SoVote

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

Feb/16/22 3:12:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are raising serious concerns that the Emergencies Act should not apply to legal protests. We know that there have been many counterprotesters standing up to the convoy, and we have seen some of those counterprotesters arrested by police, instead of the actual convoy, so Canadians have raised this question. What assurances will the Prime Minister provide that legal protests will not be impacted by the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

74 words

All Topics

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.)

Feb/16/22 3:13:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent question and one we are also very much preoccupied with, which is why, in the measure set forth, we have been very clearly indicating that illegal protests, illegal barricades and illegal blockages are the ones that we are giving extra tools for the police to respond to. Of course, we will always stand up for Canadians' charter rights. We will always stand up for freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. That is extremely important, but we also know that it is the police of jurisdiction who need to do their jobs, and not Canadians taking things into their own hands to end these illegal protests. That is what we are ensuring with this measure.

122 words

All Topics

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:14:03 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind hon. members that, when the Peace Tower was inaugurated in 1927 as a memorial to Canada's First World War sacrifice, Prime Minister Mackenzie King called the carillon “the voice of the nation”. Since 2008, Dr. Andrea McCrady has been the soul behind that voice as Canada's Dominion Carillonneur. Dr. McCrady has been able to give a voice to our country's emotions during our most joyful and most painful moments. She has channelled her artistic talents, compassion and enthusiasm into telling our stories and our histories. The rehabilitation work on the parliamentary building has now reached the Peace Tower. On February 18, this Friday, the carillon will fall silent for several years. The Dominion Carillonneur will continue to work with young students of the instrument, but we will sadly have to do without her recitals for a while. I will miss Dr. McCrady's performance more than I can say, and I know that all members will join me in thanking her for her irreplaceable gift of making the bells of Parliament speak for the people of Canada.

188 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Feb/16/22 3:16:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am a strong Jewish woman, a member of the House and a descendant of Holocaust survivors. This has never been singled out and I have never been made to feel less, except for today, when the Prime Minister accused me of standing with swastikas. I think he owes me an apology. I would like an apology, and I think he owes an apology to all members of the House. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

84 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:17:12 p.m.
Watch

Order. I want to encourage all members to be as judicious as possible when using words in this chamber and to reflect on what they say in all cases. The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia on a point of order.

48 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Feb/16/22 3:17:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House, in conjunction with a unanimous motion from the Quebec National Assembly, express concerns about the current disruptions in Ontario and around certain federal border crossings; that it affirm that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Quebec; that it ask the Canadian government not to enforce the Emergencies Act in Quebec; and that it reiterate the importance of working closely with the Government of Quebec, in particular to ensure peace of mind and safety for residents in the Outaouais region who are affected by the ongoing demonstrations in Ottawa and who could suffer from any further deterioration of the situation.

129 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:18:26 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay. The Speaker: There is no unanimous consent. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre on a point of order.

36 words

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Feb/16/22 3:18:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you fill find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion: That the House: a) stand firm in supporting sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity in the face of growing Russian aggression in and around Ukraine; b) strongly condemns the Russian Duma's vote recognizing the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics, which would be a clear violation of the Minsk agreements, and a threat to the security and stability of the region; and c) call on the international community to stand together in opposition to any further Russian aggression and support Ukraine and its people in the face of these growing threats.

119 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:19:20 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.

53 words

All Topics

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Feb/16/22 3:19:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on with the point that was made by my colleague from Thornhill. When comments made in the House are injurious, insulting and unparliamentary, they rise to the level of a question of privilege. As you know, you have the ability to rule on that immediately. I will not even go into the hypocrisy of a man who did blackface so often that he cannot remember it accusing somebody else of doing anything remotely racist. However, his comments made to a Jewish member of the House are beyond unparliamentary. They are reprehensible. I ask that you rule that this rises to the level of a question of privilege. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

121 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:20:25 p.m.
Watch

I will take that under advisement and return to the House should I see fit. On the same point of order, we have the hon. Minister of Families.

28 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Feb/16/22 3:20:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, emotions are obviously running very high right now, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to take a step back and reflect on the values of the House. I am also a proud Jewish woman who is the descendant of Holocaust survivors. My family found refuge, support and a life in this country. We must listen to each other and must ensure that no one in the House is standing with those who support white supremacy, who support Nazi views or who look to contribute to and enable racist views. I ask that all of us in the House use our words judiciously, including the member opposite, who just yelled out something completely inappropriate. All of us have reason to be here. I call on the members opposite not to stand with those who are sharing those views. How does it feel, as a person in the House, to see colleagues taking pictures with people who are looking to overthrow the government? That is what I ask those colleagues to think about.

