Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I was not old enough to sit in the House at that time. However, in all seriousness, the reason members of the House are pleading with the NDP is that it will decide if the Prime Minister will continue to have these powers or if on Monday he will be held accountable by the courts and the provisions and protections we all covet, which the NDP, at least under Tommy Douglas, believed in. I encourage the NDP to consider what legacy it wants to leave as a party when people look back 30 years from now.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, people are frustrated with this pandemic. People in Edmonton Griesbach and every single Canadian, including each of us here, has been impacted by this deadly and once-in-a-lifetime disease, whether because we have lost loved ones, as I have, or whether because of restrictions due to the public health measures enacted upon the advice of medical professionals. I know how hard and truly challenging these divisive times can be and continue to be.

At the beginning of all of this, Canadians showed the world what community looks like. Everyone mobilized to take care of each other and to keep each other safe. Neighbours were helping neighbours, friends were dropping off care packages, and teachers and community organizers were going above and beyond to keep children learning and to keep them safe.

Throughout this pandemic, we have endured much pain. Many have lost loved ones. Many have lost critical time with those important to them, but we are surviving it. I want to thank every single Canadian for their continued resilience. This is what Canada is. This is the story we must tell, because it is true. Let us not forgo the sacrifices of the many for the benefit of the few.

Canada is not perfect. As an indigenous person, I know this really well. However, Canada is a place where forces of good can thrive, so long as we continue to see the liberty of others as the liberty as oneself, do not use our freedom to put our neighbours in harm's way, and certainly do not use it to destroy our democratic institutions by way of force. Other people's freedom ends at the end of my nose.

Today and over the next few days, we will hear from Conservatives about the need to listen, about the sacrifices and the hardship, but let me speak directly to those members about some of the people in my community of Edmonton Griesbach who have truly sacrificed. These are not the individuals who had the opportunity to play in bouncy castles. These are not the individuals who had the opportunity to sit in a hot tub for two weeks. These are not the people who have spent the last three weeks outside on Wellington Street. They are not those who wish to use force to bring about policy change. They are not those seeking to intimidate and harm others.

They are, as a matter of fact, the people who put their masks on every day so that their neighbour who is immunocompromised does not die. These are the nurses, the doctors and the medical personnel in my community who have endured the worst of this medical emergency and continue to do so as we speak. These are the essential workers, including police right now, who have come in day after day to keep our services going and to keep Canadians going. These are the parents who have been struggling at home to do their work but to also teach when children could not go to school. These are the people who have had to choose between rent and food because the costs of groceries, bills, housing and unemployment have gone unaddressed by this failed Liberal government.

Colleagues, this is why we are in this circumstance. It is because of the Liberal government's failure to help people and to assist folks in these unprecedented and uncertain times. While the Conservatives and Liberals bicker amongst themselves, and the Bloc sits idle, protecting its narrow provincial objectives at the cost of Canadians and Quebeckers, it is New Democrats who are forced to be the responsible ones, tasked with fixing this crisis outside because of the government's delay, and holding this lacklustre and—

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I believe my colleague meant to say he is splitting his time with his colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government could have avoided this whole circumstance had it helped Canadians through this difficult time. Instead, it let inaction and partisanship guide it, and let those who sought to hurt our economy and our international reputation as Canadians by not acting sooner. All of this was done by the government, while Conservatives emboldened the occupiers, meeting with them as they stood shoulder to shoulder displaying Nazi and Confederate flags. The emergency we are facing was not a surprise.

Organizers such as Pat King, who was first listed as the Alberta organizer for Canada Unity, has a known history of white supremacy and has previously been seen on videos saying white people have the strongest bloodlines. When talking about COVID restrictions in December, just one month before the protest, he said, “The only way that this is going to be solved is with bullets.” As much as I disagree, and as much as I condemn the statements of Mr. King and believe them to be hate-motivated, I respect every group's right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, but what we have witnessed here and across the country is certainly not that.

As a matter of fact, I have been in many protests over the past decade, and I am a proud indigenous land defender myself. I am a true believer in public demonstration and community solidarity. It is absolutely fundamental and necessary to ensuring democracy, accountability and diversity of opinion in Canada.

That being said, it is clear that the situation across the country, in particular in my home province of Alberta, at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, and in Ottawa, should have never gotten to this point. There is a combination of ill forces that have contributed to this current crisis, such as the lack of proper leadership to combat disinformation in our country. Hate, racism and terrorism funding are undeniable facts of the situation and are some things anti-racism groups across our country have warned us against for years.

