44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 2, 2022 02:00PM
- Mar/2/22 2:52:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have had much debate on the government's use of the Emergencies Act. The story of the illegal blockades is one of the failure of leaders to acknowledge and respond to the frustrations of the public. It is also a policing failure and a desire to weaponize critical issues for political gain. We are now left with a weary public who are weary with Canada's institutions and its politicians.
What is the Prime Minister's plan to lower the temperature in political rhetoric and restore faith in democratic institutions?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 2:53:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is also about taking personal responsibility, and the Prime Minister needs to do that. Democracy and the freedoms we enjoy in Canada as a result of concepts like rule of law and bipartisanship are fragile. What concerns me about the government's use of the Emergencies Act during a time of heightened political rhetoric and lack of trust from the public is that it is an admission of failure of our institution's ability to respond to the pressure of the times we are living in. We all need to do better.
What is the Prime Minister's personal commitment to restore confidence in Canada's democratic institutions?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:33:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find this debate really difficult and quite lamentable, because I completely agree there is an urgency here, as the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît pointed out a moment ago. There is urgency, but again this is the first time such a committee is being formed because it is the first time the Emergencies Act has been used.
It will be a closed-door session and only with security clearance, so I just want to put on the floor now, as I may not get another chance, that the Green Party had one member vote no and one member vote yes. In a normal committee, we would be able to sit in, even though we would not be voting and not participating in other ways. I would like to request that we have security clearance to participate as observers, because this process is so very important.
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:34:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is important that this work begin as soon as possible. It should have begun on Monday. There were discussions, and three of the recognized parties in the House of Commons reached a consensus, as did the majority of the Senate groups.
What is being proposed is very logical. One of the co‑chairs will represent the members who voted in favour of the Emergencies Act, while the member from the Bloc Québécois will represent the members who voted against it. This ensures balance in the chairship of this committee. The composition of the committee would also be balanced, with three representatives from the government and three from the official opposition.
This consensus seems extremely reasonable to everyone except for one party, which wants to prolong the deliberations for a few weeks.
I have a big question for my colleague, the government House leader. Is it important for this committee to begin its work this week so that we can shed light on the events that led to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:40:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the question from my hon. colleague is about taking a look at exactly how these measures were used. Let us remember that before the act was invoked, we were in a situation where border crossings were closed, the city of Ottawa was besieged and there did not seem to be an end in sight. The Emergencies Act was put into place, as it was contemplated in 1988, to deal with emergency situations, and we now see a flow of goods and services and a return to normalcy here in the city of Ottawa.
The important work that needs to be done is not about dealing with the debate on who chairs the committee, particularly when we have so much agreement on how that process should take place. Instead, it is about looking to make sure the powers that were used were used judiciously, appropriately and in a limited fashion in terms of both geography and time. I would think that all members would want to get on with that process as quickly as possible, so I am frustrated that, because of the Conservatives' desire to have chairmanship, we continue to have to wait and grind this out. This should have started on Monday. We should not be here today continuing to deal with this.
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:42:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious conversation about how we can move forward to see if the emergency measures act was correctly implemented. I feel sorry for the government House leader. I believe he has short-term amnesia about what actually happened. In his answer, he said that we needed the Emergencies Act because there were blockades across our borders. That is not true. It is a lie. It is an absolute untruth and it did not happen. The blockades were gone—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:43:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I misspoke. I wanted to say that some things have happened that are not relevant to the history of the Emergencies Act. The member said that the Emergencies Act had to be invoked to clear the blockades, but that did not happen. The blockades were removed before the Emergencies Act was used.
I would like to get back to the point of the question. The fact the Liberals keep telling a story that is fictional is something that really affects my constituents in Regina—Lewvan. Did they reach the criteria to invoke the Emergencies Act? That is the question the committee wants to have answered and why—
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:06:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize.
This is simply not true. No such investigation exists. The interim Leader of the Opposition, instead of seeking a solution to the problem, said, “I don't think we should be asking them to go home...we need to turn this into the [Prime Minister's] problem.” With this type of rhetoric, a willingness to mislead Canadians and a willingness to support an ongoing occupation of our capital to serve political goals, how can they reasonably be trusted to chair a committee reviewing the very action taken?
