Thank you very much, Chair.
My apologies that I am attending this meeting virtually, given my parental duties.
I am one of the members who have been part of this committee from the get-go. I have sat through hours and hours of meetings with similar conversations with witnesses, and hearing their perspectives on what happened.
As I read the motion tabled by Mr. Motz, I am inclined to think this is an effort to have this committee act almost as de novo just because of a decision from a court on first instance only.
In my view, this motion is too broad. We have already heard from most of these witnesses. That information is available to us to do our job, and just because we have one decision from a trial division level does not give us enough reason to start all over again.
Not to mention, as I am hearing my colleagues speak, especially from the Conservative side, that I am again reminded that they're attempting to go beyond the scope of the legislation.
I remind members of this committee to look at subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act that outlines very clearly the scope of this parliamentary review. By Mr. Brock's assertion, if Justice Rouleau were not required, under the act, to look at the issues of constitutionality, I would suggest to you, if you look at the wording in subsection 62(1), nor are we asked to look at the constitutionality of the matter.
We have the Rouleau commission before us. We have that extensive report, and we also have a decision by a Federal Court trial division.
What we need to focus on is Mrs. Romanado's motion, which presents a far more credible path in terms of inviting both the Justice Minister and the Minister of Public Safety, so that we can hear their perspectives as to the Mosley decision. We can then hear from the Privy Council to better understand the issues around translation, and collectively come up with a path that will allow us to bring this committee to a conclusion with a report that will serve the best interests of Canadians.
It's quite obvious that we may have more than one report on this matter as this has been part of this committee for almost two years now, and we are hearing people present their views, and that's okay. I think that people are entitled to do so, but let's get to the point where we can share our perspective with Canadians, given the amount of work we have done. However, going back in circles and starting anew is not going to serve that purpose. I think we will be providing a disservice to Canadians.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.