Jocelyn Stacey
Jocelyn Stacey spoke 47 times across 1 day of testimony.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Wonderful, thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioner. Good afternoon, everyone. I -- I’m very privileged to be here today. Thank you for having me and for that introduction, and we’re very luck to be joined by experts who are both online and in person. And so in person here with us today -- I want to just acknowledge that we’re meeting here today on unceded Anishinaabe Algonquin territory, and we’ve got two experts who are joining in person. So next to me is Mr. Jack Lindsey, Associate Professor in Applied Disaster and Emergency Studies at Brandon University. We also have Mr. Ryan Teschner, Executive Director and Chief of Staff of the Toronto Police Services Board. And we have three experts joining us online, so that you for joining us from a variety of locations around the world. We have Dr. Dwight Newman, KC, Professor and Canada Research Chair from the University of Saskatchewan College of Law; Dr. Judith Sayers, President of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and member of the Hupacasath First Nation; and Mr. Cal Corley who is the Chief Executive Officer of Community Safety Knowledge Alliance and a former Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP. So thank you all for joining us this afternoon. As the Commissioner has said, this is a panel that focuses on interjurisdictional responses to protests and emergencies. The experts that we have with us today are going to discuss topics that fall roughly within sort of three themes, so the first being the roles and responsibilities of different orders of government in responding to protests and emergencies or public order events and emergencies. The second theme will be more focused on mechanisms for consultation, coordination and cooperation between different levels of government and between agencies. And then, finally, we’ll focus on the Emergencies Act itself and looking at the appropriate roles of multiple levels of government in the use of the Federal Emergencies Act. So I’m going to kick us off with some of the questions that we have discussed focusing on, and we’re going to start by laying a bit of ground work in terms of responsibilities of different orders of government. So, Professor Newman, I’m looking to you to help us lay a bit of the groundwork here by starting us off with the question of, what is the federal government’s constitutional role in addressing emergencies, and how did the convoy events engage matters of federal jurisdiction?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you very much, Professor Newman. I wonder if just to complement that nice sort of overview of federal jurisdiction we might get a bit of insight from other experts about sort of what those constitutional roles look like on the ground. And so Mr. Teschner, would you like to weigh on that maybe briefly? And maybe just -- I'll give a reminder to everyone to speak slowly if you can so that our interpreters can keep up.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Okay. So we're quickly getting the picture of emergency management being a multi-jurisdictional endeavour. And so one area of jurisdiction that we want to bring into the conversation is the role of Indigenous jurisdiction in protests and emergencies. And President Sayers, can I turn it over to you to speak to that?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you, President Sayers. So I think maybe what we should do is move on now that we have this sense of the different jurisdictions that are involved in emergency management to talking about mechanisms for facilitating consultation, coordination, and cooperation, and see if we can get into some examples of what kinds of mechanisms have facilitated successful interagency and intergovernmental coordination in past emergencies. And so I’ll turn it over to Mr. Teschner to start us off with that, and then we’ll bring in some others as well.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Mr. Corley, you have some examples that you’d like to add around coordination, cooperation, consultation?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thanks, Mr. Corley. Those are -- it's great to have those examples. And, President Sayers, I wonder if you might like to join in on this part of the conversation. Any examples that come to mind for you of successful coordination, cooperation between First Nations and Crown governments?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you for that. A lot of -- I’m hearing a lot of sort of consistency in what the experts are saying so far, right, the importance of communication, entering into agreements and protocols, training, and resourcing, and so in some way it’s really no mystery, right? These things all have to happen outside of the actual emergency response. Professor Lindsay, we haven’t heard from you yet, and so I’m hoping to bring you into the conversation here to hear a little bit about what tools the federal government has and maybe where there are gaps in terms of what’s available outside of the Emergencies Act, maybe, to do some of these things that the other experts have set out for us already.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you, Professor Lindsay. One of the things that came up in the roundtable yesterday was about the role of the private sector. And so Mr. Corley, you had a chance yesterday to talk about the important role that you saw for private security and policing responses, at least. And I’m wondering if there’s anything you’d like to add to the comments yesterday about the role that private security, you see private security playing in sort of interagency and interjurisdictional responses to emergencies?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Mr. Teschner, do you have any thoughts from your experience on the appropriate role for the private sector in interjurisdictional responses to emergencies?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. So as much as I'd like more discussion on the points that have been raised, I'm going to move us along to the Emergencies Act, and to pick up on some comments made earlier around the importance of thresholds and procedures for escalation. And in particular, I want us to look at the question of when can the federal government declare an emergency arising from a failure of another level of government to exercise their ordinary jurisdiction? And Professor Newman, I'm hoping you can start us off with how to think about the answer to that question.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you, Professor Newman. Professor Lindsay ---
