Debates of Feb. 19th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. The member opposite is addressing me directly. He is also calling into question whether I have any knowledge of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Please direct the questions to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by agreeing with my colleague from Prince George. It is always nice to find common ground. I was one of only three members of Parliament on the opposition benches who voted with his party, condemning the use of the specific phrase he mentioned in the summer grants program. I remember clearly that vote. I felt that it was a misuse of a grant program by appropriating into language that was elevated to charter language something that could be seen on either side as within the scope of the charter.

I am still undecided as to how to vote on this motion. I am looking to my friend, because he is my friend. I do wish that we could have ideas on how to lower the temperature in this place so that we do not descend into hurling insults across the way. Canadians do not want to see that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. There is an old phrase from the Bible that says a calm answer turns away wrath. I think in this place we do need to bring the calmness, so we do not encourage things to get worse. I absolutely take that. I feel it is all of our responsibility to be that way. That is where I think this act is fanning the flames.

We need to do our very best to bring peace to our country again and unify our country again like it really wants to be. “God keep our land glorious and free.” That is what we are all striving to do.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pro-vaccination, but I have friends and constituents who are not. They have made a different decision. We have had conversations about it and I cannot convince them. Many of them have reached out. Some of them who were working for the public service are not anymore as they lost their jobs. I talked to more than one person who had to give up their house because of it. They are coming to us asking what to do. On top of that devastation, they have a Prime Minister who referenced them as being misogynists and racist, as was mentioned.

I am sure the member has heard from people in that same devastating situation. What impact would it have if the Prime Minister would simply come back to say that he spoke too strongly, he got it wrong and he has heard people's concerns? What impact would that make to the de-escalation of what we have seen over the past—

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

The hon. member has 10 seconds to answer.

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a great question. This place is often a place of contention, but it needs to be a place of forgiveness too. We have given the Prime Minister that opportunity. I even called on him to just apologize.

I think a lot of people feel like that. They would accept a simple apology, but we have not heard that yet. We are calling on him—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I am against invoking the Emergencies Act.

I commend the work of the police officers, who have shown remarkable composure and professionalism. I hope this illegal occupation will end without violence.

Many protesters have made the reasonable choice to leave. However, a fractious group is still refusing to go home. It is possible they are extremists. They are the ones who came to occupy, not to protest. It is to be expected that they will be difficult to remove, but none of this justifies using the Emergencies Act.

To invoke and enforce the act, two things must first be demonstrated. First, that there is a dangerous and urgent situation. Second, that it is impossible to deal with the situation under existing laws. I do not believe this to be the case.

Faced with such a situation, I think it is important to distinguish between an exception, in other words, something that only occurs once and will not reoccur, and a precedent, which is something that is expected to happen again. I do not think we should make a precedent out of an exceptional situation.

I personally believe that invoking the Emergencies Act is the direct result of a terrible lack of vision and leadership. With that in mind, the question that remains is this: How did we get to where we are today?

We all knew that the truckers were coming. We all knew that, once they were here, it would be difficult to remove them. Did all of us really know that? No. The Prime Minister said that the right to protest was important, and I agree. I also agree that everyone should be able to express themselves freely. That was before the protest became an occupation.

Throughout the first week of the occupation, the Prime Minister was quick to lecture us, saying that he could not direct the police, that the police had to submit their requests and that it was the police's job to control the situation. That is why the police chief asked for 1,800 additional officers, but he got only a few dozen. That is when the occupation became really entrenched. Was it a lack of vision on the part of the Prime Minister, carelessness, flippancy or a lack of leadership? Who knows.

To understand the situation—and I propose that we discuss it in order to explain it—it is worth noting that this ill-advised decision is a logical extension of previous decisions, which were all equally clumsy.

The current Liberal government was elected in 2015 on promises for a better future, one where transparency would be a priority and where Canada would reclaim its place on the international stage. That was in 2015, and the Liberals were saying that Canada was back.

