of the invocation of the Emergencies Act that is intended to regulate and prohibit illegal public assemblies that lead to the breach of peace, and to restrict the funding of [all] such illegal assemblies.
That was the association of the chiefs of police.
Therefore, forgive me, but when the Conservatives go out and dig up quotes from NDP and Conservative members, and other people from decades and generations ago, I am unwilling to accept that. I would rather listen to the people who know what is going on today.
I will say one more thing. I think it is important to reflect on the people who have actually said that we need the Emergencies Act, that it is important and that the federal government should use it. The chief of police of Ottawa has said that. The mayor of Ottawa said that, and Doug Ford said that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear heckling from across the way. Why is that so important? Those voices matter because they are the voices of the direct jurisdictions that were being affected. It was Doug Ford's province. It was Jim Watson's city, and it was the police chief's area. Those are the people who asked the government to help them.
As we look at how some other provinces reacted to this, I cannot help but think of the hypocrisy of Alberta's premier Jason Kenney. This is a man who, on February 5, wrote a letter to the federal government asking for help. It was a desperate plea, a cry for help, because the province was not able to handle it on its own. This is the same man who a week and a half later, on February 18, said that he was suing the government for sending help. That is literally what happened. It is remarkable.
I want to address the issue of why we still need this. I heard that asked a number of times in question period today. The question keeps coming up. I will preempt it by answering it now so that nobody has to ask me.
Why do we still need this if the streets are clear? What an obtuse way to look at it. If members follow the Ottawa police on Twitter, they will notice that it was just announced that it has reduced the secure area. This is an ongoing operation out there, and it is not done.
Just because the protesters might not be right outside this building right now does not mean that everything has been cleared up. Many of these people are not even that far from here. We hear about how they are congregating in various areas. This is not over.
The incredible work that was done by the police and the special forces out front of this building was remarkable. However, while that work might be done and the stuff that was all over the news might be over in terms of what was sensational, it does not mean that we have completely fixed the problem yet.
In the last three minutes that I have left, I just want to say that I am very relieved that the creators of this act, my predecessor, Flora MacDonald, had the foresight to say that we need to make sure that there is proper scrutiny to look at the way the act is used, and that is where the inquiry comes in. However, what I find the most interesting part about the way it is worded is that it says specifically that, as part of the inquiry, we have to look into the circumstances that led to the declaration being made.
I am very much interested in hearing about the circumstances that led to this. I am interested in hearing and learning about how this movement began, who was funding it, where the money was coming from, how the coordination worked, who was helping the organizers, who was directing them, who was giving them tips and who was basically counselling them, because I think that this will all be eye-opening to the public. I look forward to that. I look forward to seeing that play out in public. I look forward to the public being able to learn about it and, at the end of the day, I look forward to Canadians knowing, based on that information, based on that inquiry, exactly what happened, rather than hearing these stories we have been hearing from the Conservatives and people across the way.
Before a member of the Bloc asks me a question about confidence or whatnot, I am very confident on my vote on this. I will vote in favour of this, because it is the right thing for Canada and it is the right thing to do.
1015 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:44:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three days ago, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association filed an application for judicial review in Federal Court to quash the emergency proclamation, the emergency measures regulations and the emergency economic measures order.
If the court quashes these three emergency measures, does the member believe that the government will accept the court's remedy or will the government appeal the court's ruling?
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:44:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it started off as a really good question, but it went off somewhere. The member is asking me to hypothetically, without knowing the arguments or how the judgment was made, answer whether or not an appeal will be made.
I encourage those who think that the charter is being infringed upon to take it to court. The courts will only harden the steel around this particular piece of legislation. That is how we can ensure that the law is being applied, and as we move forward with this legislation, it will better inform how it is done.
The Conservatives come in here and say, “So-and-so is taking this to court.” Good, I think that should happen. That is part of our democratic process here. It is part of what makes sure that we have good laws.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:45:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would advise the parliamentary secretary to adopt a tone and attitude similar to that of his colleague from Louis-Hébert, because, in both form and substance as well as in tone, other than creating a distraction, he has not contributed all that much to the debate.
One thing is clear, for instance. We know that there is at least one member on the Liberal side of the House who agrees with us that the proclaimed orders do not meet the requirements or tests needed to invoke the Emergencies Act.
