What information was that?
These events happened two years ago. As you know, we’ve been sitting on this committee for about a year and a half, maybe a little more. We are talking about it right now. However, in the evidence heard by our committee, I heard nothing that seemed to justify invoking the Emergencies Act. The blockade at the bridge was dismantled before declaring of a state of emergency. Here, in the streets, there were trucks that refused to move, but it took two days to remove them. After police officers intervened on February 19 and 20, there was nothing left. The Chief of Police, Mr. Sloly, came and told us that he asked for hundreds of police officers to dismantle the blockades. Police officers intervened after he resigned, but it remains that it happened and it was resolved in two days.
In all honesty, I do not see the justification. Intervention was required, we agree on that. However, invoking the Emergencies Act seems excessive to me.
My only question is on the fact that all the ministers who appeared before our committee told us that they understood us, but they made the decision based on a legal opinion they obtained.
Are you, like your predecessors, going to tell us you cannot show us this legal opinion, even though you could justify invoking the Emergencies Act by producing a copy?