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
--- do you have thoughts on this question?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thanks for that, Professor Lindsay. This is an important question, and one where from the answers already I can see there's a lot of complexity. So I'm just wondering, we've got a little bit of time on this, if others want to contribute. Yeah, Mr. Teschner?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Other thoughts on this question? So I wonder if we can just keep going with that response, Mr. Teschner, around sort of questions about optimal mechanisms for consultation when declaring a national emergency. And so what might that consultation look like, recognising the points that have already been made, that it's maybe not just about the consultation happening at that exact moment, that we need to take a broader temporal view of that. So what should those mechanisms for consultation look like when declaring a national emergency? And how should disagreement between levels of governments on the use of federal powers, emergency response powers, how should that kind of disagreement be reflected in federal decision-making? And so Professor Newman, can we go back to you on that question? You brought this up earlier.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you, Professor Newman. President Sayers, do you want to come in on this point about consultation and optimal mechanisms for consultation when declaring a national emergency?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you, President Sayers. So I wonder if others want to come in on this question of consultation, and particularly thinking about where we started, thinking about maybe the superstructure that’s there, and sort of having mechanisms in place for escalation. And so when we’re at that stage in which escalation is going to happen, what kind of consultation needs to be taking place? Professor Lindsay, please?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
M’hm.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Yeah, good points. Others on this? Yeah, Mr. Corley, I see you online. Go ahead.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. So we have about 10 minutes before the break, and I think in your responses, you’ve covered the things that we’ve discussed in preparing for this, and so I think I’ll just open it up to all of you experts to see if there are points that you haven’t raised yet that you would like to raise, if there are things you’d like to elaborate on or clarify, maybe more specifics around changes that you might like to see to the Emergencies Act flowing from this conversation that we’ve had so far?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
President Sayers?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Okay. A possibility of timelines to keep things moving along. Other thoughts? Mr. Corley?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Professor Lindsay?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Commissioner, we have about six minutes before the planned break. Do you have questions that you'd like to pose now or would you like us to break early?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Would you like to take a break? Yeah.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Okay, so we have a few questions for the experts that we’ll try to get through in the next 30 minutes. All right, so, Mr. Teschner, I’m going to put you on the spot for the first question. So there’s some interest in the UK model of Emergency Preparedness Committees that you had brought up earlier, sort of this idea of having kind of -- or the need for multi-jurisdictional committees in order to sort of set -- for jurisdictions to set themselves up for a coordinated emergency response. I guess we’re interested in learning a little bit more about that and, in particular, whether and how that model accounts for challenges of personalities that a couple of you have referred to, and politics, and sort of, is there something built into that that if you’ve got the parties at the table and they come to an agreement about how to coordinate response, that it’s more than just a discussion, that they are -- sort of walk away and then they implement that agreement. So I wonder if you could elaborate on that UK model with that in mind.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. I don’t know if other have thoughts on that question?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Yeah, Professor Lindsay.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
M’hm. I think that’s a good point, though the more jurisdictions that are involved, that would sort of speak to the need of ---
