Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by commending my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech and, more importantly, for finally agreeing to share his time with me.

It is with great concern that I rise today to participate in this historic debate. I would like to begin with a quick question. How do my colleagues feel when they see the images of the charging horses and the confrontations that have been playing on a loop on television for hours now?

Personally, I am wondering how we got to this point. I know that I am not the first one to say it, and that many of my colleagues have already talked about this, but I want to reiterate that we are still against applying the Emergencies Act across Canada.

First of all, I want to remind members that I have a degree in applied policy studies from the Université de Sherbrooke, which has helped make me a staunch democrat. I cannot help but wonder and worry about the message that the government is sending with the use of this measure, which undermines our democratic system.

Second, I will address the risk of radicalization, and third, I will talk about respect for jurisdictions and the demands of Quebec and the provinces and territories. One thing is certain, I will not be standing on a soap box, like some others have tried to do.

From the standpoint of democracy, we must ask ourselves whether this act really should have been invoked. In order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate two things. First, it must demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists. Second, it must demonstrate that ordinary laws cannot adequately address the situation.

As to the first condition, yes, there is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation. That situation is limited to Ontario, however, and specifically to Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois is not against applying the act, but it should be applied only where there is an occupation, which did not happen in Quebec. I know other members have already made this point in the debate, but it is worth repeating: This use of this act is not to be taken lightly. Its application must therefore be measured and balanced.

Another thing that worries me is that a broader application of this law than necessary could set a dangerous precedent. At this point, I have a few more questions. For example, why is the Prime Minister determined to apply this law everywhere, especially when he himself has said many times that it will not be used where it is not necessary?

The Prime Minister also stated, here in the House and in the supplementary documents pertinent to the motion, that he was concerned that other blockades would be set up elsewhere in Canada, particularly given the galvanizing effect of social media. As I will argue later, I believe that this legislation is actually one of the things fuelling support for protesters on social media.

No matter how hard I try to look at this issue from every angle, I simply do not see the real and imminent danger of the current situation in Ottawa happening elsewhere. Such historic legislation should never be invoked “just in case”.

I can only assume that the debate would be quite different if the motion had been limited to the province of Ontario. The government could have easily obtained a majority of votes in Parliament. The only reason we are here debating this now is that the government dragged its feet, as it has too often done since the beginning of its mandate.

This could have been addressed using ordinary legislation, with proper coordination and effective collaboration among police forces, as we have seen in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Why did the government not emulate what was done elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec before invoking the Emergencies Act?

Furthermore, if we look back a bit to try and see what we could have done, we will see that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, the crisis at Caledonia, the events of September 11, the COVID‑19 pandemic or any other dispute in Canadian history.

Using the act too liberally or too broadly, or applying it needlessly, poses a real risk of sending the wrong message to the political class, and above all to Canadians.

The government has been aware of the facts for a long time now, since some protesters turned into occupiers who were here to say. It simply continued to say that the responsibility of managing this crisis fell to the Ottawa police. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and, the very next day, the Ottawa police asked the province and the federal government for reinforcements. That was more than 12 days ago.

The Bloc Québécois wanted constructive action from the start. If the government had listened even just a little bit, if it had truly wanted to show political leadership, and if it had sat down at the table with representatives, if it had established a plan to intervene or simply helped come up with a plan, we probably would not be here.

I was listening to a constitutional expert this morning. He explained quite clearly that we already had the means to intervene. The highway safety code, the City of Ottawa bylaws, the Criminal Code and a tripartite collaboration would have allowed the different police services to coordinate in order to reinforce existing laws.

The declaration of the state of emergency in Ontario by the Ford government on February 11 had already given significant powers to the Ottawa police and the provincial police. Again, the federal government should have realized that, but instead it decided to bury its head in the sand and hide when the situation was serious.

At this time it seems that the blockades might be over before the Emergencies Act is implemented. We therefore cannot really link the act to the end of the blockades.

What is more, each crisis includes a risk of radicalization. Obviously, we hope that everything will end without violence, but we are also aware that as the number of protesters decreases, the closer we get to the hard core, even extremist, group. These are very likely people who have nothing to do with the spirit of the January 29 protest. The remaining participants in the crowd are increasingly unstable and unpredictable. We are right to wonder what ideas the occupiers will leave with, because they currently feel emboldened by their supporters and have financial backing. We have seen how well organized they are.