The member for Louis-Hébert has just told us that, if he were to vote his conscience, he would vote against this motion. He has courage. However, he says that he has a moral contract with his party, that this moral contract prevents him from defeating his party, and that he will therefore vote in favour of the motion if it is a confidence vote.
Does the parliamentary secretary have the courage to tell us whether it is a confidence vote or not?
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert is more than entitled to have his opinion. The member for Montcalm is totally entitled to have his opinion. It is not the same opinion that I share.
However, to discredit my entire speech, where I actually went back and referenced what other people were saying, based on the fact that this member does not like what I said is completely disingenuous. I spent my entire speech talking about what I heard in the House. I apologize for my opinion being different from this member's and I apologize if the member does not like what I said, but it does not mean that I did not address this particular issue head-on, because I did.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:47:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the NDP is reluctantly supporting this motion, and we will use all the powers at our disposal to hold the government to account while this Emergencies Act remains in place.
I support his denouncing of the gaslighting of the Conservatives, and of the occupation and the convoy itself. However, I do believe there are many Canadians who have been pushed to the margins that are struggling through COVID, like all of us. Many people have been pushed to the margins, and they have not been heard. In fact, there has been divisive rhetoric on both sides. The Liberals are responsible too, for not listening to those Canadians and for not explaining their decision-making around policies on mandates.
I believe our collective consciousness as a Parliament is, right now, at its lowest level of shame and blame and fear. I am scared for our country if we do not bring down the rhetoric and acknowledge the mistakes that have taken place.
What will the member do to bring down the temperature? What will he do to acknowledge the failures of the Liberal government for the sake of our country?
195 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:48:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the notion that somehow there is a lack of unity in this country.
This country leads developed countries throughout the world in vaccination rates. We have higher vaccination rates than other any developed country in the world. When it comes to the member's question about how we improve the discourse, I am totally open to doing that but I feel like we need to start from a set of facts. I feel that more and more people are bringing things into this chamber that are not even facts. We are starting from a place of misinformation, quite often, and that is where I find the vast majority of my frustration as it relates to the political discourse in the House.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:49:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was just a real “Tour de France” style of speech. I would like to offer the member the chance to sum up his support for the motion.
32 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:50:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his hard work.
For me, this comes down to looking at the facts. It comes down to having trust in our government, having trust in our processes, having trust in the people who are advising us and having trust in those who are telling us that, yes, they needed the act and they still need it. I do not think anybody wants this to go on any longer than it absolutely has to. The notion coming from across the way that somehow the government wants to take this and entrench these measures into law is absolutely ridiculous.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:50:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think what the hon. member did today in his speech was actually to make a case for not continuing the invocation of the act. He did not provide us with any compelling reason for why it should stay.
When the member talks about how we got here, the reality and the fact is, and this is not misinformation or disinformation, the Prime Minister marginalized, stigmatized, traumatized and divided Canadians by calling them racist, misogynist and extremists. How does that help the public discourse? How does that unite the country? That is my question to the hon. member.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:51:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I did address the issue of why this still needs to be in place. I cannot reference a member's presence in the House, but I am aware of when people come and leave the chamber, and I can tell the member that I absolutely mentioned this.
I talked about the fact that this is an ongoing operation. The operation has not been shut down yet. It is quite clear there are other problems, like out in B.C. right now, and other areas that might see flare-ups. I trust those, and I am not talking about just cabinet, who are advising and making sure that all the tools are in place in order to complete this operation.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:52:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a Liberal member told us earlier that he would vote differently if it were a confidence vote.
We have been asking the Liberal members for an hour, and we are one hour away from the vote, but no one on their benches can tell us whether it will be a confidence vote or not.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons close enough to the Liberal leadership to tell us whether this vote, to be held in one hour, will be a confidence vote? I do not care if he thinks that it is important that it be a confidence vote; I just want him to tell us, yes or no, whether it will be.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:53:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no, it is not important to me if it is a confidence vote. I am going to vote for it. Every other member in the House could vote against it, but I am still going to vote for it.
I understand where the Conservative and Bloc members have been coming from for the last hour and a half. The coalition that exists there, I get where it is coming from, but it is irrelevant to me. It does not matter to me. I am going to vote in favour of this because I believe it is the right thing to do.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:53:39 p.m.
