Evidence of meeting #3 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 inquiry.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:25 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
It wasn't a matter of being so specific as to exclude the terms. We didn't say this could not be done, but we wanted to make sure that the final review that was done by the ex post facto review would be as comprehensive as possible.
What is anomalous here and—
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
If it would be as comprehensive as possible in terms of the mandate of this committee, then why is there a double standard?
8:25 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
There's not a double standard, but let me talk about this committee. What we didn't anticipate was that the emergency would end as rapidly as it did in this instance.
8:25 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you, Mr. Beatty.
I actually got caught up in the exchange and perhaps provided a little more time than usual.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
8:30 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I am getting feedback back through my earphones here. I don't know whether it's possible for committee staff to help on that.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I've heard direction from staff and I think it actually pertains to my previous statement before the last witnesses.
Mr. Beatty, I don't know if you were privy to that, but I stated that, from time to time, given the nature of the rounds, members have the ability to interject and move to the next question, just to protect the timing of their round.
For the members who are around this committee, it's important to note that when you proactively press your button concurrent with the floor, there will be feedback. If we interrupt or if we intervene with the witness, that will cause feedback. I just want members to be aware of that.
Mr. Beatty, from time to time, there will be the need for members to nudge you on to another question, to protect their very limited time.
8:30 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I do appreciate the experience you bring to us here today.
We will now go to Mr. Fortin for four minutes.
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Beatty, to help give us insight into this act.
As you pointed out, the act had never been invoked prior to this. The last time the act was invoked, in its previous iteration—the War Measures Act—was about 52 years ago, in October 1970. This is clearly an exceptional situation. As you know, we're here to find out just how far we can go in our examination and to determine how we should proceed.
Inlight of your remarks today, Mr. Beatty, and comments the committee has heard to date, we could call the Emergencies Act the heavy artillery of Canadian legislation, so to speak. Do you agree with me that it's the sledgehammer in the government's legislative toolkit when it comes to dealing with exceptional situations?
8:30 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
It is, and that's why it's designed as a last resort. It's why we built so many levels of protection into it.
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Is it fair to say, then, that, ideally, it should never be used? In an ideal world, it would never be necessary to invoke the Emergencies Act. Its use should be limited to extreme circumstances, and even then, it must be used sparingly, carefully and wisely. I repeat, ideally, it would never be used.
Am I right about that, Mr. Beatty?
8:30 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Yes, sir, but we don't live in an ideal world, and we need legislation like this for that reason. There will be in future, inevitably, unforeseen emergencies that result in special powers being necessary, but we have to counterbalance those powers with protections for Parliament and for civil rights.
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
It's clear from your comments that you are very wise. I think you're absolutely right.
Therefore, when our committee carries out its mandate to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties pursuant to the act, should we not question the wisdom behind the exercise of such exceptional powers?
8:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
Our job is to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties. The act gives the government a certain number of exceptional powers. We must subject the exercise of those powers to verification, scrutiny and review.
In reviewing those exceptional powers, the committee should also determine whether those powers were exercised wisely, sparingly and carefully, should it not? Is that part of our mandate, in your view?
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Co-Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
All right, it is.
Thank you, Mr. Beatty.
The next person can have the floor.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you very much. I will take my time.
Mr. Beatty, thank you for your sober reflections.
I would share many of the points in your analysis of the need for this committee to hopefully provide for Canadians some recommendations that will provide future instances of emergencies with clear parameters through which this emergency order should be invoked. In those remarks, I'm reflecting on this committee's task of trying to contemplate the difference between the inquiry, which would likely be more judicial in nature, and that of the legislative process.
Being a former legislator yourself, would you agree that in the full contemplation of the conditions leading up to the emergency, it would be appropriate for us at this committee to contemplate those things, to hear those testimonies, in order to be able to provide at the end of this process a fulsome set of recommendations and report back to the House and to the Senate, and that they may then become future frameworks for legislative amendments that might better guide the government?
Would you agree with that?
8:35 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
In that space, I think you touched on the nature of politics.
I'm going to share that our early experience here has been one that is very collegial between the different houses—to unpack this, in a way—but there are some core differences. With regard to the spirit of having you here, from my perspective, we hear a lot about the intention and the spirit, and I feel that prior to your testimony, there were members of this committee who were ascribing to you in that time very prescriptive definitions.
I would like for you to continue your line of answering from when the assertion was made that, in its contemplation, by not including explicitly the parameters of this under section 62, we were somehow providing a narrow definition. If I recall, you said that was not the case, that if you wanted narrow definitions, you would have explicitly put that in, and not vice versa.
If you could, with a minute and a half remaining, please provide further context to that, given that there's been much discussion about the original spirit and intention of this act as it was drafted.
8:35 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Yes, sir. First of all, you correctly described my view.
Secondly, what I was starting to explain was that one of the anomalies of the situation we're in today was that we anticipated that an emergency would probably continue for a considerable period of time. What wasn't raised at the time is what happens if the declaration is revoked before the committee ever meets.
I think somebody in the earlier section raised the point that when we envisioned this committee, we anticipated that the emergency would be ongoing and that this committee would play a supervisory role. There would be that constant parliamentary scrutiny of the government's actions. In this instance, the government withdrew the declaration before the committee was ever struck.
Indeed, the government might very well have withdrawn the declaration before Parliament ever voted on it, and an argument could be made that they should have done that. As a result, then, you are indeed defining, for the first time, what the role of this committee would be.
8:35 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
That's an important reflection, and I thank you for that.
It became clear to me within those seven days that there should have been perhaps—retrospectively, looking back at it now—language within section 62, which would have an almost immediate effect, that as soon as it was invoked, there would be a review process in place. Again, though, we are looking back at it.
That is my time.
I will now pass it on to Senator Boniface.