Debates of March 25th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Instructions to the Standing Committee on Ethics and to the Standing Committee on National Defence

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

We have heard the line that these are “unprecedented times” over and over again. While I do not disagree with that statement, it is beginning to sound like a broken record, in particular when the line is used to avoid accountability.

Over the past 12 months, we have witnessed behaviour by the government that is incredibly inappropriate and, I would even say, exploitive. We could say that the Prime Minister has acted in a way that is truly unprecedented. I would say that a pandemic is not an excuse for unethical behaviour. The Liberals are doing their very best to block witnesses from testifying on both the Prime Minister's WE scandal and the mishandling of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Today, before the House is a motion by Conservative members. It calls for critical witnesses to be brought forward to testify on these issues. Having served as the former chair of the ethics committee, I will focus the majority of my time on the Prime Minister's WE scandal. However, I do believe that it is of utmost importance to comment briefly on the second part of this motion.

We know that the Prime Minister and the defence minister were made aware of sexual misconduct allegations against the former chief of the defence staff three years ago, and yet did nothing. Nothing at all. As part of the motion before the House today, we are calling for crucial witnesses to come to the national defence committee to testify. Up to this point, Liberal members on the committee have continued to block the appearances of key staff members whose testimony would provide answers on the allegations of sexual misconduct against the chief of the defence staff, General Vance.

The Prime Minister claims to be a feminist, but he continually fails to protect women. Canadians have placed trust in the government—great trust, I would argue. The reality is that if they are going to place that trust in the government, then they do deserve to know the truth. I cannot imagine what it must be like for a victim of sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces watching the ping pong game of their story being made light of. It is wrong.

For someone who claims to be such a staunch feminist, it is astounding how hard the Prime Minister Minister and his government are fighting to cover up this sexual misconduct and the way it was handled. It has become clear the the Prime Minister would rather protect his own reputation than the brave women who have signed up to serve with their lives. It is sad.

The second part of this motion calls for key witnesses to testify on the WE scandal. Last year, as part of the government's pandemic spending, the Prime Minister gave his friends at the WE Charity a sole-sourced agreement for half a billion dollars. That is half a billion of taxpayer dollars. This same organization gave the Prime Minister's family roughly $500,000 in the time leading up to that agreement.

Something happened in June last year, which is is that the Prime Minister got caught. As revelations began to surface about his involvement in this sole-sourced deal, Canadians were shocked and, as we can imagine, also frustrated and even outraged. Why was there no competitive bidding process put in place? Who was involved in making this deal happen? Why is it so hard to get to the bottom of this? What is preventing the Prime Minister and his government from being honest?

As the pressure from opposition parties the media and the public increased, we can only assume that the Prime Minister and his office saw that shutting down Parliament was the only answer to stop the truth from coming out. In the middle of a pandemic when billions of dollars were going out the door, when plans needed to be made for economic recovery and when Canadians needed to see leadership the most, the Prime Minister decided to shut down this place. The Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament.

As a result, all of the studies on the WE scandal went out the door, which was convenient, because the Prime Minister was then no longer forced to answer important questions and no longer to be held accountable for his actions. He could tuck himself away in his cottage and pretend for awhile that everything was going to be okay, that his scandal-riddled past would not catch up to him. After all, he had already been convicted of two other ethical breaches and now this was his third. If he got away with the first two, then why would he not get away with this one?

The truth is that perhaps he still will get away with it, but it is incumbent upon those of us on this side of the House to hold the government to account, to ask the difficult questions and to request the information that Canadians deserve to have come to light. Canadians have placed great trust in the government and it is incumbent on us to hold the Prime Minister accountable.

Since September when Parliament resumed, we have been working hard to try to get to the bottom of this scandal. The Liberals have fought relentlessly to defend their leader. They have filibustered for hours at committee. For a government that brags so much about openness and transparency, I do not remember seeing one prior that was so secretive, so unaccountable and acted so unethically. After all, we are talking about the only Prime Minister that has ever been convicted of an ethics scandal. In fact, not just one, but two, and now is being investigated for a third time.

