Debates of Oct. 20th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Anti-Corruption

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want it to be a secret to anybody that I do not have confidence in this government. There is a constitutional responsibility of the opposition to hold the government to account. That is a time-honoured tradition, but it is also a fundamental of any democracy.

If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister would suggest that holding the government to account would shut down Parliament, well, they have done it before. I guess this is the way they operate. It is good to have it on the record that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is suggesting they will continue to do that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech. I have to agree that sunlight is needed right now to shine light on the Liberals' unethical behaviour, and on the fact that they are trying to avoid oversight and accountability by filibustering, proroguing Parliament and, now, threatening an election.

The NDP proposed a special committee that would get documents, but it did not have a few of the things that the Conservative motion has. Some of these things make it look like the Conservatives are more interested in scoring political points than in getting to the truth.

I am curious why the member thinks it is important to ask for information from private citizens, who may have done nothing wrong, and why he thinks the committee needs to be chaired by an opposition member.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, starting with the last question first, I believe the committee should be chaired by an opposition member because of what we saw at the finance committee. We had a Liberal chair shut down the committee simply so the committee could not do its work. We want to ensure that does not happen.

I am also very interested to hear from the NDP member. I know she wants to find out what the truth is. I am willing to work with all opposition parties, and to work collaboratively. Of course, today, we have made amendments we felt would be necessary to gain the NDP's support. I know there is strong support within all the parties, within the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservative Party, for finding out the truth. Unfortunately, it is only the Liberal Party that keeps filibustering to keep us away from the truth.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question that is always swirling around in my mind is why, if it has nothing to hide, is the government not being open and transparent?

The government keeps repeating that it does not want to trigger an election and the opposition, with this motion, is forcing the government to make this a confidence vote.

I want to ask my colleague if he agrees that we could get to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal by creating a committee and continue to serve Quebeckers and Canadians in the context of the ongoing crisis.

In his opinion, are the Liberals the only ones who think that we are incapable of chewing gum and walking at the same time?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it seems it is only the Liberals who believe that we cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

I believe that to ensure Canadians get the help they need, the government needs to be held accountable. We have seen unprecedented spending over the last number of months. Never in Canadian history have we seen this kind of rollout of billions of dollars. Then we started to see the trickle of allegations of supporting or giving contracts or money to Liberal friends.

I believe that if Canadians are going to have trust in this government, they need to see there is accountability and transparency. They need to see that government members are held accountable when they break the rules and when they give money to their friends that they should not be giving.

Now, if the Liberals believe that they can continue to go down the road without transparency and accountability, I think Canadians will render a judgment at some point to say that it is unacceptable.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was a junior air force officer, my first posting was as the procurement officer for 19 Wing Comox on Vancouver Island. I was responsible for everything that was bought or leased on the base. In other words, anyone working on the base who needed something had to get it through me.

My decisions were not arbitrary or made on a whim. Before I was assigned the job, I spent many months in training as a military logistician, studying over 20 volumes of the Canadian Forces publication 181, supply manuals, defence procurement policies, the Financial Administration Act and many other related documents. There were processes and procedures for everything. Just to obtain approval to procure a commercial coffee maker required 10 signatures on a material authorization change request, or MACR for short. Those 10 people included the base commander, a squadron commander, a flight commander and me, just to name a few.

This bureaucracy was tiresome to be sure, but it was essential to upholding that no one, not even the base commander, could use military funds, and by extension public money, to, for example, pay for an outrageously expensive coffee machine purchased sole-source, which happened to include a million-dollar administration fee for someone's husband. There was no room for misconduct.

As officers, we endured the necessary piles of paperwork to ensure that tax dollars were spent wisely and to preserve the honesty and integrity of the organization and everyone in it. If these were the high standards to which a junior air force procurement officer is held, should they be any less for the highest office in the land?

Let us talk about the Prime Minister and his pattern of behaviour of breaking the rules, giving money to his friends, using Liberal members to cover it up and firing anyone who dares to stand in his way. Let us talk about the Prime Minister's pattern of corruption.