We invoked the Emergencies Act to supplement provincial and territorial authorities to address the blockades and occupation to keep Canadians safe. We did this at the behest of the provinces and we did this to support others across the country who needed our help. It allowed our government to mobilize essential services, allowed the RCMP to swiftly enforce local laws and provided enhanced power to stop the flow of money. These measures were targeted, temporary and proportionate. We invoked them only after exhausting other measures, and they were the result of close consultation with the provinces and territories.
To be clear, the Emergencies Act is expressly governed by the rights and freedoms set out in the charter and no one should tell us otherwise. The specific measures provided by the Emergencies Act were limited and subject to numerous checks and safeguards. One such safeguard is the requirement for a parliamentary review committee to be established, which is what we are discussing today.
We have had productive discussions with other parties in the House about how to structure the membership of this joint review committee in a manner that is reasonable, fair and appropriate. Now is the time for reckoning and to review and understand the circumstances of what brought us to this point and how it was handled. We have proposed a reasonable approach to this review and to this committee's structure. Unfortunately, after supporting the illegal blockades and occupations, the Conservative Party is now refusing to do what it should, which is to support the timely creation of a fair structure for this committee to do its work. What Canadians need now from their Parliament is an honest, efficient and thoughtful review of the invocation of the act, its implementation and its outcomes.
We have seen the spread of lies and misinformation and we do not need that when it comes to something as fundamental as this. We are talking about trust in our institutions and in our democracy. We are talking about ensuring there is public trust in our processes and indeed in our Parliament. We must not trifle with this. It is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to do what is right and allow a review to look at things honestly. Surely, if everyone in the House has acted in good faith throughout this occupation and acted in the best interests of Canadians, no one should have anything to worry about in terms of what comes out of this review. It should be easy for the opposition to accept the proposal we have made.
Under this proposal, as everybody knows, the committee would have 11 members. It would mean three Liberals, two Conservatives, one Bloc, one member of the NDP and four senators representing all groups in the Senate. The committee would be chaired by three co-chairs: a Bloc MP, an NDP MP and one senator. That is pretty balanced, in my view. The chair would not be a Liberal, whose government invoked the Emergencies Act, or a Conservative, whose party, as we heard before, led the way in supporting protesters and the protests.
The Conservatives inexplicably refuse to support this balanced proposal. They have insisted from the start that they co-chair and are now demanding that both co-chairs be Conservative. Their bias in cheering on the illegal occupation cannot, should not and must not extend to chairing the committee. Canadians are going to judge us long after we are gone from this place. If the government is prepared to cede the chair of this committee to the Bloc and the NDP without fear or favour, what is stopping the Conservatives from doing exactly the same thing?
Were they here, I would appeal to my colleagues from across the floor, those who are uncomfortable with misinformation, with harmful rhetoric and with pandering to PPC voters, to vote in favour of this motion to show Canadians that the institution of Parliament and the review of the Emergencies Act and the actions taken come above petty partisanship.
765 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:13:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier I was sure I was lost. I walked into the House and then turned around and left because I was sure I had walked into a day care centre. I did come back eventually, though.
We in the Bloc Québécois do not care who the chair is. The important thing is that the work begins, but especially that there is a consensus on the formation of the committee. That is the most important thing. Getting the committee off the ground may be the only part of the Emergencies Act that will be used properly. In terms of inspiring confidence in Quebeckers and Canadians, we are off to a very poor start.
We need to have the least partisan committee possible. Nothing I am hearing from either the Conservative side or the Liberal side is inspiring confidence at this point.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:15:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the last couple of years, the issue that I think would have been a wonderful thing to talk about is the heroes of the pandemic and how Canadians stepped up to the plate when we really needed to take on the coronavirus. We are not necessarily focusing on that issue, but rather on a short period of time when people, due to the illegal blockades, caused far too many discussions and debates taking place here in Ottawa. I heard previously of the real heroes and issues of the pandemic. It has been a long, hard two-plus years, and there are so many wonderful things we could be saying about those Canadians and residents who really stepped up to get us through to this point.
Getting back on topic, a couple of days before the government instituted the Emergencies Act there was a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister. I caught wind of it not through the PMO or anything of that nature, but through a Winnipeg Free Press article. I would like to quote the article. It states:
Premier Heather Stefanson pleaded in a private letter to [the Prime Minister] to intervene at the Emerson border blockade just days before she publicly opposed his decision....
In a Feb. 11 letter obtained by the Free Press, Stefanson asked [the Prime Minister] to take “immediate and effective” action as she pleaded for “national leadership that only you and the federal government can provide.”
