Debates of March 2nd, 2022

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the question from my hon. colleague is about taking a look at exactly how these measures were used. Let us remember that before the act was invoked, we were in a situation where border crossings were closed, the city of Ottawa was besieged and there did not seem to be an end in sight. The Emergencies Act was put into place, as it was contemplated in 1988, to deal with emergency situations, and we now see a flow of goods and services and a return to normalcy here in the city of Ottawa.

The important work that needs to be done is not about dealing with the debate on who chairs the committee, particularly when we have so much agreement on how that process should take place. Instead, it is about looking to make sure the powers that were used were used judiciously, appropriately and in a limited fashion in terms of both geography and time. I would think that all members would want to get on with that process as quickly as possible, so I am frustrated that, because of the Conservatives' desire to have chairmanship, we continue to have to wait and grind this out. This should have started on Monday. We should not be here today continuing to deal with this.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious conversation about how we can move forward to see if the emergency measures act was correctly implemented. I feel sorry for the government House leader. I believe he has short-term amnesia about what actually happened. In his answer, he said that we needed the Emergencies Act because there were blockades across our borders. That is not true. It is a lie. It is an absolute untruth and it did not happen. The blockades were gone—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would all know, based on the parliamentary procedures we have in the House, that we cannot call another member in the House a liar. I ask you to ask the member to withdraw that comment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will save us all on this one. I would ask the member to back up, retract the word in question and go forward from there.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I misspoke. I wanted to say that some things have happened that are not relevant to the history of the Emergencies Act. The member said that the Emergencies Act had to be invoked to clear the blockades, but that did not happen. The blockades were removed before the Emergencies Act was used.

I would like to get back to the point of the question. The fact the Liberals keep telling a story that is fictional is something that really affects my constituents in Regina—Lewvan. Did they reach the criteria to invoke the Emergencies Act? That is the question the committee wants to have answered and why—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. government House leader.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very quick way to get that answer, and it is to support this motion to create the committee. If the Conservatives are interested in those answers, I am a little confused as to why they are blocking them.

I appreciate that the member across is concerned for my well-being. That is kind of him. As I age, sometimes I forget the details of movies and different things that I used to remember. However, I will tell members what I do not forget: trying to come to work through an occupation. What I do not forget is talking with the residents of Ottawa, who were completely besieged day and night, their lives utterly turned upside down. What I do not forget is the conversations I had with businesses that had their livelihoods horrifically upended as a result of these protests. What I do not forget is members opposite appearing in the illegal protests taking photographs, giving coffee and tweeting their support. I do not forget those things. They are burned indelibly into my memory because they were so disappointing.

What we need to remember now is that before the act was put into place, this was the reality outside of these doors. That occupation was occurring. It was not until the Emergencies Act was put into place that we began to see action to see it lifted and to see us move forward. If the Conservatives are interested in the type of oversight they are talking about, there is a simple solution: Stop obfuscating and vote for this.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one has to ask why the Conservatives want to delay this for three weeks. They do not want the oversight committee in place, this parliamentary review committee. That is my question to my colleague.

However, I need to preface it by noting the incredible impacts that the occupation had on the people of Ottawa. Any of us who walked through those neighbourhoods and talked to those residents know first-hand that people with disabilities and seniors were cut off from essential services. Families were subject to huge levels of noise and the highest level of pollution in the country. Thousands of jobs were lost and hundreds of businesses were closed. We saw and heard about the assaults. We heard about the vandalism. We heard about a wide range of abuses that the people of Ottawa had to endure, yet at this point, I have not heard one Conservative MP say they talked to the people of Ottawa, found out what was happening and now understand what they were enduring.

The Conservatives seem to want to delay this for three weeks, but at the same time, they never spoke to the residents of Ottawa. Why did they not speak to the residents of Ottawa and why are they trying to delay the oversight committee by three weeks?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely correct. We are going to back to our constituencies for two weeks, so if we do not deal with this today, the matter would be put off for three weeks. It is very confusing to see the Conservatives stand up and demand that there be oversight and accountability, but also demand that we not set up the process that would do the thing they say they want. They are speaking in contradictions.

Because I suspect one of the next questions will be from the members opposite, I would invite them to talk to us about the conversations they have had with business owners inside the red zone and about how they were affected. They should talk about the residents who were affected, about why they were outside supporting the protest and about why they would be demanding to chair a process to overlook the thing they were supporting. It is an untenable, illogical position. There is a very simple solution. It is to vote right now to create this committee, get to work right now and get this done.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the Friday Parliament was cancelled, I actually was talking to the residents of Ottawa. I talked to a lady who said she was one of the biggest supporters of the Prime Minister until a couple of months ago, when the Prime Minister insulted, belittled and continued to be disrespectful to people who have a different opinion than his. She had finally gotten to the point where she could no longer support the Prime Minister. She wanted to see what was going on, felt extremely safe and had no concerns.

There was also a chef who worked for a restaurant that was closed because of the fearmongering by the government, which said there were dangerous people out on the streets. That was a blatant untruth. Many people were out of work simply because of the fearmongering that has happened in this place.

In Parliament, we go on precedent. We quite often go on the customs and traditions of this place. I am wondering if something has happened historically that would give the member reason to believe we should give the chairmanship to a second and third opposition party, when the letter of the act specifically speaks to giving the chair to the official opposition. What is the precedent he is using to make this decision?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise as the government House leader to respond to the question that was posed to me.

The member says that he has talked to business owners who said their businesses were affected by the Prime Minister's objection to the illegal blockades. I would ask him what he thought happened when this city was completely shut down and businesses could not open their doors. I was talking to business owners who watched people defecate in front of their properties, who watched them stare in their windows and intimidate them, who watched them bang on their windows. Countless business owners said it was the worst thing they had endured in 30 years of business.

