Senator Plett: One hour.

Senator Plett: Senator McPhedran, I cannot possibly think that Perrin Beatty wanted anybody but Conservatives and Liberals on this committee ever, regardless of what has been said here. So as I said, we all have opinions, and the rights to them. As I said in my speech, and I was quoting somebody, but I will defend to the death your right to have that opinion. I have mine.

Senator Plett: Let me answer that this way, Senator Gold. I made a speech in the Senate that was one hour and 27 minutes long. When I was done, I walked upstairs, because I actually thought maybe I had earned a drink. I broke my doctor’s orders, as I thought I deserved something. As I was sitting in my office, after speaking here for one hour and 27 minutes, as I was sitting in my third-floor office, and as Senator Wells was here continuing the debate, that was when CBC mentioned that the Prime Minister was about to have a news conference. As I was sitting there enjoying my drink, his entourage, his protest, his convoy, drove by my window. The timing, Senator Gold, was impeccable.

Senator Gold, I have received no less than 8,000 messages, addressed to me personally, thanking the Conservative caucus for killing this. I will take their word.

Senator Plett: I apologize to Senator Moncion for hurting her feelings.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, thank you for that, but the reason there was confusion is sometimes you say “all those in favour” and you hear a no, and then you say all those opposed. You didn’t do that. Again, I appreciate you gave us the opportunity — but in order to not have something silly like we just had here on something where we’re trying to collaborate, and we have a point of order on something like this, in the future, Your Honour, maybe we could have you do both — all those in favour and all those opposed — so we are not in confusion as to whether or not we should stand.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we did call for an adjournment earlier. There was clearly some scrambling going on all morning. It hadn’t been finished when Senator Gold presented his motion.

I saw there was only one avenue open for us at that time, and that was to call for a bell so that we could continue talking about the things we had been talking about. That happened very quickly after we suspended.

Your honour, if it’s all right with the chamber, if the chamber would give me leave, I would withdraw the motion to adjourn and would be happy to continue debate and, hopefully, be able to hear from Senator Gold.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné:

That:

(a)pursuant to subsection 62(1) of the Emergencies Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 22, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to review the exercise of powers and the performance of duties and functions pursuant to a declaration of emergency that was in effect from Monday, February 14, 2022, to Wednesday, February 23, 2022, including the provisions as specified in subsections 62(5) and (6) of the act;

(b)the committee be composed of four members of the Senate, including one senator from the Opposition, one senator from the Independent Senators Group, one senator from the Progressive Senate Group, and one senator from the Canadian Senators Group, and seven members of the House of Commons, including three members of the House of Commons from the governing party, two members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, one member from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, with three chairs, of which the Senate chair shall be a senator from the Independent Senators Group and the two House chairs shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party;

(c)in addition to the chairs, the committee shall elect two vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the governing party and the second vice-chair shall be from the official opposition party;

(d)the four senators to be members of the committee be named by means of a notice signed by their respective leader or facilitator (or their respective designates), and filed with the Clerk of the Senate no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day after this motion is adopted, failing which, the leader or facilitator of any party or group identified in paragraph (b) who has not filed the name of a senator with the Clerk of the Senate, shall be deemed to be the senator named to the committee, with the names of the senators named as members being recorded in the Journals of the Senate;

(e)the quorum of the committee be seven members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present, and the chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the publishing thereof, whenever five members are present, so long as one member of the Senate, one member of the governing party in the House of Commons and one member from the opposition in the House of Commons are present;

(f)changes to the membership of the committee on the part of the Senate be made in accordance with rule 12-5 of the Rules of the Senate, provided that any new members or participating senators take the oath of secrecy pursuant to paragraph (g) of this order before participating in proceedings;

(g)pursuant to subsection 62(3) of the act, every member and person employed in the work of the committee, which includes personnel who, in supporting the committee’s work or a committee member’s work, have access to the committee’s proceedings or documents, take the oath of secrecy as set out in the schedule of the act;

(h)every meeting of the committee held to consider an order or regulation referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act be held in camera, pursuant to subsection 62(4) of the same act, and the evidence and documents received by the committee related to these meetings not be made public;

(i)for greater certainty, the chairs may move motions and vote on all items before the committee, and any vote resulting in a tie vote shall mean that the item is negatived;

(j)all documents tabled in the Senate pursuant to the act since February 21, 2022, be referred to the committee;

(k)until the committee ceases to exist or on Thursday, June 23, 2022, whichever is earlier,

(i)where applicable, the provisions contained in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the order adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, respecting senators on standing joint committees, shall apply to senators on this committee, and the committee shall hold meetings in person where necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act; and

(ii)senators, members and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before the committee may do so in person, as may any witness appearing with respect to any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act;

(l)the committee have the power to:

(i)meet during sittings and adjournments of the Senate;

(ii)report from time to time, including pursuant to the provisions included in subsection 62(6) of the act, to send for persons, papers and records, and to publish such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee;

(iii)retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel;

(iv)appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons; and

(v)authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its public proceedings and to make them available to the public via the Parliament of Canada’s websites; and

(m)a report of the committee may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate at any time the Senate stands adjourned, and that any report so deposited may be deposited electronically, with the report being deemed to have been presented or tabled in the Senate; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I want to start off by thanking the Government Representative in the Senate for his collaboration today. I want to thank Senators Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas for agreeing to what Senator Gold now put into his amendment. It’s great when we can work together and make deals, and I believe that we have done that. I believe that the Senate, during this time over the last week, has shown the absolute need for this chamber. I would say that this chamber did a much better job on the Emergencies Act than they did in the other place.

