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

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to move along business that we started last summer.

It was last summer that Canadians first learned about the WE scandal involving the Liberal government. This is the scandal of the WE organization paying members of the Prime Minister's family half a million dollars and then being awarded, in an untendered agreement, half a billion dollars of taxpayer funds as part of a proposed or planned pandemic relief program for students.

We heard many different things at the time, both from the PMO and from the WE organization, including that members of the Prime Minister's family had never been paid. Then, of course, that story changed over time.

When hearings began last summer and members of the opposition began to get answers for Canadians, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, effectively killing the work of those committees. At the time he said that when the House resumed in the fall, there would be lots of time for questions. There was certainly lots of time, and that time was spent by Liberal members filibustering across multiple committees.

At the ethics committee alone, the filibuster lasted for the equivalent of 20 meetings. When that filibuster finally ended and we were able to order witnesses to appear, it was December. In December, we initiated that process, but the government's partners in this deal, the founders of the WE organization, Craig and Marc Kielburger, took until March to agree to appear at the committee, and then eventually said they would not, even if summoned.

A summons was issued to them, and they did appear. During that appearance, we heard more contradictions to previous testimony and sought to have more witnesses called as a result.

The Prime Minister's testimony in the summer was before the heavily redacted document dump that came on the eve of the cover-up prorogation in August, and so here was no opportunity for members to compare and contrast the answers given by the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, other witnesses from cabinet, and the information that was in that document release. As more information has come out, the need for more questions to be asked has come to pass, and we need these witnesses to appear.

I should note, before I mention the defence committee, that I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. He sits on the defence committee and is the shadow minister for defence.

This is happening at the same time that the defence committee is dealing with the study with respect to sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. The allegations it is dealing with concern the former chief of the defence staff. The former chief of the defence staff is alleged to have perpetrated sexual misconduct. It was reported to the Canadian Forces ombudsman in 2018. That information was relayed to the Minister of National Defence and to the Prime Minister's Office, at which point one would expect that a thorough investigation would be undertaken, one that would include the appropriate authorities.

However, a blind eye was turned. Instead, the alleged perpetrator was given a raise by the Prime Minister, and the victims were left without justice. Other members of our Canadian Armed Forces are left wondering what protections are being afforded them by the government that they serve with unlimited liability.

It is important to note that members of our Canadian Armed Forces serve this country with unlimited liability. They ask very little of us in return, but guaranteeing them a workplace that is free from sexual misconduct, particularly when it is perpetrated by Canada's top soldier, seems like the least we could do for them. However, that is not the case, so members of the defence committee have looked for a witness to appear. Those efforts have been blocked.

There was a due diligence report with respect to the Canada student service grant that was committed by the Privy Council. That report was not tabled with the committee, so we are seeking that information as well with this motion.

It is important to note how we came to this point. With dozens of hours wasted to filibustering and dozens of meetings lost to delays and obstruction, parliamentarians were not able to fully engage in the defence, finance, PROC or ethics committees, among other committees. I was going to make it an either/or between the defence and ethics committees, but the filibusters were across multiple committees.

The study at the ethics committee has to do with pandemic spending. We had intended to wrap this study up in the fall, but of course those obstructions prevented us from doing so and prevented us from getting on to the other important work that the committee intended to undertake, such as to protect victims of sexual exploitation online and to examine emerging technologies, such as facial recognition, as is the mandate of our committee, and the defence committee barely has its feet under it in the study with respect to sexual misconduct in the military. It is facing a brick wall from the government.

It is tremendously concerning that when it comes to accountability and how the government spends the public's money. Half a billion dollars in support for students was originally billed as $912 million, but members of the Liberal Party do not want answers and accountability for Canadians.

It is alleged that this program was designed to help students. They could have devoted those funds to the Canada summer jobs program, which was already in place, with some modifications that were made to it last year, but instead of committing those funds to an established, tried, tested program, the Liberals cooked up something new and gave it to friends of the Prime Minister. They let down all of those students who did not have employment opportunities, and in fact let down the business owners who could have benefited from having the labour of the students who would gain experience when they were already facing hard times. These businesses would have had subsidized labour in that time, and the charitable sector also missed out by not having the volunteers that were promised in that program. The Canadians who were let down in that process make up a laundry list. It is incumbent on us to get answers on how that came to pass. We need to find out what happened so that it does not happen again.

