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.