This summer, I was reading a book about the new age of violent extremism and radicalization in western democracies entitled Le nouvel âge des extrêmes? Les démocraties occidentales, la radicalisation et l'extrémisme violent, edited by David Morin and Sami Aoun in collaboration with Sylvana Al Baba Douaihy. I am interested in this issue, especially since it was studied last spring at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am the vice-chair, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where I have participated as a substitute. The tone is set from the first paragraph of the introduction, and it has informed my arguments on the effects of the Emergencies Act, which runs the risk of throwing fuel on the fire. In his book entitled The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth History 1914-1991, published in 1994, Eric John Hobsbawn wrote that the century was not ending well. You do not need to be a prophet of doom to recognize that the 21st century is not off to a much better start.

In the last two decades we have seen a wave of Islamist terrorists, several civil and international conflicts, millions of victims and displaced people, a major migrant crisis, the rise of violent far-right populism and the acceleration of climate change. To this bleak portrait we must now add the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a global health crisis.

Furthermore, Quebec said that it wanted nothing to do with this act. The protest held in Quebec's capital showed that problems can be prevented when there is strong political will. I want to commend law enforcement for their professionalism and for their exemplary responses. The question here is not so much about the Emergencies Act itself as it is about the reasons why the situation got to this point. The question answers itself.

I have one last thing to say. When I think of the Liberal government, the image that keeps coming to mind is of a firefighter arsonist. The Prime Minister has favoured the wait-and-see approach. He let the situation drag on and deteriorate but did nothing. True to form, he stood by and watched it all happen. He also insulted and dismissed the protesters by tarring them all with the same brush. Now, he has invoked the Emergencies Act to make it seem that he is putting out the fire he himself started, but instead he is adding fuel to the fire, stoking the flames of hate and division.

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

Madam Speaker, I respect the member opposite, but I am going to take strong disagreement with one point that she and her party have made repeatedly in today's debate, which is that there is no crisis.

I think we are in agreement that the blockades still exist outside the chamber, so in Ottawa there clearly is a problem. We know that on February 14, the declaration was put into force. On February 16, we know that in Windsor, there was an attempted resurrection of the blockade, which was thwarted successfully, which was great, but reports are showing that even today the Surrey border is again being closed on account of blockades. Clearly, the protest continues and the problem has not been resolved.

Does the member opposite agree that indeed these tools are required in order to address what is clearly a national problem that must be regulated in order to ensure that the economic security, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of our borders are not compromised by unlawful and illegal blockades?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think I have demonstrated in my speech that this is not a national crisis, but one that is limited to Ottawa.

Elsewhere, such as in Quebec City, the crises that occurred were resolved, because there was co-operation. Right now, both the police and the governments have all the tools that they need to act. In Quebec City, there was coordination between the Quebec department of public security and the mayor, who had the political will, who showed leadership, and who warned protesters that unruly behaviour would not be tolerated. There was none, because there was coordination with the Quebec City police. This was also the case elsewhere, in different places, and in different positions.

The necessary tools were available, and the Emergencies Act was not. All it does is add fuel to the fire and feed hatred and division.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Shefford spoke thoughtfully about how we got here. She alluded to comments the Prime Minister made, casting a broad brush to all of the folks who came to Ottawa and the millions of Canadians who supported them.

Would she agree that the Prime Minister, had he tried to extend an olive branch, listen and engage in dialogue, it could have at least turned down the temperature, but instead, the Prime Minister escalated the situation?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I addressed this issue.

The Prime Minister should not have been acting like a political commentator, making inappropriate comments. He should have acted like a political leader, led an all-party committee to get everyone around the same table, and come up with a peaceful solution.

All he accomplished by doing that, as I said, was to make the situation worse. That is typical of him. We saw it with the Wet'suwet'en crisis. The Prime Minister has this tendency to let things drag on and let crises escalate, hoping that everything will magically resolve itself.

That is not how things work. We need a leader who can bring people together to find solutions in a crisis.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just mentioned this, but I wanted to give her a chance to elaborate.