The member found one person who was not negatively affected by it and is an ardent partisan of the Conservatives. I congratulate the member on his ability to find that person, because things would have been very difficult for anybody living in the red zone.

This was a situation without precedent. Our city was occupied. There were unbelievable things happening outside these doors and the official opposition was cheerleading them. The member is right that this is without precedent, and we have to respond accordingly.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if this was not such a serious issue, I would almost be amused by the childishness of the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Personally, I find it doubly important that the membership of the committee be unanimous, because we need this committee to be as legitimate as possible given the context.

Another reason why I think that is important is that a precedent has already been set in this case. The Liberals, along with their Siamese twins the NDP, imposed the emergency measures in a seemingly partisan context, and I would find it extremely frustrating if the membership of this committee was shoved down the House's throat with a gag order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to interrupt proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the 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 will invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

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

Mr. Speaker, we want a recorded vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #35

Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, on behalf of 90 departments and agencies, the departmental plans for 2022‑23.

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

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

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that there has been a change of plans, but if I understand correctly, I will have nine minutes before Private Members' Business and the consideration of the bill introduced by my dear colleague, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni. Do I have nine minutes?

After Private Members' Business, I will have five more minutes.

Do I have that right?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will proceed with orders of the day until 5:44 p.m. We will then interrupt the proceedings and move to private members' bills. We will resume debate at 6:44 p.m., and the hon. member will be able to continue his speech at that time. The hon. member has 14 minutes remaining.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I knew there would be an interruption, and I wanted to confirm that. All of us, not just in the House of Commons but across Canada, are looking forward to hearing about the bill brought forward by my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni. This is a very worthwhile bill that will make a difference for so many Canadians. We look forward to it.

I gave the first part of my speech on Monday, and I spoke at length about the situation of Ottawa residents. Today, I will give the second part, and as was just confirmed, I will give the third part after private members' business. Here is the second part of my speech.

Members will recall that in the first part of my speech I talked about the profound impacts of the occupation on the residents of Ottawa. During the blockades many thousands of jobs were lost. The people of Ottawa suffered incredibly during this three-week period due to government inaction and due to a lack of action taken to protect them.

We saw people with disabilities and seniors denied essential services. We saw cases of vandalism and assault. We certainly saw the highest noise levels, those normally seen in airports, going on 24-7 in downtown Ottawa. We saw toxic pollution from the diesel engines running 24-hour a day, which had profound impacts on children in downtown Ottawa. We also saw the loss of thousands of jobs and the closure of hundreds of businesses.

The first part of my speech was to address the profound hardship that the people of Ottawa endured during that period. That is why it is so vitally important now, having thankfully come to a peaceful resolution, and some members of Parliament would say that is despite the Emergencies Act and others would say that it is because of the Emergencies Act, to move immediately to putting in place a parliamentary review. That is what Canadians want to see. They want to see answers to those questions. They believe we need to move with alacrity.

We had an opportunity on Monday for the official opposition to join all the other recognized parties in the House of Commons and the parliamentary groups in the Senate to put this motion in place by unanimous consent. We saw this, thankfully, with the ban on conversion therapy. The Conservatives stepped up, and we had a unanimous adoption of that important legislation in the House of Commons. We could have and should have done the same thing on Monday.

Now we have the opportunity to have a vote tonight. If we had not taken the step we just took, the Conservatives would have delayed, for another three weeks, the putting into place of this vitally important parliamentary review. It is an absolutely essential parliamentary review.

I am speaking in favour of this motion because what it does, and why it has such broad support within the House of Commons and within the Senate, is it accomplishes a number of things in a very important way to set up a structure that would allow for a thorough and impartial review of what transpired, not only with the Emergencies Act, but also in the three weeks prior.

We have two chairs in place from the House of Commons, representing both sides of the debate, an NDP co-chair and a Bloc co-chair, the NDP having voted in favour and the Bloc having voted against. We have that impartiality, in the chairs, that is so vitally important. We have a fair representation from all parties and all of the four Senate groups. With the changes in the Senate, the idea that we could only have one Conservative senator and nobody else made no sense at all.

Here we have fair representation from the Senate groups and fair representation from the House of Commons. The Conservatives certainly cannot complain. They have three members, and if we include the ex-Conservatives in the Canadian Senate group, four members, which is more than any other party in this parliamentary review committee. The Conservatives have three or four, depending on how we want to count ex-Conservatives. The Liberals have three. The NDP has one. The Bloc has one. The Independent Senate group has one. The Progressive Senate group has one, and the Conservative senators have one.

It is a fair division of the membership of a committee that is so essential to moving forward immediately. We have a fair division of the chair roles. We have a fair division in terms of the party membership and the Senate group membership. With that on the table, we should have been able to move forward with this on Monday. The Conservatives should have said, “Yes, this is important. We believe we need to move ahead rapidly.” Instead, they have delayed and continue to want to delay. Next week and the following week are constituency weeks. Obviously, they wanted to delay this for another three weeks.

Ottawa cannot wait. Canadians cannot wait. We have to move ahead with this parliamentary review. That is why it is so important that we have the vote tonight. I am thankful, of course, that three of the four recognized parties in this House of Commons will be voting yes on this motion and that the Senate groups have said that they will be voting in support of this motion to put in place a parliamentary review. The NDP thinks it is absolutely essential. It has to happen now. We could get to work tomorrow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will have about eight minutes when we resume debate on the motion.

It being 5:44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.