44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 19, 2022 07:00AM
- Feb/19/22 12:33:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I withdraw my remarks.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association announced that it would challenge the Emergencies Act in court.
The group stated that the government already had the tools to address the situation and that the order was unnecessary, unjustifiable and unconstitutional. We could not agree more.
Amnesty International has expressed concern about some aspects of the order that are vague and could result in rights abuses, especially relating to the geographic limitations. That is the message we have been driving home since Thursday.
This act is disproportionate and overly broad. It certainly should not include Quebec, nor should it include the other six provinces that disagree with the order.
However, I completely agree with my Liberal colleagues that the occupation must be cleared out as soon as possible. Unfortunately, as we have said over and over, and as I will now say again, this has to happen in stages. To summarize, this law of last resort does little to resolve the current situation, but it does a lot to discredit Quebec and Canada on the international stage. It does a lot to threaten one of our fundamental freedoms. The Bloc Québécois absolutely does not support the use of this act. It is unfortunate that we should have to spend three days debating it.
It is even sadder considering that we are witnessing the dismantling of the occupation outside as we speak.
238 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:35:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the Province of Quebec and thank it for intervening and helping us with the illegal blockade we have outside. This is a national problem, and what is happening in Ottawa is not the only issue we are dealing with. We are dealing with issues from one part of the country to another, and that is why we need the Emergencies Act.
I would like to know if my hon. colleague is supportive of having the SQ continue to help us. It is helping us very importantly outside right now.
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:36:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice revealed yesterday that the financial provisions of the Emergencies Act were aimed more at punishing political opponents than at actually fighting crime.
Can members imagine living in a country like Canada where a law or an act is designed to beat down political dissent on the part of opposition parties. That could include the Bloc Québécois, for example. I am interested in the member's comments on that.
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 12:53:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in reference to what just occurred, it is obvious that it is not only the Prime Minister who likes to call people names. It is a Liberal tactic.
My answer the member's question is absolutely. Part of this act is that provinces have to be spoken to and have to be consulted, and they were. Clearly, they are overwhelmingly not in support of the Emergencies Act, with seven out of 10 provinces against it. That says something in itself. These are governments that have said that they do not believe this is needed at this time.
What the Prime Minister has done is completely ignore that. He has gone his own way and has still moved forward with this.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:08:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech in this excellent debate on this act, the member talked about the need to reach out to people and hear what people have to say.
One of the documents that the government tabled with the proclamation is called “Report to the Houses of Parliament: Emergencies Act Consultations”. It is actually a list of all the meetings the government had prior to invoking the Emergencies Act, as required under the act, to try to establish whether or not it did steps one and two before going to the “last resort”, as the Prime Minister said the Emergencies Act is. When I look through it, I cannot see steps one or two, other than meeting with themselves in cabinet meetings. The government never met with a Canadian outside of the government.
Could the hon. member tell us his position with regard to consultation and hearing people before resorting to such a draconian act?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:22:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
To justify using the Emergencies Act, he mentioned the fact that several Ottawans, including some of his employees, were bullied.
This past December, we passed Bill C‑3 to criminalize intimidating a health professional and people wanting to obtain health services.
I would like to know what justifies the use of the Emergencies Act now, when it was not justified when we were passing Bill C‑3.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:23:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Emergencies Act was brought into force at this time to deal with a very specific, focused and narrow problem, one that has come to the fore in the last several weeks and that law enforcement officials have been unable, because of conflicting jurisdictions and lack of resources, to deal with appropriately. We have seen already during the course of the last day and continuing today the ability of these law enforcement officials, who are now enabled with the appropriate resources and co-operation among forces across the country, to bring to the situation the necessary assets to put it back in the box and get us once again—
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:40:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in this place and speak. Today, I am going to lay out my case as to why I am voting against continuing the Emergencies Act.
In the past 34 years, since the inception of the Emergencies Act, there have been four times when a national crisis was faced by a prime minister, and they each refused to implement the act. Brian Mulroney did not do it during the two-month Oka standoff outside of Montreal in 1990. Jean Chrétien did not need to invoke it after the terrorist attack of 9/11. Stephen Harper did not during the 2008 banking crisis. The Prime Minister did not use it during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw 35,000 deaths and the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression.
For the first time in Canadian history, a prime minister will use the Emergencies Act when authorities already have every legal tool at their disposal to deal with the situation before us today. For me, there are many concerning parts of the act now being used, including instructing financial institutions to seize assets and freeze bank accounts without due process. As of this moment, the Minister of Public Safety has said that 76 bank accounts, worth a combined $3.2 million, have been frozen.