When we saw how fragile democracy was in the United States when the Capitol was attacked, we all thought it could not happen here. Here we are, three weeks into this, with hopes of finally restoring public order, which should have taken place a long time ago. We knew this was coming.

I am sure those who have engaged in peaceful assembly, such as myself, have noticed the extreme difference in the standard of policing for indigenous land defenders and for organizations such as the ones we are seeing right now. It has never taken the use of the Emergencies Act to have police forcefully remove land defenders, often with violence. It is an unfortunate precedent that already exists in our country. I mean to say that regardless of the Emergencies Act, indigenous people have been subject to state violence since the inception of Canada and its laws, and we need to tackle that issue. From the evidence today and yesterday, I am pleased to see that police can, in fact, enforce public order without the use of bullets, tear gas, chainsaws or axes. To the police, I know many others will be watching.

Over the past three weeks, Canadians have witnessed local and municipal police fail to uphold the most basic of bylaws and ordinances made to protect our economy, residents and transport corridors. Just last week, some members of the southern Alberta Coutts blockade were charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers after a weapons cache was found. It should never have gotten to that point. Armed violence and intimidation are not conducive to a free democracy, and instances such as this are likely in other parts of our country. I have heard from many Black, indigenous and other people-of-colour communities who are feeling scared right now. They are feeling intimidated for their immediate safety.

I have spoken to health care professionals in Edmonton Griesbach. Nurses, doctors and health care aides are feeling the same way. Hate toward frontline health care workers over the past few weeks has resulted in hospitals telling their own employees not to wear any identifiable health care clothes due to the rise in attacks. This is Canada, my friends. This is right now. This is today. A truly free democracy is one that does not allow discourse to take a back seat to intimidation and violence. This is not freedom. This is not Canada. It is clearly hate.

Lastly, without getting into the nuanced and complicated differences between Canadian civil rights guarantees and the rights of sovereign indigenous nations, please know that the use of the Emergencies Act does not in any way negate or dismiss indigenous people's rights and/or laws to access and occupy their own lands.

The reasons I have outlined here are why my NDP colleagues and I have decided to support these very limited measures under the Emergencies Act. They largely include the coordination of local enforcement, as noted by the interim Ottawa police chief, and powers to investigate foreign and domestic financial influences that are fuelling this hate-motivated occupation. My entire caucus and I believe in reasonable limits, which include the barring of any use of the Canadian Armed Forces, and the upholding and non-suspension of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is with the utmost reluctance we do this for the betterment of our safety, for our country and for the survival of our democracy. We will be steadfast in monitoring these powers and have a clear path to revoke or, at any time, not support these powers that infringe on our civil rights and our democracy. The tool can never become the problem. Kinana'skomitina'wa'w.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Edmonton Griesbach to the House. I admit to some extreme concern when members of the official opposition have actually belittled the concerns of other parliamentarians who do not share his particular demographic and the fears that they might be experiencing.

I want to ask the hon. member something, as a man who is an indigenous advocate and as a man who is indigenous himself. When he sees people who are being arrested assaulting the police officers, throwing bikes at police horses and attempting to remove weapons from police officers, can he contemplate how that kind of response would have been met had those protesters been Black, indigenous or people of colour? Could he perhaps discuss, with some further clarity, how the response would differ?

I firmly believe it would have differed. We need to move forward and really rethink how we are doing policing, notwithstanding the tremendous work that our law enforcement officials are attempting to do in this country right now.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes and support from Edmonton Griesbach to the members of his community for what they have endured. I know, from listening to constituents of mine, how difficult this has been with the disruptions in services, the issues at hospitals, the harassment, and just the overall safety and well-being of community members.

What we are facing is truly serious. I would hope that members of this chamber would see how serious it is, particularly for members of Black, indigenous and people-of-colour communities. What we are witnessing right now is truly different from how we interact with police. We understand it is different, and I know for a fact, from being on those front lines, how different it is. I think we have a lot more work to go, and I think there should be more accountability for police in this.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, under the new act that is being talked about, the Emergencies Act, financial institutions are required to cease dealing with designated persons. These designated persons are defined as anyone associated with a protest.