We are looking at another budget. It is the first time I have been able to say that in years. We have not had a budget here in over two years, and we want to make sure, when we go through that process, that that we do not see the government set to repeat the same mistakes that we have seen over the past year in particular.

The opposition is looking for a very measured result from today's motion, and that result is to have witnesses appear at committee to testify on studies at those committees. We have to devote a supply day to this. Earlier this week we used one of our opposition supply days to talk about what the government's plan was, asking for it to table a plan for the House and for all Canadians to see on coming out of the pandemic. A year ago, it was reasonable to say that there were some things the government might not have planned for. There was some things it could have planned for and did not, but now, with a year's experience, it ought to have a plan.

Today we are looking to make committees work and we are looking to make the House work, so we are asking for these witnesses to appear. Of course, if it is the position of the government that these witnesses should not appear, then there is the option for the Prime Minister to appear at committee. The choice is certainly the government's to make. The opposition has made the choice to make Parliament work, and I hope that all members of the House vote with us to make the House of Commons work and to make committees work so that we can get answers for Canadians on how their money was spent and so that we can ensure that we have a safe, respectful work environment for all members of our Canadian Armed Forces.

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

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have just been reviewing the motion. I know that the opposition motion is calling forward a whole laundry list of individual people and I realize the member said that the Prime Minister could come instead. It would appear as though the member is trying to hold these people hostage at the expense of the Prime Minister, but I would refer him to a quote: “Mr. Speaker, our precedents and practices are very clear. It is the ministers and the ministry at large who are responsible to the House and to its committees, not their staff members. Their staff members are responsible to the ministers and members for whom they work.”

I have another quote: “Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, when there is a question about conduct in a minister's office, the committee obviously can call the ministers and the ministers will answer those questions.”

Do members know where those quotes are from? They are from May 25, 2010, and the Right Hon. Stephen Harper.

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

10:30 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

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

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the opposition members would agree that Stephen Harper had it right, so why do they have it wrong—

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

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We have many more questions to get through.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

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

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find myself agreeing with the member opposite. Stephen Harper had it right about a lot of things, and when it comes to this matter, if the ministers came to committee and provided forthright answers to the members who are asking them questions, it would be a different story.

A minister of the current government, under questioning at committee by me, provided a misleading answer. When we cannot get forthright answers from ministers, when we have contradictory information in documents that are released, and when we have obstruction from the government with illegally redacted documents, as verified by the parliamentary law clerk, we are going to continue to call witnesses. We cannot count on the ministers. We are going to have to hear from their staff.

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

10:30 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I received an extraordinary letter on Twitter last night from the lawyer representing WE's financial people, attacking us on Twitter for the fact that they have not answered a number of key questions about how the organization works, about financial connections and about how many schools were actually built. I would say for any member of the House that after eight months, Parliament has no clue as to how the financial operations of WE work.

However, I would like to raise a question that was in the letter. The lawyer stated that answering the question about how many schools they actually built would require months of work and an analysis of thousands of pages of documents. This is a group that told children to give them $10,000 and they would build a school, and that for every $10,000 they would build a school.

I ask my hon. colleague if he does not think that a multi-million-dollar charity would simply have a list of how many schools it has actually built, and that it would be fairly straightforward to say that it was given this money and built these schools? Instead, we are getting these letters from lawyers on Twitter.

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

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, the manner in which that letter was received via Twitter is extraordinary. The government said that this organization was the only one in Canada that could administer $912 million—or, later, half a billion dollars—in taxpayer funds, so the claim that it does not even keep a list of the projects that it has built is extraordinary.

If this individual, as stated in this public letter, is unable to answer those questions, I would expect that Craig and Marc Kielburger would be able to furnish members of committee and this place with that answer, because they were the only organization, as claimed by the government, that could administer half a billion dollars. Let us see how they administered all the money they took from school kids.