There are serious consequences of invoking this act, and ones that all parliamentarians need to reconcile with themselves before the vote on Monday. After 21 days of refusing to deal with the protest through a more civil and peaceful process, the government chose an act, the most heavy-handed, using the Emergencies Act.
Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. I do not support hate, nor do I find any legitimate rationale for the existence of groups that perpetuate discrimination, violence or hatred. I once again call on these blockades to end peacefully and quickly.
My constituency staff, who with unparalleled dedication and commitment have acted professionally and admirably during these trying times, have fielded hundreds of calls and emails from concerned and sometimes angry citizens.
For example, Kenneth and Lois from Bobcaygeon write, “There is no reason for this act to be used except fear from the Prime Minister. This could have all been avoided if the PM would have been willing to listen.”
Another Kawartha Lakes constituent writes, “I implore you not to support the Prime Minister in his attempt to enact the Emergencies Act. Not only is this a complete overreaction to the situation, one which in my opinion was brought about by the Prime Minister's refusal to listen to the convoy and also serves no one's best interests.” That was from Vanessa.
“We believe the government has overstepped their authority and are taking away our rights and freedoms”, write Peter and Lois.
This is just a small sample and cross-section of hundreds of similar messages that I am sure all of us in the House are receiving. These are the words of ordinary Canadians who fear the government has overreacted because of the failed leadership of the Prime Minister. The act is clear on when it should be implemented. It should only be invoked when a situation “seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada” and when the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.”
The first question before us is whether the blockades seriously threaten Canada's sovereignty or territorial integrity, and whether there were no laws to deal with the protesters. The onus is on the federal government to demonstrate that the act was the only option left on the table.
National security experts have been expressing their concerns. For example, Leah West, a professor and national security expert at Carleton University, told the CBC that Canada was not facing the kind of public emergency that the act was designed to respond to, stating, “I'm kind of shocked, to be honest, that the government of Canada still actually believes that this meets the definition to even invoke the act”, adding, “I have real concerns about fudging the legal thresholds to invoke the most powerful federal law that we have.”
Surely, if there were a serious threat to our nation, provinces would be clamouring to the government for help, yet provinces have told the Prime Minister that they do not need the act and that they have already dealt with their protesters through listening and talking. It is here that I believe the entire debate hinges: Does the perceived threat that the government felt needed to be addressed, now that the provinces have their own capacity resolved, still exist and therefore justify the invoking of this act?
Furthermore, the second condition, that the situation “cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, has been disproven by the leadership displayed by many of Canada's premiers right across this country. The provinces and their police services did not need the extraordinary powers granted by the Emergencies Act, because they already had the authority to deal with this. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister refused to follow the good governance practised by those premiers.
It is no wonder that Canadians who have been writing and calling, not just me but every member in the House, view the implementation of this act not under the auspices of protecting Canada, but rather of protecting the Prime Minister's political failure.
We have heard that part of the justification for invoking the act was deliberate foreign extremist interference in our democracy, yet I have not seen any evidence from the government to indicate foreign powers or organizations behind the protests here in Canada. In fact, in committee last week, the deputy director of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, the national financial intelligence agency, said that there was no “spike in suspicious transaction[s]” and no sign of extremist groups issuing transactions to the protesters.
Part of the government's intention with the use of this act is also to track and reveal information regarding private individual financial transactions. This information is going to go to the RCMP, CSIS and FINTRAC, and will suspend accounts without judicial process. I led off my speech talking about that.
It is quite concerning that the government will not tell Parliament whether it consulted with the Privacy Commissioner regarding the use of this information. Kim Manchester, managing director of the financial intelligence training company ManchesterCF, warned in an interview with CTV that flagging accounts could financially ruin those targeted and make it difficult for them to get any financial services in the future. He said, “It's very tough on people when the activities of the Canadian government can lead to the financial meltdown of individuals associated with the protests who are guilty by association, by directive, and not by judicial process.”
In the same interview, Vanessa Iafolla, a crime consultant, said that use of the measure was a “serious [deviation] from the normal democratic processes that we generally expect to see in Canadian society.”
