Public Safety Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

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

Thank you, Chair.

I know the committee is going to be annoyed, but Canadians are more annoyed with the fact that we have an issue with the Emergencies Act. It was spoken about before.

I would like to move the following motion, Chair:

That, in light of the recent Federal Court ruling which found that the government's use of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to have been illegal and that the special criminal laws subsequently created by the Liberal Cabinet to have been an unconstitutional breach of Canadians' Charter rights—

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Mr. Motz, wait just one moment, please. We have a point of order.

Mr. McKinnon, go ahead, sir.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Just at the outset, it seems to be pretty much exactly what Mr. Motz just moved. That motion was moved, and we voted to adjourn the debate.

I don't think enough time has passed since that transpired. I think this is repetitive and redundant, and should be out of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Thank you, Mr. McKinnon.

I haven't even read it, so I can't comment on that yet.

Mr. Brock, do you have a comment?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Perhaps Mr. McKinnon can allow the member to actually read out the motion before he opines on it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Yes. We don't know how different it is, Mr. McKinnon.

Go ahead, Mr. Motz.

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

Thank you.

I'll continue:

...created by the Liberal Cabinet to have been an unconstitutional breach of Canadians’ Charter rights, the Committee undertake a study of 6 meetings, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), of the Department of Justice’s role in supporting the government’s illegal and unconstitutional decisions concerning the Emergencies Act, together with the consequences which follow the Court’s decision, provided that

(a) the Committee invite the following to appear, separately, as witnesses, for at least one hour each:

(i) the Honourable David Lametti, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada at the time,

(ii) the Honourable Marco Mendicino, the Minister of Public Safety at the time,

(iii) the Honourable Arif Virani, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,

(iv) representatives of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and

(v) representatives of the Canadian Constitution Foundation; and

(b) an order do issue for all legal opinions which the government relied upon in determining that

(i) the threshold of “threats to security of Canada”, as defined by section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, required by section 16 of the Emergencies Act, had been met;

(ii) the thresholds required by paragraphs 3(a) or (b) of the Emergencies Act, concerning a “national emergency” had been met;

(iii) the situation could not “be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada”, as required by section 3 of the Emergencies Act;

(iv) the Emergency Measures Regulations were compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the analysis relied upon by the Minister of Justice in discharging his responsibilities under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, and

(v) the Emergency Economic Measures Order was compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the analysis relied upon by the Minister of Justice in discharging his responsibilities under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act,

provided that these documents shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Committee, without redaction and in both official languages, within seven days of the adoption of this order.

As I have indicated before, Chair—

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Mr. Motz, we have a point of order. Just one moment, please.

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Now that we have heard the full motion, I would argue Mr. McKinnon's point that even if it is a different motion that he submitted, the only difference is the timing. Therefore, it is too similar to a motion that we have already dealt with and it should be out of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

Could you just give us a moment? The clerk is trying to.... Which motion was it?

Ms. O'Connell, I don't think we need snide remarks or comments.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I laughed because you don't know which motions you're moving.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

I'm not moving anything. I'm the chair.

The clerk is looking it up because he doesn't know, Ms. O'Connell, so what's so funny?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I find it funny that you guys are that disorganized in your own filibuster.

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

Are we disorganized, or are you just trying to cover up?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Cover up what? You don't want to talk about cyber—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Order.

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

You don't want to inform the Canadian public on the Emergencies Act.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Do you want me to read from your mayor—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Order, please.

Everybody, it has been a long day. Let's have order, please.

Mr. Motz, is the new one 1.2?

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

I don't have that on mine, but yes, it's the one with the study of six meetings.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

And your last one was—

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

It was 1.1.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Doug Shipley]

Significantly, you're asking for a different number of meetings.