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.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
To myself, I spoke too long in my questions and I limited your answers. If you would like to provide a response....
I will chair myself and cut this session short. It got me.
9:05 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
The problem wasn't the question. It was the length of the answer.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I appreciate your grace.
We will now turn it over to Senator Boniface for a two-minute round.
9:05 p.m.
The Joint Chair Hon. Gwen Boniface
Thank you very much.
Mr. Beatty, I just want to follow up on your comments, in which you referred to the layers of oversight necessary for the invocation of the act. I'm trying to get clarity, but I'm not sure I'm there yet, in terms of how you saw the complementary nature of the inquiry versus the parliamentary review.
You indicated that they may overlap, and I don't disagree with you, but in your vision and putting it together, how did you see them differ from each other?
9:05 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Senator, it was belt and suspenders. We wanted to just build in as many protections as possible, but the parliamentary review, this committee, was expected to be doing its work while the proclamation was still in force.
The review that would be done ex post facto would take place after it was over. We'd be able to stand back from the events, take a look at all of them and have a quite a different perspective.
However, we wanted this committee in particular, if there was an ongoing emergency that ran for weeks or months.... We wanted Parliament to have that continuing daily scrutiny of how the government was using the authorities and what the impacts were on civil liberties.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
9:05 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to repeat the question I asked you earlier, but this time, you'll have a chance to answer.
The government has the power to arrest people, to ticket people for parking their vehicles in the street and to seek court injunctions to move vehicles. On top of that, mayors have the authority to declare a state of emergency in their cities and to take all necessary measures to deal with the problem and restore order. Those are powers that can be exercised without the invoking of the Emergencies Act.
9:10 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
When seven provinces state that they did not need emergency powers because they had sufficient powers, how can the declaration of a public order emergency in all provinces and territories be warranted?
9:10 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
The requirement of the act is that there be full consultation with each of the provinces, not that they each agree.
If the act is going to be invoked and directed to only one jurisdiction, one province, then the province would have to agree to that before it could be invoked. However, in this instance, I have no quarrel with the ability of the government, having done consultations with all of the provinces, to move ahead. Indeed, the province primarily affected supported the invocation of the act.
9:10 p.m.
Senator, Quebec (Mille Isles), C
Which body do you think the Governor in Council should task with the inquiry?
9:10 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
You raise a very important question. That came up in the earlier session that you folks had.
That's not spelled out in the act, but my recommendation would be that the government appoint a group that is at arm's length to the government. That's not required in the act, in my reading of it, but it should be, to satisfy the public that there's a full, fair and transparent review.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend that it be a judge who does it. It could be, but you could very well be taking people with other backgrounds and competencies to look at questions such as the nature of policing the capital, or a whole range of other issues.
In my view, it should be as broad-ranging as possible. It should definitely be independent of government. It should be able to look at all aspects of how we ensure that if there were a similar situation in the future, we wouldn't have to resort to the act again.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you. I wanted to ensure that with the fullness of the answer, you were provided time.
Mr. Beatty, we have come to the conclusion of the rounds and we are left with only 20 minutes.
To the members of this committee, I would put it to you there are still some administrative matters pertaining to our work plan, our witness lists and motions that have been adjourned to contemplate for future meetings. I don't know that we're going to have time to get in another round, so I want to put it to the committee and see what you would like to do in this moment.
I would also like to say that I have found both sections, but particularly this one, to be of great value to the committee. I wouldn't want to predict, Mr. Beatty, given your schedule, that this would be the only opportunity to have you come down should we, in our reflections, wish to further understand what it was like when this was drafted.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
We now have on the speakers' list Mr. Virani and then Mr. Motz.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
We have about 17 minutes left. I believe it might be helpful if we had a situation where the different entities that have been given turns thus far could be given two minutes each for one further question.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Okay. Here we go.
We're going to go with a quick-fire round of questioning, beginning with two minutes for Mr. Motz.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beatty. I have one quick question for you.
If I heard you correctly over the course of this evening, your testimony is that, as a legislator, it would behoove this committee...it would be negligent of this committee if we did not review all the evidence that was available to the government to make the decisions on the invocation. That should be part of our purview.
Am I correct in making that assumption, based on your testimony today, sir?
9:10 p.m.
CP, OC, As an Individual
Sir, it's for the committee to decide, but if I were on the committee, I would argue that it is appropriate to look at the basis on which the government invoked the act.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
9:10 p.m.
NDP
