SoVote

Feb/17/22 10:01:13 a.m.
Watch

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised yesterday by the House leader of the official opposition concerning today's statutory debate being held pursuant to the Emergencies Act. In his intervention, the member asked for the Chair's interpretation of the provisions found in subsection 58(6) of the act, which state that the motion is to be debated “without interruption”. He argued that the plain meaning of these words is that once the debate begins, it cannot be interrupted for any other business and the House is required to sit continuously until it is concluded. He also cited past examples of statutory debates that had similar provisions, but noted that those statutes contained explicit wording allowing for such interruptions, provisions that are absent in the Emergencies Act. The role of the Chair in arriving at a decision is to draw on procedural information and precedents. When it comes to statutes, my predecessors have consistently explained that it is not up to the Chair to rule on matters of either a constitutional or of a legal nature. In a past ruling, one of my predecessors stated on October 24, 2011, at page 2405 of the Debates: …it is important to delineate clearly between interpreting legal provisions of statutes—which is not within the purview of the Chair—and ensuring the soundness of the procedures and practices of the House…— which, of course, is the role of the Chair.” As pointed out by the Opposition House Leader, in many past statutory debates, the House decided on how to interpret a statutory provision in the parliamentary context by adopting a motion regarding the parameters that would govern a statutory debate. This is, of course, part of the House’s undoubted privilege to control its own proceedings. But absent such a motion, he contended that the House is bound to follow the plain meaning of the law. The member cited a number of principles to follow in interpreting statutes. I would suggest that a critical one often cited by the courts is the principle of contextual construction. It is described by Driedger in Construction of Statutes, second edition, at page 87: “the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament”. Following Sullivan in Statutory Interpretation, second edition, one reads this at pages 58 and 59: There are problems with the plain meaning rule. In the first place, the distinction it draws between reading and interpretation is illusory.... Second, the plain meaning rule expressly requires courts to distinguish between clear or plain meaning on the one hand and ambiguous or doubtful meaning on the other. This distinction has no solid basis. To understand how the wording “without interruption” came to be, the Chair has reviewed the evidence given at the legislative committee on Bill C-77 in the second session of the 33rd Parliament. Originally, this section of the bill provided that the motion be debated for three days without interruption. A member moved an amendment to strike the three-day limit, arguing that he did not want to see a mechanism for time allocation built into the act. He instead suggested that it be subjected to the normal rules of the House. Another member explicitly asked if the provision as drafted meant that the House would need to sit for 72 hours straight to consider the motion. The response given, both by the parliamentary secretary and by the official present, was that the provisions of the act had to be interpreted within the context of the House’s rules. Therefore, any extension to the House’s sitting hours would have to occur pursuant to the normal procedures. This was clearly the understanding of the members of the committee when they removed the three-day limit on debate. I refer members to the evidence of the committee from April 12, 1988, especially pages 945 and 946. The amendment was adopted and the provision was further amended at report stage to arrive at the current wording of the act. Given the clear intention of the legislators who adopted these provisions, the Chair has difficulty accepting the argument that this motion must be debated non-stop until the House is ready to come to a decision. Instead, I propose to treat the matter as an order of the day having priority over all other current orders of the day and to continue to apply the schedule of the House as laid out in our Standing Orders. This means that the House will consider items such as Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members, Oral Questions, Adjournment Proceedings, etc. at their usual time, and will adjourn at its usual time. The Chair recognizes that this is an important debate on an urgent matter and that many members will wish to express their views. If parties feel the current rule should be adapted to this context, I strongly encourage the parties to follow the practice used in past statutory debates and arrive at an agreement.

872 words

All Topics

Mr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:08:24 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas. The first report concerns its participation in the 13th Gathering of the ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality, which was held virtually on September 13, 22 and October 4, 2021. The second report concerns its participation in the 5th Gathering of the ParlAmericas Open Parliament Network, which was held virtually on March 15, 19, and 26, 2021.

91 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:09:39 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-255 Bill C-225

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an important bill to Parliament, the post-secondary education financial assistance for persons with disabilities act, with thanks to the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach for seconding it and his tireless advocacy for diversity and inclusion. This legislation would provide tuition-free post-secondary education for all Canadians with disabilities. This is not only fundamentally just; it is an investment in our citizens that will unleash potential and benefit our society. While there has been progress in broadening inclusion for students in Canadian colleges, universities and trade schools, there is still much more to be done. I call on all parliamentarians to support this vital initiative to help Canadians with disabilities reach their potential and share their talents, skills and energy with us all, because when people with diverse abilities succeed, we all succeed.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:11:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move: That, in relation to the motion for confirmation of the declaration of emergency, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister moving the motion and the member speaking immediately afterwards shall be allowed to speak for no more than 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and comments and that they be allowed to split their time with another member, and that the Prime Minister be allowed to speak before the Minister moving the motion.