It goes on:
[The premier's] letter said the situation was urgent and blockades that disrupt “this critical corridor—even temporarily—create potential dangers, impose severe hardships on all Manitobans and cause severe economic loss and damage to Manitoba and Canadian businesses.”
That was just a couple of days before the Emergencies Act. On the Sunday, the fact that the federal government was looking at enacting the legislation was already being talked about through some media outlets, and on Monday it was enacted. I do not think it was of any great surprise.
We saw the City of Ottawa declare an emergency. The Province of Ontario declared an emergency. We had letters such as I just cited from Manitoba. We had a letter a week or so prior to that from the Province of Alberta asking the federal government to get engaged. The need to engage the Emergencies Act was very real, tangible and the right thing to do.
I will go to what we heard from some of the law enforcement agencies. Steve Bell, the interim chief of the Ottawa Police Service, stated: “All of those pieces of legislation and supports we've got from different levels of government have directly and actively contributed to our ability to ultimately say we are in a position to move forward and look to end the demonstration,” meaning the lockdown here in Ottawa.
In another news article, the commissioner of the RCMP stated that the powers given to her officers through the Emergencies Act served as a big deterrent in policing the anti-vaccine mandate protests that occupied the streets of downtown Ottawa for nearly a month. She stated:
We don't have anything in laws that prevent people from coming to protests and we can't turn them away. So for us, operationally, it was all about reducing that footprint in Ottawa and the only way to do that was to stop people from coming in or incentivizing them to leave.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister, the cabinet and in fact not just Liberal members of Parliament but New Democrats, one Green member of the House, which was the former leader of the Green Party, and even the Bloc supported the Emergencies Act. We recognized there was a need for it.
At the end of the day, if we take a look at the Conservatives, it is very difficult to see where they actually were. Many members talked about Conservatives walking out and getting those snapshots onto social media. In fact, I saw one picture of the interim leader at a dinner table with some of the protesters. It was quite amazing to see that.
Some say maybe we should have gone out there and talked to them. I want to give a quote. This is the Conservative guru from the Prairies. The Conservative Party members know him as Jason Kenney, the premier. This is what the premier had to say about negotiating with protesters. The premier was asked specifically about one of the leadership candidates, and I cannot say his name, and whether his comments compromised conduct. The premier stated, “I will never praise people who are out there breaking the law, creating public safety hazards, and I don't think anybody in elected office should do that.” The articles says, “He also said he does not believe anyone from the federal or provincial governments should be meeting with the participants.”
Stick with the facts. That is what I want the committee to be able to do, and hopefully it will be able to do it as quickly as possible.
867 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:22:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not often that I agree with the member for Winnipeg North almost entirely. I would like him to spend a minute or two expanding on why we need to move forward quickly with this.
All of us here have been swamped with phone calls and emails from people concerned about the use of the Emergencies Act. One of the good things about the Emergencies Act is that it has this committee embedded in it. We need to move forward quickly with this, and we need to move forward fairly. This proposal we have before us has a chair from the NDP and a chair from the Bloc, two parties on opposite sides of the debate, plus a member from the Independent Senators Group.
Can the member comment on the need to move forward quickly and fairly so Canadians can have these answers?
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:40:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague's comment, but only up to a point.
The Bloc Québécois wants this committee to be created, and it wants to get an explanation for the government's choice to invoke the Emergencies Act. The Bloc's own analysis shows that the criteria for invoking the act were not met.
I would like the committee to reflect on what the inappropriate use of this act means for the future. Does this mean that future governments will be able to use the act anytime they run up against any kind of difficult situation?
At some point, there will be a real emergency, the government will invoke the act, and people will think it is just some minor thing like the last time. That is what worries me because people will not get the right message.
Can my colleague tell me if he thinks the committee's findings will enable the public to better evaluate the use of this act in the future?
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:54:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not the one who is saying we should not look at anything that happened before. It is clear in the act and the motion what is supposed to happen. The motion specifically refers to February 14 to February 23, and in the act in section 62, and I invite the member to read the sections of the Emergencies Act I am referring to, it says:
62(1) The exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency shall be reviewed by a committee of both Houses of Parliament designated or established for that purpose.
The act, the law, tells us what to do, and the motion is specific only to those dates. That is what I am reading. That is what we are voting on here.
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