When there is a crisis, everyone needs to do some soul-searching to make sure that it is not too late to do the right thing.

I have to wonder whether the protesters became entrenched because they were egged on by certain politicians and also by the words of the Prime Minister, which made people feel abandoned, unimportant and shunned from society.

I would like my colleague to talk about that, but also about how everyone, on both sides of the House, has some soul-searching to do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her important question.

As politicians, we definitely needed to listen to the different voices that were heard loud and clear during the protest. This was not about commenting, taking sides or taking a stand. Our goal was to bring the various parties together.

My colleague talked about the lessons we can learn from all of this. What we need to remember is that we need to listen, but more importantly, that we need to bring everyone together, for example, through the all-party committee we talked a lot about.

We could have brought many people together, held—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought that we lived in a democracy in Canada, but in a democracy, the government cannot suspend people's rights, freeze people's assets or seize their bank accounts just because they disagree with them. That is what we are seeing today. That is what we are seeing with the application of the Emergencies Act.

That is why, when we vote on this on Monday night, I will be opposing this completely unwarranted infringement on the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and I will do so for three reasons.

The first is the government failed to understand why this is happening. The second is the government failed to know what to do about it. The third is, most importantly, the government has absolutely failed to provide any legitimate justification for this unprecedented overreach.

I will start with the last reason, because we need to talk about what is required to justify the use of the Emergencies Act. Using the Emergencies Act demands a true threat to national security, such as the threat of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective, or the overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.

We have the government arguing to invoke legislation that is designed for things like a foreign invasion, a civil war or a terrorist attack. I ask, is this a civil war? Is it a terrorist attack? Is it a foreign invasion? It would be very difficult for anyone to argue that it is any of those things.

It is also required under the act that something needs to seriously threaten the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. Notice the importance of the word “and”. It would require that all of those things, the sovereignty of this country, its security and its territorial integrity, to be threatened, and the Government of Canada to feel that its ability to preserve those things would be impossible without its use.

Can it really be argued that our territorial integrity and sovereignty as a country are at risk here? Again, we are not talking about a foreign invasion or a terrorist attack. We are talking about illegal acts that are happening. People are blocking streets and roadways, and that is clearly illegal. It needs to end, but it does not constitute the need for the use of the Emergencies Act.

One of the things we can do to look at the reasons why this is not justified is to look at some of the other examples of situations where this act has not been warranted and has not been applied. I have heard lots of talk about disruption of daily life in Ottawa. I have heard lots of talk about potential threats of violence. That has been littered throughout a lot of the speeches that we have from Liberal and NDP members to try to justify their voting for the use of this act.

If we use that as the barometer, think about the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto. In that instance, we had 10,000 protesters. We had police cars that were flipped over and set on fire. We had millions of dollars of damage to local businesses and we 97 police officers were injured. Despite all of that, the use of the Emergencies Act was not warranted. I am not arguing that it should have been. There are other ways to deal with situations like that. The Emergencies Act was not used in that situation, so the arguments that we are hearing about these disruptions of daily life and things like that are pretty flimsy.

Think about 9/11, in 2001. That is the very definition of terrorism. Air space was restricted. All flights in and out were cancelled. There was fear. I remember people saying things to me like, “Is this the beginning of the third world war?” and “Is this the end of the world as we know it?” Those were the kinds of feelings that people had at the time. I hear lots of people talking about being afraid of this situation, but it certainly does not compare with the fear that many felt then. I am not suggesting that the Emergencies Act was needed at that time either, but it tells us that it is probably not required in the situation that we are in today.

I have heard lots of arguments on the effects on the economy and critical infrastructure being blocked, things like rail lines, highways, border crossings and so on. I think the best comparison, looking at that kind of a situation, is when there were very similar types of blockades going on two years ago, pipelines and railway blockades that were going on across the country. Those went on for a few weeks at that time as well. All of those same arguments that are being made now, to justify the use of this act, could have been made had the decision been to use the Emergencies Act then. Again, I am not suggesting that it should have been used.