Using your past experience, were you a designated person in past protests? Were you a protest organizer? Were you a protest attendee? Were you a donor, or were you someone who just tweeted support? Would you, under this act, have your financial institution cease dealing with you?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not think the member was directing his question at me, so I would ask him not to use the word “you”. That might fix everything when he is asking questions.

The hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have never in my entire life been a member of, or a participant in, or included myself in the advocacy toward overthrowing the country. I have never said that. I have never wanted to see Canada's democratic institutions overthrown with the use of violence to the point where they collapse altogether. That is uniquely different from what we are seeing here.

What we are seeing is the very explicit and stated purpose of overthrowing a democratically elected government, and having the force and means to do it. They have those means by way of financing around the globe, millions of dollars, and they have that by way of rifles. We saw that. These are two unique factors that I have never participated in.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague suggested that our political party has narrow interests. I urge him to temper his remarks and to look at the work that the Bloc Québécois does in the House.

If he wonders what the point of our presence in the House is, and if he wants to know what we do, I will tell him that we stand up for our nation because, if we were not here to do that, few people would. Since we have been here, we have demonstrated that we work constructively in the collective interest, after all.

During his speech, my colleague kept referring to a gathering that has gone too far. However, his party, which is gradually turning into the left wing of the Liberal Party, voted last week against the motion to phase out the health measures.

Can he explain that to me?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick. There was a lot in there.

I have been involved in nation protection for the Métis people for a long time. Never in my life have I, in that role, protected through that nationalism defence the right to overthrow a democratically elected government. That is first and foremost.

The second part of the member's question related to what members should be doing right now. We have to take this issue very seriously, and we should be thinking of the state of our country as a whole.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, my thoughts are with the people of Bulkley Valley, who have been shocked by the recent violence and vandalism at a work site on the Marten Forest Service Road. My thoughts go out specifically to the workers of that site who have been traumatized and the officer who was injured. I denounce these acts, and I join my constituents in demanding a full and thorough investigation to hold those responsible accountable.

I rise this evening, at this troubling and historic time in our country, to address the motion before us to confirm the use of the Emergencies Act to restore social order. I have been here in Ottawa for last three weeks. I arrived the day after the convoy did. For most of the past 22 days, I have walked through downtown Ottawa twice a day, and I have paid close attention to the convoy, the messages on the signs, the people, and the people of this city, those who live and work downtown and who have been so profoundly affected by this illegal occupation.

I believe protest is an important part of our democracy. It can give the voiceless a voice and ensure that citizens have a way to communicate the strength of their feelings, views and beliefs to their government. I have attended dozens of protests in my life, and I have a particular respect for peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience, which has played an important in our history role in so much of our social progress, but this is not that. What we have witnessed for the past three weeks is nothing short of the occupation of the capital city of a G7 country. It is an event that I find deeply troubling for a number of reasons.

The first lies in the stated goal of the leaders of this occupation, which, as my friend from Edmonton Griesbach articulated, is to subvert our democracy and overthrow a democratically elected government.

The second reason I find this troubling is the effect the occupation has had on the people of Ottawa. Thousands of innocent people, who were already struggling in the midst of the pandemic, are unable to go to work or go about their daily lives with the peace and security they so deserve. I also think of the thousands of people across Canada who have been affected similarly by blockades at bridges and along trade corridors.

The third reason I am troubled lies in the stream of funding coming from south of the border from individuals who see fit to destabilize our country in the same vein as the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Finally, the fourth reason is the presence of extremism, evidenced by the occupation's leaders, their history, their rhetoric and their associations.

I know there are many people in northwest B.C. for whom the occupation and convoy have provided an outlet for their frustrations and anger. I ask them simply to look into who is behind this event. I considered naming the occupation leaders and some of their more troubling views here this evening, as my colleague and others have done previously in this debate, but I am not going to do that because I refuse to give them the notoriety they seem to crave.

At the centre of this crisis lies the failure of the police. If they had done their job properly from the outset and taken the threats seriously, we would not be finding ourselves where we are this evening. As the occupation dug in, I heard from many indigenous and non-indigenous constituents who were stunned by the contrast between the kid-glove approach of the Ottawa Police Service here and the way in which indigenous protesters in northwest B.C. and across Canada are policed. Many members in this place have noted that contrast, and it is something that must be addressed. It is because of the failure of local and provincial law enforcement to protect social order that we must consider this extraordinary measure before us.

