House of Commons Hansard #76 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was committees.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I just have one quick comment in reference to my colleague's speech.

He referred to staff being ordered to testify before they are even invited, but I know that at the defence committee, Ms. Zita Astravas has been invited, but we are having trouble getting hold of her. That concerns me because she is currently employed as the chief of staff to the Minister of Public Safety, a vital position, I think we can all agree. When she will not answer that invitation, I think it maybe does drive this forward.

My question actually goes back to the WE Charity. It is a question I have not been able to get an answer to from anybody. I still do not understand why the WE Charity pulled out of the program in the first place. If everything it was doing was legitimate and above-board, then I do not understand why it pulled out. Was it the government that stopped the program, or was it the WE Charity that pulled out of it on its own? If so, was the only reason they had to stop the program that the Prime Minister and the former minister of finance, Bill Morneau, failed to recuse themselves?

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the opposition is willing to cook up a conspiracy and make all these wild accusations because the member, and perhaps other members on that side, have a question they have not received an answer to. I cannot understand how that would be justified. It does not make any sense.

To go back to the member's first point about calling staff before committee, I come from municipal politics and rule number one at city hall was that staff were not dragged into political debates. The politicians are allowed to have the debates on policy, as they relate to the politics, and the staff are allowed to do the work that supports them. As mayor in Kingston, I had no problem, even when an employee made a mistake, standing up and saying, “I take responsibility for that, because they are my employee. You ask the questions of me.”

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his presentation. However, first I will actually commend the work of my colleagues from Rivière-du-Nord and Laurentides—Labelle, who have done an outstanding job on the ethics committee and the WE Charity file.

The member for Kingston and the Islands spoke of a document. Just this morning, in his speech, the member for Rivière-du-Nord said that the document had been redacted in a manner that did not comply with instructions.

The member for Kingston and the Islands is also wondering where the fabled due diligence report could be. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord had requested it this summer and both my colleagues are still waiting for it.

The Liberals tell me that everything is on the table and that there is no problem, all the information is there. I do not think we have everything on the table.

The member for Kingston and the Islands speaks of a political attack, of undermining trust. Why then did the Liberals prorogue Parliament? They are the ones who dishonoured democracy, who stopped Parliament from working to help people in the middle of a pandemic.

Finally, why did they vote against striking a committee on the WE Charity matter that would have finally gotten to the bottom of the whole affair? If they have nothing to hide, why did they not go for it?

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am sure this member knows that sometimes when an email is sent, a few subjects might be covered in that email.

When something has to be redacted, and there is an ATIP, it is asking for specific information. If an email happens to cover other information than in the ATIP request, it is completely logical that only the information that was requested in the ATIP will be provided. That makes complete sense.

In other instances, some of the text that was blacked out were phone numbers. I know that the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party and the NDP see themselves as having something to gain if there is something here.

No doubt, if there were something sinister here, they likely would. However, the reality is that at some point, they are just going to have to come to the conclusion and say, “Maybe there's nothing here and we need to move on.”

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest because I am not all that happy to be debating this motion today, but the government has left us, as members of Parliament, no choice.

Here is the situation at National Defence. For three years, after serious allegations of sexual misconduct were made against General Vance, he stayed as the chief of the defence staff. There was no investigation and no effective action. When we asked the Minister of National Defence to be the minister responsible, he said it was not his job. He said we had better talk to the Privy Council Office. When we asked him what the Prime Minister knew about this, he said he had asked his staff to do that.

Therefore, we are placed in the unenviable position of having to call his chief of staff to find out what the Prime Minister's Office was told and to have to call Privy Council officials to find out why there was no investigation. How do we avoid this situation if the Minister of National Defence will not take personal responsibility for his failure to act and remove General Vance?

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a ton of respect for the member. We both sat on the defence committee together. We had the opportunity to visit our troops together and look into very important issues that relate to our women and men in uniform on an ongoing basis.