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Yeah, more coordination, right, making that type of multi-jurisdictional consensus building even more important. Thank you. I think, actually, there’s another question that’s sort of related to this and I think we’ll bring a few more of you into the conversation. So one of the points that came up earlier was around the importance of sharing information across jurisdictions, and I wonder if some of the experts here might be able to elaborate on the challenges that might be involved in sharing information, particularly when there’s sensitivities involved in the type of information that could be shared, whether it’s national security, maybe, but maybe it’s -- you know, it could even be inventory-type things, or it could be personal health information like the example that President Sayers brought up earlier. So I think it would -- we’d just like to hear a little bit more about some of the challenges and barriers to information sharing that would be encountered in bringing about one -- this kind of structure where you’ve got everybody at the table.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Anybody, so I’m looking for ---
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
--- non-verbal cues here of who might like to ---
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you, Mr. Teschner.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
President Sayers?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Yeah, thank you for that. And, Professor Newman, I'll turn to you, but do you have any thoughts on where President Sayers just left off, that would be helpful; right? I do think that when these challenges come up, they're often legislative barriers that public officials can point to, and so are there legislative changes or specific legislative changes that need to be made to allow for sharing of information in these -- in emergency contexts. Please go ahead, yeah.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Mr. Corley?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Other thoughts? Yeah, Professor Lindsay.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thanks. Okay. Continuing on with this theme of sort of sharing, coordination and then specifically about consultation, and we had a good conversation earlier about meaningful consultation. And so I guess on that note, should the notion of meaningful consultation, if the Emergencies Act is reformed, should that notion of meaningful consultation be specifically about the question of whether to invoke the Emergencies Act, or does meaningful consultation mean consultation about the underlying circumstances, the issues and the possible solutions. So just looking for a little bit more discussion on this idea of meaningful consultation specifically in this context of invoking the Emergencies Act. So is there anyone that would like to start with this? Yeah, President Sayers.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Professor Newman?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Yeah, thank you. Mr. Corley?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Maybe I’ll put this question in a slightly different frame. Is it -- if a government is not direct about the question that -- about invoking the Emergencies Act, does that mean that it’s not meaningful consultation, even if the conversations that have happened have explored a range of -- the range of underlying causes and a range of solutions? I think that’s -- because, I mean, one of the things that we’re sort of -- we’ve canvassed in this conversation is the importance of bringing a number of different governments and stakeholders to the table, but also that might create a challenge in terms of how forthcoming, I guess, and the kinds of information that can be shared in those conversations. And so, yes, we want to have a lot of smart minds at the table so that you’re exploring solutions, but I guess if there’s going to be a decision made around invoking the Emergencies Act, does that need to be directly part of the conversation in order for that to be a meaningful conversation and meaningful consultation? Yeah, Mr. Teschner?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Okay. So I have two questions here about other agencies that -- one that has been part of the conversation so far, and then a new one. So we’ve talked a bit about private security. And Mr. Corley, in particular, you gave the example of how private security could have been used with respect to the events in Ottawa, for example, to man checkpoints, right, on the roads. And so I guess the question is, should police have the power to hire private security for specific functions during emergencies? And if so, do we need legislation to enable that? And what kinds of duties would you see private security appropriately assuming during an emergency?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Do others have thoughts on this question? Okay. Mr. Lindsay, I have a question that I think you’re well positioned to answer here. So -- but others are free to jump in as well. So one of the agencies that we haven’t talked about is the Canadian Armed Forces. And so under our model of emergency management, provinces can make requests for assistance to the Federal Government and I think we have a bit of a pattern now of when those requests for assistance come in, it’s often the military that responds, whether it was during COVID and staffing long-term care homes, or during floods or wildfires. Are there other models that we should be exploring, rather than assuming that the military is going to be there to fill these requests and is well positioned to fill these requests when they come in? Are there alternate models that we should be thinking of?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Do others have thoughts on that question around the role of the military in responding to provincial requests for assistance? President Sayers?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Thank you. Okay. Commissioner, do you have other questions or clarifications?
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Sorry, Cal. You get the last word.
-
Jocelyn Stacey, Prof. (Law – University of British Columbia)
Yeah, thank you for those examples. All right.