It was definitely a breath of fresh air and there was hope for better days. The Prime Minister met with world leaders and graced the front pages of celebrity magazines. The whole world admired his youthful good looks and colourful socks.

Hope appealed to Canadians, but all was not well. In January 2017, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner began an investigation into the Trudeau family's vacation on the Aga Khan's private island, and that investigation resulted in a reprimand from the commissioner.

It was the first time a prime minister had been reprimanded by a Conflict of Interest and Ethics commissioner. The first Trudeau report, because there would be others, was shameful for a prime minister—

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

I remind the hon. member not to use colleagues' names.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

You are absolutely right, Madam Speaker. That was the name of the report.

After this rebuke, the Prime Minister tried to justify the unjustifiable by responding that he was sorry, that he was responsible, that he would do better in the future and that he would make sure to have his vacations approved by the commissioner. In short, it was a cop-out we would hear many more times in the future.

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

I must interrupt the hon. member because we have a point of order.

The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this is out of order. We are talking about the Emergencies Act. We are not talking about an ethics report from some time ago.

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

There is a certain measure of leeway to allow the member to make his point.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès]

I would like to finish my answer, please.

I wanted to say that the hon. member has an opportunity to find some context, but we are talking about the Emergencies Act.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I fully agree.

The context that I am bringing here allows me to draw a line, which for the moment is drawn as a solid line but where we can see the dots that are connected. I will shorten my remarks on the line in question.

A little later, the Prime Minister was still making headlines about ethics and the SNC-Lavalin affair. When we read the report, we learned that the commissioner had tried to meet with him a hundred times, but that did not happen. In my opinion, this is avoidance. There too, he was not responsible for anything.

That has continued; this line is continuous and that is what we need to see. In 2020, as we know, the federal cabinet chose WE Charity to administer the Canada student service grant. There were ties between that organization and the Prime Minister's family, namely his children, his wife, his brother, and so on. The Prime Minister did not shoulder the blame in that situation, but we know what happened next. I mention all of this to say that the Prime Minister has a troubled relationship with ethics, with the concepts of what is right and just, which brings us to the Emergencies Act.

In my opinion, in these situations that I briefly described, the Prime Minister demonstrated a complete lack of judgment, and that is not what we expect from a leader. Even recently, on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, the Prime Minister chose to go surfing rather than to pay tribute to a people he personally chose to honour. Is that an ethical failure? Certainly not, but it shows a lack of judgment. Once again that is not what we expect from a leader. The most recent example of a lack of judgment is the invocation of the Emergencies Act.

I am listing these failures in order to draw attention to the Liberal mindset. In my opinion, repeated errors in judgment and contempt are part of their DNA. When we have contempt for an object or person, we believe they are unworthy of respect or esteem. I will give three examples of contempt relating to the office of Prime Minister, the institution of Parliament and the people.

At the beginning of his mandate, the Prime Minister showed contempt for his office with the costumes he wore. He should understand that he is not acting in a play.

As for contempt for the institution of Parliament, the ethics breaches that I mentioned and the audacity of calling an unnecessary vanity election come to mind.

As for contempt for the public, after actively doing nothing, the Prime Minister uselessly invoked the Emergencies Act, which is not something that the provinces wanted or found to be useful under the circumstances—as my colleagues have clearly shown—because most of the powers used so far by police officers already existed at the provincial and municipal levels.

It is a strong-handed measure that is actually an admission of weakness. In fact, it is a textbook case of hubris—my friends know my background in philosophy. Hubris is when somebody becomes too vain, cocky or intoxicated with power, and eventually loses control and risks making poor and potentially fatal decisions.

The Prime Minister has made an art out of adding insult to injury through his lack of substance, numerous ethics breaches, poor judgment, contempt, arrogance and hubris.