His first transgression was the gift of an all-expenses-paid Christmas vacation for him, his family and his friends to an island in the Bahamas. The rules require that members of Parliament disclose any gift over $200. The Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking the Conflict of Interest Act. He apologized. Seamus O'Regan, a minister of the Crown who joined the Prime Minister on this trip, never disclosed the vacation as a gift.

Then came the SNC-Lavalin scandal. SNC was charged with fraud and corruption, and was seeking a way to get out of facing the full consequences of breaking the law. It looked to our Prime Minister to use his powers to circumvent the law and tip the scales in SNC's favour. A justice minister stood in his way and upheld the rule of law. For her efforts, she was fired as justice minister and thrown out of the Liberal Party. There was no place in the Liberal Party for honourable actions like that. The key adviser and friend to the Prime Minister, Gerry Butts, resigned.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on point of order. Unfortunately, we seem to be running into the same issue where hon. members are using the names of members of Parliament when they should be referring to their ridings or titles.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his attention to the debate. Indeed, I think the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill referred to the Minister of Natural Resources by his given name as opposed to his title. She could also use his riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

We will go back to the hon. member, who I would ask to avoid the use of given or family names.

The hon. member.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the head of our non-partisan, hard-working public service chose that moment to retire. Liberal members on the House of Commons committees attempting to investigate shut down all attempts to get to the truth.

The Prime Minister was found guilty of a second ethics violation, but this time he showed no remorse. He had no intention of acting differently. He refused to apologize and instead doubled down, trying to convince us that it was okay to break the law for the right reasons, like helping his corporate friends escape the long arm of the law.

The Prime Minister has again used the powers of his office for personal gain. The Prime Minister attempted to award the WE Charity a $912-million government contract, $912 million in taxpayer dollars, in a closed, directed, no competition selection process. During a pandemic that has millions of Canadians struggling to pay their bills, our Prime Minister attempted to give hard-earned tax dollars to an organization to do what exactly?

For starters, an administration fee of $43.5 million would be pocketed directly by the WE Charity, a charity that just happened to have paid the Prime Minister's family and the family members of other members of his cabinet significant sums of money. Once again, the House of Commons committees investigating were stonewalled and then ultimately shut down when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, leaving Canadians with no government at all.

For a third time, the Prime Minister is being investigated for ethics violations.

However, this is not just a story about the Prime Minister. It is unfortunately much worse than that. The Prime Minister's actions send a message to others who would seek to break the rules, cheat and take advantage of their positions of power for personal gain. It gives them permission to put their personal agendas before the best interests of the country. It becomes a culture of acceptance of corruption, because, after all, if the Prime Minister can do it, why should they not?

For example, the former finance minister, Bill Morneau, was investigated for conflict of interest violations for a corporation that held a French villa that he forgot to disclose. He was also investigated for failing to put the shares of his company in a blind trust and then introduced pension legislation changes that would benefit corporations like his. Morneau also forgot to disclose or pay back the all-expenses paid $40,000-plus vacation that WE Charity gave him and his family. Yes, that is the same WE Charity. Coincidentally, two of his daughters have worked extensively with WE. Morneau was about to be investigated for ethics violations but instead resigned as a minister and a member of Parliament.

The list goes on. What about when the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs broke the law when, as fisheries minister, he approved an Arctic surf clam licence to the company his wife works for; or when the $84 million contract to administer the Canadian emergency commercial rent assistance program was out-sourced to the company that PMO chief of staff Katie Telford's husband works for?

What about the former Liberal Raj Grewal who allegedly received $6 million that he did not disclose to the Ethics Commissioner? Documents also claim that he solicited funds by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means in connection with his duties of office as a member of Parliament.

These are just the cases that have been uncovered. Like the tip of the iceberg, if this is the pattern of corruption that we can see, we can barely imagine the magnitude of what has not yet come to light or what the government wants to ensure never comes to light.

House of Commons committees are Parliament's version of the military's MACR, from a junior officer's time all those years ago. Committees are our checks and balances. The purpose of committees is to investigate and to problem solve. Committees hold governments to account, identify where they have failed. Committees are the work that members of Parliament get paid to do to deliver fair, equal and improved services for Canadians.