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

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague. I want to compliment him on his speech and get him to comment on the latest rendition of the Liberal cover-up.

Yesterday at the public safety committee, I asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if he would have his chief of staff, Zita Astravas, who is avoiding the defence clerk, to come and speak and testify, as she should be required to do as a member of staff when an officer of Parliament is asking it. Of course, the Liberal chair of the public safety committee blocked the question and would not allow the public safety minister to answer.

Could this member comment on the fact that there continue to be cover-ups on all committees and on the sanitization of the corruption in this party?

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

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON

Mr. Speaker, there has been evidence across multiple committees of the lengths to which Liberal members will go, under instruction from the Prime Minister's Office, to prevent accountability and to prevent the truth from coming to light.

We were told, in 2015 and earlier, by the Prime Minister that sunlight was the best disinfectant. Let us let the sunlight shine on the testimony of these witnesses. Let us let the sunlight shine on the due diligence report that the Liberals failed to table. Let us let the sunlight shine on all of the redactions in those illegally redacted documents. Canadians deserve answers.

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

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for bringing this motion to the floor. I think it is important that we demonstrate to Canadians that the Liberals are blocking the work of parliamentary committees, and that they are stopping us from getting to the bottom of some very serious scandals within the Liberal government, including the WE scandal and the sad case of sexual misconduct by the top officers in the Canadian Armed Forces.

There is talk about ministerial accountability, but then we have ministers who refuse to be accountable. That is why we need to hear from key witnesses, including their staff and chiefs of staff, so that we can shine the sunlight and show Canadians the truth.

Looking at the coordinated effort by the government to stop committees from hearing from witnesses and getting to the bottom of what is actually taking place, it is evident that Liberal members would rather protect their political skins and their political staff than protect those who serve us in uniform. It has become abundantly clear. With revelations of sexual misconduct allegations against the former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Jonathan Vance, and the allegations against the current Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Art McDonald, it is all too obvious that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have a serious and ongoing problem with stomping out sexual misconduct.

We ask a lot of the brave men and women who serve us in uniform and, in return, we as parliamentarians have a duty to protect those people who have sworn an oath to protect all of us. We cannot allow our daughters, sisters and mothers to work in these unsafe environments. No one should ever be subjected to sexual harassment when they show up to serve our nation.

I want specifically to address the part of the motion calling the former chief of staff to the Minister of National Defence, Zita Astravas, before our national defence committee. She is currently the chief of staff to the minister of public safety. On February 9, revelations had already come to light that General Vance was alleged to have not conducted himself with honour: he had sent an email to a subordinate that was sexual in nature, and that information had been presented to the Minister of National Defence on March 1, 2018. When those revelations came out in early February, we had an emergency meeting of the national defence committee and we brought forward a motion calling a number of witnesses to appear, including Zita Astravas. Nothing ever came of the invitation that was extended to her, dating back to February 9.

Fast forward a month, and we had a situation with allegations coming out against Admiral Art McDonald. We had expanded the study and we brought forward the motion to again call Zita Astravas to appear. Originally we asked to summon her, because it had already been a month since she had actually been at committee and she had refused to appear, so that time we wanted to issue a summons. That was amended by members of the committee to invite her once again. Here we are, almost a full four weeks after that time, and she has not yet appeared.

On Monday, March 22, we brought forward a motion at committee to summon her, to ensure that she did appear to speak to this issue. Again, the Liberals stood and filibustered for a couple of hours to prevent the motion from being carried. It is a sad state when we have government members stopping witnesses from appearing on something as disgusting as sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. They would rather block hearing from witnesses than stand up for the brave men and women in uniform.

I can also confirm that the clerk of the national defence committee has called Ms. Astravas's office at Public Safety. He has left voice mails, he has gone through the PMO switchboard and he has also sent emails. Ms. Astravas has not returned any of those calls or emails. That is why it is so important that today's motion passes: so we can finally get to the bottom of what Zita Astravas knew.

We know that on March 1, 2018, when Gary Walbourne, the former ombudsman, presented the evidence to the Minister of National Defence, the minister pushed away from the table and said no. He mumbled something about maybe having the ombudsman take it to the National Investigation Service. We know the very next day that his chief of staff, Zita Astravas, reached out to the PCO, Privy Council Office. We know that they also talked to PMO senior adviser Elder Marques, who has agreed to appear before committee.