The motion before the House is necessary to uncover what is taking place and have the truth made known to Canadians. It is a result of hearing contradictory testimony from the Prime Minister's Office, the Liberal ministers and the Kielburger brothers who founded WE Charity and are good friends with the Prime Minister and others high up in the PMO. Conservatives are calling for key witnesses to come forward and to be able to give testimony.

I should add that this is not a game. The Liberals would like to paint it as such. They like to accuse us of “playing petty politics”, but in what world is the pursuit of truth petty? Only in a Liberal world.

When the Kielburgers first appeared before the ethics committee, they testified that Ben Chin, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister 's Office, had no role in setting up this program. However, documents that were released at the finance committee last summer show us otherwise.

On June 27, 2020, a LinkedIn message was sent from Craig Kielburger to Ben Chin, which said: “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the go'vt. Warmly, Craig.” Two days later, Ben Chin responded to Craig Kielburger with a message saying, “Great to hear from you Craig. Let's get our young working!”

Given the contradictions at play, the fact that he-said, she-said does not line up, the ethics committee must hear from the Prime Minister's top advisers with regard to this scenario.

On the Prime Minister 's website under the section entitled “Open and Accountable Government”, it says:

Our plan for an open and accountable government will allow us to modernize how the Canadian government works, so that it better reflects the values and expectations of Canadians. At its heart is a simple idea: open government is good government. For Canadians to trust our government we must trust Canadians, and we will only be successful in implementing our agenda to the extent that we earn and keep this trust.

Nothing could be more hypocritical of the government to state this and then try to shut down committees. Liberals are both evading and covering up the truth and keeping it from Canadians. They have filibustered at more than 20 ethics committee meetings and the Prime Minister went so far as to shut down Parliament.

When it comes to national defence, the Prime Minister has been asked numerous times if he was aware of the allegations against the former chief of the defence staff and has repeatedly denied it. Instead of being honest, the Prime Minister has decided to try to mislead Canadians about his involvement in the cover-up, and that is wrong, because, again, yes, an open government is a good government. That is why we stand here in this place today calling on the House, its members, who are duly elected to defend the truth and to promote democracy, openness, transparency and accountability, to support the motion.

With this motion we are giving the Prime Minister an opportunity to fulfill one of his advertised priorities: openness and accountability. It is time to end the cover-ups; it is time for the Prime Minister to tell the truth. Today is his opportunity.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member questions the openness and transparency of this government. The documents she referred that were turned over last summer are more than 5,000 in total. It was so much information that the Conservative Party put it on a website and tried to crowdsource going through the information. There was so much information that Conservative MPs could not deal with it on their own. They put it out to the public to get the public's assistance with it. That is how much information has been turned over. More importantly, the quote of Mr. Chin that she and the member for Carleton continually reference is information that was reported by CTV in June and CBC in August last year.

Why is the Conservative Party suddenly interested in this information now, when the member for Carleton himself even brought it up last summer when it was reported in the news? Is it just because the media happens to be interested in what they are saying now, whereas it is really not new information?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my response is that I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, in those 5,000 pages, how many pages were blacked out? It was a great deal, in fact the vast majority of the text.

Second, with regard to the member's comment concerning June and August of last year and information known then, since when does the truth expire?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment from my colleague from Lethbridge because the one essential thing we have in politics is our integrity, our ability to act based on the public interest, not special interests.

I fully agree with her about the WE scandal. However, another scandal that often gets overlooked is that of the political parties that applied for the wage subsidy during the election campaign.

Can my colleague tell me if the Conservative Party intends to pay back the wage subsidy? Is she offended, as I am, that my Liberal and NDP colleagues applied for the wage subsidy? This is a huge stain on the integrity of every member of this House.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have already made it very clear to the public that we intend to pay that back. That process has begun.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question based on her experience as former chair of the ethics committee. The Prime Minister lent his name to the for-profit wing of the WE organization and I have not been able to get an answer on this.

