Declaration of Emergency Committee on Dec. 8th, 2022

[Claude Carignan]

So people other than Mr. Vigneault would have to have seen the legal opinion. The disclosure would have to have taken place outside that context in order for it to constitute an implicit waiver of the professional privilege.

[Dr. Leah West]

I would think that, with regard to anybody within government who is supporting the decision-making within cabinet, it would be justifiable for them to have access to that opinion. It wouldn't be a breach of solicitor-client privilege.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

That concludes the round. Thank you.

We now have, for the last round—and thank you very much to the witnesses who've stayed through this—Senator Harder for four minutes.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you to the witnesses, particularly for staying later than anticipated.

Professor Roach, I want to go back to the issue that you discussed several times tonight: the fragmentation in the nature of Canada's police system and how that was observed in the course of the events last February. You referenced Toronto a couple of times, and Senator Boniface was trying to get in on that, as well.

I'm not suggesting that Toronto benefited from the knowledge of the Ottawa experience alone, but it was sequential. I take your point about the mayor, the different attitudes of mayors and the local city police forces. Surely there was a difference, also, at the level of the OPP in terms of its integration in the approach that was taken in Toronto versus the reluctance to become involved in Ottawa. Would you agree with that assessment?

[Prof. Kent Roach]

Is the question that the OPP played a greater role in Toronto than it did in Ottawa, Senator?

[Peter Harder]

Yes.

[Prof. Kent Roach]

I think so, but I'm not confident in making that factual judgment. The OPP, certainly, I know, played a big role in Windsor. I'm actually not sure about whether it played a huge role in the two Toronto weekends. You may be right. I'm—

[Peter Harder]

As a resident of Ottawa, I sometimes felt that I had to remind the Province of Ontario that Ottawa was in the province of Ontario. There was a lot of appropriate attention, as there should have been, to the bridges. There was a lot of appropriate attention to the city of Toronto, but there was not that degree of attention, politically, through either the premier or the Solicitor General of Ontario, with respect to what was going on here.

That leads me back to your earlier comments about fragmentation. The fragmentation is not only institutional, with regard to the RCMP mandate; it's also in the rules of the game as they interact with those provinces that have provincial police forces.

Would you agree that there is a need to have written-down memoranda of understanding for how to coordinate in events such as this so that we have some basis of confidence that events like the ones we experienced last winter will be managed more coherently and be less fragmented?

[Prof. Kent Roach]

Absolutely. We need a framework for public order policing. It's not only here; it's also at the G20 and other situations where we have three levels—sometimes, including indigenous forces, there are four levels—working together. I think we need to work on that and have these protocols.

Ideally, we need to have as much of them in public as possible. There may be some operational details that can't be public, but, yes, we need to plan on how to coordinate our four levels of policing. I would include in that the Parliamentary Protective Service in some cases. Even private security policing is not simply a monolith.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you.

I very much agree with that and would reference the inquiry that is taking place in the Senate of Canada with regard to the need to overhaul the RCMP mandate and role. It is an inquiry that I hope can lead to a broader parliamentary conversation around the issues you've just raised.

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

Noting that the time now is 8:34 p.m., I want to thank both witnesses for appearing before us and staying a little bit later for the good and welfare of the committee.

We will now certainly bid our adieu and let you go back to your lives.

I will suspend the meeting for about five minutes for a health break, after which we'll return for our business section of the meeting.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'd like to call this meeting back to order.

We do have committee business.

With an eager hand up, I recognize Senator Harder.

Sir, the floor is yours.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll be brief, but I would like to move the motion standing in my name that has been circulated.

It reads as follows:

Following the last meeting in December, that:

a. the committee invite no further witnesses;

b. the analysts be instructed to prepare a summary of evidence to be distributed to members no later than February 10th, 2023,

c. Any discussions regarding its report take place in camera, and that;

d. The committee present its final report in the House of Commons and the Senate no later than March 31st, 2023.

Colleagues, this committee will have by then gone over a year. I believe it's important for us to have the framework for our ability to get to a report that can make a meaningful contribution to the consideration of Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'll recognize Mr. Motz.

Mr. Motz, go ahead on the motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

While there is general agreement with the principle of where Mr. Harder wants to go with this, I would certainly have a proposal for a subamendment if Mr. Harder is amenable to it, after further debate.

Or do you want me to make it now?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

You are the master of your own domain.

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

Mr. Harder, I would propose that we reassess after Rouleau publishes his report and that the motion be amended in paragraph (a) by adding “until the Public Order Emergency Commission's report has been published”, and then by deleting paragraphs (c) and (d).

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

We've heard the amendment, as proposed by Mr. Motz.

I recognize Senator Boniface on the amendment.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

I would just ask that he repeat it.

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

Yes, I will be happy to.

It is that the motion be amended in paragraph (a) by adding, “until the Public Order Emergency Commission's report has been published” at the very end and by deleting paragraphs (c) and (d).

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

On the amendment, we have Senator Harder.

[Peter Harder]

Thank you very much.

I will be brief.

I would not support the subamendment as described, only in referencing the fact that this committee could make any decision when it reconvenes in the new year. It may or may not be the view of the committee to review this motion. I think it would be very helpful to direct the analysts to begin to prepare the work of putting together the summary of evidence, and to have the expectation among ourselves of tabling a report by March 31, 2023.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'd like to put myself on the list for the moment. In doing so, I'll continue by passing the chair over to Senator Boniface.

So that I'm clear, I think what I'm hearing is not a material departure from where you wanted to start. You're suggesting, Senator Harder, that this is by no means officially wrapping it up. It's simply not inviting witnesses and then preparing a report. I want to understand that you also recognize that receiving the published report from the Public Order Emergency Commission will be a part of our overall consideration.

Is that correct?

[Peter Harder]

Yes, Chair. That's why I selected the dates that I have. It's on the expectation of when the Rouleau commission would report.

I'm also open to the notion that the committee, as a majority, might wish to hear a witness we haven't thought of. I think it's very important for us to put in play an expectation around which we can govern the work of this committee between now and when we reconvene after the break, and that we have as a deadline—notionally, at this point—March 31, 2023 for our report and act accordingly.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Okay, so this is simply a ceasing of the work plan as it's contemplated with the long list of witnesses, to turn our minds and our attention to the ultimate reporting phase.

As it relates to the rationale around it being in camera, would you be willing to respond to the rationale around that particular point?