SoVote

Mar/2/22 4:22:04 p.m.
Watch

I will try to help the hon. member out with this one. There are 27 minutes left to ask questions and make comments. The quicker we ask questions, the quicker we get the answers, and we will get as many people in as we possibly can.

46 words

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:23:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am here for 30 minutes, so they have lots of opportunity to ask questions when they stand. One of the things I would say that I think is unique and positive about this proposal is that it does put two opposition parties in the chair, one that was for the act and one that was against the act, and it allows the Senate to appropriately choose its co-chair. The Conservatives on this committee actually have the same number of caucus members as the government. They have three caucus members and we have three caucus members. I see this as a pre-eminently fair, reasonable proposal. It is time to get on with it. In fact, this committee has to report back within seven sitting days. We do not have a lot of time to waste.

142 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/2/22 4:23:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised to see the Conservatives raising closure, having lived through the Harper government that imposed closure nearly 200 times. It is a bit rich for them to be concerned about it now. The problem is this. We have agreement from three parties in the House of Commons and we have agreement from the majority of the Senate groups. This measure should have come to the House on Monday. This oversight committee should already be at work, because this work is vitally important, but one party seems to be systematically refusing to actually put the parliamentary review committee in place. I can only speculate as to why that party is so reluctant to have parliamentary oversight. If we do not get it done this week, we would be waiting another three weeks before the House would be able to actually put this oversight committee in place. I want to ask the government House leader why he thinks Conservatives are ragging the puck and refusing to get this parliamentary review committee in place. Why are they delaying it? What are they afraid of with this parliamentary review?

191 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:25:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have some of the same reflections. It is confusing to hear the official opposition demand on the one hand that the process get started and on the other hand obfuscate and delay the process from starting. I would hope the hon. members across have not just adopted a position that they want and are not listening to anybody else. They got to do that when they had a majority with Stephen Harper, but they do not get to do that now. They need to listen to other parties. We have a proposal that is supported not only by two other parties in this House but also by the independent Senate group, the progressive Senate group and, we hope, by the Canada Senate group as well. We have worked on a proposal whereby we all compromise and we all got together so that we could move forward with this oversight. The Conservatives are saying they want oversight, and yet they are delaying the said oversight. It makes one wonder why they do not want to have this oversight move forward.

182 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Mar/2/22 4:26:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I feel like what we are currently listening to is not a debate, but rather a squabble between two parties that are unable to reach an agreement on such an important issue. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is important that the chair of this committee be as non‑partisan as possible and that both sides be represented, that is, those who voted in favour and those who voted against. We have therefore made some proposals. We do not understand why the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader of the official opposition cannot agree on a solution. This committee, which will sit in camera, must be non‑partisan and must follow a rigorous process. What we are seeing right now is that we are falling prey to partisanship, with the complicity of the NDP, rather than focusing on the objective at hand, which is to find out what happened during these events.

168 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:27:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois how great she is. I often had the opportunity to work with her when I was the whip for my party, and it was clear to me that she is very reasonable. I was hoping that the same could be said for the Conservative Party, but unfortunately not. For over a week, I tried to come to an agreement with that party, but it stuck to its guns. The Conservative Party was hoping to get two of the co-chair positions for this committee, one from the Senate and one from the House of Commons. It was proposing that it have one MP on the committee and that the government have only one seat. That was unreasonable, so it is an awkward situation. Unfortunately, a solution had to be found with all the other parties to foster the most neutral situation possible. That is why it has been proposed that one of the co-chairs come from a party that supported the emergency measures and that the other come from a party that did not. That is reasonable.

200 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/2/22 4:28:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a very good proposal that allows both the party that put forward the utilization of this measure, that being the government, and the party that was most drastically opposed to it to not be involved in the chairship. We have actually assigned the chairship to two other parties: the Bloc and the NDP. I am curious if the government House leader can try to provide some insight as to why he thinks Conservatives are just hell-bent on chairing the committee. What kind of power are they looking for—

98 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/2/22 4:29:16 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

15 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Mar/2/22 4:29:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was using language that is unparliamentary and should apologize.

14 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/2/22 4:29:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, is “hell-bent” not parliamentary? I will let the Speaker rule.

15 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Mar/2/22 4:29:40 p.m.
Watch

I did not hear it, so must apologize for that. Maybe what I can do is let the member rephrase it.

21 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Mar/2/22 4:29:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will get the member a dictionary afterward so he can look up these words himself. My question for the House leader is this: Why does he think it is that the Conservative Party is so adamant on getting a position of being a chair on this committee? Why is it so important to be a chair on this committee?