There is mounting evidence that Zita Astravas was involved in what happened with that information after the meeting, when it was presented in confidence by Gary Walbourne to the Minister of National Defence. Rather, she took that information and shared it with who knows who. We need to talk to her about everyone who was brought into the loop. It could have included Katie Telford, who is chief of staff to the Prime Minister. It definitely could have involved the Clerk, and we know it involved the Deputy Clerk of cabinet in the Privy Council Office. There is so much out there that we need to dig down on.

The stories from the Prime Minister and the defence minister on the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance continue to change. When this news first broke on February 4, the Prime Minister and the defence minister were pretty much saying that they were not aware of these allegations prior to what was reported in the news. That is false, because we know that evidence was presented to the minister on March 1, 2018, and the Prime Minister later said that he and his office were aware on February 24. They keep changing their stories. He admitted in question period on March 10 that he knew there were allegations, but did not know the content of the allegations. That is not good enough. If they were aware of those allegations on March 1, 2018, why did they extend General Vance's contract by three years and why did he get a raise of $50,000? Where are the facts on this?

If we look at the testimony of Gary Walbourne, the minister refused to talk at committee about private conversations with the ombudsman, and then he pushed away from the table when he was presented with evidence. He now admits that he would not look at the evidence and said it would have been political interference if he had gotten involved in the investigation. Gary Walbourne said yesterday that was “bizarre” and “weak”. That is not a proper excuse.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence directed the Royal Canadian Navy to look into an investigation they did of a comment about a red room on a Zoom call, which implied sexual misconduct. The Minister of National Defence cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he cannot be politically involved and then give instructions to review an investigation. This is a cover-up at the highest levels. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence refuse to be accountable. There was the big raise and the extension for General Vance, who was overseeing Operation Honour, which was signed off on by the Prime Minister.

We need to find out if Zita Astravas waved any red flags to the minister, the Prime Minister's Office, the Prime Minister or the PCO to stop the raise. Was she complicit? Were all of them complicit? We cannot forget about the role of Richard Fadden in all of this. When we heard about these rumours in 2015, the national security adviser, Richard Fadden, investigated them. When this happened with the current Prime Minister's Office and the PCO, they did not even talk to Daniel Jean, who was the national security adviser.

All of this is so sad, and it is important that we address this going forward and have witnesses appear at committee so we can get to the bottom of the facts and to the truth.

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

10:45 a.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, a little later I will get the opportunity to talk about the destructive parliamentary force the Conservative Party tends to want to play, but my question is specific to this member.

I will quote from a CTV News article, which says:

When considering Vance’s appointment for the military’s top post, Ray Novak told the House of Commons defence committee on Monday that, in March 2015, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor briefed then-PM Harper that the general was in a relationship with a subordinate U.S. officer who was “not in his chain of command” during a NATO deployment in Italy.

If we are going to start to have these types of investigations, would it not be appropriate to maybe even call Stephen Harper before the committee for his behaviour or lack of action?

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

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Winnipeg North often has trouble understanding how investigations work, how national defence works, and for that matter, the roles and responsibilities of Parliament.

Ray Novak, the former chief of staff to former prime minister Stephen Harper, was actually very candid in his comments about how we investigated General Vance. When we contrast that to the Liberals turning a blind eye, we see that they talk about having zero tolerance for sexual misconduct, but they took zero action.

It is a testament that yesterday we learned from Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre, the acting chief of the defence staff, that he had to cancel Operation Honour because it did nothing to protect the women of the Canadian Armed Forces from sexual misconduct. That is an indictment upon the government and the Minister of National Defence.

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

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I find this remarkable. We know now that Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, when he was defence minister, were aware of the allegations and investigated them back in 2015. However, they then went on to appoint General Vance to lead the program to stamp out sexual misconduct in the military with Operation Honour.

In hindsight, do the Conservatives believe it was an error to appoint an individual to head up a military operation meant to stamp out sexual misconduct, when that individual was in fact alleged to have been involved in precisely that kind of behaviour?