The Liberal members are shutting down committees. They are working to keep the full extent of the Prime Minister's transgressions hidden. They are determined to keep Canadians in the dark. Liberal MPs are complicit in the cover-up.

When the government acts this way, breaking the law, circumventing rules and processes, shutting down committees and refusing to release documents and completely redacting the ones they do, it sends one clear message. It is not acting in the bests interests of Canada and it is not putting the needs of Canadians ahead of itself.

I was not raised to turn a blind eye to such behaviour and my constituents in Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill have not sent me here to turn a blind eye. The citizens of the country did not elect the Prime Minister to use the powers of office for his own gain and Canadians did not elect members of Parliament to help him cover it up.

During this pandemic billions of dollars are being spent. We need a special House of Commons committee to investigate how they are being spent. We need the facts. We need to uncover the truth. We need to know how bad it is and we need to fix it fast.

Canadians deserve honesty and transparency. When will this culture of corruption stop? When will we say enough is enough?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested when the hon. member talked about her role as a junior military officer. I want to thank her for her service to our country and the important work she did, in her words, as a bureaucrat, going through the bureaucracy and following the rules to the tee.

Based on that comment, I would like to give her a quote from the hon. member for Carleton, who said, “the decision on what to reveal,” with respect to documents, “is made by non-partisan public servants, for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.”

Why was her work as a public servant good with respect to dealing with bureaucracy and why is she standing by while her other party members impugn the work of our non-partisan public service with respect to the redaction of documents?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very saddened to hear that my hon. colleague has misinterpreted what I said to such a grave extent.

It is the Liberal members on committee, the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister who would use government funds, taxpayer dollars, to their personal gain and then work tirelessly to ensure that no transparency and none of that information can come to light. It is that pattern of behaviour and a culture of acceptance that their personal gains are above those of the Canadian interest. That is what members of Parliament have a responsibility to investigate and that is why this special committee is so needed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I want to say a word here, and I think it will be clear where I am going with this: samfundssind. This word comes from the Danish language council. The Conservatives just talked about serving people. The Liberals claim to be willing to call an election if they no longer have the confidence of the House, but that they want to focus on serving the public.

This Danish word represents the idea of having confidence in institutions and putting society's interests above one's own interests. Denmark currently has one of the best records in the world on health and its management of COVID. This is because the government has prioritized making its institutions transparent. It has also prioritized combatting corruption. NGO Transparency International gives Denmark top marks.

There is a direct correlation between the public's trust in a government and its willingness to comply with the government's health measures. I think that this relationship of trust has been broken. We must prioritize public trust in the government, but the public is skeptical.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and comment.

It is very important for a government to have the confidence of the people, the citizens.

As someone of Danish heritage, I absolutely concur. I and have been able to understand and keep very close tabs because we still have family in Denmark. Their commitment to the transparency of government and to doing what is in the best interests of the public over and above their own personal interests has been instrumental in positioning them for success in the pandemic. As well, the military has a conversation, one that I have always lived by, service before self.

All we as members of Parliament, who are entrusted with the sacred responsibility of our citizens, are doing in this place is to honour that trust, hold the government accountable and ensure the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There is time for just one last question.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have said that the WE scandal is the dumbest political scandal in history. I think the only thing dumber is the government's response.

We will not participate in a Liberal-run committee because we have participated in Liberal-run committees and we have seen how they have shut down our work. They shut down the SNC-Lavalin inquiry. They shut down finance. However, the idea that they can threaten us with an election to make this go away is really preposterous.

I have work to get done at ethics committee. I was willing to share it with the committee, but we will do this work one way or the other. I offered to pull off, as friendly amendment to get the Liberals to work with us, on the Prime Minister's family. We offered to change that amendment. The Liberals talked the clock out.

If the Liberals do not show good faith, we can still go back to our committees. We can still demand documents, which we are willing to pull back on in order to get them to work. We will get this information one way or the other unless the Prime Minister decides to go to Rideau Hall. That is the only way he will stop our work. Whether they have a committee or not, our committees will do the work.

