Declaration of Emergency Committee on March 24th, 2022

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Yes, Mr. White?

[Vernon White]

No, disregard it. Thank you.

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Mark Palmer]

We're voting on the motion to adjourn debate.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

We will return to Mr. Naqvi's motion, which is the fourth motion, amended by Mr. Motz and Mr. Brock.

Mr. Green, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

I'm just referencing, in the wording of this.... It's important, in our work planning, that we get a good lexical order on our scheduling. It still feels like, in reviewing this, that we have the opportunity to pick the dates when these folks will come in. I think it's obvious that we're going to need to see these folks anyway, but what I caution is that we don't put the cart before the horse and have a scenario where we're boxed in on our scheduling. I just want to earmark that the dates are at the selection of our committee.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Ms. Bendayan, you have the floor.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I find myself in the position of vehemently agreeing with Mr. Green. This was the point I was going to make: There is nothing in this motion that specifies when these ministers need to come before the committee. I think the committee will be able to decide. Further to Mr. Motz's intervention earlier, if he wishes to hear from other witnesses before the ministers, I think that's entirely possible.

Given the importance of efficacy in this committee, as we have debated this motion, I request the chair move the committee to a vote.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

As there is no one else on the list, we can proceed to vote on Mr. Naqvi's motion, amended by Mr. Motz and Mr. Brock.

Mr. Clerk, please proceed with the vote.

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Mark Palmer]

We're voting on the motion as amended.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Is that clear? Do you want us to read the motion again?

I see it's clear to everyone.

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Mark Palmer]

Everybody agrees.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Everyone is in agreement, so the vote is unanimous.

(Motion agreed to)

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have another motion.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

You may submit your motion, Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

It has already been distributed. It reads as follows:

“That officials from the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice and from the RCMP, CSIS, CBSA and FINTRAC be invited to appear before this committee at a date chosen by the committee members, to discuss measures invoked on February 14 under the Emergencies Act, for a period of three hours.”

This change reflects our decision to hold three-hour meetings every Tuesday evening.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Mr. Harder, you have the floor.

[Peter Harder]

I just have an observation. Those are all appropriate, but I think three hours.... It's too many witnesses for too short a time.

Can we break it up in a fashion where we would have two sessions of three hours with half of each? There's a logical separation of the two. I'd be afraid that we wouldn't have enough time for some of the witnesses, and this is going to be important and ground-setting.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Mr. Virani, could this be a friendly amendment?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. We could say this:

“to appear before this committee on two dates chosen by the committee members”, etc.

At the end, it would be:

“for a period of three hours each.”

Does that work?

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Finally, there would be a total of six hours.

Do you agree with that, Mr. Virani?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes, I do.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Mr. Green, you have the floor.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

There are a couple of things. This list seems to be a little bit more robust than the previous one in terms of the numbers we have. We may need a third one.

The other thing I picked up on is that these motions are prescriptive. With what we have done in the previous motion and what may have been interpreted in this one, I want clarity, to put it on the record now, whether we have made a de facto decision on the scope by suggesting that the people here are only here to discuss the measures invoked on February 14.

I would like to ask the movers if they would provide clarity on whether or not they have pre-emptively narrowed the scope prior to us seeking the legal interpretation that we agreed, I thought in good spirit, we would wait to receive.

I would like to ask the movers of this motion and the previous one if they would be willing to clarify whether or not they would allow these motions to be interpreted in a manner that would be consistent with the feedback we receive from legal counsel, or if they have prescribed in these motions specificity that would limit the ministers and limit the members of the public safety committees that have been listed to only discussing those things on the 14th.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair, the answer, of course, is that there's nothing in this motion that would limit the scope. The scope is to be determined by this committee after we hear from the people we want to hear from. Ultimately, the determination as to what is appropriately put to the witnesses who appear before this committee will be made on a case-by-case basis by whoever sits in that chair, based on the relevance to the scope, whatever we determine the scope to be for this committee.

There is no effort, through the back door or the front door, to limit the scope via these motions. These are simply somewhat matter-of-fact motions about groups, entities or ministers whom it is fairly obvious we will need to hear from for the purposes of this parliamentary review committee.

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I appreciate that. There have been lots of discussions about backdoor socialism and everything else within the House. I'm glad it hasn't bled over into this committee.

If I could, though.... We have the third potential date. This isn't just going to be two meetings. Is that clear?