The Prime Minister called an unnecessary snap election and invoked the Emergencies Act for no good reason, which did not help in Coutts, in Windsor, or even in Ottawa. That, to me, is unacceptable. How did we end up here? If we have been paying any attention at all, and add up the lack of judgment and leadership, it is hardly surprising that we are here today discussing this legislation.

When I look at everything that the Prime Minister has done, it seems to me that over time he has started to confuse public interest with political games, public interest with personal interest.

The Emergencies Act is the wrong response, a response lacking in leadership to a situation that required maximum leadership. The Emergencies Act, as I said, is a strong move, but it is an admission of weakness. Rather than bringing out the nuclear weapons, I think that he should have acted sooner. I wonder whether the Prime Minister should put the legislation in question to a free vote in order to see what all members of the House really think.

Before he racks up one too many lapses in judgment, I encourage the Prime Minister to ask himself whether he still feels like governing.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, no charter rights are being infringed upon here. It is very clear in the public order that that is the case. This is not the War Measures Act. It is a much more specific application of federal laws that are being made available to provincial and municipal authorities to be able to address the issue. Indeed, 72% of Quebeckers actually support the government's measures on this.

On Monday, the spokesperson for the Bloc called for federal government leadership. Then the Government of Canada provides tools to the provinces and municipalities to help deal with the situation, and now the Bloc is of course against it. What I think the Bloc is missing is this: It is not just about Ottawa. It is about what comes next, because some of the key organizers of this protest have said they intend to set up shop elsewhere.

Does the Bloc not agree that having discretion for its police force, the SQ, to support Lacolle, Quebec and other key junctures in its province is a good thing? The Bloc normally loves discretion to the provinces, except now.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

Police discretion is important. The police must be able to act within the bounds that they find acceptable.

The current powers delegated to the municipalities and the provinces would have been able to cover most of the situations that have occurred. The problem is that they did not act soon enough.

I do not think that the issue is a lack of authority. I do not think that there has been a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at all.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. I am on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics with him, and I would like to say that he is a very honourable man.

I am very worried. The order issued by the government authorizes it to impose other temporary measures authorized under section 19 of the Emergencies Act, which are not yet known.

The Prime Minister is basically asking the House to grant him limited powers, but that, actually, is quite broad.

Is the member also worried?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member.

The fact that we are unaware of certain parts or sections of the act is indeed worrisome.

If we are to support it on Monday, as planned, I demand that we be allowed to read the whole text.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc and the Conservatives keep saying things are fine at the Ambassador Bridge in the Windsor area, when they are not. If I could pick up my computer and walk two kilometres down the road, I could show the barriers that are now in the community.

Why is my friend from the Bloc abandoning the francophone population in my region? West of Montreal, this is the oldest Francophonie settlement. We have a number of different individuals who are now impacted, not just their businesses, but also going to medical appointments and going to their jobs. There is a whole series of things that are still there.

Why do they insist there is no problem? Why has the Bloc abandoned the Francophonie population, a settlement in the Windsor-Essex County area since the 1700s?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing.

We are not abandoning anyone. Contrary to what the member is insinuating, we are not the ones talking about “anglophones”, “francophones”, “racialized” and “non-racialized” people. We are talking about everyone. We have to deal with this situation for everyone, as complete equals.

The member's comment is malicious. I do not agree.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his speech and also commend him and his colleagues for their speeches, which have clearly indicated that the government has not shown any justification for why this should be coming forward and imposing this upon Canadians.

I am sure they have heard from their constituents, just as I have, about the non-confidence in the Prime Minister and the overstepping of boundaries he is doing with this move. He is picking and choosing what is going on. A concern that has been mentioned about the act is the fact that it is opening up doors for financial implications. The reality is that we see the Prime Minister making these choices.

Are there concerns in Quebec that this could be extrapolated to other groups and organizations within Quebec, just like with Coastal GasLink in—

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

I must give the hon. member for Trois-Rivières a few seconds to respond.