What does my hon. colleague think the Liberals are up to in thinking they can intimidate us into not getting answers?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not begin to imagine what the Liberals could possibly be up to.

Ultimately, we are here with the responsibility to investigate these matters. They are demonstrating a pattern of behaviour that circumvents all of the rules that we have in this place so that they can predetermine an outcome. We need a special committee just to ensure we get the information we need. We need to have a special committee chaired by an opposition party member so we can ensure that committee processes and procedures are upheld and not circumvented, as the Liberal members of Parliament are doing at committee.

It is egregious, devastating and depressing that our only ability to do the job we need to do in this crisis as members of Parliament is by proposing a special committee, and the Liberals are threatening an election if we are successful.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate and giving the floor to the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord, I wish to inform the House of the following.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Environment; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Public Services and Procurement.

Resuming debate.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

I think that the government is scraping the bottom of the barrel today. The Liberals told us that it is too bad if we, the men and women of the opposition, do our job because they will not allow that to happen. They will trigger an election and say that it is our fault. I think that is rather shocking. Investigating is the opposition's job, and we are going to do it. We did our job all summer and we will continue to do it.

According to the Liberals, we are going to paralyze Parliament if we form a special committee to study WE Charity. The opposite is true. We are proposing this solution to avoid paralyzing Parliament. My colleagues across the way may not have noticed, but Parliament was paralyzed all summer. All summer, four of the House's standing committees had quite a lot on their plate. They had to drop all their other work to investigate WE Charity. There was the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Four committees were working on nothing but the WE scandal to try to get more clarity.

We started up again in September. The Prime Minister had prorogued the House in August, and we started working again. To us, it made no sense. These committees have work to do. Nearly $343 billion has been spent on COVID-19 since the spring. The Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates are going to have to look at that at some point. We felt there needed to be an efficient, logical approach. We are not paralyzing the work of the House. We are creating a separate special committee. That way, the other committees will be able to continue doing their work. That is what we are proposing. We are not proposing to paralyze the House. We want it to work better.

Their other argument is that we are in a pandemic. Since everyone is sick and losing their job, it makes no sense to study the WE scandal. That is like saying we have to let them rifle through the pockets of sick people lying in hospital beds and take their wallets without telling them, and they will take care of those wallets. Enough already.

Quebeckers who are sick and losing their jobs still pay income tax. The money this government is spending is their money. These people may be entitled to a doctor, but they are also entitled to MPs who take care of business and make sure that this money is managed properly.

That is our job. It is not only our right, but our duty, to investigate WE Charity. It would be irresponsible to let these scandals go on without taking action. We will do our job. We must be all the more vigilant now that people are so vulnerable. Many people have COVID-19 or have family members with COVID-19. People have lost their jobs or businesses. Bars and restaurants are closing down. People do not know where to turn. People are sick and need money. Most of all, they need MPs to do their job.

The government will not weasel out of the WE Charity scandal. God only knows what a fix we would be in had we not taken action, but the government will not get away with this. What is the government trying to avoid? Is it trying to avoid a thorough analysis and examination of WE Charity, or is it trying to prevent the opposition from taking a close look at everything else?

The $343 billion that has been spent is not peanuts. By refusing to strike the special committee, is the government trying to force us to examine WE Charity in the four standing committees, to prevent us from looking into these matters? Make no mistake, we are going to study this, but by forcing us to spend committee time studying WE Charity, is the government trying to distract us from something else, like what happened with the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, or what happened with the purchase of ventilators? The Liberal motion mentions a few scandals, but that list is nowhere near exhaustive. There are many more. Is that what they are trying to avoid?

If we had not done our work and looked into the WE Charity scandal this summer, the folks at that organization would still have millions of dollars in their pockets, either paid out or reimbursed.

I think it was roughly $30 million. They had a $43-million contract to manage about $900 million in student grants. The $43 million would now be in the pockets of WE Charity. God knows whose pockets the $900 million would be in, because God knows how it would have been managed. The $40,000 that finance minister Morneau repaid to WE Charity the morning that he testified would still be in the pockets of the Morneau family.