I will say that I have noticed today that New Democrats have been very careful in discussing the actual issue. I know that they do not want to put themselves in a position where they are contributing to attacking staff, which is what we are seeing from the official opposition. It makes perfect sense, but what this is going to come down to is whether they are going to vote in favour of this motion. I know they do not want to go after staff because they know it is not right. Everything they are talking about today is not about the actual motion. They are skating around it and trying to pick up on points, very important subjects, I might add, that I wish we were discussing as the opposition day motion instead of this.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Green

Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke and I would like to see our debating something else, but the sexual assault scandal in the military has brought forward stories in my riding from women who have dealt with sexual assault in the military. A woman who was in the forces for 20 years lost her career because she made a complaint, and her son was assaulted on the base because she had made that complaint. She asked how women who are sexually assaulted in the military can bring forward complaints when we see that the complaints against General Vance have not been taken seriously. She wants to know who women are supposed to report to and if these complaints will be taken seriously, because her complaint was not taken seriously by the RCMP or by the military and she was reprimanded.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Then, Mr. Speaker, let us have a discussion about these important issues. I agree with the member that we should be doing as much as we possibly can. The RMC, which is in my riding, did not allow women to attend 40 years ago. It was just starting to do that in the 1980s. I sat on city council with one of the first females who became a cadet at RMC. I heard stories.

Let us work on this stuff. However, the member needs to explain to me why a motion to drag the staff of a minister before a committee so that the opposition can score political points somehow contributes to that. If the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the official opposition critic on this, spent half the time fighting for these victims as he has tried over the last six years to personally attack the Minister of National Defence, imagine where we would be if he spent that kind of quality time fixing problems.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. I am on the ethics committee, where we would like to get the study over and done with. Much information has come out in the last few months, but I want to focus on the comments by my NDP colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The government has given us no other choice.

The member held himself up as a mayor of Kingston and said that when somebody made a mistake, he would take responsibility for that. This motion would allow the Prime Minister, instead of staff, to take responsibility and speak for the government on these very important issues. Will the member hold his current boss to the same standard he held himself, or is he going to continue to cover up for the government's ethical breaches?

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, all this motion does, in-between its first the fourth clauses, is to hijack the staff, and they knew it when they wrote it. It does nothing more than that. They put the four staff people in there and then later said that if the Prime Minister wants to come, he can come instead of them. They are literally hijacking the staff at the expense of the Prime Minister when they know full well that the people who would best answer these questions are people like the defence minister, who has already been to the committee on this subject three times.

The issue is that they have not been getting a political win out of this, so they keep looking for new angles, and this is their newest angle: let us go after the staff. They say they will give us out by stating that the Prime Minister can come instead. If that does not work, they will take another angle.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

I do appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. The purpose of the motion is to support the authority of committees in their important inquiries of public interest with instructions to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics regarding questions of conflict of interest in relation to pandemic spending, and to the Standing Committee on National Defence addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The member has been stalwart and unwavering in his pursuit of accountability and truth, despite the constant attempts from Liberal members to impede his efforts. When all is said and done, I am hopeful that my colleague will be able to count on support from every party in this House, especially the governing party, given that the Liberals have said many times that they are committed to being transparent. What better way to be transparent than to allow committees to do their work in calling on witnesses to appear and answer questions on the important matters before them?

We have repeatedly heard the government claim it is committed to transparency, yet trying to get to the bottom of what has happened with the WE scandal has been like trying to see through a glass of mud.

Over this past year, Canadians have dealt with loss and faced much uncertainty as our country locked down in an effort to stop the spread of COVID. Their lives have been upended, as they have struggled to comply with public health orders in order to do their part. In return, they have gotten a government that has grown exceedingly comfortable with being evasive and unaccountable when it comes to its actions and decision-making during this time. From border closures to PPE procurement, and from vaccine procurement to government support programs, Canadians have paid a high price for the government's failures. Every time the government introduced a program, it was obvious it was thrown together haphazardly, resulting in Parliament being recalled several times to address the shortcomings.

On this point, I want to be clear. Conservatives have always understood that financial aid had to be provided if businesses were being shuttered and Canadians were being told to stay home. However, even during a pandemic, parliamentarians have a job to do. We on this side of the House always sought ways to improve the various support programs that were being proposed in order to ensure they were effective and targeted, and that they enabled people to get back to work when it was safe to do so.

When opposition members raise the concerns of Canadians regarding issues with legislation or the process, our insistence on due process and parliamentary oversight is characterized as playing politics and using delay tactics to slow down legislation. However, I ask members, who is playing politics and using delay tactics? Take, for example, the government's proroguing Parliament at the end of last summer. Why did they prorogue during a summer recess to a date already set for the fall session to resume? Quite clearly, it was an attempt to either end or delay the inquiries being made and cover up the WE scandal.

Another example is when Parliament resumed last fall and we were put on a time crunch to extend benefits such as CERB. When issues were raised about the system the Liberals had implemented, Conservatives were accused of holding up vital legislation. It is no secret that throughout this pandemic there has been continuous mismanagement by the government. Now, we need to get to the bottom of this serious breach of trust.

While Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, Liberals have been struggling to shovel hundreds of millions of dollars into their friends' pockets. While, thankfully, they were not ultimately successful, this is not something that can just be swept under the rug and forgotten about.

Canadians want answers. Canadians deserve answers. As I noted earlier, they have been hit hard by the pandemic, and this has been exacerbated not only by the ineptitude but also the unethical behaviour of the Liberal government. While the government has allowed the deficit to balloon during this pandemic, large deficits and unethical behaviour are not a product of it. The Liberals were running deficits prior to the pandemic. Their financial mismanagement has simply reached new heights.

While increased spending during the global pandemic is one thing, refusing to be transparent about how much they were spending, how they are spending it and why they are spending it in certain ways, is quite another. Now, when the government is being confronted on a very clear conflict of interest that involves hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, it is conducting a coordinated cover-up campaign to block witnesses from testifying at all costs.

As I stated earlier, it should be no surprise that we are here today discussing another possible ethics violation from the government. This is not a product of the pandemic, but rather an area where the government has some consistency. If colleagues recall prior to the pandemic, there was the whole debacle with SNC-Lavalin. Even further back was the Christmas vacation in the Bahamas that the Prime Minister took to the Aga Khan's private island.

It would seem the government thought a global pandemic would provide great cover to continue with its financial management, clear disdain for Parliament and lack of respect for the use of Canadian tax dollars, which has now led to these scandals and our attempts to get at the truth.

We are here today because the Liberals have made repeated attempts to block critical witnesses from testifying at both the ethics and defence committees. It is obvious to anyone watching that these are the actions of a government that has something to hide, or maybe they simply believe they do not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else. The Prime Minister and his government must be reminded that Canadians' hard-earned dollars are collected to benefit Canadians, not the Liberals, Liberal insiders or their friends.

It is unacceptable that a government would so flippantly grant a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to an organization that had paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Prime Minister and his family. We can add to that the government's efforts to cover-up the sexual misconduct allegations against the former chief of the defence staff, which they found out about in 2018.

Conservatives must not and will not allow this unethical behaviour to go unchecked. That is why this motion from my hon. colleague is so important. It requires the testimony from multiple witnesses at the appropriate committees so that we may get to the bottom of these scandals and offer answers to Canadians.

The contempt the government has for Parliament, its procedures and, by extension, Canadians, is on clear display. It would prefer to do everything behind closed doors, while proclaiming its transparency and, when questions are asked, to accuse the questioner of playing politics and not caring for Canadians. Conservatives will not allow the truth to remain hidden.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague's speech.

I cannot ask her to answer for the Liberal Party. However, since she spoke about transparency and ethical breaches, I can ask her to answer for her political party.

During the pandemic, the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party applied for the wage subsidy. Just now, I asked her colleague from Lethbridge if the Conservative Party intended to pay back the wage subsidy it received, but I did not get an answer. I am asking her the same question.

Does she believe that it was ethical for her party to apply for the wage subsidy? Does she believe that her party should pay it back?

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague who was asked this question earlier actually did answer it. I know that our leader did indicate during the leadership race that it was something that we, as Conservatives, would commit to doing, and we have undertaken to begin the process of giving back the wage subsidy.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, of course, the motion also deals with the sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces.

I know that the former Conservative government appointed General Vance as chief of the defence staff and that the then prime minister, Prime Minister Harper, and the former minister of national defence Jason Kenney, who is now the premier of Alberta, were aware of the allegations and investigations being conducted in 2015. They asked General Vance to lead the program to stamp out sexual misconduct in the military, Operation Honour.

Do the Conservatives believe that it was an error to appoint an individual under investigation for sexual misconduct to be put in charge of the military's response to address this very behaviour?

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, Canada's charter makes it very clear that every individual is equal before and under the law, and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

My colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound put out an excellent article on this issue. It said:

Our country and all Canadians need an effective and well-led military to face ever-evolving and complex global conflicts. We cannot be strong at home when leaders fail the women and men under their command, nor can we be engaged in the world without leveraging every competent, willing, and capable Canadian who enrols into the military.