- Watch
We are out of time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montarville.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 6:53:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if nothing else, that speech by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands was amusing. He seemed critical of the Conservatives for not paying tribute to Tommy Douglas before he was even born.
Actually, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my House of Commons colleagues of all stripes on both sides of the aisle who went to the trouble of participating in this weighty social debate by clearly and openly expressing their points of view.
It is a crying shame that this weighty debate is being undermined and warped by the threat of a confidence vote. That is a crying shame because it sends a message to the people that, if Parliament does not do what the Prime Minister wants it to do, it will send Canadians back to the polls. That is a terrible thing because it forces the hand of people like the member for Louis-Hébert, who would vote differently otherwise. It impairs our debate here in the House.
I would like to talk about another Liberal first minister who tried to use divisive tactics and a social crisis to score political points. I am talking about Quebec's Jean Charest, who exploited the student uprising during the “maple spring” of 2012 in an attempt to score political points.
That did not go well for him because in the next election, Quebeckers elected a Parti Québécois government, in which I had the honour to serve. We were the ones who had to deal with the consequences of the previous Liberal government's actions. The unprecedented social crisis was resolved without asking the federal government to invoke the Emergencies Act.
We did what we had to do. We decided to sit down with the students to discuss the issue of university funding and students' contribution through tuition fees. We made tough decisions, which I can confirm, as I was the Quebec minister of public security at the time. On May 8, 2013, I announced the launch of what was known as the Ménard commission. I was harshly criticized by police forces and student associations, but the last protest of the “maple spring” was held on May 8. That was one year later.
Why? It was simply because we decided to take the bull by the horns and listen to people despite the criticism. The Ménard commission looked into what could have sparked the senseless violence. The commission released a report that was quickly shelved by the next Liberal government, for good reason.
I like to think that the exemplary conduct of the Ottawa police in ending this illegal occupation of downtown streets was greatly inspired by the findings of the Ménard commission on the use of force during protests and public disturbances.
They did their job without violence and without any need for the Emergencies Act. All that needed to be done was to take the time to put measures in place to get out of the crisis. That is what we did.
Governing involves making decisions. Choosing not to make a decision is making a decision. At the beginning of this crisis, the government chose not to make a decision and that had serious consequences. I heard a Liberal member say that his government made a decision but that we just did not like it.
After letting the situation grow worse and worse for about 20 days, the government decided to invoke the Emergencies Act to deal with the situation. That was the nuclear option, so to speak. The government did not try anything else first. It is using the nuclear option to cover up the fact that it failed to take action for more than 20 days. That is shameful.
No one can tell me that the solution the government is presenting is the only solution. The government had a lot of options available to it, but it chose not to use them. It has to take the blame for that. We will not be party to the government's attempt to cover up its pitiful management of the situation so far and regain the public's favour by supporting the invocation of the Emergencies Act.
I would like to reiterate what my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said in the House on February 14, seven days ago. She said that it took the government 10 days to convene a trilateral table, but it forgot to invite police departments. On day 16, they ended up creating their own integrated command centre.
Contrary to what we did following the social crisis of 2012‑13, the Prime Minister never bothered to enter into communication with the occupiers of Parliament. He did not co-operate when the Government of Ontario and the City of Ottawa requested 1,800 officers to deal with the situation. He did not set up a crisis task force including all levels of government and all the police forces.
One thing that justifies our position today is that the government did not consult its partners, meaning Quebec and the provinces, before making a decision that is so heavily laden with consequences. Of the 10 provinces in this country, there are only three that support the government's action. That speaks volumes to me.
To invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate two things.
First, it must show that there is a dangerous and urgent situation. Even if we accept, based on what the member for Kingston and the Islands just told us, that the situation could remain potentially dangerous, can we still claim this evening, a few minutes from voting time, that it is urgent? The answer is only too obvious.
Second, the government must show that it is impossible to deal with the situation under ordinary laws.
What the government did show was that it never tried using ordinary laws to deal with the situation. Can it really say after the fact that it would have been impossible to deal with it using ordinary laws? The government took great care not to apply any ordinary laws before invoking the Emergencies Act.
Two criteria must be satisfied for the government to proclaim the Emergencies Act. They were not. As such, we cannot support the act because the government did not prove it was absolutely necessary.
