44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 10:23:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As I said in my speech, using the Emergencies Act now sets a dangerous precedent, given that it has not been used since being passed in 1988 and that so many governments have refrained from doing so.
The act gives the government and law enforcement the power to use extraordinary measures. We have heard the Prime Minister say that, even if the police do not need those measures, they can use them, and that is exactly the problem. They can use them.
What is more, opponents continue to get money through crowdfunding platforms. Has this had the intended effect? I am not so sure, but it is setting a dangerous precedent.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:35:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful and heartfelt speech. He shared some rather personal stories and I thank him for that.
However, there is a police operation that has been happening right before our eyes on Wellington since yesterday morning. We can watch what is going on on television, and it reminds me a lot of the images I was seeing last weekend at the Ambassador Bridge. Police officers there were able to control the situation without the Emergencies Act.
We are very reluctant to support the use of this act because we fear that it sets a dangerous precedent. The government could have used some other tools in its tool box before opting for the measure of last resort.
Does my colleague worry that this creates a dangerous precedent?
133 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:36:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
First, I would say that I am not worried about setting a precedent because the act, as written, ensures that MPs and Canadians can scrutinize how the act was used. There are protections in the act to ensure it is not used if it is not necessary.
Second, Windsor was an exception. With other border crossing blockades, the act helped the police put an end to them, partly by cutting off funding.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:50:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Davenport, whom I like very much.
From what I understand, she agrees with the principle of using the Emergencies Act, because she agrees with how it is being applied and the rules for enforcing it. However, this is special legislation that is supposed to protect us from arbitrary government. It is to be used only in emergency situations when nothing else can be done.
Does she not think it sets a precedent if she focuses only on the use of the act and not on the criteria for invoking it?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 3:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question. The first is if I am satisfied with how it is being used. The truth is that I probably do not know all the ways it is being used right now, but I have a lot of confidence there is going to be an inquiry into the measures used during the emergency. That inquiry has to be initiated once the state of emergency is over.
With respect to setting a precedent, for me what is important is that I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of how we declared this Emergencies Act. I appreciated that it is time and geographically limited, as well as proportional and reasonable to—
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:11:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question to the member for Mirabel has to do with the discussion he opened his speech with, about precedent. I wonder this. Does he really believe that letting groups protest that want to use violence, intimidation and hate to try to overturn elected governments' decisions is a precedent we could have allowed to go on much longer, without that in itself becoming the dangerous precedent here?
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 5:55:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is a trained lawyer, as am I. We have all heard some concerns raised by the general public that the invocation of the Emergencies Act may set a precedent, so I am curious about his thoughts on that.
I would particularly be interested in his views on the converse of that, which is if we did not act in these circumstances, what kind of precedent does he think might be set by people using economic hostage taking to try to force a change in policy of a democratically elected government. Is he concerned about that also setting a bad precedent in this nation?
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:07:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will give her a chance to respond. This is the first time that this legislation has been used since it came into force in 1988. In answer to his NDP buddies earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the minister said that this did not set a precedent.
My question for the member is this: How is it possible not to set a precedent when this is the first time that such draconian legislation is being used?
If the government comes up with an answer, Quebeckers and Canadians should be worried, because it is impossible for this not to be a precedent.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 6:07:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer, but I do believe there will be a precedent set by enacting this legislation, and I think it is an appropriate precedent. Just because the act has not been enacted since its inception in 1988 does not mean that it should not be enacted now. We have clearly made the case for why this legislation is needed, and I am quite confident that the precedent set will ensure that it will only be used judiciously in the future.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 8:48:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question in regard to the NDP. I am not in the NDP camp. I am not sure what is going on in the backs of their minds. Maybe we have to talk to a member of the NDP. I will say that the former NDP member for Regina—Lewvan said he could never support this type of act, and this is somebody who had been very heavily involved in the union world before his career as a member of Parliament. I think it comes back to the NDP having some soul-searching to do and having to wonder what the long-term ramifications are, and how the precedent-setting nature of this will have an impact on them in the future.
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
