Debates of Feb. 17th, 2022

Emergencies Act

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, the official opposition is the official opposition.

This Prime Minister had the tools to work with the provinces and send additional police officers in response to the City of Ottawa's request when the City of Ottawa made that request. Ministers could have intervened, but they did not.

The question the member is asking the official opposition would perhaps best be put to his own Prime Minister. Why did he do absolutely nothing at the beginning of this crisis? Why did he let things get this bad? That is the question. The lack of leadership is not on our side, it is on that side.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that makes me really mad. When the Prime Minister said he was going to invoke the Emergencies Act, he said it would be geographically targeted and the government would intervene only where justified.

The Premier of Quebec made it clear that his government does not want the Emergencies Act applied on its territory. The National Assembly unanimously stated the same.

According to the text of the order, however, it applies across Canada. This is not the first time the Prime Minister has said one thing and done the opposite. Earlier, he said the scope of the act is reasonable and proportionate. Does my colleague agree that it is actually unjustified and unjustifiable?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec has said that invoking the Emergencies Act could add fuel to the fire by further polarizing the population. He made it clear to the Prime Minister that the act should not apply to Quebec. He does not think we need it. He does not see how it would improve the social climate at this time.

I can also reference the premiers of Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Alberta. The premiers sent a clear message to the Prime Minister that they do not want his Emergencies Act and are capable of managing their own affairs in their provinces. Why is the Prime Minister not capable of doing the same?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point that I have heard the hon. member's leader, the official leader of the opposition, raise as a hypothetical, and I want to address it now. It is the notion that the Prime Minister “hid”.

I am not going to defend all of the Prime Minister's actions by any means, but at the moment this convoy started, the Prime Minister had been diagnosed positive with COVID. I think we forget that if the Prime Minister had gone to meet with people who were unvaccinated and had any of them sickened and died, he could have been charged with manslaughter.

Does that occur to people on the other side as—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I would like to hear the member's question. Has the member completed her question?

I just want to make sure everybody listens to the question so that we can get a good answer.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a difficult time for everyone, but I think that this hypothetical and the use of the word "hid" is, again, inflaming divisions that we should not have in this place.

If someone tests positive for COVID, they should not be meeting with anyone and they certainly should not be threatening the health and safety of people who have chosen not to get vaccinated.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the pandemic began, I have had the opportunity on countless occasions to listen to speeches and presentations from my hon. colleague using a little tool called Zoom, on a little computer. I have heard the member defend the Liberal government several times on this little screen.

Hiding means not answering questions. It means refusing to take a stand. That is what the Prime Minister did by hiding. He hid from his responsibilities. He did not hide at home; he hid from his responsibilities. He could have spoken out. He had every opportunity to do so.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would begin by reminding our friends across the aisle that we are in the middle of a pandemic and our friends to our right that I would like to hear myself speak.

The pandemic has claimed victims. Some have died, while others are struggling with very serious health problems. Some people are living in a state of anxiety. Some people saw their purchasing power markedly decline because of the inflationary impact of the pandemic, whether it be permanent or temporary, structural or cyclical. Seniors were hit hard by the pandemic, as were the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces.

Of course, handling unusual and unprecedented situations sometimes involves trial and error. We try things that do not immediately work, and sometimes this approach, these trials and errors, can sow doubt. I understand. That is the case for the health restrictions, for the health measures around vaccination and the regulations that required, as well as for the travel restrictions. That is reasonable and understandable.

The answer to all this is, and should always be, information, even if that does not always work and the dissemination of good information remains relative. Unfortunately, the management of the pandemic was undermined by the federal government’s obsession with taking over Quebec’s and the provinces’ powers, imposing conditions outside its jurisdiction, and even subjecting the pandemic to multicultural values.

All of this does make things more difficult to understand. It creates confusion among Quebeckers and Canadians when what we need is quality information. It is also what led to the opposition that emerged in the forms we have been seeing in recent weeks. Fear, doubt and opposition to a government’s ideas and policies are legitimate. Protesting to express them is legitimate. Sedition and insurrection are not legitimate.

Is refusing treatment legitimate?

Is endangering other people’s lives by refusing treatment or vaccination legitimate?

Yesterday, I voluntarily went for my third shot. I was free to do so, and in so doing I was protecting and helping bring back freedom for other, more fragile, people, especially those in seniors residences, who are awaiting the day when they can feel safe enough to leave the house.