This legislation was created to deal with terrorist organizations and transnational organized crime syndicates, not Canadian truckers.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association's Noa Mendelsohn Aviv is concerned that “the act allows the government to...create new laws, bypassing democracy under what they have called a national emergency [and] they haven't presented any evidence that satisfies us that is in fact a national emergency as required”. The CCLA is suing the government for seriously infringing upon the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Paul Wells, in Maclean's on February 14, surmised:
I think the real explanation for today’s announcement came from [the deputy prime minister], who said it’s basically about the blocked Ambassador Bridge at Windsor. Inconveniently no longer blocked.... “We fought tooth and nail to protect Canada’s privileged relationship with the United States during the NAFTA negotiations,” the deputy prime minister said, “and we stood up to the 232 tariffs that were illegal and unjustified. We won’t let these hard-won victories be tarnished. The world is watching us. Our jobs, prosperity and livelihoods are at stake. That’s why the government is acting.”
The Emergencies Act is there to address extreme threats to Canada, not to protect the economy.
In 1978, approximately 30 countries were in some form of state of emergency. It had risen to 70 by 1986. By 1996, 147 countries had mechanisms to declare a state of emergency, a disturbing global trend that Canada now has the dubious honour of joining.
It is probably no coincidence that this historic announcement came only an hour after the government narrowly defeated the Conservative motion proposing that the government present a plan by the end of the month to lift federal mandates. The Prime Minister could see the writing on the wall, as his own caucus had started to revolt against him.
Rather than taking the diplomatic route, talking with the protesters, using the same media methods that he used to call them names, lowering the temperature, letting those with concerns know that they have been heard and laying out a plan to end the mandates and restrictions, like many provinces across the country and many countries around the world, he dug in his heels and brought out the sledgehammer. He is imposing the powers of the Emergencies Act, and it sets a dangerous precedent.
Most concerning of all is that young Canadians who have no direct connection to the historic struggles against fascism, socialism and communism are losing faith and interest in freedom and democracy. Those noble ideals have been tarnished, and this is contributing to what we are seeing today.
I will leave members with a quote: “there will be time later to reflect on all the lessons that can be learned from this situation.” This is what the Prime Minister told reporters last Monday afternoon.
I would argue that these lessons already exist. We do not have to go that far in history to look back and find them.
1728 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:50:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member says the Emergencies Act is not necessary and that there are other legal options that we could have used.
I would like to ask what options. How, without the Emergencies Act, are you going to get tow trucks to help the police pull away trucks? How, without the Emergencies Act, are you going to legally prevent people from going downtown and joining the mob?
68 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:50:43 p.m.
- Watch
As a slight reminder to the hon. member, I was not going to do anything, even with the Emergencies Act. Please redirect the questions through the chair.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:50:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, through you, I ask the member opposite this: Without invoking the Emergencies Act, how is the government going to deal with these things? As powerful as the rhetoric coming from the opposition is, I would submit that it is not powerful enough to pull a truck.
48 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:53:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, I am very disappointed at the tone of these questions. I thought I had laid out a pretty solid argument here.
As I said in my speech and repeated in my answer just now, the police already had tools at their disposal that they could have used to end this situation a lot sooner. Again, it could have been diluted a lot had the Prime Minister not decided to go with creating stronger division.
There are lots of people, just normal people, who feel excluded from society based on what is going on, whether it is true or not. Just a little acknowledgement, a little sympathy, a little compassion probably could have diluted the situation to the point where we would not have needed to invoke the Emergencies Act.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:53:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the course of this debate, I have heard a few people mention that the measure we are debating is one that we would use in wartime.
I just want to put on the record for Canadians who might be watching that the Emergencies Act is a remarkably well-crafted piece of legislation. I am not sure I am going to vote for this declaration, but it impresses me that in the 1980s, a group of MPs could think about different emergencies: public welfare emergencies, like a public health emergency, a pandemic; public order emergencies, like the one we are asked about now; international emergencies; and lastly, a war.
This is not what we would use in case of a war.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 1:55:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to address my fellow Canadians about the current state of events unfolding in our country. I want to express my concerns about the lack of leadership by this government.
In a shocking display of defeat, the Prime Minister and his government have taken the unprecedented step to enact the Emergencies Act, which is the successor of the War Measures Act. Since the inception of the Emergencies Act in 1988, it has never been invoked. Let me repeat, in 34 years, there has never been a single crisis in which a federal administration felt it essential to use such measures. Neither 9/11, nor the Oka crisis in 1990, nor even the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic itself was a sufficient national threat to warrant the authority currently being debated. The last time any federal government gave itself such sweeping, unchecked power was during the October crisis in 1970, after 200 bombs had been detonated in civilian areas. Furthermore, several nationwide protests have blocked critical infrastructure since the inception of the Emergencies Act, but none has met the threshold for enacting these sweeping powers, despite similar tangible threats to our country's security.