The Prime Minister still would not be aware that he was in a conflict of interest. He would still believe that the ethics rules apply to everyone except him. The work we did this summer made the Prime Minister realize this. I was watching him today during question period, and I think that he gets a little more embarrassed every day.

As I said at the start, the government is scraping the bottom of the barrel. All it can say is that it is too bad, but that if we keep hounding it, if we keep tabs on what it does, if we keep making sure it does not reach into everyone's pockets and hand out the money as it sees fit, it will call an election and then say that it is our fault.

Our Prime Minister is starting to look a little worn out.

Not so long ago, my leader wondered if the Prime Minister still had the focus to run the government. I do not think he did then, and today, I am sad to say that I do not think this government is run by a Prime Minister who is prepared to lead properly. The scandals keep piling up. It is never-ending. First there was the Aga Khan, then SNC-Lavalin, and now the WE scandal, not to mention the husband of the Prime Minister's chief of staff. Gerald Butts, principal secretary to the Prime Minister, was forced to resign. Everyone is being forced out.

I must reiterate that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in August. When he was being held accountable and being forced to hand over the information and documents we requested, he decided to drown us in boxes of documents. He sent us 5,000 redacted documents, which is a whole other story, and prorogued Parliament the same day. A few days before that, the then minister of finance resigned. This all happened at the same time, practically the same week. A finance minister being forced to resign is a big deal.

The government prorogued Parliament and sent over 5,000 pages of redacted documents. I looked at those documents. They were as clear as mud. They were not dated or signed. Any old thing was put down any old way. It is a lot of work to try to understand them.

I saw that a few times in my career as a lawyer. Judges imposed penalties for that sort of thing. When one side was required to produce documents, it had to be done properly. They could not just produce any old thing, any old way, in an attempt to overwhelm the other side. That is what happened this summer. As I was saying, the government is scraping the bottom of the barrel today. It is threatening us. As though prorogation were not bad enough, now the government is saying that it will force an election and say that it is our fault. That is irresponsible. We will not let the government get away with that. We will do our job. We will stand up. Regardless of what the Liberals decide to do, we will vote in favour of a special committee to study the WE Charity scandal and any other scandal related to the management of the COVID-19 crisis.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a few years back the position of the Ethics Commissioner was established. It was under Stephen Harper. I suspect that if we were to look at many of the scandals at the time, like the opting in and out scandal or the Senate scandal, numerous issues could have been filed to the Ethics Commissioner. There is no doubt about that, but the position of the Ethics Commissioner is relatively new. It is a positive thing. As opposed to listening to the biases that come from the opposition on the issues of ethics, we have an Ethics Commissioner.

The Ethics Commissioner has not said anything in terms of what has come out of this WE issue. The opposition called it a scandal even before the Ethics Commissioner reported on it.

Does the Bloc have any confidence in the independent offices of Parliament?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is our job and, as I said, we will do it.

Based on what my colleague opposite said, the Liberals are acting like someone who gets pulled over on the highway for driving 140 kilometres per hour and tries to tell the officer that plenty of other drivers were going just as fast. What an excuse, right? Were the Conservatives involved in scandals in the past? Maybe, but that is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about doing our job.

If my colleague across the way were sitting on the opposition benches, facing a Conservative government that did what the Liberal government did, I am sure he would be the first to rise in the House and say he would not let them get away with it. He should have done so back then to the Conservative government. We will do it now to his government.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague a question, I would like to share a troubling situation that happened in my northern riding.

The Mathias Colomb first nation learned from media reports that tents had been produced for it, but they were not what the first nation had specifically requested from the department. Once the matter was made public, we learned that a well-connected Liberal was linked to the company in question. He has since stepped down, fortunately, but the money has already been spent and we are still waiting for answers. This is another example of public funds being mismanaged, which has real consequences for a very vulnerable community like this remote first nation in my riding.

Does my colleague think that this example, like so many others, reinforces the urgent need for a committee tasked with examining how this government spends public money in first nations and across the rest of Canada?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to bring that up. As I was saying earlier, there are many other matters that need the attention of Parliament and its various committees. That is why we want a special committee to look into the WE Charity scandal.