Freedom requires striking a balance between individual and collective freedoms. Doing this requires judgment, and that is not currently on display in all parties. Freedom is a test of leadership, the test of freedom. The Prime Minister failed this test because of ideology. He sought to subjugate collective and individual freedoms, to crush the identity of a nation under that of all nations, to deny the nation and talk of a postnational state. He is continuing the work of his father. He is denying Quebec, he is completing the transformative work of trivializing the Quebec nation.

Speaking of freedom, that was the purpose of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the charter of individual rights, the charter that denies French, secularism and the freedom of education, the one that seeks to censor social networks. Though they are an alarming cesspool of profanity these days, they remain a place of free expression, except for hate propaganda. The charter denies collective rights, the collective identity and the nation. Naturally, the Prime Minister stands up for individuals and then he drops the ball.

Freedom is becoming “freedumb”. Driven by fear, doubt and insufficient information, freedom is taking on the appearance of right-wing extremism, which condones anything in excess, encourages civil disobedience, flirts with violence and pollutes social media—and yet the Prime Minister continues to drag his feet. It is in his nature to actively do nothing in times of crisis. It is part of his ideology to show contempt for differences and fan the flames of division. He just does not get it.

Ottawa is under siege. The flag of Prime Minister's country is now being associated with the worst of the worst. He needs to take action, but, as usual, he does not know how, so he pretends to take action. He puts on a show. He deflects people's attention, covers up his failures, and moves a motion that is as heavy-handed as it is useless, a thinly disguised version of the War Measures Act. Thank heavens, it is a watered-down version of the original.

The Prime Minister keeps repeating that the charter freedoms are not being infringed upon. If the Emergencies Act did not infringe on any freedoms, it would not exist. By its very nature, it infringes on freedoms. The Prime Minister's role is not to deny that the act infringes on freedoms but to justify it and explain why it is being used.

The Emergencies Act was not needed for the Ambassador Bridge, not needed for the border in Coutts, not needed for the seizure of weapons in Coutts, and not needed in Quebec. Ironically, Quebec does not want the Emergencies Act enforced on its territory, but the Sûreté du Québec has been called in for backup in Ottawa. They should put that in their pipe and smoke it.

The Prime Minister is saying that the act will be enforced geographically, but that is not how it works. He can say it as much as he wants, but that is not how it works. This is a Canadian act, in keeping with Canadian tradition. As with other traditions, the copy is always a poor imitation of the original.

The Quebec National Assembly wants nothing to do with this act, nor does the Government of Quebec. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour. Conservatives in Quebec are not in favour, either. I am meeting with the NDP leader this afternoon to discuss. Could there be some way for us to come to an understanding?

Only the Ottawa Liberals want it, because the ones from Quebec do not. If Ontario wants this act, that does not make it useful. This could all have been done differently, but that falls on them. Quebec obviously wants nothing to do with it.

The Prime Minister has failed the test of collective freedom. On this, he has a sorry record. He often fails the test of freedom. He abandoned Raif Badawi. He has ignored the Uighurs. He is complicit with Spain against Catalonia. He sneers at Quebec's linguistic aspirations. He sneers at Quebec's secular aspirations. He sneers at freedom of expression and education if it is not in line with what he thinks and says. He starves provinces that do not meet his conditions with respect to health care. Even in security matters, the Prime Minister acts first and foremost by interfering, by grabbing powers that do not belong to him and by intervening in ways that, despite what he says, are not warranted as things now stand. All of Canada, except for the crisis in Ottawa that he himself engineered, sees this.

He has failed the test of freedom of expression, because he has yielded the word “freedom” to his worst enemies: the far right and, more importantly, ignorance. Freedom is a progressive value; freedom is a national value; freedom is a Quebec value; freedom thrives on truth.

Vaccination is a tool of freedom. It is imperfect, of course, but it remains the least bad solution. The sooner we accept it, the sooner all the health measures can be lifted.

Worse, by his failure, he has abandoned the sick to manage a crisis that is completely of his own making.

As for me, I will always defend freedom, especially the freedom of my nation. Quebec is free to make its own choices.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois compared a public emergency order to the War Measures Act, which is not the case. His public safety critic suggested that this measure takes away the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is not the case.

This order merely gives police and provincial authorities additional powers to do their jobs, which includes tracking financial contributions to illegal activities, including in Quebec, that cause economic damage.

Normally, the Bloc likes the idea of provincial discretion. Why is it now against a reasonable and proportional measure for its province?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between offering additional powers to other police forces and taking powers away from other levels of government so they can be handed over to one's own police force. Once again, the government is performing some gymnastic manoeuvres with a few extra twists, which would outdo any figure skating routine in Beijing.