62 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:30:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the impasse seems to be on that very point. My hon. colleague is correct that the impasse is on the Conservatives' insistence on chairing a process when they had taken such a clear side. One of their members called it “Canada Day times a thousand”. They are yelling across the aisle because I understand they do not want to wait for their questions. Neither do we, and that is why we are not chairing. Perhaps the hon. member will understand that we have given up the chair and that they have taken a strident position of being in favour of the illegal activities and cheerleading those activities and that therefore they would be inappropriate to be the chair. That is why we have moved this reasonable proposal.

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Mar/2/22 4:30:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is a very serious one. Canadians want to shed light on the events that took place in February after the government did nothing for three weeks. This committee will shed light on this matter. This is supposed to be a non-partisan parliamentary committee. What is unfortunate is that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons came out swinging in his speech, accusing the Conservatives of partisanship, when that could not be farther from the truth. We must conduct a neutral and objective review of the events that took place. Why is the government taking such a partisan stance on a matter that demands non-partisanship?

114 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:31:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there will be a parliamentary committee, and it will be responsible for reviewing the use of the Emergencies Act. I am certain that the process will be fair. The proposal is so fair and reasonable that we reduced the number of members from the governing party. There are three members from the Liberal Party, three from the Conservative Party, one from the Bloc Québécois, one from the NDP, and one from each group in the Senate. That is more reasonable that the normal makeup of committees, on which there are more government members. The only question remaining has to do with the role of chair. I do not understand why this position is causing such a big problem, especially when the solution is obvious, namely that the committee should be co-chaired by one member from a party that supported the declaration of a public order emergency and one from a party that was against it. This is not about pitting the government against the official opposition. I think my colleague across the way and former counterpart is a very reasonable person. I have a lot of respect for him, and I am sure he understands what I am saying.

206 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/2/22 4:33:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate really difficult and quite lamentable, because I completely agree there is an urgency here, as the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît pointed out a moment ago. There is urgency, but again this is the first time such a committee is being formed because it is the first time the Emergencies Act has been used. It will be a closed-door session and only with security clearance, so I just want to put on the floor now, as I may not get another chance, that the Green Party had one member vote no and one member vote yes. In a normal committee, we would be able to sit in, even though we would not be voting and not participating in other ways. I would like to request that we have security clearance to participate as observers, because this process is so very important.

151 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:34:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the member on the importance of not only parliamentary oversight, but, of course, an independent inquiry, which will be conducted. As part of the provisions of the act, it must report back within 365 days. I have heard the reasonable proposition of the member opposite, and I will certainly take that under due consideration and have conversations with the other parties about the possibility of it. I understand her interest and the interest of all members in ensuring that this process is conducted fully, fairly and independently.

93 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian

Mar/2/22 4:34:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is important that this work begin as soon as possible. It should have begun on Monday. There were discussions, and three of the recognized parties in the House of Commons reached a consensus, as did the majority of the Senate groups. What is being proposed is very logical. One of the co‑chairs will represent the members who voted in favour of the Emergencies Act, while the member from the Bloc Québécois will represent the members who voted against it. This ensures balance in the chairship of this committee. The composition of the committee would also be balanced, with three representatives from the government and three from the official opposition. This consensus seems extremely reasonable to everyone except for one party, which wants to prolong the deliberations for a few weeks. I have a big question for my colleague, the government House leader. Is it important for this committee to begin its work this week so that we can shed light on the events that led to the invocation of the Emergencies Act?

181 words

All Topics

Hon. Mark Holland

Mar/2/22 4:36:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way is absolutely right. It is important to create the committee as soon as possible. It is discouraging that the Conservative Party continues to block its creation when the committee is receiving a lot of support from the other parties, not just here in the House of Commons, but also in the Senate. The second point I want to raise is the process in the Senate, the other place. The Senate also needs to start its work, but it is waiting for us to adopt our motion to create the committee. The longer the House of Commons waits, the longer the Senate also has to wait. It is time to start our work because this is so important. There is a very reasonable proposal on the table, and now it is time to create the committee.

142 words

All Topics

Ms. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC)

Mar/2/22 4:37:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. We did not see any legal interpretation when the government invoked the act. We still have not heard that, and we have asked many questions on where the legal interpretation was that it met the threshold. If we read this act, it clearly states that a member of the official opposition or of the opposition, and we are recognized as being the official opposition, should be chairing this committee. It is normal practice that any committee that oversees and scrutinizes the government is chaired by an official opposition member. I am just wondering if you had a legal opinion to interpret the act in the way you are interpreting it, because you are saying it should be co-chaired by two members of different parties, not by the official opposition.

140 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 39