ME to WE sold sponsorships worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for WE Day. Does my colleague think it is appropriate for a prime minister or any member of Parliament to use their office or position to forward the private interests of a for-profit organization such as WE, and why is it so important that we get the Prime Minister or his staff in front of the committee to answer these very, very troubling questions?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as members of Parliament, of course, we are held to a high standard for how we use taxpayer money to promote our efforts as members of Parliament, but we are also held accountable for how we use that money to promote other efforts within our community and beyond. As MPs we are not permitted to use our finances or the money that is allocated to our offices to advance our private interests. For the Prime Minister to do so is absolutely inappropriate.

It is important for us to bring the witnesses to this committee so that they can testify on what exactly happened behind closed doors and we can get to the bottom of it and the truth be exposed, so that Canadians can be well served.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention today. She has been very clear in her answers and straightforward, which I appreciate.

We have had some government members saying today, “There's nothing to see here. You guys aren't interested in anything important”.

First, I can see that the rights of individual Canadian Armed Forces members, as a result of these allegations of sexual misconduct, may have been violated. Second, there have been ethical breaches at the highest office. We have already seen the former minister of finance, Bill Morneau, resign and I think it had much to do with his time with the WE Charity scandal.

Would the member say these are important issues that Canadians are wanting us, as individual members, to hold the government accountable for?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, and Canadians want to know that the government is acting ethically, that the government is being held accountable, that the government is transparent and open. Canadians have that expectation when we function within a democratic system like Canada. To get to the bottom of the WE charity scandal and to get to the bottom of what has taken place with regard to the treatment of women within the Canadian Armed Forces is so crucial.

Again, for the Liberals, for those across the aisle from me who accuse us of petty politics, just how much value do they place on Canadians? How much value do they really place on openness and transparency? How much value do they place on the lives of those women within the Canadian Armed Forces who were detrimentally impacted by the sins committed against them?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I address the substance of today's opposition motion, I am pleased to recognize the women and men who are doing the important job of keeping Canadians safe during the COVID-19 pandemic in spite of the incompetence of the Prime Minister and his ministers in protecting Canadians.

It is a proven fact that years of incompetence and mismanagement by the Liberal Party have left Canadians vulnerable today to health crises such as the current pandemic. It did not take another Auditor General's report, like the one issued today, to confirm just how unprepared the government was for any type of emergency. Canadians are tired of the lockdowns caused by this incompetence. Canadians are angry over the Prime Minister's refusal to stay focused on keeping Canadians safe. He would rather drag Parliament into the next scandal caused by another one of his government's ethical lapses.

I am the member of Parliament for the eastern Ontario riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, home to Garrison Petawawa, the largest army base in Canada, and the decision to participate in today's debate was made by my constituents. The women of Canada who chose to serve their country in uniform as members of the Canadian Armed Forces have a right to be treated with dignity and respect. No woman in today's age should be forced to work in an environment where sexual harassment is tolerated.

Today's motion would order Zita Astravas, the former chief of staff to the defence minister, to come before the Standing Committee on National Defence. That committee, of which I am the longest-serving member, was forced to take this action as a result of the contempt Ms. Astravas has demonstrated to our parliamentary committee by not responding to our polite requests to appear.

Zita Astravas has a connection to the Kielburger brothers of WE Charity scandal fame. The WE Charity boys published an article under their names, wherein they slandered the people of Thunder Bay, Ontario, by calling that city the “hate crime capital of Canada” for what the Kielburgers claim are the rates of racist vandalism, assaults and murders. The Kielburger article quotes extensively from sources that are funded by Zita's new department, where she is currently chief of staff. Ms. Astravas is the chief of staff to the Liberal minister of gun control. It is nasty business slandering an entire community, as the people of Quebec know.