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

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, I was the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of national defence. We thoroughly investigated the rumour and the allegations of fraternization when General Vance was posted in NATO at Naples. Based upon the investigation and all the advice we received, no evidence could be found of wrongdoing. Essentially, the person he was investigated about in Naples was his fiancée at the time he was appointed as chief of the defence staff.

Unlike the Liberals, we talked directly to General Vance about it. Unlike the Liberals, we carried out an investigation that lasted months, and we were prepared to delay the timeline of holding the change of command ceremony. Looking back, I question if General Vance gave us all the details and facts. I do not think so. We also know that at the end of the day, the Liberals renewed his contract in 2018, after they knew about actual evidence of sexual misconduct.

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

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC

Mr. Speaker, does the member think the Liberals actually care about protecting women in the military? From where I sit, I just do not see it.

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

10:50 a.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all talk and no action. A case in point is that in 2018, we passed Bill C-77, which would have brought a victims bill of rights to National Defence, and protected the privacy and security of victims and witnesses in proceedings involving certain sexual offences.

Three years after the fact, the Liberals have not even brought that bill into force, and they did nothing to General Vance. For three years they knew there were sexual misconduct allegations against him and evidence of it. Again, the Liberals failed. They failed the women in the Canadian Armed Forces more than anyone else.

It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to get to the bottom of this and shed light on what actually happened to ensure it never happens again.

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

10:50 a.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and as a minister to be accountable to Parliament. That is why I am participating in today's debate on the Conservatives' opposition motion.

For those of us on this side of the House, our priority is helping Canadians. I want to take a moment to remind opposition parties about something they may have forgotten: We are in the middle of a pandemic. People across the country are suffering. Thousands of Canadians are grieving their dead, but what the Conservatives want to do today is engage in petty partisan politics.

The Conservatives could have opted to debate climate change, but that would mean believing it is real. They could have debated the inequities in our justice system or reconciliation with indigenous peoples, but that is not what they chose to do. They chose to engage in partisan politics. That says a lot about their priorities.

The motion before us today orders certain members of ministerial staff to appear before committees.

I would like to begin by making it clear that ministers are accountable to the Administration of the House of Commons for duties carried out within their departments and for the actions of their political staff in their political offices, period.

Page 30 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states the following regarding the fact that ministers are responsible to Parliament:

In terms of ministerial responsibility, Ministers have both individual and collective responsibilities to Parliament....The principle of individual ministerial responsibility holds that Ministers are accountable not only for their own actions as department heads, but also for the actions of their subordinates; individual ministerial responsibility provides the basis for accountability throughout the system. Virtually all departmental activity is carried out in the name of a Minister who, in turn, is responsible to Parliament for those acts.

Now, this is not a new concept. It is quite the opposite. I ask members to allow me to quote the former prime minister, who, in the 2006 publication “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers”, stated, “Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their responsibilities whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise.... Ministers are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their office.”

Former Conservative House leader Jay Hill strongly made the case on behalf of the former Conservative government on May 25, 2010. I was there, and he was extremely clear. Mr. Hill said:

In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by ministers who are, in turn, answerable to Parliament. Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public servants and by members of their office staffs.

It is the responsibility of individual public servants and office staff members to provide advice and information to ministers, to carry out faithfully the directions given by ministers, and in so doing, to serve the people of Canada....

Ours is a system of responsible government because...ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. We ministers are answerable to Parliament and to its committees. It is ministers who decide policy and ministers who must defend it before the House and ultimately before the people of Canada.

I could not agree more with the remarks of the former Conservative House leader. However, there is more that Mr. Hill had to say on this, and I am in complete agreement with what he said.

In his remarks, Mr. Hill clearly stated that ministerial staff, much like public servants, are not accountable to Parliament for either government policy or decisions regarding government operations.

Public servants may be called to testify in committee on the implementation of policies, but they must defer to the minister to answer questions about the policies themselves and the decisions pertaining to them.

As for ministerial staff, the scope of information available to them is even more limited than it is for public servants, because they are not involved in the department's operations.

