Chair, I won't add much more to the eloquence of my friend, but I would agree.
As I read this, once I realized I was going to be on the committee, to me, the exercise of powers is exactly.... In order to understand how those powers were exercised, you have to understand the circumstances that led them to believe they needed to be exercised in the first place.
Canadians—and you have to look at this through the eye of a Canadian who is concerned and watching what we do on this. No one can reasonably be expected to review this declaration and whether it was appropriate or not without looking at the reason behind the invocation in the first place.
If the emergencies proclamation was unlawful, it follows then that the invocation itself, or the exercise of powers, would be equally unlawful, if that's what the conclusion is.
As Mr. Brock said, it would certainly be reasonable for us to have a full view of those who made the decision in the first place to invocate this Emergencies Act. How can we possibly say whether it was appropriate or not without having the same set of circumstances that they looked at to make their decision that we also look at to make our decision?
I would respectfully have to disagree with Mr. Virani and suggest that there might be other bullet points, if we will, about this motion that we can add to this to give us a fulsome....
If you look at it from the perspective of those of us who have been in law enforcement, when you look at an arrest, the lawfulness of that arrest is looked at in its totality, the reasonableness of it. If you're doing a search, was it a warrantless search and was that warrantless search reasonable? You have to look at all the factors that led to that conclusion.
Frankly, I can't make a fully informed decision on whether this was appropriate or not without seeing all the facts that everybody else at that time used to make that decision.