- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Louis-Hébert
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $113,755.58
- Government Page
- Feb/21/22 4:53:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands again.
I do not believe that that aspect meets any of the four possibilities in the definition of security threat in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, for the simple reason that foreign interference would require a state actor. That does not appear to be the case at the moment.
In that respect, all Canadians who donate to organizations like Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International for advocacy in other countries could find themselves—
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:52:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is a very relevant question. The member for Rosemont has known me long enough to know that I do not have any sympathy for far-right groups. We saw how some of these groups latched onto this movement.
I think we need to ask ourselves how we can monitor the foreign funding of certain causes in Canada.
However, a value that is dear to me as a lawyer involved in the defence of civil rights is the existence of legal proceedings when the state uses such coercive power.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:51:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I, too, have a moral contract and that is with my constituents. They know what party I belong to, and it has always been clear that I would support the government in confidence votes.
I am simply asking for a clear and unequivocal answer as to whether this evening's vote is a confidence vote or not.
59 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:49:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member touched on a lot of aspects in his question. To me, based on my analysis as a lawyer, when I look at section 16 and what is defined in the CSIS Act as a threat to the security of Canada, I do not think the threshold has been met.
However, I understand different lawyers and different legal experts can have different legal opinions. I also understand I am not privy to all the information that cabinet has. In such circumstances, there is usually always a great deal of deference given to the executive. However, based on the information I have and based on my reading of the law, I do not think the threshold was met.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 4:40:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the decision we are required to make today in this vote is without question one of the most important that a parliamentarian may be called to make. History will judge our votes and our debates in the House.
This vote is about fundamental issues in a democracy. On the one hand, it is about the duty of the government to protect our institutions and the public order, which is necessary in a free society. On the other hand, it is about the protection of citizens' civil liberties, which are just as fundamental in a free society.
First and foremost, I am not going to engage in the kind of attempts that the Bloc Québécois has made to draw tenuous connections between the Emergencies Act that we are debating today and its predecessor, the War Measures Act. They have very little in common in terms of checks and balances or accountability, or even protections guaranteed by the charter.
I will also not engage in the game being played by the Conservatives, who had to muster all their courage to finally ask the protesters to stop occupying Ottawa and who struggled to condemn all the misbehaviour we saw over the past few weeks in Ottawa.
I will always defend the right to peaceful protest, but one person's freedom ends where another's begins. In a democracy, people always have the right to be heard, but that right does not mean they can block critical infrastructure or negatively impact downtown Ottawa residents' quality of life for weeks. Those people have nothing whatsoever to do with the protesters' demands.
Anyone who knows me will not be surprised to learn that, 10 years ago, I was a part of the student strike. I wore a red square and marched for more than my fair share, as the saying went. However, I never supported the actions of those who blockaded the Port of Montreal or Jacques Cartier Bridge at rush hour. I never felt that was the best way to make our voices heard, and rather than raise public awareness of our cause, it inevitably turned many people against our movement and our ideas. The same happened with the convoy.
To those who may be tempted by illegal means, I say resist. Take the high road, because in a democracy, we value the noble path of non-violence and the ballot box.
Protesting in front of Parliament, in front of provincial legislatures and in front of my office, and organizing peaceful marches are all perfectly fine. However, an occupation that lasts for weeks and blockades that last for days are not fine. They caused serious problems that municipal and provincial governments could not or would not address. Their failures and their inaction emboldened others to set up blockades elsewhere in Canada, including in Emerson, Coutts and Windsor.
That is the problem that the federal government wanted to address by invoking the Emergencies Act. Let me be clear. I agree with the government's objective. However, I have serious questions about the means chosen. The Emergencies Act is undoubtedly the most draconian weapon in the government's legislative arsenal and, in this case, it confers enormous powers on the state, including the power to freeze bank accounts without due process. To invoke this legislation, a very high threshold must be met, and this threshold was deliberately set high.
According to section 16 of the act, a “public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency”.
A threat to the security of Canada is itself defined in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There are four possibilities: espionage, foreign influence, activities relating to terrorism, and violent insurrection against the government. The threshold is extremely high, which is by design, given the powers this act confers.
The government based its decision on the third possibility, terrorism, which is defined in the act as follows: “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state”.
I think it is clear that the second aspect, the political objective, is not a factor here, but for the first one, the threat of serious violence must constitute a national crisis. That part of it is anything but clear to me. For the current crisis to to qualify under that criterion, the government is forced to consider economic disruption or, at this point, the threat of economic disruption, as a threat of serious violence against persons or property, as set out in the act.
Along with many eminent lawyers and various experts, such as Professor Leah West and even the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I believe that is a false equivalence. It is a slippery slope that dilutes the strict criteria under the Emergencies Act.
During the rail blockades put in place in early 2020 to support the demands of the the Wet'suwet'en, I never thought it would be appropriate to invoke the Emergencies Act. It is precisely because, even if there were some major economic disruptions, the line was never crossed, there was never any violence or threat of serious violence against property or persons. I look at the present situation in the same way.
I am aware that I do not have all the information that cabinet has. As a parliamentarian, I must make decisions based on the information that is provided to us.
Based on what is available to me, I cannot help but echo the comments of my colleague from Beaches—East York, that contorting the application of the law in order to defend the law is not a very comfortable position to be in.
Beyond the concerns I just raised about the threshold for invoking the Emergencies Act, I also have questions about the fact that we are being asked this evening not to retroactively confirm the use of the act, but instead to extend its application. I wonder if it is still necessary in the circumstances, considering the occupation of Ottawa is over, the police have finally and rather easily done their job, and there are no more blockades at the border.
The measures taken under the Emergencies Act may have been useful to law enforcement, or even effective, but that does not mean they are necessary or proportionate, nor that they still are as we speak. Personally, I am not convinced.
In closing, I want to make some observations in response to what I have heard during the debate in the House over the past few days. In our debates and reflections, I think we need to avoid letting our dislike of an issue affect our ability to analyze it in a neutral and rational way, because governments change and do not always have the same views on different issues. Take, for example, environmental or indigenous issues, or even the student issues we hold dear. In the current context and for the reasons mentioned, the use of the Emergencies Act creates a serious precedent.
I also think that we must avoid ascribing too much value to opinion polls when we are debating the use of a law like this one. Public opinion is not one of the criteria set by the legislator. If I had to choose, I would far rather do the right thing than follow the trend.
In the future, I also think we will have to modernize the act to ensure that it can be used more adequately to respond to situations like the one we are facing.
To conclude, members should not interpret my comments as a repudiation of this government. I believe that in the absence of municipal and provincial leadership, the government took the steps it believed to be appropriate to address this crisis, and it did so in good faith. I agree with the government's objective of restoring order, though I disagree with its methods.
As for my vote, since 2015, the Liberal Party has had a moral contract whereby members must vote with the government on confidence votes, electoral commitments, and issues affecting Canadians' fundamental rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Under this contract, all other votes are free votes. I made this commitment as a member of the Liberal Party. If this evening's vote were not a confidence vote, I would vote against it. However, at the very least, as we prepare to vote, I would like to have a clear and unequivocal indication as to whether this is truly a confidence vote.
1468 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