It is obvious that the reason Zita Astravas is afraid to appear before the defence committee is that the truth will come out about how little respect the Prime Minister has for women in Canada, in this case the women who serve their country in uniform as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is not as though Canadians have not seen the Prime Minister disrespect women before. The Prime Minister's groping incident, when he made unwanted advances by groping a female reporter while she was trying to do her job, should have been a red flag to the Liberal Party about how he treats women: the Kokanee grope.

The Prime Minister's decision to throw the only strong women in his party under the bus—women like the former justice minister during the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the former minister of health for standing up for her colleague, and former Ontario female MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes for showing a backbone—demonstrates a pattern of behaviour. Canada's self-called feminist Prime Minister talks a good game about supporting women, but when the chips are down, they are the first ones to take the blame for his own mistakes.

The toxicity on Parliament Hill for women, particularly women in his own party, stems from the Prime Minister himself. When the times comes, will Zita Astravas be thrown under the bus to take the fall for the Minister of National Defence and for the Prime Minister's failure to act on the information from the military ombudsman about General Vance? No wonder she is hiding. Her career could be over.

The taxpayers of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke recognize the importance of holding the government accountable. At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. That individual taxpayer is the one who gets stuck paying for all of the government's mistakes. Today's opposition motion is about upholding the principles of democracy. It is about the rights of all Canadians, through their elected representatives, to hold politicians accountable when they are busy spending their money.

Blocking the work of parliamentary committees and stalling until an unwanted election is called will not prevent Canadians from eventually finding out the truth, which is what the Liberals are afraid of: the truth. In just the same way, the Liberals are afraid that the public will find out how many tax dollars have been wasted while Canadians get sick from COVID-19.

The WE Charity scandal is without a doubt a Liberal Party scandal. For a very accurate summation of the WE scandal, I will quote the observations veteran journalist Rex Murphy addressed to the Kielburger brothers about the WE Charity scandal in the March 17 edition of the National Post. I encourage anyone watching this debate to read all the articles written by Rex Murphy about the WE Charity scandal.

He wrote:

Who solicited Mr. Trudeau as a huge draw and speaker for so many WE Day rallies, and who billboarded his presence? Who invited his mother, Margaret, and his brother, Alexandre, to your WE days? Who paid out fees and expenses of close to $300,000 to them? Who drew Mr. Trudeau’s wife, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, to act as one of your charity’s ambassadors?

The point of all these questions, just to be clear, Marc and Craig, is to point out the fact that you invited, and most times paid, members of the prime minister of Canada’s family, to boost your WE day pitches and add credibility to them. And it is as near to certainty as we can hope for in the vale of tears, that the frequent presence of Justin Trudeau, before and after he became prime minister, along with his family members, must have been a very strong asset in getting schools to go to WE Day, and corporations and media to support it.

He went on later in the article:

If there is a scandal here’s a better description of its character: a Canadian-based, international charity/enterprise had deep and continuous association with the leader of the Liberal party, the prime minister of Canada, and his family to the mutual benefit of the Liberal party and the charity/enterprise.

WE received the highest, strongest endorsement Canada has to offer. The prime minister and his family were to all intents and purposes acting as WE patrons.

WE also received, prior to the singular contract to distribute vast millions to Canadian young people, grants from the federal government.

And when, out of the unclouded blue, the huge, sole-sourced (and mysterious) contract was made known, along with WE’s “administrative” fee of $43 million, many people — not just in the press or Parliament — looked at all this and asked: What is this? A private enterprise, with very heavy access to the party in power, very close association with its leadership, gets chosen over the civil service to hand out millions to Canadian citizens? A thing never heard of before.

He continued:

The interwoven and mutually beneficial connections between WE, Mr. Trudeau, and his family, more than justified a Commons committee to ask WE Charity necessary questions.

And therefore it was right and proper that a committee of our federal parliament mounted an open inquiry on whether WE business got special treatment because WE and the Trudeau family are so close, in compact and style.

The committee’s unquestionable remit is to probe why one family, Kielburger Inc., and another family, that of the prime minister of Canada, were so webbed in a common enterprise. And why $43 million — of Canadian taxpayers’ money — was to go to Kielburger Inc. for “administering” a public program of the government of Canada.