I believe overall the collaboration here is much better than it is in the other place, and so I thank all honourable senators. I believe that the reason the Prime Minister came to his senses and revoked the Emergencies Act was because of the debate going on here in the Senate. I believe that cooler heads prevailed, and they saw the senselessness of having an Emergencies Act when there was no emergency.

However, we are tasked, as Senator Gold says, with studying this as a committee. We can say all we want that this is the way it should be — that this is the way a committee should be struck. When the act was struck, we did not have the kind of a Senate that we do now. We had a Senate that was basically made up of two political parties: the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada.

When they struck the Act, saying that there needed to be a senator in the chamber from all parties that were being represented in the House of Commons, they believed those would be the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada. It doesn’t matter what we say about the Senate now. That is what they believed at that time because that is the type of a Senate that we had.

So we now have a different type of a Senate, and we just simply decide to interpret what these people back in the 1980s wrote. Be that as it may, we live in — as they say — new and interesting times.

I’m always troubled when our government leader here refers to how they voted in the other house and always forgets to talk about the numbers of votes and the debates.

The fact of the matter is that the Conservative house leader in the other place came forward with a very, very reasonable amendment to what the government was proposing. The government had proposed that the two smallest groups in the house take the co-chairs. They did it for one reason and one reason only. They were trying to exclude the Conservative Party of Canada from being one of the co-chairs there. It was evident. Nobody can deny that. They did a good job of that. They browbeat Jagmeet Singh as the Prime Minister did with his threat of a confidence vote. Here again is something the leader failed to mention when he talked about how the other house had voted. He failed to mention that a minority Parliament threatened an election if another group would not support his demands.

Last night, the other place voted down our house leader’s amendment. Not with all the parties; with two parties. The Bloc — bless them for it — were given a co-chair position by the governing party, and they were willing to give up that co-chair position because they thought the right thing would be that the Conservatives have at least one co-chair. They were prepared to give up their co-chair position so that the Conservatives in the Senate could then have the co-chair.

For the Bloc to give that up obviously took a little bit of doing. That isn’t being mentioned here. What isn’t being mentioned here is that we have a government in the other house that is trying to take away the rights of a party that got more votes in the last election and in the election before than any other party. Yet, they’re not supposed to have a co-chair position. Why? Because the government is afraid of what is going to come forward if all of sudden the Conservatives have too many people and too much power in a committee, which they should have as the official opposition.

Let me tell you, colleagues, we are going to accept this motion — this amendment — on division, but we will accept what Senator Gold has brought forward because I really believe Senator Gold has done his job in trying to reach an amicable solution. I appreciate him for that. As I said, I appreciate the three other leaders collaborating and saying they agree that we should have that.

I do not believe we’re getting what we should be getting, but listen, you don’t always get what you think you should be getting or what’s fair. In this case, that is my belief.

I don’t want the words that I am saying here about the other place to be a reflection of what I believe in this place. I believe we did a good job. I believe we did a great job on both sides of the debate. I listened to senators on both sides of the debate, and we had good arguments here. At the end of the day — as I said — I believe the Prime Minister was reading the tea leaves and said, “I’m better off withdrawing this before I get 45 or 46 senators all of sudden voting the wrong way in the Senate.” We’re going to take credit for that. Whatever you say, you can’t take that credit away from us.

I can stand here and say it’s us. I can stand here and say it was Senator Wells’s speech or my speech that turned the tide, and we’ll take credit. We’re politicians. Justin Trudeau can come along and tell us why he actually did it. Until he does, we’ll take the credit, colleagues.

Having said that, thank you Senators Gold, Saint-Germain, Cordy and Tannas for your collaboration here today. I think it goes a long way in showing how we want to work together, but I do not want anybody to believe that for one second I accept what the Liberal Party of Canada and the government tried to do in that other place and, as a matter of fact, got away with it.

On that note, I do apologize to you, Senator Gold, that I cannot vote in favour. However, we will allow this to go on division.

Thank you very much, colleagues.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I rise to ask for your indulgence, and I apologize for doing so this late in the evening.

A few minutes ago, we dealt with Motion No. 50 on the Order Paper, a motion by Senator Dean that Senator Wells inadvertently did not adjourn and it moved on. He asked to go back so he could adjourn this. You graciously asked the chamber whether they would allow that. A few members of the chamber did not and, of course, you need leave for something like this to happen.