At that time, the Prime Minister said that we are a country that recognizes the right to protest, and we will ensure that everything is done to resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes. His aboriginal affairs minister at the time said we needed to ensure that we get to a peaceful solution that involved dialogue. I do not hear any discussion of trying to find a way to do that, to have a peaceful solution, to find dialogue. I actually believe that in this case, had there been some sort of dialogue with the folks who came with concerns to Ottawa, had there been some way to address those concerns, we probably would have seen this come to a very quick resolution. If I have time, I hope to speak to that in a moment or two.

I want to also raise an issue. There are many speeches I heard today and otherwise that claimed there is some threat to Parliament and, therefore, to our democracy. Yes, there is proximity to the Parliament. I have not seen anyone try to storm into the Parliament buildings. I have not seen any of those kinds of actions take place. They are here to make a point and, yes, there is an illegal nature to what has been going on. I absolutely make it very clear that I do not condone illegal acts, whatever the point that someone is trying to make.

It was in 2014 when Corporal Nathan Cirillo was killed at our National War Memorial by an armed attacker who then stormed our Parliament. Nobody suggested using the Emergencies Act at that time either. I am not suggesting that should have done at that time, but that was a far bigger threat to our Parliament and to our democracy than what we are seeing today.

We have a government that really fails to understand why this is all happening. It has its reasons as to why it is happening. Why it is happening is because people are sick and tired. They are frustrated. They do not see the justification for some of the things that the government is doing. We can debate all we want whether it is appropriate to engage in illegal acts. It clearly is not, in order to make that point.

There are many people in this country. Many people supported the convoys and the blockades, and they may have given $50. They are tired of lockdowns, mandates and restrictions. Is it really fair to argue that someone who had no idea that there would be any kind of illegal activity taking place should have their bank account seized or their assets frozen because they gave 50 bucks, mostly because they are just tired of COVID restrictions?

The government does not have a right to make decisions like this just because it disagrees with someone's point of view. The government failed to act on it when it could have. We gave it the an opportunity to end mandates or, at least, bring forward a plan to end all the federal mandates and restrictions. Had it done that, it would have been following in the footsteps of many provinces and many other countries. It would have been following the science and evidence, and what it shows.

The government chose not to do that. Instead, it has caused more fear and more division in this country. People are afraid. I have heard from many people who are scared because they gave maybe $50 or $100 to some of these efforts. The government is refusing to tell those people whether their bank accounts will be seized. That causes fear. That causes division, and that causes disunity. The government should be ashamed of itself for taking this step. I will be opposing it all the way.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, the member said that all the Prime Minister needed to do was to engage in dialogue and we could have come to a peaceful resolution with the occupiers outside while his premier, Jason Kenney, did not engage in dialogue at the Coutts crossing. The premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, did not engage in dialogue. The premier of Manitoba did not engage in dialogue at the blockade there.

I am curious. Can the member comment on whether it is just Liberal leaders who need to engage in dialogue, or does the member not see the hypocrisy in his statements?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us talk about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the Prime Minister's statements in 2020 compared with his statements now. They are very similar types of situations. Blockades were happening that were going on for weeks. They were across the country and were blocking critical infrastructure. These are all the arguments we are hearing today for why this act is required. The Prime Minister, at that time, said that we should “resolve this through dialogue and constructive outcomes”.

We offered an opportunity to the government. We could have had a constructive outcome by ending the federal mandates and restrictions in order to make sure that the many other Canadians who feel the same concerns but are not part of any kind of illegal protest could see the end of them as well. That would have been the opportunity to have a constructive outcome. This is hypocrisy. The Prime Minister is full of it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the idea of doing some collective soul-searching. Far be it from me to be preachy here, given that I too can be something of a character at times.

Knowing that certain protesters said dangerous things that were downplayed by some people and blown out of proportion by others, I would urge everyone to beware of extremes and find a way to avoid going there as we do that soul-searching.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very fair statement. We all want to see extremes avoided. Certainly, I want to make it very clear that nobody condones illegal activity when it is taking place. With regard to the folks who are engaged in it, action needs to be taken to ensure that it is not being allowed to happen.