Ministerial staff have no authority to make decisions on behalf of ministers. As I have said, they report to and are accountable to ministers. Ministers are accountable for their actions.

Ministerial staff did not put their names on ballots. They were not elected. They do not have the same rights and privileges as MPs. The opposition will likely point to ministerial staffers called before committee in 2010. There is a big difference here. There was clear evidence of staffers breaking the law. The Privacy Commissioner subsequently issued two reports that found that ministerial staffers had interfered with the release of records under the Access to Information Act.

It is critical to point out that there was much debate about the decision by the government to send ministers to committees rather than staff. Ultimately, this position was accepted by the Liberals, who formed the official opposition at the time. We accepted that, and it was the right thing to do. There was a clear acceptance of the principle of ministerial responsibility.

Today, we find ourselves in a similar position with numerous staff members being called before committees. Now we have this heavy-handed motion. There is clearly a lack of due process with the motion. Mr. Hill touched on due process in his intervention in 2010 when he said, “People's conduct is being attacked without any of the fairness or procedural safeguards or principles of justice that would be found in a court or a tribunal.”

That is exactly what is happening at the Standing Committee on National Defence. The Conservatives moved a motion calling for a ministerial staff member to appear before even getting a response to the invitation.

Today's motion goes even further. Staff are receiving orders to appear before committees and, in some cases, before even getting an invitation. It is unprecedented. This is certainly an abuse of the powers and privileges they have as MPs.

We have sent a staffer to testify at committee, and we all saw what happened. The staffer was badgered by the Conservatives, repeatedly interrupted, accused of a cover-up, accused of being untruthful, accused of something that was false and easily verified with a simple Google search.

We have also seen a preview this week of how the opposition would treat staff appearing at committee. The member for Carleton, without any evidence, accused a staff member of giving a handout of half a billion dollars to a friend of the government. So much for due process.

Just yesterday, the member for Carleton smeared one of the staff members in question, falsely accusing him of destroying documents. This is completely unacceptable, and is a further demonstration that the Conservatives are only interested in partisan politics.

We know now how the opposition treats staff who do not have the privilege and immunities that members enjoy. Their actions speak for themselves. Members of this House are protected from intimidation through our parliamentary privilege. It is totally irresponsible for members to turn this protection into weapons against those who are not covered by these protections. Not only is it irresponsible, it is a clear abuse of power.

Our government has co-operated with and supported the parliamentary committees in their important work. When documents were requested they were provided. When ministers were invited to appear, they appeared.

On the matters raised in today's motion, we have demonstrated ministerial responsibility many times.

The Prime Minister and his chief of staff testified. The Minister of Defence has testified several times. The Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth has testified. The former finance minister testified. The ministers have assumed their responsibility of being accountable to Parliament. It is their responsibility to be accountable and that is what they did. They will continue to do so, in fact.

What we are seeing here is the opposition using the tyranny of the majority to walk all over the rights of the minority. It is seeking to weaponize our parliamentary institutions to reach a preconceived conclusion. It is seeking to undermine the public's trust in our institutions.

Calling for staff to appear before a committee is not the only case of the opposition behaving this way during this Parliament. It has been using its majority at committees to call for the production of papers, which is fine, as that is its right and its job, while questioning the neutrality and integrity of the public service. It is refusing to trust the non-partisan public servants to redact documents. At the finance committee, the Conservatives wanted to find public servants guilty without even hearing from them. How low can they go? They have undermined faith in the public service as an institution during a pandemic, which is not the time for Canadians to lose trust in our institutions. The Conservatives are playing a very dangerous game.

I want to take a moment to step back and provide a few other examples of the irresponsible behaviour of the opposition, and there are many. To be honest, we had to choose. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party posted a telephone number of a private company on social media and encouraged Canadians to call and demand that the company break Canada's privacy laws and release information. This led to harassment and personal threats that left employees fearing for their personal safety and required the police to get involved. Moreover, the Conservative ethics critic sent a letter to a private company asking it to break the law. The opposition tried to compel the release of personal information of private citizens.

Those are just a few examples that we picked among so many others.