The Prime Minister explained that he invoked the act in case other blockades appeared. I would note that nearly all the blockades except for the Ottawa occupation were dismantled before the Emergencies Act took effect. In other words, the situation in downtown Ottawa could have been dealt with using ordinary laws had the government bothered to try. The government took great care not to, however. It said it was invoking the act in case other blockades appeared. An act should not be invoked just in case. An act should be invoked when there are reasons for it, such as having to manage a real or imminent situation, not just in case.
It would have been possible to handle the situation by coordinating the Ottawa police, the OPP and the RCMP in their enforcement of the existing laws and regulations, such as the Criminal Code, the Highway Traffic Act, City of Ottawa bylaws, for example, regarding peace and quiet for residents, but no. Instead, the government did nothing for nearly 20 days, before invoking the Emergencies Act to deal with something it could have dealt with if it had just tried. The government never did try to deal with it.
It is very clear that we will not be able to support the use of this act. I have to say that, as a Quebecker, I am even more troubled by the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to deal with this situation. No matter what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House claims, the Emergencies Act is a revamped version of the War Measures Act. The government at the time tinkered with and rejigged the act to make it more acceptable and palatable. The misuse of this act, most notably in 1970, was deemed completely unacceptable in a democratic society that upholds the rule of law.
Quebec still has painful memories of the times the War Measures Act was invoked, for the First World War, the Second World War or the October crisis in 1970. This is because every time this act was used, it was against Quebec, in 1917, 1942 and 1970. This brings up all kinds of painful memories.
Beyond the very flawed justification the government is using to urge us to vote in favour of implementing this legislation, there is the somewhat despicable nature of invoking such legislation for a situation like the one that we faced.
Accordingly, there is no doubt in our minds that we on this side of the House cannot condone, cannot support, cannot vote in favour of such legislation. We cannot do it, especially since the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously voted against the application of the Emergencies Act. When we say they voted unanimously, that means with the votes from the Coalition Avenir Québec, of course, but also from the Liberal Party of Quebec, Québec Solidaire, and the Parti Québécois. The Government of Quebec opposed the application of the Emergencies Act. Six provinces joined Quebec in opposing the application of the Emergencies Act.
What does this Liberal government think is left of the collaborative federalism that it tried to sell us on a few years ago if the government is imposing a law with such serious implications as the Emergencies Act without even bothering to consult its most important partners, the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments? What is more, it is imposing it on them against their will.
The governments are telling the federal government not to invoke the act, but it is doing so anyway. Why? The reason is that it was so lax before that now it has no choice but to cover up the fact that it did nothing before and try to resolve the situation.
What we have seen happening in the streets of Ottawa over the past few hours could have easily been done sooner. The police forces could have been coordinated days ago. The government did not do that and the situation got worse.
The government could not see a way out of the situation that it chose to ignore at the start. The government claimed that it was up to the Ottawa police to handle it, when it was obvious that the protesters were not there with a message for the Ottawa City Council or the Government of Ontario. The protesters set up camp in front of the federal Parliament buildings to send a message to the federal government.
The federal government said the protest was not its concern and that it was not responsible for handling it. The protest was against the federal government, but it preferred to say it was not responsible for dealing with it. The result was this dreadful and impossible situation that led the government to invoke the Emergencies Act. However, the government's arguments do not in any way justify the use of this legislation.
I will say it again. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will be voting against this legislation, not proudly, because there is no reason to be proud of having to vote on this at all today, but because we feel that it is the right thing to do under the circumstances. I would also hope that the Prime Minister will reconsider his perverse idea of making this a confidence vote.
1974 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:13:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague claims that if the three levels of government had worked together from the beginning, the situation would have been resolved amicably.
However, I would like to quote from an article on the CBC website. It reads as follows:
“Premier Doug Ford does not think trilateral talks between the federal, provincial and Ottawa municipal governments are necessary since all three levels of government have kept in touch since the protests started.”
What is really disappointing about the Bloc is that it is promoting this false idea that if the government had sat down with the leaders of this illegal protest, everything would have been resolved amicably. As my hon. colleague knows, in union negotiations, for example, if one party asks for the dismissal of the other party, it is quite clear there will be no fruitful discussions.
How, then, can he think—
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