116 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/17/22 10:11:51 a.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. I hear none. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

36 words

All Topics

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Feb/17/22 10:12:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of numerous residents in my riding. For some time, they have been impacted by increased air traffic over their neighbourhoods. These are not people who live next to an airport. Rather, they live between designated training areas many miles away from an airport. Their quality of life has been diminished, and attempts at finding reasonable solutions have not been successful. They are calling on the government to legally implement changes to resolve the matter so they can regain a normal, peaceful life.

92 words

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:13:04 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by several Prince Edward Islanders who were inspired by Seth Klein's book and are very concerned about the climate emergency. They are calling on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that would reduce emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels, that would create good, green jobs and drive an inclusive workforce, and that would protect and strengthen human rights and expand the social safety net.

80 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/17/22 10:13:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition primarily from residents of Ottawa who are very concerned about what might seem at first to my colleagues in this place to be a local issue, but it is not. It is the destruction of Queen Juliana Park, which was established to honour the Canadian soldiers who fought for the liberation of the Netherlands, 7,600 of whom died in that conflict. The establishment of Queen Juliana Park was in honour of the sacrifices of Canadian soldiers and of the close relationship that exists between the people of the Netherlands and Canada. The decision to remove 750 mature canopy trees flies in the face of everything we hear about trying to create urban places with green spaces. Being able to escape to a green space restores our souls, especially in a time of pandemic. Those trees will be cut down to make room for a new hospital expansion, even though the National Capital Commission, which is federal, had already told the City of Ottawa the better location was Tunney's Pasture. These citizens of Ottawa call for the National Capital Commission's original recommendation to be reinstated to preserve Queen Juliana Park and indeed the entire Central Experimental Farm as green spaces, and they support the request for a public inquiry at the federal level.

230 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/17/22 10:15:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from folks in Kitchener Centre who agree with the member for Charlottetown and residents of his community. They are similarly calling for just transition legislation. They call on the government to ensure that the targets included align with climate science and doing our fair share, at least 60% below 2005 levels by 2030, and that we phase out fossil fuel subsidies and move that toward creating the good, green jobs of tomorrow, while protecting human rights and indigenous rights.

85 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:15:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

11 words

Stand
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/17/22 10:16:01 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Feb/17/22 10:16:36 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Public Safety. On Monday, as we entered the third week of illegal blockades and occupations, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act. We did it to protect families and small businesses, to protect jobs and the economy. We did it because the situation could not be dealt with under any other law in Canada. We did it because that is what responsible leadership required us to do. For the good of all Canadians, the illegal blockades and occupations have to stop and the borders have to remain open. We have made progress since Monday. On Tuesday, the border was reopened in southern Alberta after the Coutts blockade was dismantled. The RCMP arrested a small group of people within the larger blockade and seized firearms, ammunition and body armour. It is believed that this group was willing to use force against police officers. On Wednesday, the blockade in Emerson, Manitoba had been cleared without arrests or charges. Traffic and trade at this border crossing have now resumed. In Windsor, Mayor Dilkens said that law enforcement was able to successfully intercept a new convoy suspected of heading to the Ambassador Bridge. Here in Ottawa, law enforcement now has more tools and resources in order to give the people of this city their jobs, neighbourhoods and freedoms back. In Windsor, Coutts and Emerson, illegal blockades have been lifted and border crossings have resumed or are resuming. I want to thank law enforcement officers, including RCMP members, for their work on the ground. For the sake of the economy, families and workers, it is high time that these illegal and dangerous activities ended, including here in Ottawa. Invoking the Emergencies Act is not something we do lightly. This is not the first, second or third option. It is the last resort. When I consulted the provincial and territorial premiers on Monday morning I was very clear. By obstructing the supply chains, the illegal blockades are causing considerable harm to our economy and to Canadians. It is consistent with the requirements of the Emergencies Act that the views of the premiers of all provinces and territories be carefully considered, and that is what we did. The consultation and collaboration with the premiers will continue until the situation is resolved. As I said on Monday, the scope of the Emergencies Act is time-limited and targeted, as well as reasonable and proportionate. It strengthens and supports law enforcement agencies so they have more tools to restore order and protect critical infrastructure. These illegal blockades are being heavily supported by individuals in the United States and from elsewhere around the world. We see that roughly half of the funding that is flowing to the barricaders here is coming from the United States. The goal of all measures, including financial measures, in the Emergencies Act is to deal with the current threat only, and to get the situation fully under control. I want to reassure Canadians that when the Emergencies Act is invoked, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect their individual rights. We are not using the Emergencies Act to call in the military. We are not limiting people's freedom of expression. We are not limiting freedom of peaceful assembly. We are not preventing people from exercising their right to protest legally. We are, in fact, reinforcing the principles, values and institutions that keep all Canadians free. The blockades and occupations are illegal. They are a threat to our economy and to our relationship with trading partners. They are a threat to supply chains and the availability of essential goods, such as food and medicine, and they are a threat to public safety. The Emergencies Act will be time limited and targeted to respond to the threats of occupations and illegal blockades only. The measures are reasonable and proportionate. I want it to be clear to Canadians that when the Emergencies Act is invoked, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to protect individual rights. We are not using the Emergencies Act to send in the army. We are not taking away fundamental rights. We are not limiting freedom of expression or the right to peaceful protest. What we want to do is ensure the safety of Canadians, protect workers' jobs and restore trust in our institutions. We understand that everyone is tired of this pandemic. We understand that Canadians are frustrated with COVID. Some protesters came to Ottawa to express their frustration and fatigue with public health measures, and that is their right. As I said, it is a right that we will defend in this free and democratic country. However, illegal blockades and occupations are not peaceful protests. They have to stop. We all want the pandemic to be over. Public health measures are constantly being re-evaluated. We will continue to modify them based on the science and the situation, and we will continue to encourage people to get vaccinated. This week, based on advice from public health experts, our health minister, Mr. Duclos, announced that we will soon start easing border measures for travellers. Our government—