The questions raised by Rex Murphy are all the questions being asked by Canadians who are concerned about propriety in government. Parliament is obligated to report the facts to Canadians. If the Prime Minister feels he is in too much of a conflict of interest to come before a parliamentary committee, then he is obligated to order his staff members Ben Chin, Rick Theis, and Amitpal Singh to appear before Parliament and answer all of our questions.

Knowing the close association between Ben Chin and Gerald Butts, probably Butts should be in the lineup also. We can save ordering the puppet master to appear before Parliament for another day.

If the Prime Minister and his party are not prepared to do the right thing, then Parliament can do the right thing. Once Parliament does the right thing and passes today's motion, I want the women in uniform to know that I have their back. Let us hope other Canadian parliamentarians have their back as well.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows I want to ask a question about wild salmon, but this is a very important issue.

On March 3, the defence committee summoned Gary Walbourne, the former ombudsman, to testify. He testified to the details of the March 1, 2018, meeting between him and the minister. He reported that the minister refused to look at the evidence against General Vance. He also testified that there was a campaign to oust him as ombudsman after his 2017 governance report was issued and that the minister and department created a toxic workplace for him and his staff after that.

I have met Mr. Walbourne several times. He is an upstanding citizen as far as I ever could see. Do the Conservatives agree that the office of National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman should be made a fully independent office of Parliament so we do not have this evidence?

We know that on March 12, the Minister of National Defence returned to testify before committee and he confirmed that he forwarded the allegations to the PCO. Even later, the evening after he met with Mr. Walbourne, the Minister of National Defence issued a statement, saying he disagreed with the testimony of the former ombudsman.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have not heard what the disagreement was, but certainly it has not only been the recommendation of the former ombudsman for the military to have a separate and reportable-to-Parliament office with independent funding from the defence department. The Hon. Marie Deschamps had recommended similarly for the reporting of the sexual misconduct.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my research I learned that brothers Craig and Marc Kielburger had been awarded the Order of Canada. In Marc Kielburger's case, that was in 2010, so under a Conservative government.

I would like to ask my Conservative colleague the following questions: How is the Conservative Party connected to the Kielburger brothers? Could a program like the one involving WE Charity have still come to be if the Conservatives had remained in power?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Kielburger WE Charity organization certainly flourished under the Liberals. In fact, it has even put together a web of studies supporting one another, funded by the current Government of Canada and particularly the public safety minister, to help in a side mission of casting aspersions upon all Conservatives. Once this comes to light, I think we will see how their involvement in politics is more straightforward with respect to favouring the radical Liberals now and in the future.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member completely avoided answering the question from the member from the Bloc, and rightfully so; I understand why she would want to do that.

A similar motion came forward back in 2013, on November 6, where there was a similar request for Prime Minister Harper to appear before committee on the scandal that involved Mike Duffy. The member voted against it. What is the difference? Why does it warrant it now, but it was okay to vote against it back in 2013?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Parliament today and the government of the day that is in question. It is the current Prime Minister who is directly involved in this scandal and the work against the women in the military who deserve to have the proper conduct of their superior officers and their co-workers. Deteriorating our national security is something that cannot be tolerated by the Canadian public.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask her if it was the government of the day. I asked her about her vote. Why did she vote the way she did? She did not answer my question and she did not answer the question from the member from the Bloc, but I digress.

The government House leader made an excellent argument in his speech today. As has long been the case, political staff are accountable to their minister who are in turn accountable to the House. I believe that is something everyone in the House should be able to agree with. I also think he was right when he said it tells a lot about our Conservative colleagues when they choose to play cheap partisan politics rather than debate important and pressing matters, such as climate change and the pandemic that currently grips this world.

Setting that aside, let the House also understand that the Conservative opposition has made an attempt to over-politicize issues that have been well covered and are now quite well understood. Thousands of pages of documents have been produced, a waiver was granted for cabinet confidentiality and hundreds of hours of testimony have been given at multiple committees.

