Chair, thank you very much. I'm going to be fairly brief but I'll be making four main points.
The first is really a point that is in the context of the current environment that we're in. We're in an election year. It's symptomatic of the fact that we are in an election year that we have seen an increase in partisan attacks from the official opposition and that's the case because they have no substance on policy. Andrew Scheer's party offers Canadians no leadership on important issues like climate change, growing our economy or social justice. I'm going to be fairly precise here. His caucus is instructed to consistently vote against important investments in Canadian families, innovation and entrepreneurship, our seniors and Canadian workers.
Secondly, and this is disturbing because it is a pattern, Andrew Scheer's party deeply mistrusts our public institutions. Those are the very institutions that create solutions, solve problems and serve the public interest.
Let me highlight some of the symptoms of that. These are aimed not only at Canadian judicial officials or institutions but also at the Canadian Forces, even Parliament itself. Also symptomatic, as my colleague Mr. Gerretsen pointed out, is the inability to distinguish the bureaucracy, PCO, from the political level. First of these and foremost is Stephen Harper's very infamous and public attack on the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin. She is the first woman to have held this post and she's the highest legal officer, or was at the time, of our country. Today, Andrew Scheer's caucus flatly refuses to accept that the judicial process in the Mark Norman case was by all accounts fully independent.
A more surprising symptom came from last night's session of the committee of the whole, where Leona Alleslev, who is the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and a veteran of the Canadian Forces, insinuated that Canada's armed forces could somehow, and this is her language, go “rogue” if they weren't subjected to strong ministerial control. This is a bizarre statement and it reflects the very same level of mistrust by Andrew Scheer's party in our public institutions and sadly reflects the centralized secretive ways that were carried over from the former Harper regime.
The women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces are known here and around the world for their professionalism, their commitment and their excellence. I wonder how they feel today after being told that there is a risk that they will go rogue.
Conservative mistrust of Parliament also runs deep. In contrast to today's meeting, when Stephen Harper's defence committee held a Standing Order 106(4) session, it was held in camera and secret. Stephen Harper also hid an unprecedented number of cabinet decisions from public view, with Parliament and the Canadian public kept unaware of the existence of two dozen orders in council.
However, the consequences of this endemic mistrust of public institutions tend to fall back on Andrew Scheer's party and that's certainly true in this case. Let me get to the point of why that is the case in my third point.
The Conservatives really have no evidence of political interference. In fact, it is the opposite. There is clear positive evidence that there was no interference. Murray Brewster, CBC News, on May 13, wrote that Vice-Admiral Norman was directed by Stephen Harper's cabinet to talk to Davie, the shipyard, about the leasing deal. The vast majority of the 12 alleged cabinet leaks that are in question took place under the former Conservative government. The Conservative members across and former ministers of that government know this. As was pointed out earlier, they've known this for some time, for a number of years, and decided not to take action until now.
John Ibbitson wrote last week that there is no evidence that Liberals interfered with Mark Norman's prosecution. In other words, there is no evidence that the government in any way pushed the office of the director of public prosecutions to lay the charge. That is fundamental. It is still misunderstood by the Conservative caucus or deliberately misconstrued.
My final point is that to launch their partisan attacks, Andrew Scheer's party is quite willing to misuse Parliamentary resources including this committee's session today. Let me take a few moments to go through some of the work, Mr. Chair, that you have led and that this committee has done over the course of the last three years.
Back in September 2016, we studied Canada and the defence of North America, NORAD and aerial readiness. In April 2017, we studied the protection of our miliary personnel. We studied the Canada-U.S. relationship and perspectives on defence, security and trade. We studied, in June of 2017, the readiness of Canada's naval forces.
We went on to look at the extremely important issue of suicide mortality in the Canadian Armed Forces, in February 2017. We studied Canada's support to Ukraine in crisis and in armed conflict, in December 2017. Last year, the committee took a look at Canada and NATO. In December, we looked at Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts. And then going into this year, Mr. Chair, we just completed an important report on Canada's task force in Mali, our support to MINUSMA, the UN integrated stabilization mission in Mali.
These are the things, Mr. Chair, that matter to Canadians.
I agree with my colleague opposite, Mr. Garrison, that Tuesday's apology in the House to Vice-Admiral Norman was important. I'm calling on colleagues opposite to acknowledge there simply is no evidence by any account, other than their own construction, of any political interference for this committee to examine. We should therefore return to the business before the committee that actually serves the interests of Canadians. That includes our current study of diversity and inclusion in Canada's Armed Forces.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.