Evidence of meeting #21 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was definition.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I think, generally, it wouldn't be a good thing, but you also have to remember subsection 17(1) of the Emergencies Act, which says, “When the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds”. To me, that may build in a margin of appreciation, but my basic point was that CSIS interprets paragraph (c) under section 2 rather strictly because it does infringe on people's rights.
I think CSIS is well aware of that, and I think that's quite appropriate.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Okay. That does conclude the round.
Thank you very much.
I'll pass the chair to Senator Boniface for my five minutes. I mean four minutes. See, I was being generous.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you very much.
It's important, for me at least, to get crystal clear about finding recommendations coming out of here. Having both of you here as subject matter experts is a very valuable source of that primary information that, ultimately, our committee will deliberate on.
Just to be clear, do you believe that the Emergencies Act, in its current context, adequately serves its intended purpose?
Professor West, go ahead.
7:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
No.
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, I don't. I would decouple the definition of “emergency” from “threats to the security of Canada”. I think it's apples and oranges, because—
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I want to get into specificity, Professor. I appreciate it, but I don't have time in that regard. I want to know specifically what amendments you would propose to this committee.
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I would propose getting rid of paragraph 2(c) and going with a different definition of “public order emergency”, keeping section 3. I would propose ensuring that the inquiry—and I know you believe that it's within your powers—would have access to solicitor-client privilege.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
For the record, we are the grand inquest, not inquisitors—I think that's Star Wars. I digress.
Professor West, in your opinion, what recommendations should we make?
7:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I would change the definition of “public order emergency” to remove emergencies caused by threat actors, which is essentially what it is now. If Parliament wanted to have the ability to respond to emergencies caused by terrorism, subversion, espionage, etc., I would think that you would still need to keep that tied to paragraph 2(c), but if you wanted a public order emergency to actually deal with public order emergencies and issues around potentially critical infrastructure, I would change the definition of “public order emergency” to meet those requirements.
Alternatively, you could have a public order bill like the one the United Kingdom has introduced in its legislature. That provides specific powers and different offences around critical infrastructure and threats created by public order disturbances.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
You may have heard me, even in this meeting and other studies, talk about the practical failure of policing. It is not within our mandate or within our scope here to delve into that, but there hasn't been a royal commission on policing since 1962.
Professor Roach, I know you've written about unequal policing. I think it's fair to say, for many people on the outside looking in, that there was certainly a double standard applied to this particular group. Do you agree with my assessment that we ought to embark on a royal commission on policing to be able to unpack the responsibilities of police?
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Absolutely, I would agree. I would also look at reforming the riot act provision in the Criminal Code, which is archaic.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
In the dying seconds here, would you also support a royal commission on policing to be able to look at the mandates and the—
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Absolutely, and—
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I'm sorry. My apologies, Professor Roach. I want to quickly get Professor West on the record.
7:50 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm sorry.
7:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
Oh yes. I think especially the structure of the RCMP needs to be reviewed.
7:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
I mean the RCMP in particular.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Would you agree with the statement, as it relates to the state of national emergency or the declaration, that it was all levels of policing that practically failed?
7:50 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, As an Individual
Oh yes. The comment with respect to the RCMP wasn't tied directly to the Emergencies Act. It's just in general.
7:50 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you very much.
We now have Senator Carignan for four minutes.
The floor is yours.
7:50 p.m.
Claude Carignan
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Professor West and relates to the territorial nature and the difference between a localized emergency and an emergency that affects Canada as a whole.
I was reading the speeches by Perrin Beatty and he said, on November 16, 1987: "The emergency in question must affect the whole of Canada or be so great as to exceed the capacity of the provinces to cope with the emergency."
According to this, a localized crisis or localized situation would not meet the definition of a national crisis that would lead to the declaration of an emergency.
Can you explain your thinking on this subject?