I would simply ask those who are opposing this motion what the alternative is. They suggest that the Prime Minister should negotiate with those who have occupied the city, but negotiate with whom? Surely not the leaders of this occupation.

Others have suggested that the police forces have existing powers and legislation at their disposal, but what use are provisions in the Criminal Code if police are either unwilling or unable to apply them? In fact, the police have been calling out for help. They have said clearly that they are not able to deal with this situation with the powers, tools and resources at their disposal.

This occupation has gone on now for three weeks. Does such a situation not call for the government to consider providing additional powers? To be honest, I find the objections of some in this House to be somewhat naive, especially from those parties that traditionally espouse law and order. We are called on now to protect the people of our country, and we must step up.

This is not to say that I am comfortable with the invocation of the Emergencies Act. I hear the voices of those who caution us that this is a dangerous precedent and that it could lead to future uses that are less appropriate, including its use against lawful demonstration. It falls to all of us in this place to ensure that this does not happen. New Democrats have been clear that we will not tolerate the inappropriate use of these additional powers by the government, and we are prepared to initiate their revocation at a moment's notice.

Turning to the larger context of this global pandemic in which we find ourselves, I want to acknowledge that, two years in, a lot of people are fed up. Some are angry and some are desperate. How could they possibly be otherwise? We must not allow ourselves to fall into thinking that these circumstances are any kind of normal. A situation that requires such broad and sweeping restrictions as have been necessary is not normal.

Over the past three weeks, I have heard from many constituents with strong feelings about the government's management of the pandemic and about the matter before us today. I want to speak directly to them now. I hear them. I hear their frustration and anger with a government and a prime minister that they feel are out of touch with the challenges they are facing. I hear their concern that the federal government has not always been transparent or explained the evidence upon which pandemic measures are based. I hear their concern that certain measures have affected small businesses, especially small tourism businesses, in ways that go beyond what the pandemic relief programs have compensated for. I hear their concern about the mental health impacts of the pandemic.

For the small number of constituents who have chosen not to get vaccinated and who stand to lose their livelihoods in a few short months, I say this: I disagree with their choice, but I empathize with their predicament. One's livelihood is a sacred thing and governments should only interfere with it in the direst of circumstances. I continue to push for the government to provide greater clarity as to whether such measures remain necessary at this juncture of the pandemic.

I hear them.

I will end with an expression of gratitude. It is gratitude for the thousands of people in northwest B.C. who have sacrificed in small and large ways out of concern for the health and well-being of their neighbours, their loved ones, the elders in our community and our seniors. It is gratitude for the health care workers who, for two years, have gone to work every day in the face of a struggling health care system and who have shown themselves to be nothing short of heroes. It is gratitude to live in a country where this debate is possible, where checks and balances exist and where democracy is strong enough to stand up against threats to the fabric of our nation.

I reject the notion that we are more divided than ever. It is the social solidarity of Canadians and our care for each other that has allowed us to reach this point with so many fewer deaths per capita than many other countries. It is this care and concern for each other that I believe lies as the basis of our freedom as a people.

When I search for strength in the face of a difficult decision in this place, my mind turns to home. It turns to Skeena and the places that inspire, ground and motivate so many. I think of the Skeena River, flowing free to the Pacific Ocean. I think of the people. They are strong, caring and good people. I am so deeply honoured to speak on their behalf.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which clearly explained the balance between freedoms and social order. However, he criticizes the government for not having acted quickly enough.

Could my colleague tell me what he would say to those who believe that the actions of the last few days constitute a crackdown and a denial of the right to protest?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was referring to the police not acting quickly enough in the face of the occupation, not the government. I believe that other cities' police forces learned from the failures of the police here in Ottawa and that acting more swiftly, taking the security intelligence more seriously, could have avoided much of the disruption and unrest that has occurred over the past three weeks.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member could share his thoughts on why the government delayed and took so long to act. They knew this risk was in Ottawa. They were staying in a hotel here. Why did they not go out, question them, bring them in and have a chat with them?

Why does he think they stopped at that point and just ignored it for three weeks?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that when it comes to illegal protests, protests that disrupt the flow of traffic and major roadways, and those sorts of matters, enforcing the statutes and laws in the city and in the province falls to the local police authorities.

While I believe it is incumbent on the Prime Minister and, in fact, all of us in this House to listen to people with a wide range of views and to consider what they have to say, I believe that very early on it was up to the police to intervene and to uphold social order in this city and across the country.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech.

