Evidence of meeting #2 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 chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:45 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Green.
I have Mr. Naqvi, Ms. Bendayan and Mr. White on my list. If there are other people that I haven't noticed, please let me know.
Mr. Virani, I'm adding you to the list.
Mr. Naqvi, you have the floor.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the sentiment that has been expressed by various members of this committee, but I do want to remind my colleagues that we have to look at the statute under which we have been created.
Our mandate is outlined in section 62 of the Emergencies Act, and section 62 is not the only provision that is enumerated in this particular piece of legislation. There are more processes than one that have been clearly outlined in this act. It's no coincidence that it's written that way.
Clearly, Parliament, when it passed this legislation, contemplated two different processes to take place. Therefore, they used different language in defining those two processes, i.e., the one that's outlined in section 62, under which we are constituted—and Mr. Virani went through the language quite well—and section 63, which clearly refers to an inquiry and has very distinct and different language in terms of the scope of that particular process.
Furthermore, we also should look at the entire statutory scheme that is outlined in the Emergencies Act. We are here because there was a declaration of emergency that was invoked and that was debated before the House of Commons and approved by a majority of members of the House of Commons. That is why the declaration went forward. Again, that particular process is a result of the steps that are outlined in the Emergencies Act as well.
I outline all these points to make a very specific point that there is very careful deliberation in this legislation in terms of checks and balances that Parliament had considered as to the process or the steps that must be followed when an emergency is invoked, and we have been pursuing all those steps until this point.
It would be wrong for us or erroneous on our part if we deviate from that process. Therefore, I would request that we look at section 62 and understand the words that are outlined in section 62, which are to consider, “The exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency” and that is the key document we should be considering, and how those powers were exercised and how they were performed. That is our role.
When I look at the motion in question and look at the first three bullets, I'm finding language that is very much in line with what's outlined in section 63 of this act, not section 62. If that process, of course, did not look at what circumstances led to the declaration, then they most likely will not be fulfilling their obligation, but in this instance, we have to be quite attentive to ensure that we fulfill the duties we've been asked to under section 62, under which we are constituted.
I therefore suggest that definitely the first three bullets of the motion proposed by Mr. Motz do not meet the criteria outlined in section 62 of the Emergencies Act.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few comments regarding the remarks that I just heard.
I'll begin with a few of the things mentioned by my colleague Mr. Green.
With the utmost respect, I do take issue with his reference to the fact.... I believe he said we shouldn't be covering up anything here. Nobody is covering up anything here. It's quite the contrary. Not only do we have this committee doing this work, but we also have a full inquiry that will be put in place between now and April 24. There is an interest on all sides of this House, and very much on this side, to continue to delve into this matter and to provide answers to Canadians. I would remind my colleague that we also have to provide that transparency and those answers in a timely fashion.
I would also like to take issue with the fact that what we are talking about here is very much dependent on the advice we will receive from.... I believe we just agreed to, and we can eventually discuss a motion to that effect, legal counsel, either independent legal counsel, as Mr. Motz proposed, or the law clerk or the Senate law clerk.
In this discussion, I believe it was my colleague Mr. Green who referred to what he believed was the legislative intent of section 62. I would propose that we must hear from former Conservative minister Perrin Beatty, who is the drafter of this piece of legislation, if we are to delve into the legislative intent of section 62 and the work of our committee.
I would like to move at this time that we adjourn debate on this motion and that we discuss a motion which was previously circulated to invite with urgency the law clerks, as well as the Honourable Perrin Beatty, in order for us to get a sense of the issues that we're all speculating on, and then come back to this motion as put forward by my colleague Mr. Motz.
To be clear, Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn debate.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Ms. Bendayan, I gather that you're suggesting that we adjourn the debate on this motion and hear from Perrin Beatty and the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House. Is that right?
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a motion to that effect. I fully understand that there can't be two motions before the committee at the same time.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I just want to make sure that I understand your motion and that we're talking about the same thing. Is your motion simply to adjourn the debate or does it also include the fact that—
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
If I could do so, I would, but I don't think that I'm allowed.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Right now, we must vote on the motion to adjourn the debate.
Ms. Bendayan announced that she would subsequently move a motion to hear from expert witnesses who can shed light on the purpose of the act.
Is there unanimous consent on the motion?
7:55 p.m.
A voice
No.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
In that case, Mr. Clerk, I'll let you proceed with a recorded division.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
7:55 p.m.
The Joint Clerk of the Committee Mr. Mark Palmer
There is a motion to adjourn debate on this motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The text of my motion has already been distributed, but I'll read it for the record:
That at the next meeting of this committee, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House and for the Senate be invited to appear before the committee to discuss its scope for a period of one and a half hours...
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Ms. Bendayan indicated that this was distributed. I haven't received anything.
7:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I believe that it was sent by email.
Do you have more copies of the motion, Ms. Bendayan?
8 p.m.
The Joint Clerk Mr. Paul Cardegna
This motion was distributed electronically at the last meeting.
We can send it again if people want it.