Evidence of meeting #20 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 funds.
A video is available from Parliament.
7:55 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. Motz, can you wrap up the notice of motion, please?
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I'm not debating it. I'm simply introducing this particular motion that's going to be before us next week, for those who might not understand what it is we're asking for.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Transparency for Canadians is what I'm after here. Obviously, those who are opposed to this aren't anxious about transparency.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you.
Evidence heard in the last few days of the commission has made it clear that the government adopted for itself a broader interpretation of the CSIS Act threshold than CSIS itself employs to justify declaring a national emergency. The director of CSIS confirmed that this was done on the strength of a legal opinion prepared by the Department of Justice. The commission's efforts to probe these issues further have been repeatedly stonewalled by the government.
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Madam Chair, I believe he's simply reading from a cover letter that he distributed to all of us. We all got that letter.
If that's the notice, then we don't have to be listening to this.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Then it can be discussed next week as we just agreed, Madam Chair.
This is absolutely unacceptable.
7:55 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Mr. Motz, can I just ask you to wrap up? I think you got a fair bit on the record already.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Our committee is uniquely positioned to assist in getting answers for both the commission and Canadians, and with the law of parliamentary privilege being of a constitutional nature, our committee and the House power supersede statutory law—
7:55 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Madam Chair, if you have made a ruling, it can be challenged, and I so challenge that ruling. I do not understand what is happening to this committee. Reading a two-page letter into the record does not constitute giving a notice of motion.
7:55 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
With the commission's report being tabled in less than a month....
Pardon me?
7:55 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Yes, I believe you've covered it. Thank you.
Mr. Virani, go ahead for five minutes.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Thomas, I'm going to start with you. Obviously, in the CSIS Act, there's a definition of threats to the security of Canada. Paragraph 2(c) of that definition talks about “activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political...objective within Canada or a foreign state”. There are also a few other categories.
Are you aware of that definition?
8 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Ms. Thomas, you testified in front of the public order inquiry before Justice Rouleau, and obviously you were subjected to cross-examination by a number of different counsel.
The Government of Canada counsel at one point asked you some questions regarding your understanding of the perceived aims of some of the protesters, and you responded that you understood that there were various aims, including the removal of the Prime Minister. Do you recollect that testimony?