I understand that there is some ambiguity and that this situation is not easy. We have a choice to make right now. This is emergency legislation that has been applied three times in the country's entire history. We are not voting on just any bill. The motion we are debating is important. We have to weigh the pros and the cons.

However, since the act was invoked a week ago, the situation on the ground has changed a lot. I heard one of his colleagues, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie say on Thursday on television in Quebec that if the situation changed in such a way that there would no longer be any protesters in Ottawa, the NDP might reconsider its decision to support the government on this legislation.

Does my colleague think that the situation has changed enough for the NDP to change its position?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if this came through in the translation, but I think I heard him say that the Emergencies Act has only been applied a few times in our history. To be clear, this is the first time that it has been applied. The War Measures Act is a very different piece of legislation. I could be mistaken there, but that is my understanding.

To his question about how these powers are applied, I want to assure him that should we support this, we will do it very reluctantly. I do not want to see these extra powers used one day longer than is necessary. We are going to be watching very carefully, holding the government accountable. We will revoke those powers at a moment's notice. I count on him to work with us in such a situation.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

The situation is serious. People are concerned. They are contacting us. I have received all sorts of messages. The vast majority are from people asking us not to support this special legislation. People are saying that they do not want us to support this unacceptable law.

We have also received messages from people asking how they can support the protesters. Those messages are fewer in number, but we have received some. Still other messages ask me how I can abandon people who are fighting for their freedom. These messages are coming from all over, but these people all have one thing in common. They are all worried and unhappy with the situation.

Let us ask ourselves why. How did we get to the point where our society has become so divided? I am sure that all my colleagues in the House are also receiving all kinds of messages. We are doing our best to answer them. We are explaining our positions. Generally, it is fine.

How did we get to this point? It is because we do not have a leader. The government is sowing division. Let me put it this way: The government had the audacity to use the collective distress of a certain group of people for political purposes, and it let those people settle in.

We could have handled the situation differently. It is always easier to say that in hindsight, of course, but we know it can be done. We have seen it elsewhere.

What did it take? It took a leader. What is the difference between Quebec City and Ottawa? Earlier, someone said that other cities had learned from Ottawa's experience. Beyond that, Quebec City had the benefit of a mayor and a premier who spoke to each other, created a crisis task force, coordinated police forces and recognized the demonstrators' right to protest. These things were completely missing in Ottawa. Ironically enough, the most reviled of those people were the ones who protested the longest. I am not saying whether they were right or wrong. I am speaking to the heart of the issue.

How can someone who is the Prime Minister, the head of state, throw fuel on the fire right from the outset and insult Canadians? Perhaps the Prime Minister did not agree with their message, but these people are Canadians.

A head of state must must be able to calm things down. I am not talking about giving in either, but, first of all, he should not have insulted people. Second, why not at least meet with the the truckers' official representatives? This has been mentioned several time in the debates. Ninety per cent of them are vaccinated too. For the most part, they did not agree with the protest. The Prime Minister did not meet with anyone.

Every time there is a crisis, this Prime Minister hides and waits for things to blow over. In times of crisis, the 338 elected members of the House of Commons have a collective duty to come together and work for the common good. To do that, something has to happen. Someone has to be willing to talk to us. We cannot always be dealing people who only want to score political points.

That just does not work. We all saw the images from yesterday and today. I want to once again commend the police forces, because this is not an easy job. It is unfortunate that it has come to this. Everyone finds this sad.

How could the government allow the entire city to be occupied for 23 days? Think of Ottawa's residents and small businesses. We abandoned them.

Being Prime Minister is not about recognition. It is not about having a illustrious title and another trophy on the shelf.

Being prime minister is fraught with consequences. It comes with a very heavy burden. One must be worthy of the position. I am sad to say that no one saw the Prime Minister for three weeks. What happened? He went into hiding, hoping this would pass. It was not the first time this has happened.

Someone else mentioned this earlier today. I remember the blockades in support of the Wet'suwet'en Nation that took place not too long ago. No one talks about it, because it happened before COVID-19. It is as though we have forgotten everything before COVID-19.

Obviously, we are talking about two completely different types of protests. I am not trying to lump them together or draw a comparison. However, I remember that the blockades began in one place, but the government did absolutely nothing. Nothing happened. Our Prime Minister was in Africa, trying to win votes for Canada to get a seat at the UN. He never got it. He did not care about what was going on at home. He came back 10 days later. The crisis had grown, and it was much more difficult to manage.