When measures are necessary, are appropriate, and restrict freedoms, the government should explain and justify them, rather than claim that they do not restrict those freedoms. Whether these actions are justified or not, the government is claiming that seizing someone's bank account or preventing someone from walking down a particular street does not restrict their freedoms.

There are things that are obvious, but this government is a master of claiming the opposite of what is obvious and repeating it among its members.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the leader of the Bloc Québécois what he thinks about the differences between what the act allows and the capacity and resources on the ground. We can see that the major problem in Ottawa right now is the ability to remove tractor trailers from the streets.

Is my colleague aware that section 129 of the Criminal Code compels transportation companies to provide resources to the police when requested? Again, are there too many differences between what the act allows and the available resources and capacity?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is illegal to stop a heavy truck on the white line in the middle of the street, except for about a minute and a half when the light is red.

These protesters gave notice in advance that this was their intention, and they were allowed to come anyway. The Ottawa police got a little worried and requested assistance, which they were not given. They were told that 275 RCMP officers were going to be sent in, but that they would be reserved for Parliament and the Prime Minister, who was beginning to find it difficult to get around and was less inclined to come to Parliament. The Prime Minister himself said that the Ottawa police had all the necessary powers to intervene, until he realized that what he was saying did not make sense.

In every province, each level of government has police forces and state of emergency legislation that provide all the necessary tools. We need to stop saying that the current situation cannot be resolved without the use of the Emergencies Act. This scares people into calling for the act to be invoked. The provinces could, and can, intervene, as has been seen everywhere except here around Parliament.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to ask him a question because I am worried about the enforcement of emergency measures and the related geographic issues. In the order before us, there is no clear mention of a geographic region. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the other ministers stated that the use of the Emergencies Act would have a geographic limit, but I do not see it here.

If the government changed the order to include geographic limits that did not comprise the Province of Quebec, might the leader of the Bloc Québécois think that it is needed to resolve the situation here in Ottawa?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the past few years has taught us one thing: What is said in general terms is less likely to be implemented than what is written. Based on recent experience, I am not really interested in what the Prime Minister says. I am looking at what is written. The texts says it applies across Canada. There is no nuance or restriction.

The Prime Minister said that he would consult the provinces. That is odd because earlier he said in English that the government would consult and perhaps collaborate with them but that if he intended to go in somewhere, he would do it. He could change the text and acknowledge provincial jurisdiction, since seven premiers said that they do not want this measure to be implemented. However, he should do the opposite, that is withdraw the text and replace it with one that states what he can do and what he is prepared to do to help Ottawa now, so he can put an end to this farce, this political cover-up of his own mistakes.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, without question, today is a dark day for Canadian democracy.

In Quebec, the use of the War Measures Act in 1970 was an extremely traumatic experience. Some 500 people were arbitrarily arrested, people who were held for weeks without being told their rights. This brings back some truly painful memories.

Obviously in politics there is the law, the letter of the law, the punctuation of the law and the text of the law, but there is also the spirit of the law. People can say that the Emergencies Act is not the same as the War Measures Act, but it triggers memories of a trauma for Quebec.

I would like my leader to talk about the trauma Quebec experienced with the application of the War Measures Act in 1970.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more traumatizing than rising to speak after the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Yesterday I asked government members to show some sensitivity. I understand that does not come easily to them, because when we asked them to apologize for the Canadian abuses a few months ago, they practically laughed in our faces and denied our history. We were the last, along with the Acadian people, to wait for an apology.

I do not expect any miracles, but I am asking them to be sensitive to the fact that Quebeckers have an uneasy relationship, not with the humanitarian role of the army—we were happy to welcome them because many Quebeckers are members of the forces—but with legislation that takes away freedoms and is the spawn of the War Measures Act, albeit a watered-down version in scope and nature. We do not like that. It worries us. We have been through this, so we are asking for a bit of understanding.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we agree that the act should not apply in Quebec because there is no way to do that, and we were prepared to support the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois yesterday in that regard, before the Liberals blocked it.

What made me uncomfortable about the Bloc Québécois leader's speech was when he made some questionable historical associations involving us by bringing up some painful memories and the trauma caused by the use of the War Measures Act in Quebec. There is no comparison between the Emergencies Act and what happened some 50 years ago. Even columnist Hélène Buzzetti, who could never be accused of being insensitive to Quebec's views, has said that the two are not at all comparable.

I therefore invite the leader of the Bloc Québécois to look at the provisions of the act in an intellectually honest way and to make the necessary distinctions.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no lack of humility in Rosemont.

I would invite the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie to look at the views of the Quebec National Assembly, which should matter to him at least a little.