When we have phenomenal leaders such as Lieutenant-Colonel Eleanor Taylor retiring in disgust, we understand that issues with the military need to be fixed and need to be fixed now.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regards to committees and the valuable work they could potentially be doing in regards to the coronavirus. The Prime Minister has been very clear that it is the first priority of this government. There are many other options that standing committees could be looking into, and many have been cited. Even some of my New Democratic friends have made reference to some of the work the standing committees could be doing.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on what degree standing committees could be doing more for Canadians by looking at a spectrum of different issues related to the different programs we have to support Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, I believe I was very clear in my remarks earlier today that I believe it is important for committees to be able to do the work that is in front of them. It is my understanding that the members on the committees mentioned in this motion are seized with these issues. They have the authority, and they should be given the opportunity to continue to follow up on these very important issues to get answers for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important motion before the House today, one that should make Canadians very concerned. It is a motion that should never have had to come before this House. The fact that we, as opposition members, have been left with no other choice but to bring it forward is as important as the motion itself.

The motion is to direct the government to provide the support committees require to carry out their important work, essentially to instruct the government to provide documents and political staff witnesses for the conflict of interest in lobbying in relation to the pandemic spending study and to instruct Zita Astravas, the former chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence and director of issues management for the Prime Minister, and the current chief of staff to the Minister of Public Safety, to appear at the national defence committee for its study on addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Forces.

Canadians could be forgiven if, after hearing this, they said, “That seems incredibly reasonable. Two House of Commons committees need to hear from critical parliamentary staff to do their work. That makes sense. Why wouldn't they...? Hang on; what is really going on?“

That is why this is such an important motion: It is because this motion is not a root cause but a symptom of something much bigger, something that speaks to some of our fundamental assumptions around the system of government and the values we hold dear.

The defence committee is conducting a study on addressing sexual misconduct issues in our Canadian Armed Forces, including the serious allegations against General Vance, the highest-ranking member in the Canadian Armed Forces, the chief of the defence staff. At the heart of the matter is that it appears that the defence minister, his staff—then Zita Astravas—officials in the Privy Council Office, officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and possibly the Prime Minister himself knew of these serious allegations in March of 2018 and took no action for three years.

No investigation was carried out. General Vance was not suspended. Worse still, in May 2019 the Prime Minister signed an order in council to give General Vance a salary raise to $306,000 a year. General Vance retired as CDS in January of this year, and these allegations have yet to be resolved. A replacement CDS was appointed, and he is now facing allegations of sexual misconduct and has stepped aside from his position during the investigation.

Further, Canadians have learned through numerous media reports that allegations of sexual assault and misconduct in the military have been ignored, investigations have been shut down, critical testimony and evidence have been lost, and charges have been dropped.

Tragically, these are not isolated incidents but a reflection of a much more damaging systematic problem.

A similar report from Justice Deschamps on the misogynistic and toxic culture within the Canadian Armed Forces was published in 2015.

Operation Honour, a military campaign designed to end sexual violence, harassment and misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, was created. General Vance, who led this operation, was responsible for eliminating the very acts that he himself is now accused of.

The Minister of National Defence was aware of this in 2018 but did nothing. That is the reason for today's motion, and it is why it is so important to hear from Zita Astravas, the former chief of staff for the Minister of National Defence. We need to know what she knew, when she knew it and what she did about it.

We will not be able to make any long-lasting changes to the military's culture if we cannot understand the full scope of the problem and if we do not know where, exactly, things went wrong.

A military stands to defend the values of the nation, but it must also embody them. If the defence minister does not hold the military accountable to those values, including the ability for all members to serve equally with honour, free from sexual assault and discrimination, then who will? If the House of Commons committees cannot do the work to hold cabinet ministers accountable, who else can?

While this motion is about mandating that committees can hear from critical witnesses, it is about much more than that. It is about the fundamental values and foundations of our society. When it comes to ensuring conduct of the highest level in the Canadian Armed Forces, the defence minister says it is not up to him, and the Prime Minister has said that it is not up to him. If it is not up to them, then who is responsible? If they will not act in the best interests of Canadians, who will?

The ends cannot justify the means. Every act at every step must be honourable and carried out with integrity, or the end itself is compromised. Democracy is fragile and is only as strong as the trust and confidence that Canadians place in all of us, their elected officials. That trust is hard won and easily lost.

I strongly urge all of my colleagues in the House to honour the trust that Canadians have placed in them by voting in favour of this motion to ensure that committees can hold the government to account, and in doing so deliver a better Canada for all.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 5:15 p.m., and this being the final supply day in the period ending March 26, 2021, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. As we customarily do, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and so indicate to the Chair at this time.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Call in the members.

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

Vote #79

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the main motion, as amended.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

[Chair read text of motion to House]