I would like to turn my attention to focusing on the particular individuals who have been raised in this motion.

First, the Conservative opposition has been raising the name of Mr. Ben Chin in the House time after time and even now, nine months after the program in question was cancelled. Let us take a moment and examine why that may be. I believe they are raising this, because in response to a document production requested by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the government provided 5,000 pages of documents last summer. This was more—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

All blacked out.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I appreciate the heckle, but it was not all blacked out, despite the fact that his former colleague said that. The only thing that was blacked out was telephone numbers, which the member for Carleton is obsessed with obtaining.

They are raising this because in response to the document production that they received last summer, this was more than the Conservative party could handle. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, they uploaded the documents to an online portal, asking the public to help digest and assess all the information that was provided. They actually crowdsourced the information. That is how much information was turned over to the opposition parties.

In all 5,000 pages, only one document referenced Mr. Chin. That document was provided and disclosed by the Prime Minister's Office, not some hacked up conspiracy by the member for Carleton, suggesting that he discovered it under a rock somewhere. It was provided by the Prime Minister's Office almost a year ago.

In all of the 5,000 pages, there is only that one single exchange, and I would add that it was after the contribution agreement had been publicly announced. It was an exchange on LinkedIn, read several times in the House, and I will repeat it. However, members will note that when I do repeat it, I am not using the same sinister tone that other members have to imply some kind of massive cover up.

On June 27, Craig Kielburger messaged Mr. Chin, “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the gov't. Warmly, Craig.” On June 29, two days later, Mr. Chin responded, “Great to hear from you Craig. Let's get our young working!” The party opposite keeps raising this one single exchange as a massive new development, when in reality this was uncovered last year. I will reference one of those times.

On August 19, 2020, eight months ago, CTV wrote, “A few months down the line, when the program was approved, Craig Kielburger sent a LinkedIn message to one of [the PM's] top advisers, Ben Chin, thanking him for his 'kindness' for helping to shape” the program. The member for Carleton parades around here as though he just uncovered this damning new evidence. It has been around and publicly reported since August 19, 2020.

On another instance, seven months ago, on August 19, 2020, CBC wrote, based on a news conference by the member for Carleton himself, “As one example [the member for Carleton] pointed to a June 27 message from WE Charity co-founder Craig Kielburger to senior PMO staffer Ben Chin thanking him for his help on the the program.” Mr. Poilievre—I apologize, I did what I accuse so many people of—the member for Carleton back on August 19 was referencing this quote. He has been using that quote since August. I feel sorry for the members of the opposition—

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the member quickly apologized, but it is rather poetic that in a speech from one of my colleagues earlier today, he raised a point of order when she used a member's name in the House. It is appropriate that he too be reminded not to use members' names in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

There have been some instances of this happening this afternoon from time to time. Usually by the time members utter the error, they usually catch it. However, it is always appreciated when members weigh in and remind us of the rules.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that great intervention. I appreciate him taking the time to do that. If any other member in this House utters half of the same name I did, as that side has uttered the Prime Minister's last name at least two dozen times today, then his argument might stand some ground. In the meantime, it quite frankly does not, but I do really appreciate that. To his point, we should all be doing the best we can to adhere to the rules in the House, and that is why I immediately brought my error to the Speaker's attention.

Going back to what the member for Carleton knew in June, we know this exchange happened, but we had the response from Mr. Chin saying “Let's get our young working!” As well, a PMO official said that Mr. Chin was not involved in the WE decision and that the LinkedIn message was the only interaction on the file. He simply responded two days later out of courtesy. That was all, just for context, within that August 19 CBC article.

It is pretty clear to me this was an interaction out of courtesy. It is clear Mr. Chin had nothing to do with the program. Out of the 5,000 pages disclosed, this was the only interaction with Mr. Chin. When asked what Mr. Chin's role in the program was, the Kielburgers said he had no role. Mr. Kielburger then went on further to clarify when he said, “that was the only correspondence I had in the course of two years with him, a three-line LinkedIn request to join.”

