Debates of March 2nd, 2022

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, another Yiddish proverb comes to mind: The best way to know a man is to watch him when he is angry. We have seen far too many angry people in this place as we discuss the Emergencies Act.

I would put to the member the statute again, because he seemed to infer in his remarks that Canadians should be suspicious about a committee that has to meet in secret. I draw his attention to the definition of “threats to the security of Canada” within the act. It is a defined term found in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, and it is all about things that would be regarded as secret, such as espionage and sabotage. The one that I think applies here says:

foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive

It is very likely that if we look at the real threat to the security of Canada, the manifestation of a deep unpleasantness for the people of Ottawa is one aspect. However, the aspect that drew me to decide to vote yes was the disinformation that came from foreign sources. Looking into that is inherently going to require security clearance, and it is required as well by the act for this committee.

I would love to ask the member for Calgary Shepard if he recognizes that the committee is required by the act to meet in secret and that it makes sense given the security implications of the definition of a public order emergency found in the act.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct in her reading of the act. It is actually the same reading that I have, and I referred to “Meetings in private”, which is in subsection 62(4) of the act.

What I was basically implying, and will say now, is that the best portion of the committee, the one I think the public will be most interested in, will be the discussion of the orders and regulations internally that the government was using, passing and referring to. That is the thing the public wants to know about the most, and that is the thing that will be kept secret and will be private.

The next part is that I do not know how the committee will be able to report on it in an actual, physical report. It may be able to make allusions to it and infer certain things, but it will not be able to specifically say and construct an image of what happened between February 14 and February 23.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

We will resume debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has 20 minutes coming to him, but it is three minutes to eight o'clock, so whenever he stops, we shall stop. I thought I would point that out.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, there will be 337 people mad at me if I choose to take that full 20 minutes, so I assure you, I will not.

I do want to say I hope people who are watching this can appreciate and understand what is really going on here. Normally, establishing a committee like this is something that can be done through a unanimous consent motion that takes no more than 30 seconds of House time.

Instead, we are now on the second day. This would have been a full day of parliamentary business, and it has essentially been wasted on the fact that the Conservatives really want to have a chair on this committee. They want to hold one of the roles of chair.

It has been said in this House, and I certainly agree, that it does not make sense that the Conservatives would hold a chair position given the fact that they were so adamantly in favour of what was going on out there. That is not just through the actions and the posts we saw on social media, but also through documents that have come forward, which the member for Vancouver Granville and others referenced earlier.

We know that they had a vested interest in this. Certainly, the governing side was the side that actually implemented the act and used the tools within it, so it goes to say that the governing side should not have a chair on this committee either. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why Conservatives are so interested in ensuring that they have this position.

If Conservatives are just as interested in letting things come to light, I would assume that somebody who is innocent would think, “Well, I do not want to be perceived as being in the middle of the decision-making in how the committee operates because I want to come out of this looking as clean as possible.” However, that is not what we have seen.

I am very much interested in learning what happens in the committee and in understanding what it discovers. How did this movement start? Who fuelled it? Who funded it? I am not going to lie, I would love to know how many Conservatives donated to this particular GoFundMe or the GiveSendGo. Maybe that will come out in the committee. I do not know.

Maybe that is the reason the Conservatives are holding this up and dragging it through Parliament, so we do not get to the point of actually establishing this committee. I do not know. I would like to think that is not the case, but I cannot understand why they would be putting up such a roadblock to something that is otherwise treated in such a simple manner to establish the committee.

I know we are now at eight o'clock. I want to make sure we can get to voting on time. I am very much looking forward to the work this committee will do, getting it established and seeing the results that come out. I have total confidence in the NDP, who voted in favour of using the measures, and the Bloc, who voted against using the measures, along with the one representative from the Senate. I have total confidence in their ability to properly manage and exercise their roles of joint chair on that committee, and I know they will ensure that a proper report is produced for this House to consider.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 8:01 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 9, and of the amendment, now before the House.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #36

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #37

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 9:03 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:03 p.m.)