At the same time, the invocation of the Emergencies Act does not have a justification. Talk about an extreme. Invoking the Emergencies Act is a very extreme measure to take, and I have not seen a shred of anything that would show me a justification for invoking it. For the government to give itself the ability to seize bank accounts—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague says he has difficulty seeing what basis there might be for the Emergencies Act, so I want to put some of the facts to him: a serious border closure at the Ambassador Bridge, jeopardizing $330 million in trade a day and a threat to Canada-U.S. trade; interruptions to Canada's auto industry and our manufacturing sector in the Golden Horseshoe; a cache of weapons and murder conspiracy charges in Coutts, Alberta; a blockade of streets in Ottawa for three weeks, shutting down many businesses in our nation's capital; harassed and threatened citizens; undercover intelligence revealing plans to expand the blockade to ports and airports; an openly published manifesto calling for government change; foreign interference and funding in our domestic affairs; far-right involvement; threats to towing companies and drivers; and the use of trucks and tractors as blockade weapons.

Does my hon. colleague really think none of those facts are relevant to an honest assessment of whether the Emergencies Act is triggered? Does he think there are no facts present in Canada that might warrant such an examination?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, a lot of things the hon. member listed are of concern. They are of great concern and they need to be dealt with. However, there is a very high bar for using the Emergencies Act and it certainly has not been met. We are not talking about threats to the sovereignty of the country and we are not talking about foreign invasions, things that would ordinarily be requirements for this.

The hon. member mentioned one thing that I want to touch on briefly: foreign funding. There has been a lot of talk about foreign funding, and I have raised this many times in Parliament and in committees. The fact is that many times it is used to try to block critical infrastructure in this country, like pipelines. Where was—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauce.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I rise in the House today, I feel sad and disappointed. This week, for the first time since it was enacted, the Emergencies Act was invoked by the Prime Minister. This is a historic event.

Over the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has taken no significant steps to de-escalate the protests across the country or to use every other tool available to him. Instead, he went straight to extreme measures.

For more than three weeks, the government just sat there while blockades shut our borders and other important infrastructure down. The government remained silent, demonizing peaceful protesters by tarring them all with the same brush, while Canadians came out in droves just to make themselves heard. The Prime Minister lacks the compassion to even listen to people he disagrees with. Such conduct is not befitting the leader of a country.

Many of these people are our neighbours, our fellow citizens, Canadians who want to be heard and be granted a modicum of respect from their Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decided that, because he did not agree with them and did not like their opinions, he would not listen to them. At every opportunity, the Prime Minister stigmatized, marginalized and divided Canadians.

Why did the government jump straight to this extreme measure without first doing something to take the pressure off? No government should resort to the kinds of extreme measures set out in the Emergencies Act without exhausting all other options.

We asked the government to publicly commit to a clear plan and timetable for lifting federal government mandates and restrictions. The Liberals and NDP refused to support our motion, and instead, the Prime Minister sought to gain even more power.

This comes at a time when nearly all provincial governments have announced plans to lift COVID-19 restrictions. Many provinces have expressed their frustration with the Prime Minister's actions. They do not want the federal government to impose the Emergencies Act in their areas of responsibility.

Just as the trucking industry made it clear that it was never consulted about the government-imposed mandates, the provinces and territories do not appear to have been consulted in this case either.

Our country seems to be turning more and more into a dictatorship. Unfortunately, to no one's great surprise, the NDP is once again supporting the current government by forming a coalition that is dividing our country.

My office has been inundated with messages from citizens who are very worried about the government's ongoing extreme policies. My staff is having a great deal of difficulty responding to the huge volume of calls and emails about this issue.

The fact is that Canadians simply want to see a light at the end of the tunnel. We are all tired, as several colleagues mentioned earlier, yet this government and its NDP ally do not seem to want to set goals for reopening, which I think is deplorable.

As we know, the Conservative Party is the party of law and order. We believe that the illegal blockades must end quickly and peacefully.

However, the Prime Minister's actions could have the opposite effect. Almost all the protesters have been dispersed, but the Prime Minister believes that this is the time to fan the flames and further divide this country.

We must come together, despite our differences, for the good of our country. I would like the Prime Minister to recognize this.