I trust we can all agree that violence, threats and blockades are never appropriate and should never be permitted, especially when they infringe upon our civil freedoms. All levels of government have choices for dealing with the current crisis that do not necessitate one of the country's most sweeping increases in government authority.
The blockades at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor posed an immediate threat to thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in international trade. However, it was clear that in one day, with a court order injunction and a strong police presence, notably, the situation was resolved without enacting exceptional measures, legislative discussion or government powers that had never been used before. The same was true for other blockades in Alberta and Manitoba.
As my hon. colleagues reminded us in the House recently, the Prime Minister assured Canadians that using this act was the last measure to respond, and he said that it is not the first thing you turn to, nor the second, nor the third. When asked what exactly the first and second actions taken by the government were, the Minister of Emergency Preparedness responded by saying that his government “worked with municipal and provincial partners...to ensure that they had the resources and the support they needed”, as if that was not already an everyday expectation of the federal government.
It is clear that the Liberals cannot explain why they believe going beyond traditional legal options is necessary. Rather than considering the same laws that have already cleared blockades across the country, this government believes we should use military-style measures. Perhaps they have finally realized that their incompetency, inaction and drive to divide have left Canadians frustrated, and that the Liberals now making a big show will reflect positively.
Let me tell members that history will not look back fondly on this moment. The charter liberties that we all cherish are being threatened by actions the government cannot justify. What kind of precedent does it set for a government to so lazily use this heavy-handed legislation against its citizens? What will this mean for future demonstrations? Should Canadians not fear donating to movements and organizations, given that the current government believes it can declare such things illegal retroactively?
If, heaven forbid, we find ourselves in another global conflict in the future, would a government consider enacting the same measures put in place over a few weeks of disruptive protest? The international media is in shock over this action of our Prime Minister. It is no wonder, as he does not even have the slightest bit of regret about accusing Jewish members of standing with swastikas. Everyone can see that he is someone who prefers to slander and divide rather than unite and lead. This act may have never seen the light of day if not for the Prime Minister and his government.
Fortunately, the Liberals can consistently count on having the New Democrats as dance partners to help them shed accountability. The NDP used to be a party that stood with civil liberties. The last time such dramatic measures were used, in the October crisis, then NDP leader Tommy Douglas opposed the use of the War Measures Act for being overkill. Now, the modern NDP is doing its best to imitate the Liberals' disdain for dissent and opposition by preferring to point fingers rather than take responsibility for the instigation. The Liberal-NDP coalition is strong. Unfortunately for Canadians, it is strong enough to give the Prime Minister and his cabinet all the power they want.
It is a tragedy that we have arrived at this point. Canadians want the blockades to end. At the very least, the Conservatives want to return to normal. There are several critical issues on which Canadians deserve a thoughtful federal response. Inflation is surging to record highs. House prices have doubled since 2015 and people's mental health across the country requires serious attention. Despite these genuine concerns, though, the Prime Minister and his government are too preoccupied with covering up their failures, avoiding responsibility and blaming everyone else. Conservatives want to see an end to the confining mandates and a return to everyday life. We want a national leader who will act in the best interests of Canadian people.
914 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:04:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe in law and order, but I also believe in Canada. I was raised to believe that Canadian people sit down, negotiate, talk to each other, listen to their constituents and try to resolve issues peacefully, not with the Emergencies Act.
44 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:06:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe the only way to resolve issues is to sit down, listen, discuss and come to a peaceful and respectful resolution. This Emergencies Act is not needed. It is creating a divide between all Canadians. Canada was built on peace, not disruption.
45 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:07:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague was a banker prior to being elected in 2021, so I want to ask her a question about the Emergencies Act regulations, which tells financial institutions to cease dealing with designated persons.
In my riding on Friday, two bank branches ran out of money because Canadians, who were afraid the government was going to take their assets under this legislation, came into the banks and took out their money. Therefore, I would like you to comment, as a former branch manager and banker, on how you would deal with that?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:08:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Etobicoke Centre.
I stand with great sadness today to talk about the Emergencies Act because it is not something that any of us in this House, especially the Prime Minister, wanted to bring forward. We would not have if it were not absolutely necessary to do so. We need to look at the blockades that were going on last weekend at the Ambassador Bridge, in Coutts, Alberta, and Emerson and what was happening with trade. As chair of the international trade committee, I know these things are very important to all of us. The blockades were preventing goods, services and people from being able to cross those borders.