It is the type of thing that undermines everyone's confidence in the House of Commons, in its capacity to be a positive agent of change in the life of all Canadians. I am referring to the point that the former Conservative House leader, Mr. Hill, made 11 years ago. Our constitutional principles require that ministers be accountable to Parliament. It is a fundamental principle.

Let me quote Mr. Hill on that important point. He states:

This is no substitute for ministerial responsibility. When ministers choose to appear before committees to account for their administration, they are the best source of accountability and they must be heard. Public servants and ministerial staff support the responsibility of their ministers. They do not supplant it. They cannot supplant it.

By using its majority on committees, the opposition is trying to deflect accountability from the minister to ministerial staff. That is unacceptable.

Let me end my remarks with some wise words from that former Conservative minister whom I have quoted extensively today. He is right. He stated this about the staff:

They bring to us many talents and I expect many of them, when they accepted their jobs, never imagined that one of the skills required was to stand up to the interrogation of a bitterly partisan parliamentary committee.

As a result of the actions of the opposition today, like the approach of the Conservative government in 2010, I say here today that ministers will instruct their staff not to appear when called before committees and that the government will send ministers instead to account for their actions.

While the Conservatives continue to play political games, we continue to focus on keeping Canadians healthy and safe, as well as protecting their jobs and stimulating the economy during this time of crisis. Everyone makes choices.

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

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Before we go to questions and comments, I would ask hon. members to keep their questions, comments and answers to one minute each. A lot of members want to speak and participate in this period.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Mr. Speaker, would the government House leader agree with his Minister of National Defence at the defence committee on March 12 who, when asked, “Who is responsible and accountable for the failure of this allegation being investigated?”, replied, “Yes. I'm absolutely responsible”?

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

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, today's motion has to do with inviting employees to committees, to take advantage of what I referred to earlier as the tyranny of the majority to walk all over the minority, to force people who were not elected and who did not choose to come forward to testify. These people are often treated with no respect.

What is clear is that the principles of ministerial responsibility must apply here as they have always been applied and as they must continue to be applied.

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

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague has been talking about keeping Canadians safe and so on and so forth.

We are talking about sexual misconduct by some of the highest-ranking members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have to wonder whether the public is truly protected. If misconduct is happening at such high levels, what is going on at the lower levels? Is that the culture of the organization? How can we put partisanship aside to make real change and avoid simply creating a fancy program that ultimately does nothing?

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

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is very serious and extremely important.

Every individual must be able to work, live and grow without feeling threatened and without discrimination, sexist remarks or threats. This principle applies to everyone at all levels of management and governance.

I believe that everything must be done to protect everyone in our society, especially women who, all too often in the past, and even today, have experienced these types of threats and attitudes. I believe that is what the government is trying to do. As we have said, never again—this must not be allowed to happen again, whether in our armed forces or in society as a whole.

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

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about support for students. We are here today to talk about some of the scandals, such as the WE scandal and where that money went. Right now the government has promised time and time again to follow through on, for example, my unanimous consent motion to halt student loan payments. The Liberals have not stopped taking interest on those loans, which they also promised to do.

The $912 million that was supposed to go to students never did. We keep hearing about how students will be getting support, but what I am really interested in today is how we can expect students and recent graduates to believe the government. How can we trust the government to do the right thing when it breaks its own promises, when it breaks the promises it has made to Canadian students and recent graduates, when $912 million goes missing and does not go to help the students who need it so desperately right now?

The member talks about how Parliament needs to work. Well, the government members need to do what they say. They need to follow through on their word and the government is not doing that, so we have to find other methods to hold them to account.

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

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is a very important question as it has to do with students, who are the future of our country. Students are the future leaders of unions and businesses, and will probably be future members, ministers and prime ministers.

Our government was there for students from the very start of the crisis. We gave them access to funds because we knew that student jobs were most at risk. What do students do between semesters or in the summer? They often work at restaurants, hotels, patios and festivals, those sectors of the economy that have been affected almost more than any other. It was no longer possible to get those types of jobs.

With the Canada emergency student benefit, we helped them get through that extremely difficult period. We created other programs. Unfortunately, the opposition often criticized those programs, but they were needed to help our students.