Emergency Measures Act | MPs will sit all weekend and vote on Monday

(Ottawa) In the streets near Parliament, the tension was palpable Thursday. In the House of Commons too. The debate on the use of the Emergencies Act has begun. The kickoff was given by Justin Trudeau, who hammered that “illegal and dangerous activities” constitute a serious threat to public safety.

Joel-Denis Bellavance
The Press

Melanie Marquis
The Press

A vote is expected to be held on Monday and the decree must receive the assent of the House of Commons in order to remain in force. The NDP has already said that it would support the minority Liberal government in its approach.

The Leader of the Government in the House, Mark Holland, revealed to the elected officials their schedule for the next few days: the vote on the motion is scheduled for Monday evening, at 8 p.m., and until then, the deputies will debate non-stop 7 a.m. to midnight, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, he said after question period on Thursday afternoon.

At the start of the day, the Prime Minister argued that recourse to the Emergency Measures Act for the first time was fully justified to put an end to the occupation of the streets of the city center of the federal capital, but also to activities like those which paralyzed border crossings.

It is particularly so because these movements are largely financed by foreign groups, he argued. He thus kicked off the historic debate on the use of this law, which gives additional powers to police forces to restore order in the federal capital.

Already, the debate promises to be heated, with the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois being fiercely opposed to this approach. They believe that the police forces already have all the tools necessary to put an end to the occupation.

“The federal government invoked the Emergency Measures 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 solved by any other law in Canada,” said the Prime Minister.

“We did it because that’s what responsible leaders do for the good of all Canadians,” he said.

Admittedly, the situation has improved somewhat, said Mr. Trudeau. The illegal occupations in Windsor, where the Ambassador Bridge was blocked for a week, are over. The border crossing at Coutts, Alberta is open again.

But it is very disturbing that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested “a small group of people within the blockade and[it] seized firearms, ammunition and body armor. It is believed that this group was ready to use force against police officers, ”noted the Prime Minister.

Faced with opposition from several provinces and opposition parties, Mr. Trudeau reiterated that the use of Emergency Measures Act would be time limited. The law does not suspend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and will not result in the deployment of soldiers, he also insisted on pointing out.

“The scope of the Emergency Measures Act is time-limited, targeted, reasonable and proportionate. It strengthens and supports law enforcement so they have more tools to restore order and protect critical infrastructure,” he said.

“It’s not something you do lightly. It is not the first option, nor the second, nor even the third option. It is a solution of last resort,” he added.

“Historic and disappointing”

In turn, the interim leader of the Conservative Party, Candice Bergen, whose formation will not support the motion tabled Wednesday, argued that the gesture made by the Trudeau government would go down in history, but for the wrong reasons.

She also took the opportunity to shoot an arrow at the New Democratic Party, which will support the use of Emergency Measures Act. “History will not be tender” for the party of Jagmeet Singh, she hammered.

The Conservative, who had initially supported the “freedom convoy” set up in Ottawa before changing her tune and asking them to leave, lambasted the Prime Minister, whom she accused of having sown division and of despising the protesters.

As for the obligation of vaccination for truckers, a measure cited as one of the catalysts of the movement of truckers, it had no scientific basis, denounced Candice Bergen in her speech in the House.

Atomic bomb ”

Bloc Québécois House Leader Alain Therrien vigorously criticized Justin Trudeau for pulling out the steamroller when the blockades at the Ambassador Bridge, Coutts and Emerson had been lifted.

“In the court of the Prime Minister, here, in the federal capital, there is an occupation. What did the prime minister do? First, he called them grouchy. Afterwards, he blamed it on the police, and there he pulled out the atomic bomb, the Emergency Measures Act “, he launched.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion. Its leader, Yves-François Blanchet, spoke of the “trauma” of using this law for Quebecers, who remember its previous incarnation, the War Measures Act.

“Questionable historical amalgams”

An argument that was brushed aside by the NDP deputy leader, Alexandre Boulerice, whose party will support the motion. This guarantees its passage in the House of Commons, once the debate started on Thursday morning is closed.

“Where I have a problem with the speech of the leader of the Bloc, it is the dubious historical amalgams”, he said, doubting the process of “using painful memories, the trauma of the War Measures Act in Quebec, when there is no common measure with the current law”.

Once adopted by the members of the House of Commons, the government motion will end up in the Senate. There, the outcome of the motion is uncertain, the members of the Upper House being more independent of the government.

Amnesty International concerned

For his part, while expressing his “great concern” about “the violence and hatred used by many of the participants in these convoys, as well as the slowness and inefficiency of action by the police [qui] are of great concern,” Amnesty International Canada said in a statement that it intends to closely monitor the possible use of the law.

Because certain aspects of it “remain vague and could lead to abuse of rights, in particular with regard to geographical limitation”, and the fact of having recourse to it today could “in the future justify restricting the right to demonstrate legitimately in any way and that certain groups are targeted more than others, including Indigenous and racialized people.