I want to draw the attention of the Speaker and the chamber to a few instances this evening that occurred either as a result of wearing masks, not hearing properly or the changing of procedures. We had two instances earlier this evening, Your Honour. One was on Senator Patterson’s amendment to Bill C-12. When the question was called on whether people were in agreement with the motion there were a few “nays.” You declared that the amendment did not pass. You never asked for any “yeas” to the motion.

If I recall, Your Honour, we would have voice votes first, and you would declare whether the yeas or the nays had it. Senators would then be able to rise. Two senators rising would then trigger a standing vote. You didn’t do that with Senator Patterson’s motion.

Subsequently, they were caught somewhat off guard and failed to stand when they very much wanted a standing vote. I believe the scroll notes indicated that there would be a standing vote with a 15-minute bell. These are items that are discussed at scroll ahead of time, decisions made, negotiations had, and we try to have collaboration and cooperation in the Senate in that regard.

The same thing happened, Your Honour, on Senator Gold’s motion with regard to the special committee. Senator Gold was trying to do the job based on conversations and agreements we had. He was not trying to sneak anything by us. He had wanted to be able to speak later in the day but, because of the Order Paper, was impelled to speak to it at the time.

The same thing happened when you asked whether the motion should pass. I got up — a little late — because I realized you were declaring the motion passed, and said I would like to adjourn the debate. You graciously agreed and allowed me to do that. There was a senator who challenged whether you should have allowed me to do that because the vote had taken place.

Your Honour, the fact of the matter is, had you not done that, we would have gotten into an acrimonious debate over a motion that we now passed with virtually no debate, and by agreement from everybody, because you allowed us to go back the way you did. The other Senate leaders were able to come, and we collaborated very quickly.

After Question Period, I withdrew my request to adjourn. Senator Gold then presented an amendment and we could pass a motion that the government clearly wanted passed tonight, and that was only as a result of collaboration.

When Senator Dean moved Motion No. 50, I was watching it on television. It was somewhat muffled. I credited that possibly to being the television. Then I heard Senator Wells indicate that he had had the same difficulty in hearing and that he actually had wanted to adjourn, which again is clearly indicated in block letters, “Senator Wells to adjourn.” I’m not sure, Your Honour, whether you have access to that or whether it’s there. I believe the table has it. It was evident that Senator Wells wanted to adjourn this.

In fairness, Your Honour, on two occasions you asked whether senators would give leave for Senator Wells to do that. Ironically, they were the same senators who initially, when I wanted to adjourn Senator Gold’s motion, challenged you about allowing me to do that.

We have meetings going on. We spend a lot of time at scroll discussing these things, sometimes with good collaboration and sometimes with acrimony. But if we want to develop a culture of getting along in this chamber, then I think we have to allow for some mistakes, certainly during this time when we’re still wearing masks like you, Your Honour, when you speak.

We have people on Zoom to whom we are constantly giving the benefit of the doubt when their internet goes down. You allow them to start over again with their speeches because we have not been able to hear them, and rightfully so.

During this type of debate we are having, if we aren’t going to forgive each other’s mistakes and allow us to go back a minute later — not an hour, not half an hour, not 15 minutes later — at the next motion; that’s when Senator Wells got up and asked the Senate’s indulgence to go back and adjourn a motion that is clearly on the scroll. Every leadership person, every person on scroll here has that.

I find it a little perplexing that possibly the leadership teams of the groups that denied leave wouldn’t have said to their senators, “Listen, it’s right here. Senator Wells was going to adjourn it.” No one jumped to the defence.

Your Honour, I am asking that we go back and do the right thing and allow Senator Wells to adjourn a motion that everyone at scroll knew. The Deputy Leader of the Government knew, I’m sure. The scroll people in other groups knew. If we don’t allow Senator Wells to adjourn this, we are making a mistake here.

Mistakes have been made. I’m not pointing fingers at anybody. These are mistakes that have been made. But these are mistakes that are serious to people. Senator Patterson was serious about wanting to at least have a standing vote on his amendment that he felt was important.

Your Honour, I’m asking for the indulgence of this chamber to go back and allow Senator Wells to adjourn this. If this is the type of thing that we want to have happen, we will have to constantly default to adjourning and then going back.

I think that when we make deals before we come into this chamber, those deals should be honoured. Your Honour, I accept the fact that you’re not party to those deals. You’re not there. Again, I don’t know what you see there, but I’m sure the people assisting you see this. Somebody should have pointed out to you that Senator Wells wanted to adjourn this. Yes, you did hesitate. No question.

I am often accused of having a loud voice. I don’t often hear, “Well, I couldn’t understand you, Don.” Not everyone in this chamber is the same, Your Honour. You have a softer voice; it’s a little more difficult to understand. It is possible that we don’t have our hearing aids on.

I’m going to stop here, other than asking again for the indulgence of the Senate to go back and allow Senator Wells to adjourn Motion No. 50.