His Québec Solidaire friends are against this, as are the Liberals, the Parti Québécois and the CAQ.

The only person in Quebec who is right is the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie. I am rather concerned, but I would remind him that, in 1970, the NDP leader voted against the War Measures Act.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical moment in our history. In a few weeks, we will enter the third year of this pandemic. Canadians are tired, tired of a pandemic that has created so much loss and such sacrifice for so many. Canadians are frustrated, frustrated that so many have found themselves worse off, while those at the very top have only increased their wealth and power. Many are afraid, afraid of the next wave, of the next variant. They are also afraid of the other crises we face: fires and floods caused by the climate change destroying their homes and livelihoods, losing those they love to a toxic drug supply and not being able to get the care they need or their loved ones need when they need it. However, neither fear, nor frustration nor fatigue has won over Canadians' fundamental desire to take care of one another.

We are here today, at this moment, because of a failure of leadership. People were abandoned by governments that argued over jurisdiction rather than helping people. People were abandoned because governments did not take this convoy and its impact on people seriously. They were abandoned by the police, some of whom stood with the occupiers and the occupation.

It should never have come to this. It should never have come to a point in time where thousands of workers lost their wages because of blockades at bridges and because of blockades of one of the busiest shopping centres in Ottawa, affecting retail workers, people who were already precariously employed. It should never have come to the point where residents, families and children were harassed, intimidated and terrorized by the convoy. It should never have come to this.

Many people are rightly concerned right now about the impact of the Emergencies Act and that it might crack down on protests in the future. What we are dealing with is not a protest. It is not peaceful. The organizers of this illegal occupation have been clear from the beginning. They have not shied away from this; they have been brazen about it. They came here to overthrow a democratically elected government. It is a movement funded by foreign influence and it feeds on disinformation. Its goal is to disrupt our democracy.

We share the concern of many Canadians that the government may misuse the powers in the Emergencies Act, so I want to be very clear: We will be watching. We will withdraw our support if at any point we feel these powers ae being misused. I have been at many protests and strikes, and I have witnessed the full and brutal power of the police being used against peaceful protesters. I therefore want to make this clear as well: Indigenous land defenders, climate-change activists, workers fighting for fairness and any Canadian using their voice to peacefully demand justice should never be subject to the Emergencies Act. The New Democrats will never support that.

What has become very clear in this crisis is that there also needs to be a serious examination of policing in Canada. Occupiers get hugs from the police while indigenous and racialized protesters are met with the barrel of a gun. There are several very troubling accounts of current and former law enforcement and military members involved in these occupations. One of the requirements of the Emergencies Act is that after its invocation, there is a public inquiry into its use. This must include a full public inquiry into the role of law enforcement in these occupations, both in their support of the occupiers and, in many case, in their refusal to enforce the law.

The use of the Emergencies Act is tantamount to an admission of defeat on the government's part. It should never have come to this. The crisis situation in Ottawa now calls for further action to prevent grave outcomes. We take the invocation of the Emergencies Act very seriously. Nobody wants to see the kind of thing that happened in 1970.

Many people remember the War Measures Act in 1970, the random arrests and the army being deployed in the streets of Montreal. Many people are worried the same thing could happen again. I understand that. That is why the Emergencies Act must be used judiciously and prudently.

We have been assured that there is no plan to call in the army and that the rights set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be upheld. That means arbitrary arrest and seizure will not be justified under the act.

The NDP believes there is currently no justification for the use of emergency measures in Quebec. We want the Prime Minister to guarantee that emergency measures will be used only where they are truly necessary. The NDP is prepared to use the mechanisms at its disposal to revoke the government's powers at a moment's notice. We are not giving the government carte blanche, and we will be keeping a close eye on it to make sure it does not overstep.

In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about divisions in our country. That division, sadly, has been fed and amplified by members of the House. That has to end. Using a pandemic as a political wedge to score points off opponents to try to win a leadership race or an election is wrong and, frankly, dangerous. This virus does not care who we voted for. Wearing a mask is not a partisan activity. Vaccines save lives, and the vast majority of Canadians and members of Parliament know this and have supported vaccination efforts. We cannot let Canadians' trust in science and public health be eroded by political opportunism.

The pandemic is changing, and our response has to change as well. Restrictions are being lifted. We need a plan to get out of the pandemic, to get to the end of the pandemic, a plan based on science and our fundamental responsibility to take care of one another. Canadians who have done everything asked of them now want to know what to do next. Canadians have followed the rules, but they need to believe that restrictions are fair and make sense. We know that things can change quickly. New variants may appear and evidence may change. However, without a clear plan, confusion, disinformation and resentment grow.