We know it cost $400 million a day at the Ambassador Bridge, aside from all of the personal issues that my colleague from Windsor West mentioned earlier, such as people being prevented from getting to doctor appointments and nurses prevented from crossing the border to help us with the pandemic. That is a huge economic hit on all four fronts. That is aside from what we are dealing with here in Ottawa.
I would ask my Conservative colleagues that, if their communities were besieged for almost four weeks, would they have said they would like to go through another process of deputizing a whole lot of emergency police officers, which would take another five to six days? They would not have been happy to do that, and we were not able to allow this to go any further. The economic impact of this has been enormous, so it was critical that we move forward to ensure we have law and order.
The concern with what is going on is not just here, it is around the world. I guess the new thing for people do to try to disrupt governments is to bring in transport trucks, trailers and tractors, by some of these people on the extreme right, who then convince a whole lot of other people that this is about mandates. This has nothing to do with mandates or vaccines. This is all about trying to bring down a government and disrupt democracy. When we do not have democracy or law and order, what we are left with? What is happening today outside Parliament, in particular, is that law and order is being put into effect. People have been asked to please go home. The illegal blockade was not a regular protest, it was much more serious than that.
Interim chief of police Steve Bell, three other former chiefs of police in Ottawa and the former chief of police in London all said that the Emergencies Act, unfortunate as it is, absolutely had to be brought in before there was more violence than what we had seen so far. Without that act, it would be much more difficult. I know what last weekend and previous weekends were like. I can only imagine what this weekend would have been like with hundreds more people coming here every weekend to create more mayhem and disruption.
Let us talk about the children. At the foot of the steps of the gate into West Block, there is a bouncy castle and children skipping rope to try to show this as a pleasant little uprising of a protest. This was an illegal blockade that was using children as shields. I would tell anybody participating that it is not democracy when we are talking about children.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
587 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about trying to get through this pandemic and the difficulties many businesses are facing, so we cannot stand back and allow things to continue this way.
Michael Kempa, a law professor and criminologist in Ottawa, was asked a few minutes ago if the Emergencies Act was really necessary. He said that it absolutely was, because without the Emergencies Measures Act being brought into play, it would have taken a minimum of five or six more days to get other police services here and deputized. We would have continued to see this kind of illegal activity going on outside Parliament Hill and the disruption to neighbourhoods for another five or six days.
I ask members to think about the impacts this is having on the economy. Nate's Deli, which is located at Sparks and O'Connor, is a little delicatessen many of us go to on our lunch hour. Its workers told me that they were just hanging on at the end of the lockdown restrictions. That delicatessen has now been locked down for four more weeks. Will it be able to open and survive this?
I think of Goodfood, which is company close to the riding owned by a young family. President Dan Simile phoned me last week to tell me that he could not get a truck to deliver boxes across the border. He was having to lay off all his staff.
Those kinds of things are big disruptions to our economy. They are also disruptions to the people living in the Ottawa area in particular. Many employees were unable to get to their places of employment, even to work on Parliament Hill, without being called names and facing abuses. My own staff was subject to some abuse from some of the protesters out there.
We have a responsibility to move forward. Businesses, such as the grocery stores in downtown, are suffering. One had to close up because protesters without masks would come into the store with no respect for anybody else. This upset everybody, so ultimately it had to close.
This has gone on for far too long. Yes, I know this is not easy. I have received lots of calls from people in my constituency who do not quite fully understand this, but they are not here. They are not seeing it every day, and they do not realize the full impact of what is going on. It is imperative we do the right thing. We need to protect our country, and we need to protect its citizens. Very importantly, we also need to protect the economy.
To have a banker in the U.S. refer to Canada as a banana republic is unacceptable to all of us. It is a real insult. I am proud of my country, and I am proud of what we do. We are taking the necessary steps to move forward.
We try to not get into political rhetoric. If folks on the other side choose to join us in a united front to support this, it will only be in effect for a very short period of time. There will be a parliamentary committee that will reviewing it, and there will be a full investigation afterward. This came off the rails right from the beginning, and once these protesters became entrenched, it was very difficult to move them out.
I ask that we stay as united a front as we possibly can and not confuse people by talking about the War Measures Act, because that frightens the very people we represent. Let us try to be more united and provide accurate information regardless of what side anyone is on.
614 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 2:20:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in her speech my colleague spoke a lot about how serious the situation was to justify the enforcement of the Emergencies Act.
She described a lot of situations that are indeed very serious. That said, I will not get into certain issues, such as the fact that a business was not able to deliver biscuits.
My question is the following: What would my colleague say is a necessary condition for act to be enforced, the severity of the situation or the fact that all other options have been exhausted?
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