When the Prime Minister's chief of staff appeared at the Standing Committee on Finance last July, Ms. Telford was asked the following:

After March 1, how many times did the PMO communicate with the Kielburgers or any of their intermediaries?

She replied:

...There were a handful of interactions with the Prime Minister's Office and the WE organization around the Canada summer student grant between then and the launch of the program. There was only one prior to the launch of the program. It was in early May, when one of the policy staff did what is very normal in their jobs, which is to speak to stakeholder organizations.

Ms. Telford further said:

It's public information who all the staff in the Prime Minister's Office are, and I am here to represent all of those staff, as the senior-most member of the Prime Minister's Office. If you have questions about any of them, or for any of them, I am happy to take them today.

When the Minister of International Trade was asked at committee on March 1 if she or her staff had ever had any communications about WE with Mr. Chin, she replied, “No, I did not.”

This demonstrates why opposition members are trying, almost one year later, to drag hard-working members of our staff through the mud. There is nothing they are trying to gain except scoring cheap political points. They already know exactly what happened here and they have it because the government disclosed information to them in the form of 5,000 pages of documents. They have it because this has been the topic of countless hearings for nine months and the testimony of several ministers, the clerk of the Privy Council and the chief of staff of the Prime Minister. Further, many of the public servants who were directly involved in, and responsible for, crafting this program have also testified.

This is clearly a chapter opposition members are unwilling to close solely for cheap, partisan political games. It is behaviour unbecoming of the House: behaviour that undermines everyone's trust in our parliamentary institutions.

Second, let us briefly visit another matter that has been fully reported on and studied by the Standing Committee on National Defence as well as by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We can all agree in the House that harassment and abuse of anyone in Canada is unacceptable, and that the women and men of our Armed Forces deserve to be able to serve their country without the fear or threat of said harassment.

That is why the Standing Committee on National Defence unanimously adopted a motion to study addressing sexual misconduct issues in the Canadian Armed Forces, and similarly, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women unanimously adopted a motion to study sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces.

Regarding the former chief of staff to the defence minister, Ms. Zita Astravas, her former minister has now made three committee appearances on the topic, spanning hundreds of hours, in the last month.

Let me read to the House what the minister said when he was asked about his former chief of staff:

...as you know, after the ombudsman spoke to me, I informed my chief of staff so that she could follow up with the appropriate individuals within the Privy Council, as she did. She also informed Elder Marques at the Prime Minister's Office. I'm here today to provide you with my testimony on this, but also on behalf of my staff involved....

Not only has the minister himself testified three times on this matter, numerous documents have been produced in keeping with the request from the Standing Committee on National Defence. Documents have also been published by the media and reported on by Global News.

We know exactly what Ms. Astravas did. She did exactly what she should have done and exactly what the minister instructed her to do, which is the same thing the leader of the official opposition instructed his chief of staff to do upon learning of similar circumstances. We know Ms. Astravas raised this with the appropriate authorities, because it has been studied at committee. The only reason the opposition wants to invite her to this committee is to once again score cheap political points. There is nothing more to be learned here.

I would like to touch on the Prime Minister's director of policy and cabinet affairs, Mr. Rick Theis. As I have already made quite clear to the House, 5,000 pages of documents were turned over to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and subsequently released in August of last year. In fact, the government—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member likely was not trying to mislead the House on purpose, but he mentioned earlier in his speech that the Conservative Party had mentioned the Prime Minister's last name at least two dozen times in the House today. We just checked the blues and it was mentioned once.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I do not know whether we want to get into debate on the various points that were made on points of order. We will leave it that. As I mentioned in the two shifts I have done, there have been occurrences. That is where we will leave it. It does happen. We do not want to make too much of it. I appreciate hon. members weighing in in this respect, but this can become an exchange in and of itself.

We will stay on the subject and go back to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you should check Hansard because the member before the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke said it twice herself, and I did not call it out that time.