177 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall

Feb/16/22 3:22:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. I understand that we are all fairly agitated at this moment. Can we imagine how what happened in the House today is impacting Canadians who are very aware—

40 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:22:43 p.m.
Watch

I need to interrupt the member, as I am afraid interpretation is not happening. Please make sure the headset is functioning. We will wait for the hon. member to get her microphone working, and in the meantime we will go to the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

50 words

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC)

Feb/16/22 3:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should engage in an exercise of comparative victimhood credentials. I will observe that I too have Jewish ancestors. My grandmother was born in Bialystok. Fortunately, she came here before the Holocaust occurred, but of the 10,000 Jewish residents of Bialystok when she left, only 500 survived World War II. It is not for the member opposite, although I know she spoke sincerely, to speak out on this. It is for the Prime Minister to come back and retract his words. The Prime Minister is very good at apologizing for acts that took place before he was born by people he was not involved with, and it is time for him to take responsibility for his own words and apologize for what he said.

131 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:24:14 p.m.
Watch

Before we go to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, I note this is evolving into a debate. If hon. members would like to call this back as an emergency debate or something along those lines, or bring it up as a motion, I think it would be more appropriate. We will now go to the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

63 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

Feb/16/22 3:24:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to voice my perspective on this. It is really important that the Prime Minister do the right thing and apologize for the statement he made today, especially in reference to the House, but also because this statement has been abused and used against Canadians, and he has not recognized in any way the thousands and millions of Canadian flags that have flown over the past two or three weeks.

74 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:25:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-12. Call in the members.

44 words

The Speaker

Feb/16/22 3:57:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole. Pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, Bill C-12, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (Guaranteed Income Supplement) is deemed considered in the committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, deemed read a third time and passed.