We proposed solutions. We proposed that law enforcement, the RCMP, be withdrawn. We also proposed negotiations. In the beginning, the government wanted nothing to do with our proposals. What did it ultimately do to resolve the crisis? The government listened to the Bloc Québécois's recommendations.

I am very disappointed to say that this time no one listened to us at all. During the early days of the crisis, we called for the party leaders to meet. We also called for the creation of a crisis task force and a committee. There needs to be a discussion. Something needs to happen. We need to talk to our constituents, who are fed up and can no longer cope with the restrictions that have been in place for two years. That is the real situation. That is what happened.

I have a feeling—and it is just a feeling, not something I know for sure—but when I look at this from an outside perspective, I wonder why not let a demonstration go on in my capital in front of Parliament. It would make people unhappy and perhaps cause division within some of the opposition parties where there is some tension. It worked to some extent. After that, the protesters will get tired and leave. If they do not, then the government can intervene and will come across looking strong. That was an error in judgment.

What consequences did waiting have? More people ended up coming and sticking around. Everything ended up being blockaded. It was at that point that the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge and the borders started.

Suddenly, there was a dramatic turn of events. The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. I am not sure if my colleagues know this, but almost $400 million worth of goods move across the Ambassador Bridge every day. If Ottawa residents have to put up with honking for a month, then that is no big deal. I am not saying that the bridge used for commerce should be left blocked, but I am drawing a parallel between the two.

The Prime Minister got a call from the U.S. President. Thrown into a panic, our poor Prime Minister started saying that this had to stop. That is when the police moved in, without using the Emergencies Act. That is the big difference. We did not need this law.

The same thing could have been done in the City of Ottawa. After it has dragged on for more than 20 days, it is much more difficult to move. We saw it in the last few days. It was predictable. This is a sad situation. It should not have gotten to this point. People have the right to protest, but they need to follow the rules while doing it. People have the right to protest, but they cannot occupy a city for a month. People have the right to go about their lives. This is not right.

Caught in a bind, the Liberals came up with a way to help the government and the Prime Minister save face by invoking this law as a publicity stunt. This is the first time that this has happened since 1988. In fact, this law has never been invoked before. Personally, I am deeply disturbed that it was invoked this time.

Of course, today's law is not the same as the 1970 law. I will not conflate the two. What bothers me a lot is that this sets a precedent. Now whenever a government gets into a political tight spot, it will use this law. What will happen five or 10 years from now, when another government, regardless of its political stripe, wants to use it? That is the question, and that is why we will be voting against it.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague does not seem to understand that governments do not direct the police.

Does my colleague realize that what we have seen and experienced is part of a something bigger than mandatory vaccination for truckers?

We already met with the convoy organizers two years ago. They came here with their trucks to protest the carbon tax.

Does my colleague also know that the Canada Unity Facebook page was created two years ago?

Does he not believe that we may be facing a movement that goes beyond the very narrow main objective mentioned during the protest, which was for the government to lift vaccination requirements for truckers?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am well aware that the Prime Minister is not the one who manages the police.

I would like to ask my colleague a question in return. Does he understand that sometimes it would be nice to have a leader who can bring people together?

The person leading a country needs to talk to people. The member is saying that the government talked to the protesters two years ago, but I think it could have talked to them again this time.

My colleague is asking whether I am aware of what this organization is involved in. We know all that, and I hope that the speech I gave earlier was not misinterpreted. That was not the issue. The reason this happened is that the government failed to take action for 23 days.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member a question, but I also have a comment.

We often hear the Liberals say that the government does not direct the police. In reality, section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act clearly states that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, under the direction of the minister, has the control and management of the force and all matters connected with the force. Those are the exact words used in the act.

Therefore, the government cannot say that the police must do everything while it does nothing. Ultimately, it is up to the government to direct them and tell them what the purpose of public management of police operations is.

I would like my colleague from the Bloc to explain to us why the government is trying to suggest that it will do nothing and that the law just magically gets enforced.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him.

I will again draw a comparison to how things work in Quebec. The Premier of Quebec did not control the Quebec City police. He met with the mayor to talk about what they would do and how they would organize everything. It is just about getting out in front of a situation, trying to plan and, of course, getting people together.

My Conservative colleague made a very good point. That impulse has to come from somewhere.