We believe that a plan to get to the end of the pandemic, to get us out of this pandemic, has to include the urgent repair of our health care system so that people can get care when they need it. It has to include finishing the job of vaccination, especially of our children. We have to make sure there is global access to vaccines so we avoid future variants and waves of infection, and we have to move forward on solving the problems this pandemic has only made worse.

The reality is that working people have paid the price of this pandemic. While big companies took government money and gave out shareholder dividends and CEO bonuses, frontline workers got sick because they had to work without sick leave. Parents struggled to keep their kids at home while schools were closed, and big box stores stayed open.

People are right to be angry that life has only gotten harder over these past two years, and that it is almost impossible to buy a home to keep a roof over one's head or to rent a decent place to live because wealthy speculators are driving up the cost of housing. People are right to be angry that the cost of groceries goes up to feed the profits of wealthy corporate grocery stores. People are right to be angry that they work hard and pay their taxes, but that the superwealthy and big businesses do not pay their fair share. People are right to be angry that their lives have become harder, while the superwealthy and powerful have only added to their wealth and power.

I am angry too, and when I get angry, I fight. I learned long ago that my anger and my fight are not with the powerless. People's anger and their fight are not with Canadians. They are with those at the very top: the powerful who have built a system rigged against working people.

We can change this, but only if we come together to fight for a Canada that does not leave people behind while others profit. The story of this pandemic is not one of division. It is one of solidarity. It is a story of frontline health care workers showing up day after day in impossible situations. It is a story of grocery workers, farmers and truckers keeping us fed. It is of teachers doing their best to connect with children through screens. Our story is of neighbours helping each other get vaccinated, and helping each other when they are in need.

We will not let the past few weeks define the pandemic for us. Canadians have sacrificed too much, lost too many loved ones and missed out on too many moments to allow our country to become divided by hate and violence. People should not let their anger turn into hatred. We know hatred is like a fire. When it is allowed to grow, it will consume everything.

As I hold my daughter, I often think about the world I want for her. I want her to walk through the world without fear. I want her to always feel like she belongs. I do not want her to face the same struggles I have. I believe this is what we all want for our children. My hope is that our decisions in the coming days are guided by this desire to build a better, safer and more just world where all of our children believe they belong.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for Burnaby South on his baby.

I have seen the member engage on many occasions with protesters over the many years I have known him. This particular time he has not. The opposition has advised the Prime Minister to engage with people at the illegal blockades that are here.

What are his reflections on engagement with those who are here for the illegal protests and blockades, and what message would it send if the Prime Minister or he were to engage with these folks?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that the convoy wants to undermine our democracy, and that this is not a group that we can negotiate or work with. We need to acknowledge that there is real frustration among Canadians who have done everything they can to get vaccinated and follow public health guidelines.

Canadians are frustrated. They want to know what the plan is to get out of this pandemic. That plan has to include making sure we invest in our health care system so it is no longer pushed to the brink of collapse. That plan has to include responding to the frustrations of Canadians who cannot find homes they can afford, who are worried about the cost of living going up, and who cannot find jobs that pay the bills. We have to respond to those real frustrations that Canadians are feeling. That real anger has to be responded to by us working together to find real solutions to solve those problems.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to see the stand that the leader of the NDP and the party have taken on an issue that deals with the fundamental civil liberties of Canadians. What has happened to the party of Tommy Douglas? What has happened to the party of Jack Layton that fought against Bill C-51 and the War Measures Act? What has changed?

The NDP is trying to split hairs. Why has it abandoned one of its fundamental principles?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be really clear. We are in this national crisis because of the failure to respond to how serious this crisis is. All levels of government failed to take this convoy seriously. They failed in their leadership, and that is why this crisis became so bad.

In order to fix this crisis, it has to be taken seriously now. I believe that to take it seriously, enacting limited and specific powers to deal with this crisis is appropriate. We do so reluctantly, and will closely monitor to ensure there is no overreach. We know that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms continues to apply and that legitimate, peaceful protests demanding justice should continue and will be protected.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly convinced that the NDP leader was not happy about announcing his support at the outset, unlike the Minister of Public Safety, who said he was proud to support the Emergencies Act.

The NDP's current position is inconsistent with the history of the party and the legacy of Tommy Douglas, which they claimed to represent when marking the anniversary of the Emergencies Act.

We will be debating this over the next few days before voting on it later this week. The situation we are discussing could also evolve and change.

I would like to know whether there is anything that might make the NDP leader change his mind and withdraw his support for the Emergencies Act.