67 words

All Topics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/16/22 3:58:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your ruling concerning a key procedural aspect of the very important and historic debate the House will be having this week. On Monday, the Prime Minister announced that Canada was under a public order emergency, invoking the Emergencies Act for the first time in that law's existence. That will require a debate in the House to confirm the government's declaration of emergency, a debate we expect to start later this week. I wanted to rise on this point of order at the earliest opportunity to allow you as much time as possible to prepare a ruling. Subsection 58(6) of the Act requires that the motion “shall be debated without interruption until such time as the House is ready for the question”. That is a legal requirement, yet there is some difference of opinion within this building about how to give it effect. I understand there is a head of steam building up behind the view that the words “without interruption” unbelievably allows for interruptions for members' statements, question period and nightly adjournment. However, when my predecessor, now the leader of the official opposition, sought the advice of the table concerning a potential debate under a different statute, a debate that did not happen, but if it had, would also have been without interruption, the advice she received from the clerks at the table was that it would override S. O. 31s and QP, and see us sit into the night until completed. Members can appreciate that this is something that needs clarity, and quickly. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, second edition, defines the verb “interrupt” as, “act so as to break the continuous progress of (something) temporarily”. That is in line with the advice the table gave my predecessor three years ago. To my mind, this means that nothing could or should get in the way of the debate once it has been launched, regrettably not members' statements, certainly not the evening adjournment, and definitely not the upcoming constituency week. That, I would submit, aligns with both the letter and the spirit of the Emergencies Act. The government has said this country, the whole of it, is in a state of emergency. That is a big deal. A situation so serious and grave requires a dedicated and determined focus by the Chamber on it, and I think our constituents would expect no less. We must vote on the Prime Minister's emergency. Very few of the debates the House has held have been governed by rules written into statute rather than our Standing Orders. Those debates are enumerated at pages 709 and 710 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition. Of these, only four have been held under a law that required the debate to be held without interruption, according to my office's research. The first was held in November 1974 under an Act to Amend the Veterans’ Land Act. Bosc and Gagnon, at page 714, describes the second and third of these cases: Many statutes that prescribe provisions for statutory debates also stipulate that the debate may not be interrupted. Nevertheless, in 1977, debate on the motion pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act, which took place over four days, was interrupted on three occasions for the Adjournment Proceedings, after which the motion to adjourn was deemed withdrawn and debate continued, pursuant to an Order of the House adopted on May 30, 1977. In 1985, the debate held pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act was interrupted for a ministerial statement by the Minister of Finance pursuant to an Order made by the House. The most recent of these without-interruption debates was held in December 1992 under the provisions of the Special Economic Measures Act. There are also key distinctions between the relevant legal provisions and the context of those four debates and our current circumstances. While subsection 1(3) of an Act to Amend the Veterans' Land Act, which governed the 1974 debate, required the debate to occur without interruption, it was also to be held “in accordance with the rules of the House”, and was to be concluded “not later than the end of the first sitting day next after the day the motion is first so taken up and considered”. The 1974 debate was meant to be subject to all of the Standing Orders of the House, along with the concept of being divided between sitting days as well as providing a cut-off for the debate. None of those three concepts is found in subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. Those concepts did, however, appear in subsections 46(6) and 46(7) of the Anti-Inflation Act as amended by subsection 11(2) of an act to amend the Anti-Inflation Act, which required the 1977 debate to happen without interruption, but also that the debate was limited to four sitting days and would occur “in accordance with rules of the House”. Again, these additional concepts are missing from subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. As for the 1985 debate held pursuant to subsection 62(6) of the Western Grain Transportation Act, the law actually specified that the debate would occur “For a period not exceeding the duration of the normal business hours of the House on that day”. That is rather cut and dried, and it is also different from subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. Finally, the 1992 debate pursuant to subsection 7(4) of the Special Economic Measures Act was also held without interruption but, importantly, “for not more than three hours”. As I have established, there is no time limit in subsection 58(6) of the Emergencies Act. Essentially, we are left with a situation where we need to square two different sets of rules that have been adopted by the House, one being the Standing Orders and the other being the Emergencies Act. Page 267 of Bosc and Gagnon notes that: In the case of statutory provisions, the House of Commons endeavours to ensure that its Standing Orders and practices are consistent with statutes while retaining the exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions of a statute apply to its proceedings. I would respectfully argue that the distinctions between the Emergencies Act, on the one hand, and the laws under which all of the other without-interruption debates were held rendered those debates inappropriate precedents to follow to the letter. A critical maxim applied judicially in statutory interpretation cases would be instructive here. It is that “Parliament does not speak in vain”. That touchstone is elaborated upon in various entries in Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, which is the leading Canadian authority on the interpretation of laws. I will simply offer two short quotes from the 6th edition. First is paragraph 814, which says, “Although ordinary speakers or writers require much co-operative guesswork from their audience, a legislature is an idealized speaker. Unlike the rest of us, legislatures are presumed to always say what they mean and mean what they say. They do not make mistakes.” Then there is paragraph 8.32, which I believe speaks to Parliament's use of caveats and the requirements of some debates to be held without interruption. There are no such qualifications on the requirements in the Emergencies Act. It reads, “It is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument, the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings. Another way of understanding this presumption is to say that the legislature is presumed to avoid stylistic variation and once a particular way of expressing a meaning has been adopted, it is used each time that meaning is intended. Given that practice, it follows that where a different form of expression is used, a different meaning is intended.” Page 122 of Bosc and Gagnon instructs us that, “The right to regulate its own internal affairs does not mean that the House is above the law. However, where the application of a statute law relates to a proceeding in Parliament, it is the House itself which decides how that law is applied.” In this case, I believe the path forward is that we must apply the rules set out in the Emergencies Act to this week's debate. The Standing Orders obviously can supplement all of those areas where the act is silent, such as the maximum length of speeches or how long the bells for a vote would ring, to name just two examples. Ultimately, the statutory rules that apply to this specific debate must, I would respectfully submit, trump the general provisions of the Standing Orders where there is any conflict. Nonetheless, the House's authority to interpret the law leaves it open to the House to adopt a special order through unanimous consent to structure the terms of the debate in a way that suits the House best. That was certainly the case, for example, in 1977 and 1985, when the House had adopted special orders, as I cited from page 714 of Bosc and Gagnon. I also understand that the 1992 debate was guided by a special order. That would be the correct approach to the House exercising its privileges to determine how to regulate our procedure and how to interpret the law. It would be correct for the House collectively to reach that decision. Let me stress that again: It is for the House. It would not, though, be for any single member to substitute, and certainly not for the government House leader to dictate, new interpretations of a simple phrase like “without interruption”. The Prime Minister today said that the government would follow the letter of the law. I cannot believe I am going to say this, but I agree with him. Let us follow the letter and the spirit of the law, and ensure that the House takes up this declaration of emergency debate with the urgency a supposed national emergency should naturally require. The last thing we need to do is leave here at 2:30 on a Friday for a 10-day vacation, as much as I am sure the Prime Minister would like that. Let us debate the emergency, let us air the concerns of our constituents and their views, and then let us have the vote.

1767 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 32