Go ahead, MP Blaikie.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-8.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #20 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-8.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Sure.
I have a few things. First, I want to thank Mr. McLean for bringing this motion forward. It is a really extraordinary time and the government is taking some extraordinary measures. It's appropriate that we, as parliamentarians, provide oversight and that this oversight begin as quickly as possible.
What I would add to our understanding of this study.... I'm not sure if we even need an amendment for what I'm looking for. I note that the motion already says, “Any other issue or topic related to the extension of powers or their effect on the Canadian financial system by the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act”.
What I'm concerned about—and we've seen this sometimes in cases where extraordinary powers have been granted—is that the police may pass on to financial institutions the names of people who have nothing to do with the convoy that is the justification for the invocation of emergency measures. They might have people on watch-lists for other political causes and might see this as an opportunity to flag them, to get information about them and to pass on information about them. It's really important that we, as parliamentarians, endeavour in our study to add that to our oversight work and look for reassurances—not just reassurances but concrete accountability mechanisms—to make sure that law enforcement isn't taking this as an opportunity to cast a wide net, but is respecting the very limited scope of the powers that it has been granted under the government's declaration of emergency powers.
That's something I would like to be part of our understanding of the study, if there are no objections by any members of the committee. I would take that to be understood as part of the study under section vii. Otherwise, I'd be happy to seek to amend it, because I think that's an important part of our oversight work.
Those are my comments on the substance of the motion.
On the process, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be able to vote on this today as something that we need to move forward with. If we want to try to meet as early as next Tuesday on this matter, it's important that we settle it.
If we have agreement from the committee that this is what we want to study, I'm happy to have a subcommittee meeting to do the real work of figuring out how to work that into the schedule and how it interacts with the other priorities that we've already identified. This clearly has to be the priority, given that it pertains to emergency measures in an emergency. It's incumbent upon us to get to this right away. If we can't deal with this and get an approval for the study right away, the other option would be to have an emergency meeting of the committee in order to discuss this motion and get it approved so that we're on our way.
The subcommittee is definitely there for planning, but I don't think we need a subcommittee meeting.... In fact, the subcommittee can't adopt this as a study for the committee, so we do need the committee to say that this is something we want to study, and then the subcommittee can meet to decide how we study it and when we study it.
Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Blaikie.
The clerk has alerted me that MP Dzerowicz has her hand up in the room. After that, I see MP Beech's hand is up.
Go ahead, MP Dzerowicz.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you so much.
I think we're all in agreement that this is an urgent and important study for us to undertake—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I understood that you were going to let me speak after Mr. Blaikie.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
You asked to speak after MP Blaikie to MP Beech's comments.
Please, go ahead.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you.
The only amendment we're looking at in this—just for clarification, Mr. Beech—is the date. We'd like the date to start next week.
As I said, I think there's some accommodation we'd like to make on this as far as what's happening with Bill C-8 is concerned. Calling the minister on Bill C-8 would be something we would yield on here in order to have her here for this study as opposed to Bill C-8. We would move past all the rest of the hearings we had scheduled on Bill C-8. There's obviously going to have to be some give on some of the issues before us, and that is an issue I think we can give on, having other witnesses.
We'd still like to have the Governor of the Bank of the Canada here when he was scheduled to be here, because it's the only time we can get him, so we'd like to stick to that in the agenda. However, we would like to start on this study next week.
When we initially drafted this motion, we were thinking that we couldn't accommodate around Bill C-8, and we've decided to let that whole process go. I think most of the amendments we've discussed are going to be submitted by the 25th anyway, and we can do line-by-line according to the schedule that you've set previously, so there would be no compromise as far as getting that through the House is concerned. That accommodates that.
I do think that all Canadians have a heightened awareness of this and what this means for their financial system and the way their banks are treating them. I would like this to move forward as quickly as possible and we'll hopefully get a vote on it today.
I appreciate Mr. Blaikie as well in accommodating his concerns into the motion we have here today.
The one amendment of course is about “no later than Thursday, March 3”. Of course, that would be Tuesday. That's in part (b). It would be Tuesday, February 22. That would be it.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I'll say mine very quickly, and then I think Mr. Beech is just going to finish off what I have to say.
This is urgent and important. I think we're unanimous on that. We do have lots on the go, as Mr. Beech has very well articulated. We also have amendments to this motion that I think, for the most part, will be favourable, but I think that's going to take some time, which we don't have.
Is there a way we could agree in principle with the study, gather witnesses to start on Tuesday, and then have that emergency meeting that Mr. Blaikie talked about to organize all of the timings and maybe finalize the wording of this particular motion?
That's what I'm putting on the table in terms of suggestions, and then I'll get Mr. Beech to finish up.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
If the committee is willing to go forward with Ms. Dzerowicz's suggestion, then I'll defer to that.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Sure, but maybe I'd just make a modification to Ms. Dzerowicz's proposal, which is that we vote on this motion and we pass this motion for the study, and we add to the subcommittee's agenda an item about the scope of the motion. Then the subcommittee could discuss some of these other amendments and make a recommendation to the committee, which the committee could then adopt or refuse at the next meeting.
At least passing this study motion in its current form would allow us to begin reaching out to witnesses, and then it would allow for some of the discussion that needs to happen around the scope of it at the subcommittee. Then, when the full committee next deals with this, it can deal with it having the benefit of the subcommittee having hashed out some of the issues and proposed a kind of unified and concrete recommendation for what it would look like going forward.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
We can't agree to vote on this motion without actually addressing some of the language that's in it, but what we can agree on—if Mr. Blaikie is amenable, and if the other members opposite are amenable—is to proceed in principle with the study, call some of the witnesses who are on this list to appear on Tuesday, and defer the motion to the subcommittee for the final text to be confirmed at the earliest possible meeting time.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm certainly open to that, if that means less delay in getting on with this study. Perhaps this is a question for the clerk.
I'm just curious about having witnesses and then incorporating them later into a study that we authorize after we've had some witnesses. I think that can be done if we're all on the same page, but I'm wondering if it creates some administrative difficulty for you to be trying to get witnesses to committee for a study that does not yet have any authority out of the committee.
5:35 p.m.
The Clerk
First of all, on the public notices of meetings, the study is mentioned on the notice itself, so if witnesses are invited to appear on a public notice, the study will have to be there on the notice.
Unless we just put committee business in general and then have witnesses.... That's a possibility, but I've never seen that before.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
I think we can correct for that by stating that we are starting a study on the emergency measures act, and we can invite the favourite witnesses that are already included in this motion.
In addition, we will have a subcommittee meeting to finalize the scope of the fullness of the study immediately. That way, the name can be on the title of the meeting, and we can invite some of the people who are listed here. We can start on Tuesday, and we can finalize our amendments at subcommittee without delay.
5:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. McLean wanted to speak, sir.