What happened with these indigenous communities is indeed scandalous. I have a lot of sympathy for people in these terrible situations. We will have to deal with this. Back during the 2015 campaign, the Prime Minister said that he would review the Indian Act because it was wrong. Here we are in 2020 and nothing has been done. The Prime Minister continues to claim that the provinces should manage things differently and that such-and-such aspect is worrisome, he sheds a few tears, he presents some apology, and so on and so forth. However, he has yet to touch the Indian Act.

My colleague is right to raise this issue. Government relations with indigenous peoples are in need of review, which is why we must study the WE Charity scandal in a separate, special committee.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that, right now, it is important to address COVID-19-related issues, and that that is what Canadians and Quebeckers are calling for. They are also saying that, in the interest of time, we need to give priority to managing the crisis rather than to creating a committee. It is so important for them to dedicate all of their time to COVID-19 that, strangely enough, they are telling us that they would rather spend more time on an election than in committee. That seems rather ridiculous to me. They are giving us a choice. They are asking us to choose between the committee and an election. Obviously, the Liberals would rather force an election than create a committee.

It is either one of two things: either the government is going to seek a confidence vote or it is such a bad poker player that its bluff is not believable. In the end, all the government really wants is an election. That is what we understand since, for the past three weeks, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has not stopped talking about an election. Even when we talk to him about machine guns, he responds by talking about an election. The government wants to force an election, but it does not want to take the blame for it.

We may have to consider a third option that I feel was not covered in the debate. Essentially, maybe the motion is really bad and we should vote against it. However, I did not hear a single government member explain why the motion is bad and why we should not vote in favour of it.

Since there has been no debate on the substance of the motion, I will get the ball rolling because it is always nice to know what we are voting on. It is important to remind ourselves of that from time to time.

I will go over each clause of the motion briefly.

Here is the first part of the motion:

That the House:

(a) note that the WE Charity scandal has preoccupied Parliament since the Canada Student Service Grant...was announced...the outstanding and unanswered questions only became more numerous and increasingly serious;

This part is about simply taking note. The media have reported on this so extensively that there should be no problem including it in the motion.

The motion continues:

(b) further note that several other scandals and potential scandals have come to light more recently in the context of government expenditures related to the COVID-19 pandemic response, including, but not limited to,

(i) the awarding of contracts to the employer of the Prime Minister's chief of staff's spouse...

(ii) allegations of lobbying by the Prime Minister's chief of staff's spouse...

(iii) the acquisition of ventilators, which did not have regulatory approval for use...

It is a long list. However, since this is all public knowledge, I do not see why including it in the motion would be an issue. I do not think that is the problem.

Again, the motion continues:

(c) acknowledge that the Prime Minister's abrupt decision to prorogue Parliament intensified the need for parliamentary accountability;

This morning the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was saying that the prorogation was not so bad since it was an unusual session and we sat during the summer, and in fact that this summer we sat for more days than the number of days during which the House was prorogued.

They are not looking at the problem through the right lens. It is not the number of days that count, especially since there was only one COVID-19 committee and most of the time the sittings were irregular. The important thing for them was to shut down the committee and to stop talking about the WE Charity. To me that makes it even more important to include it in a motion.

I will continue reading the motion.

(d) believe that, to ensure that the work required to achieve this accountability does not interfere with the ordinary operations of the House’s network of committees, a special committee with a dedicated mandate should be established; and

I see no problem in creating a special committee. In fact, just this morning they even suggested creating a committee.

I now return to the motion:

(e) therefore appoint a special committee on anti-corruption...

Some people may not like the name, but that is all right because an amendment was moved to change the name. The committee's name was changed. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

This committee must examine and review:

(i) all aspects of the CSSG...

(ii) the assorted relationships between WE Charity, including any of its affiliated or related organizations and the Kielburger family, on the one part, and the government and ministers...

(iii) all aspects of the CECRA program, including its planning, development, establishment and implementation,

(iv) all aspects related to the allegations of lobbying by Rob Silver...

