Declaration of Emergency Committee on Dec. 8th, 2022

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Do any of the colleagues around the table have a sense of how many people we're talking about?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

The remainder of the work plan was circulated earlier. I don't have the number off the top of my head because I don't have the work plan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, can we suspend for a minute?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Sure. I think that's reasonable.

We're going to suspend for three minutes.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'm going to call the meeting back to order.

I believe I saw a quick flash of the hand from Mr. Virani.

The floor is yours.

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

We've had some discussions, and the Liberal members of the committee would be minded to support it subject to one condition, which is that the three co-chairs be empowered to vet the list. That's not simply for the purposes of excluding people who have already presented at the Rouleau inquiry, but also for the purpose of ensuring there is some equity among the people who have been invited to provide a written brief among the various invitations that have been issued by various political parties.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

That seems reasonable.

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

The clerk looks a bit puzzled.

What I mean is that we have equity among those witnesses who are being asked by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Liberals, and the senators to provide briefs.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

It seems that we have consensus on that.

Can we pass the amendment as referred to the chairs?

Could we read that again?

[The Joint Clerk, Ms. Miriam Burke]

It is that the motion be amended by adding the following words at the end of paragraph (a): “provided that the joint clerks invite each individual or organization listed on the analysts' work plan, dated May 11, 2022, who has not appeared before the committee or the Public Order Emergency Commission to submit a brief to the committee for its consideration, with briefs encouraged to be provided to the joint clerks within one month, and that the joint clerks arrange for any briefs provided to be translated, circulated to committee members and published on the committee's website, and that briefs be limited to five pages, and that the three co-chairs vet the list to ensure equity among the parties.”

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I hate to nitpick, but where it talks about each of the witnesses who did not appear before the committee, I think the word “each” should be removed. Otherwise it would be impossible to have equity among the parties. There's a bit of a contradiction.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

There are no procedural shenanigans here, so that worked out well.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to on division)

Colleagues, we're on to the next motion.

Mr. Motz, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

We circulated a motion here a couple of days ago with respect to the documents we've been trying to get at as a committee. This particular motion is very similar to the one we had back in May. It took some of the concerns that were related by some committee members with respect to that and invited the law clerks to be part of it. Again, we have some timelines on it, as you'll see in the motion.

We've heard from a number of witnesses repeatedly, as well as Commissioner Rouleau, as well as the lawyers there, that it's unfortunate that we are somewhat operating in a vacuum without some of these documents. We need to pursue getting those documents to this committee, and then in turn giving those documents to the Public Order Emergency Commission as well.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Go ahead on the motion, Mr. Harder.

[Peter Harder]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I will not support this motion as drafted. I think it is somewhat convoluted in process and enjoins our law clerks to undertake work that is not in their area of specialization.

With respect to the sense that this would provide information to the Rouleau commission that it was unable to secure, I would simply like to put on the record the words of Commissioner Rouleau of November 25, on page 254 of the transcripts, lines 18 to 25, where he says the following:

Most importantly, I am satisfied that I now have the evidence that I need to make the factual findings and to answer the questions I have been mandated to ask, namely, why did the Federal Government declare the emergency, how did it use its powers, and were those actions appropriate? These are questions that, as I said at the outset, the public wants answered, and I am confident that I am now well-positioned to provide those answers.

I think we should pay attention to Justice Rouleau.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

I think what we heard through the commission, more than Justice Rouleau's final comments.... He had factual findings, and he feels he can make a decision based on what he had, but he's still making it in a vacuum, quite honestly. His own lawyer has indicated the unfortunate reality that the government is withholding this information.

This is about transparency to the public. The public needs to have some sense of what the government relied upon. This committee needs to have some sense of what the government relied upon, as well as the commissioner. This is an attempt by this committee to do what we were asked to do, and that's to look at all the information the government relied upon to invoke the Emergencies Act.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Mr. Virani, the floor is yours, sir.

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

I have a preliminary question. What I have from Mr. Motz is something that was circulated on November 30. It's a motion of about five pages. Then I have something that was circulated by Mr. Motz on December 6. In some respects there's some overlap, but I'm just a bit concerned: Exactly which motion between those two are we discussing right now?

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

The motion from November 29 is not being pursued. It hasn't been tabled, because we weren't able to on that particular day. The motion of December 6 is the one that stands.

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

Okay. So we're now talking about the motion from December 6.

With respect to the motion from December 6, I'm not actually clear that this committee—or any parliamentary committee, for that matter—has the authority or the ability to direct material to be brought to the attention of either the quasi-judicial inquiry being headed by Justice Rouleau or any inquiry, for that matter. There are two occasions on which this document, as proposed, suggests doing exactly that.

Perhaps the clerk could clarify that issue.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

When you're asking the clerk to clarify, are you asking the clerk to make a legal opinion on your opinion?

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

I'm just wondering if it is within the scope for a parliamentary committee to order something to be brought to the attention of a judicial inquiry that's already concluded its evidence-gathering.

I know what a judge can ask for, but if they're not asking for something, can we forcibly send something to a judicial inquiry? Do you know of any precedent in that regard, Madam Clerk?

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

I'm not sure it's a fair question to put to the clerk. We are the masters of our own domain within this committee and have the ability, through voting, to determine what we want to do with information that we receive. It would be up to the quasi-judicial inquiry to accept it or not.

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

Well, I do think it's salient to the analysis, Mr. Chair, in terms of trying to make a determination as to how we'd vote on this matter. It's asking the committee to do potentially something that's beyond our jurisdiction to do.

Point (k) says, “the Joint Clerks be directed to bring this Order to the attention of the Public Order Emergency Commission.” Point (g) says, “documents to be provided to the Public Order Emergency Commission forthwith upon receipt”.