As I have already made quite clear, 5,000 pages of documents were turned over to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and subsequently released in August of that year. In fact, for the government to provide those documents, the Clerk of the Privy Council even waived cabinet confidentiality to allow for the utmost transparency.

Regarding Mr. Theis, as the documents show, he had one interaction with WE Charity. In fact, this was disclosed by the Prime Minister's Office itself. I will read exactly what it provided in August:

According to Mr. Theis, the call lasted for approximately 25 minutes. WE Charity raised their ongoing work with Employment and Social Development Canada on the Canada student summer grant, as outlined in the attached document, and a proposal for social entrepreneurship. Mr. Theis asked WE how what they were proposing for the CSSG would ensure diversity of placements. The Kielburgers expressed concern that this type of program would need to get off the ground soon. At no point were expenses discussed, nor any commitment, assurances or advice given by Mr. Theis to WE on any subject, other than to contact ESDC.

Further, the Prime Minister's chief of staff testified about the interaction during her committee testimony on June 30. She stated:

It was in early May when one of the policy staff did what is very normal in their jobs, which is to speak to stakeholder organizations. It was a very general discussion. They actually redirected the stakeholder, the WE organization, to ESDC officials. ESDC was a more appropriate place to get answers for the questions they were asking.

She further indicated that she was appearing on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office, stating:

I'm here on behalf of my staff and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have for them.

All this to say that, not only has the committee already heard from Ms. Telford on her staff's behalf, but the committee has received thousands of documents including detailed accounting of the interactions between Mr. Theis and WE Charity. There is nothing new for the committee to learn that has not been covered in the hours and hours of committee testimony and thousands of documents already made public. Again, this is clearly just the opposition trying to drag more staff into an issue that has already been thoroughly examined on a project that was cancelled over nine months ago.

Finally, with regard to Mr. Amitpal Singh of the finance minister's office, he too would have nothing further to add. Former minister Morneau has already appeared at the finance committee and provided testimony as well as requested documentation. To that end, as requested by the committee, WE Charity has also provided a detailed accounting of its interactions with all government staff including Mr. Singh.

Further, not only has the former finance minister appeared at finance committee, but Michelle Kovacevic, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, has spoken directly to her interactions with the minister's office during this time period. Specifically regarding Mr. Singh, she stated:

The next day, April 20, my minister's office connected with WE Charity to discuss their ability to deliver volunteer opportunities. The records of this call from my minister's office note that WE Charity will rework their 10-week summer program proposal to fully meet the policy objective of national service, and increase their current placements of 8,000 to double.

This is wholly consistent with the testimony of Ms. Sofia Marquez, the Kielburgers and the thousands of pages of documents that have been released. To put it concisely, this opposition day motion is nothing more than a partisan political attack: something that I have become used to seeing over my six years in the House from the opposition toward this government, in particular the personal attacks on members of cabinet.

More than that, the opposition members are trying to use their rights and privileges as MPs to come after staff members who they know do not benefit from the same rights and privileges. It is irresponsible for members to turn their protections into weapons against those who are not covered by the same protections.

If that were not enough, the motion goes on to order staff to appear at committee before even receiving an invitation. Like the government House leader stated, this is an abuse of their rights and privileges as MPs.

The opposition continue to try to drag hard-working political staff into committee, when, in reality, they have already heard hundreds of hours of testimony, had multiple committee studies, reviewed thousands of pages of documents and asked hundreds of questions.

In fact, what is important to remember here is that our government has undertaken a colossal effort, shown an incredible amount of collaboration and dedication to transparency in providing the opposition with documentation and testimony over the course of nine months. There is nothing more for the House to gain through these political attacks, and instead we should be able to focus on the ongoing pandemic that all of our staff are working tirelessly to help Canadians through.

I do hope we can get past this absurd motion so that we can steer Parliament back to what actually matters, protecting the health and safety of Canadians, growing our economy, creating jobs, and getting through this pandemic stronger and more resilient.