The measure we are debating today is an excellent example of this Prime Minister's lack of leadership. It is his way of covering up his mistakes and those of his ministers. Rest assured that Canadians and the rest of the world are watching us.

I spent many years working as a representative in my community. I have served the people of Beauce for more than 20 years. The greatest skill I have learned over the years, and the most important quality for a politician, is the ability to listen. I have always taken the time to listen to people's concerns and to have meaningful debates over coffee at a restaurant or at the corner store.

This Prime Minister is so out of touch with reality that he does not take the time to speak with ordinary Canadians. He is not interested if there are no cameras around.

Our country must reassess its true values and question whether this Prime Minister is the right person to lead it. After calling an unnecessary election to get more power, this government formed another minority government. The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canadians made a clear choice by re-electing him. However, he seems to forget that for the second consecutive election, it was the Conservatives who won the popular vote.

Of course, the Prime Minister will never acknowledge the fact that he received fewer votes than the official opposition. The reality is that the Liberals have the NDP in the palm of their hand. I think it is shameful that the NDP continues to add fuel to the fire along with the Prime Minister.

As I rise to speak today, I wonder why we cannot allow the police and the powers already in place to do their job, while we do ours in the House by passing and debating bills to improve the lives of Canadians. People in my riding cannot even get adequate cellular coverage. They cannot reach Service Canada by phone when their employment insurance or guaranteed income supplement is cut, or when they are victims of fraud. They cannot bring the temporary foreign workers into Canada they so desperately need to fill important jobs and run their businesses.

While we in the House debate the failures of this Prime Minister and his cabinet, my constituents continue to pay the price for this incompetence.

In conclusion, I will vote against this motion, as will all of my Conservative Party colleagues, since I do not think that what our country is experiencing right now warrants the use of such powerful measures. We have been through more than two years of a global pandemic and many protests have subsided. Now is not the time to lose our country's trust by taking such drastic measures against our own people.

I urge all of my colleagues here to think long and hard about how they will vote on this motion. I remind them that their constituents are watching.

I would be happy to take questions from my colleagues.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that my constituents will be watching how I vote. I am quite looking forward to that.

The hon. member referenced the notion that we should let the police do their job. I take note that since this legislation was tabled on Monday, the police have been enabled to do their job. When I walked here this afternoon, I needed a police escort to get across Wellington Street. Since that time, the police have cleared Wellington Street and are on the way to clearing the rest of the side streets, so the legislation has enabled the police to do their job.

I would be interested in the hon. member's reasons for resistance to the legislation, which actually enables the police to do their job.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I did say that the police have done their job here and all across Canada. We have said that many times today.

In Quebec, law enforcement intervened two weeks ago. They managed to take control of the situation without the Emergencies Act. Today was no different.

The question we should be asking ourselves is the following.

Did we use all available means, such as police forces or the powers granted to them, to do what was needed, as was done in many other provinces?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very enlightening speech.

Earlier, my Liberal colleague referenced the theatre in response to my colleague's unsuccessful attempt to find the crisis here. Personally, I think the Prime Minister is the one who is hard to find.

In my opinion, the real theatre we are seeing here is the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act in an attempt to hide its own incompetence.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

It certainly does feel like we are in a play, simply because the Prime Minister and the government have never made use of all the resources available to Canada's police forces. Perhaps this is a way for him to hide his incompetence.

I listed many problems that Canadians would rather we dealt with, instead of debating a bill that is of no use to us at present.

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

Madam Speaker, Ottawa police have expressed concerns around the significant amount of foreign funding supporting this occupation. This is foreign funding that is being funnelled into Canada, often anonymously, supporting a movement that clearly states the goal of overturning government. These funds have been used to push forward an agenda of hate disguised as a peaceful protest, with many joining this cause being unaware of or perhaps ignoring the actual intentions of the organizers. Could the member agree that the lack of government leadership has led us here and that the Emergencies Act will provide us with what is required to finally help people?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

In Canada, we already have rules that allow us to monitor these things. Nobody has convinced me that passing special legislation would toughen any of the existing rules.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are told that some demonstrators were planning to overthrow the government. I just had a look around outside and was able to see the state of things.

I would like the member to tell me one thing: Of the zero trucks parked outside, how many are planning to overthrow the government?