(v) all aspects related to the acquisition, purchase and regulatory approval of ventilators manufactured by...the Baylis Medical Company,

(vi) any other matter connected to the government’s COVID-19 pandemic response measures that any standing committee of the House may request the committee to investigate...

In reading this, I want to say that we are not really talking about a mistake here and there but a whole string of mistakes. It is one more reason for the committee to specifically study these issues.

Then we get into the nuts and bolts. Subparagraphs (vii) to (xvi) deal, among other things, with the membership of the committee.

There are not too many problems there, since that is usually how committees work.

(xviii) the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth may be ordered to appear as witnesses from time to time, as the committee sees fit,

The government is saying that, if we set up this committee, it will take up so much time that the government will not be able to focus on managing the crisis, which should be the priority. The government seems to think that the committee would be calling all of these witnesses five days a week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. It is reasonable to expect that there will be time limits placed on witness appearances in committee.

I would hope that the country will not fall apart if the Prime Minister steps away for two hours. Otherwise, I hope no one on the government side gets COVID-19.

The motion then talks about the documents that must be produced. It talks about an unredacted version of the 5,000 pages that were already submitted. It says that that information will be considered in camera, which seems like a perfectly acceptable compromise to me.

Then, in subparagraphs (vii) to (xvi), we get into the details and the makeup of the committee. No problems there, since that is generally how committees work.

Subparagraph (xviii) states that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth may be ordered to appear as witnesses. This is why the government says that if this committee is created, it will take up so much time that the government will not be able to focus on managing the crisis, which is the priority.

The government seems to think that the committee would be calling all of these witnesses five days a week from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. It is reasonable to expect that there will be time limits placed on witness appearances in committee, and I would hope that the country will not fall apart if the Prime Minister steps away for two hours. Otherwise, I hope no one on the government side gets COVID-19.

The motion then talks about the documents that must be produced. It talks about an unredacted version of the 5,000 pages that were already submitted. It says that that information will be considered in camera, which seems like a perfectly acceptable compromise to me. For us to do our job as parliamentarians, we need a complete picture of the situation. When a quarter of the information is redacted, we miss out on context and information. We found some interesting things in the 5,000 pages we received, even though they were redacted. I am sure the parts we cannot see would have interesting things in them too. As MPs, it is our job to ask questions.

We are asking for a copy of all the Speakers' Spotlight documents on WE events held over the summer. The government could have decided to go ahead and create this committee without that requirement, and everyone would have been happy, because ultimately, we not all that bothered that those documents have not been turned over. We already know about the various speaking engagements involving members of the Prime Minister's family, and he knows about them too. It is especially significant that he knows about them, and yet he decided not to recuse himself.

For us to do our job as parliamentarians, we need a complete picture of the situation. When a quarter of the information is redacted, we miss out on context and information.

We found some interesting things in the 5,000 pages we received, even though they were redacted. I am sure the parts we cannot see would have interesting things in them too. As MPs, it is our job to ask questions.

The motion demands a copy of all records at Speakers' Spotlight, including WE Charity events held over the summer. Actually, it is fine if we do not get the records, because we already know about the speaking appearances of members of the Prime Minister's family. He knows about them too. The important thing is that, even though he knew, he did not recuse himself. We could have decided to go ahead with the committee minus that part, and everyone would have been happy.

The motion demands all emails, memoranda and documents involved in preparing for the prorogation. There is even a standing order stating that, when the government prorogues the House, it must explain its reasons. Our Standing Orders indirectly provide for this, so nobody can really be against it.

Finally, the motion demands a complete accounting of all communications between the government and WE Charity or its affiliated organizations. I think that sounds very logical and reasonable in the context of studying a scandal that we have been dealing with for several months.

I see nothing in the substance of the motion that would cause anyone to stick their neck out and vote against it. I do not understand why the government is urging us to vote against the motion. It thinks the motion is so contemptible that it needs to be a confidence vote. I think there is more to it.

