Evidence of meeting #3 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 inquiry.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beatty.
As I understand it from listening to you, what you contemplated back in 1988 was a scenario where the emergency order was in place for at least 30 days, or even longer, and this parliamentary review committee oversaw or supervised the implementation of that Emergency Act.
Am I correct?
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I looked at the Hansard. You and your parliamentary secretary back then also spoke about continuous oversight by this parliamentary review committee.
Am I correct?
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
The view you're expressing at this moment, because you did not contemplate a shorter emergency order, is more your view today and not what the intention was back then, when you wrote the particular provision.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
What the role of this committee should be in this particular context.
9:15 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
If you're referring to whether or not it's inappropriate for the committee to look at the grounds on which the act was invoked, my answer would be no. That is not my view, and it was not my view at the time.
It is absolutely correct that we anticipated this would be the constant daily overview while the emergency was taking place, but it was never inappropriate for this committee to look at whether the act should have been invoked in the first place.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Beatty, I want to revisit subsection 17(2) and the designation of the affected area.
According to a document annexed to the proclamation declaring a public order emergency, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia were in favour of invoking the Emergencies Act, but Quebec was not because doing so, in its view, would be divisive. Alberta was against invoking the act, Saskatchewan was not in favour of invoking it, and Manitoba was not convinced that it was necessary to invoke the act at the time. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island all stated that it was not necessary to invoke the act. That means that seven of the 10 provinces consulted did not consider it necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act and did not want the government to do so.
In a situation like this, the government has an obligation to consult the provinces. Obviously, it is under no obligation to respect their wishes—I agree. Nevertheless, seven out of 10 provinces consulted were against invoking the Emergencies Act and did not want the government to declare a public order emergency in the whole country. In your view, then, doesn't the government have an obligation to explain why it extended the application of the act to the area in question, in other words, the entire country?
9:15 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
It indeed does have to justify to you and to the Canadian public.... However, I would make the point that your legitimacy as a legislator in representing Canadians is every bit as great as that of any provincial legislator. The federal government does have responsibility, for example, for the protection of the border and the protection of federal facilities, which were under challenge during these blockades.
There is no veto given to provincial governments in the declaration of that national emergency. They must be consulted, but if it's an emergency that extends across the country, it's a decision that the federal government makes, ultimately.
9:15 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Mr. Beatty, in your remarks you used very important notions: the principles of transparency and accountability.
Given what you've heard here—and I know each of us has argued our points of principle around the scope of this meeting—in your opinion, given that transparency and accountability are going to be important for a report, could you explain whether or not you believe in the value of looking at the whole scope of the failures? You mentioned policing. I talk about a royal commission on policing. There are some other important threats within our security frameworks, including ideologically motivated violent extremists and the rise of white supremacy in the far right and for undemocratic ends, i.e., overthrowing the government.
Can you comment, in closing, on how you feel this committee can best conduct itself in a way that will provide the greatest transparency and accountability to Canadians, ultimately, when we report back?
9:15 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Mr. Green, the first thing I would say is that it's by conducting yourselves as you have tonight. There have been elements of partisanship perhaps, but I've been encouraged by what I've seen is a genuine desire on the part of members of the committee to try to understand what your responsibilities are and to try to discharge those responsibilities to the best of your ability. That's how you'll most serve Canadians.
It comes back to the final comments that I made in my opening remarks. Our body politic is wounded at the present time. We need to heal those wounds. We need to do it by treating each other, as Canadians, with respect. We need to do so in a way that sets aside partisan differences and puts the national interest first.
We can debate whether or not the act should have been invoked, but there was a crisis. The obligation of Parliament at this point is to do everything it can to try to heal the divisions that have been created. That means transparency and collaboration, and a lack of partisanship is critical.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you. I appreciate that reflection.
We'll now close with the Senate side. If they can draft somebody from among their ranks, they have two minutes.
We have Senator White.
March 29th, 2022 / 9:20 p.m.
Senator, Ontario, CSG
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks again, Mr. Beatty.
You made a comment earlier about amendments to legislation that would better ensure that the Emergencies Act would not be invoked in the future. Can you walk us through what that would look like?
9:20 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Senator, you're better informed on this than I am, because of your background. To give one example, my understanding is that in jurisdictions other than Ontario, their emergencies legislation gives the power to authorities to be able to press companies into providing services during a crisis. Ontario's legislation did not. It did not allow them to require tow truck drivers to do it. My argument would be that this should be dealt with at the level of the Ontario legislation, and if that power is needed, give it there.
Similarly, if the argument is made that it would have taken too much time to swear in police officers in Ottawa who were coming in from other jurisdictions and that's an issue, amend whatever other statute is necessary to deal with that. Don't require the government to invoke the federal emergencies legislation to deal with that sort of situation.
You can serve the public really well if the recommendations that this committee makes are for ways that would ensure that, if there were similar circumstances in the future, there would be no need to invoke the act.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
With that being said, we have come to the conclusion of our rounds of questioning, including the final—
9:20 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Mr. Chair, I simply want to thank Mr. Beatty for all of the wisdom he has imparted to us today. The government needs him. Had he been a minister in the current cabinet, I don't think the Emergencies Act would have been invoked.
9:20 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you so much, Mr. Carignan, for those poignant remarks.
Mr. Beatty, thank you for your time and attention and for your service to the country, both in your previous roles and today. It was very important having you here.
9:20 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all members of the committee for your important work.