Okay.
Generally speaking, my two Liberal colleagues and I don't agree with Mr. Green's amendment for several reasons.
Continuing in the vein of what Senator Harder was referencing, it is really important that the committee draw reference to and that the record reflect what subsections 62(1) and 63(1) say in the statute.
Subsection 62(1), which relates to us, the parliamentary review committee, reads:
The exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency shall be reviewed by a committee of both Houses of Parliament designated or established for that purpose.
That is this committee with representatives of the Senate and members of Parliament. What we were meant to be looking at is “the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency.”
In contrast—and this came up in the debate we were having about 10 minutes ago—there is also an inquiry contemplated, which has to occur. That inquiry is entrenched in subsection 63(1) of the same statute, which reads:
The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held—
Here is the important part:
—into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency.
The key point here is that the inquiry has a retrospective and a prospective element, whereas the review committee does not have a retrospective element whatsoever vis-à-vis what happened prior to the invocation of the declaration. It speaks simply to the exercise of powers and performances of duties under that declaration.
Senator Harder's point is very well taken, because the first three bullets of what Mr. Motz is proposing are retrospective in their nature and, clearly, outside the scope of subsection 62(1). It's open for debate whether the remaining three, these being the choice and necessity of regulations, the constitutionality of those regulations and the use made of those regulations, fit squarely within subsection 62(1). That is my first general point.
The second point I would have is that it may be premature to be looking at this without the advice and input of those people experienced in interpreting these types of provisions, so that people aren't taking my word for it or the word of any of my colleagues. By “those people”, I mean perhaps hearing from the law clerk of the House of Commons or the law clerk of the Senate to help us with scoping the study before we take a preliminary decision on a motion without having the benefit of their interpretation of subsections 62(1) and 63(1).
I would also say, as a further submission, that when you look at the context of the motion—now I'm referring to the motion that was passed in the House of Commons, on which six of us voted—it reads in paragraph (a), the very first paragraph of that motion:
pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act—
That's the section I just read.
—a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to the declaration of emergency....
Again, it is not retrospective in nature. It is contemporary, what happened when the invocation was declared.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.