Simply put, the government is telling us that it is so busy taking care of the pandemic that it does not have time to be accountable. That is what it is saying. It is one or the other, the government cannot be expected to do both at once. The government cannot be expected to manage the crisis while also being accountable. That would be impossible. The Liberals are so focused on managing the pandemic that they cannot answer questions.

The motion calls on the government to provide all memoranda, emails, and documents relating to prorogation. There is a Standing Order stating that if a government prorogues Parliament, it must provide reasons for its decision. This point would be difficult to oppose, since it is asking for something that is already required pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Lastly, the motion calls on the government to provide a complete accounting of all communications between the government and any organizations affiliated with WE Charity, which seems completely logical and reasonable to me, in the context of studying a scandal that we have been dealing with for several months.

I do not see anything in the motion that would warrant someone putting their neck out, saying that they will not vote in favour and urging others to vote against the motion because it is so terrible that it needs to be a matter of confidence. There must be something else there.

Simply put, the government is telling us that it has so much do to take care of the pandemic that it does not have time to be accountable. The government does not want to be told to do two things at once. It does not want to be told to manage a crisis and be accountable at the same time. According to the government, that would be impossible because it is so focused on managing the pandemic that it cannot answer questions.

If we take that argument to its logical extreme, the government is basically saying that a crisis is the perfect time for it to throw all the ethics rules out the window, because it cannot do two things at once, namely be accountable and manage the crisis. That is rather worrisome. In the best-case scenario, the government has something to hide and does not want us to find out what. In the worst-case scenario, the government is completely incompetent because it is incapable of doing two things at once.

If we take that argument to its logical extreme, the government is basically saying that a crisis is the perfect time for it to throw all the ethics rules out the window, because it is impossible to be accountable and manage the crisis at the same time. That is rather worrisome. In the best-case scenario, the government has something to hide and does not want us to find out what. In the worst-case scenario, the government is completely incompetent because it is incapable of doing two things at once.

In closing, I would like to remind the House of the ethics criteria. It is said that ethics is the art of doing the right thing even when no one is watching. This seems to be a problem for the government. Maybe it needs to have someone looking over its shoulder to make sure it does the right thing at the right time. That is our role as parliamentarians. We will not stop saying that when there is nothing to hide, nothing gets hidden.

I get the impression that the further we get into this debate, the less it will be about creating a committee that will undermine confidence in the government. I suspect it is what this committee will discover that will undermine confidence in the government.

In closing, I would like to remind the House that ethics is the art of doing the right thing even when no one is watching. This seems to be a problem for the government. It needs to have someone looking over its shoulder to make sure it does the right thing at the right time. That is our role as parliamentarians. We will not stop saying that when there is nothing to hide, nothing is hidden.

I suspect that as we continue this debate, it will not be the creation of the committee, but what it will discover, that will determine whether we should have confidence in the government.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I have two questions for her.

First, does she acknowledge that, according to House rules on normal committee membership, six of the 13 members must be Liberal? According to the Conservatives' proposal, six of the 15 members would be Liberal MPs. Maybe further down the line, there would be three Liberal members. Would she be okay with not having a Bloc Québécois member on the committee? This proposal does not follow the normal committee rules.

Second, the committee chair is usually a Liberal MP. This proposal stipulates that neither the chair nor the first or second vice-chair shall be Liberals. The party with the greatest number of seats in the House would be entitled only to the third vice-chair position. Again, playing by the Conservatives' rules, there could be committees that exclude a party represented in the House. What is the hon. member's position on these changes to committee membership?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never mind changing the composition of a committee, I am surprised that this is the first time I am being asked questions about the content of the motion.

The Liberals are so opposed to this motion that they did not stop to think about how it could be improved and made acceptable to all members of the House. We were never even offered that opportunity. From my understanding, the Conservatives were not offered any opportunity to negotiate on anything the Liberals could not quite swallow. They are trying to bury this. They say that when people want to drown their dogs, they claim the dogs have rabies. All of a sudden, the Liberals find something, because I talked briefly about the content. They found something that will not go over too well. They have never, ever tried to improve this to make it an acceptable motion. This shows that there was never any intention to create such a committee, period.