861 words

All Topics

Hon. Marco Mendicino (Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Feb/17/22 10:16:36 a.m.
Watch

moved: That, pursuant to section 58 of the Emergencies Act, this House confirms the declaration of a public order emergency proclaimed on February 14, 2022.

25 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/17/22 10:24:05 a.m.
Watch

If I can, I will interrupt the Prime Minister for a second to say we need to make sure we are not using proper names here. We want to stick to the riding names. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.

39 words

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau

Feb/17/22 10:24:16 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this week, based on advice from public health experts, the health minister announced that we will soon start easing border measures for travellers. Our government will continue to follow the best scientific advice to keep Canadians safe and to support health care workers. People are making sacrifices, and have been for two years. It is never time to hurt our communities or our fellow Canadians with illegal blockades, but especially not now that we are reopening and beginning to get back to the things we love. That is why it is so important for us to be having this debate today and in the days to come, and for Parliament to play its role in this process. Today, I ask all members of the House to take action against illegal blockades that are harmful to Canadians. I ask all members of the House to stand up for families and workers, to stand up for jobs and our economy, and to stand up for the freedom of Canadians and for public safety.

173 words

All Topics

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)

Feb/17/22 10:25:42 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Emergency Preparedness have repeatedly stated that there is evidence of foreign extremist financing behind this convoy. Last week at the public safety committee, the deputy director of intelligence for FINTRAC, Barry MacKillop, stated that there was no evidence that this funding in Ottawa was tied to ideologically motivated extremism. Under further questioning, he stated that there had been no spike in suspicious transactions. On what basis is the government freezing the bank accounts of Canadians? It is in violation of section 8 of the charter, which is against unreasonable search and seizure.

106 words

All Topics

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau

Feb/17/22 10:26:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is going to be extremely important. In this House, over the coming days there will be important and robust debate on many such issues. I can highlight, once again, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply. The Emergencies Act is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the measures that we have brought forward are proportional, measured and responsible. They are designed to get Canadians their lives and communities back, and to restore their freedoms.

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Feb/17/22 10:27:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about everyone agrees with the intention of putting an end to the siege of Ottawa. It is just about the only hostile protest still going on in Canada. Although the intention is a good one, the means being used may not be. Quebec dealt with protests in Quebec City without the Emergencies Act. In Coutts, not only did the border reopen without the Emergencies Act, but weapons were seized without it. The Ambassador Bridge was reopened without the Emergencies Act. The situation in Manitoba was resolved without the Emergencies Act, and there are other examples. How can the Prime Minister claim from the beginning of his speech that there was no other way to intervene? Why did he not exclude the provinces and Quebec, which do not want to be subject to or use the powers of this law?

145 words

All Topics

Right Hon. Justin Trudeau

Feb/17/22 10:28:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, police forces across the country now have more tools to deal with these illegal blockades and occupations, if and when they occur. We will continue to ensure that the measures are proportionate, reasonable and time-limited. However, it was and is important to give more tools to the police who need them. We understand that the police were able to keep the situation under control in many parts of the country, but the Emergencies Act applies from one end of the country to the other. However, it will be used only when necessary.

95 words

All Topics

Mr. Jagmeet Singh (Burnaby South, NDP)

Feb/17/22 10:29:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for weeks this occupation has been allowed to continue. People have lost wages, citizens have been harassed and the potential for violence has grown. Instead of acting, the federal government argued over jurisdiction. What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for the inaction that has made invoking the Emergencies Act necessary?

53 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 33