Declaration of Emergency Committee on Dec. 1st, 2022

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Do you agree with that statement?

[Jody Thomas]

Solicitor-client privilege—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Do you agree, yes or no?

[Jody Thomas]

I am not answering that—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

I cede the rest of my time to my colleague.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to my colleague.

To ITAC, would you agree that contrary to the suggestions from Ms. Bendayan, there are individuals and groups that attach themselves to a protest and try to use that protest for their own ideological purpose? Would you agree with that statement?

[Jody Thomas]

Yes.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

The suggestion has been made by Ms. Bendayan that the people in Coutts were somehow protesters, but they were not. The RCMP has confirmed that.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, I never made such a suggestion.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

You did.

Anyway, Madam Chair, I'd like to take this opportunity in the time that I have left, and beyond, to move the motion that was circulated to the committee. I will advise that my intent is to briefly explain what it is, for those who may not know, and to adjourn the debate on that until next meeting.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I have a point of order.

I want to be clear, Madam Chair, procedurally, that Mr. Motz is taking this time for the intervention to give notice because, if I am correct, the correct amount of notice time prior to the meeting did not elapse. Therefore, procedurally, he can't table it and then adjourn it. Those are different things.

Providing a notice verbally is one thing. Tabling it and adjourning it is another.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Mr. Motz, I believe the proper terminology would be just to give notice. I thought that's what we had discussed.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Fair enough. I will give notice that we will table this motion.

Here's the idea behind it.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Mr. Motz, I just want to inform you that you have about 25 seconds left.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

But this is not part of my intervention; this is the moving of a motion.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Pardon me, then. I thought it was. Go ahead.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you.

An area of significant discussion that we've had at this committee has been whether the necessary threshold for the government to declare a public order emergency under the Emergencies Act had actually been satisfied. The matter of the interpretation of those thresholds, including, especially, the so-called—

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, just on a point of order, I believe Mr. Motz is explaining the rationale behind the notice he's giving us—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Yes.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

—and he is meant to be doing that during the remaining portion of his questioning time, which is apparently 25 seconds, according to what you just said.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

I'm informed that it doesn't count in your question time, but I'm wondering, Mr. Motz, if you can make it as brief as possible since it's a notice of motion.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Absolutely. I'd have been done already had we not been interrupted so often, Madam Chair.

The matter of the interpretation of these thresholds, including especially the so-called CSIS Act threshold about what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada, has lately become a central issue in the proceedings before the Public Order Emergency Commission.

You will all recall that when the Attorney General of Canada appeared before our committee on April 26, he insisted upon solicitor-client privilege when questioned about these thresholds. In the face of this claim, on May 31, the committee ordered—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Chair, this is not a notice of motion; this is a speech—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

—the production of all legal opinions upon which the government determined—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

—of no consequence to the witnesses before us. Maybe he has a question for the witnesses.