Debates of March 25th, 2021

Diversity and Inclusion

[Jenica Atwin, Green, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted that there is systemic racism in all systems that govern this country. He recognized that systemic anti-Black racism exists in Canada, causes deep pain and has undermined the livelihoods of Black Canadians, and Canada's own public service is complicit. As a result of systemic racism and discrimination, the government has failed to achieve equality and correct the conditions that disadvantage Black civil servants.

Reparation is the act of making up for wrongdoing. Will the government fight in court the Black civil servants who courageously came forward to expose the wrongdoing they faced during their careers, or will it work toward reparation? Will the government commit today to review the Employment Equity Act and ensure it brings down the category of visible minorities, acknowledging the unique and systemic racism faced by Black employees?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising these important issues.

Our government is committed to building back even better, and being consciously more inclusive. This is work that we started when we took office in October 2015. We brought back an anti-racism strategy that was created by Canadians for Canadians, informed by indigenous people, Black Canadians, racialized Canadians, religious minorities and so forth.

We have an anti-racism secretariat. Yes, we are committed to reviewing the Employment Equity Act. Yes, we are committed to working with all partners who want to ensure that Canadians are not left on the sidelines. We recognize that COVID-19 has impacted the entire world, all Canadians and disproportionately certain segments. We are committed to ensuring that those—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid that is all the time we have for today.

The hon. member for Kanata—Carleton is rising on a point of order.

Gender-Based Violence

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That the House:

(a) mourn the lives of the seven women who lost their lives to heinous acts of femicide in Quebec in the past few months;

(b) mourn the lives of all women and gender-diverse people across Canada who have lost their lives to intimate partner violence and gender-based violence;

(c) continue to support the survivors of gender-based violence;

(d) acknowledge the incredibly alarming increase in gender-based violence across the country;

(e) condemn gender-based violence in all its forms;

(f) work with the government to accelerate investments in shelters and transition housing, and support the advancement of a National Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence;

(g) call on all Canadians to do more to fight and raise awareness on gender-based violence; and

(h) take-note of the alarming increase of gender-based violence in Canada;

and that a take-note debate on this topic be held later today, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion please say Nay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Hearing no dissenting voice, I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Business of the House

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as tradition would have it, it is time for the Thursday question.

I would like my ministerial counterpart to tell us what is coming up in Parliament over the next few days. We know that the budget will be tabled on April 19. However, can he tell what is happening after the two weeks we are spending in our ridings?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his question.

This afternoon, we will obviously continue the debate on the opposition motion. We will proceed to the supply votes a little later this evening.

Tomorrow morning, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, COVID-19 response, and then in the afternoon, we will study Bill C-11, an act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.

I would also like to wish all hon. colleagues a productive and safe two weeks working in their constituencies.

Obviously, members have a lot of work to do in their ridings, but I hope they will take some time for themselves and spend some time with their families. That is important.

Party Representation in the House—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on March 22, 2021, by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent concerning the presence of members of the government party in the House.

In his intervention, he mentioned that, at present, the maximum number of members who can safely be physically present during sittings is 86 and should reflect the proportions of the recognized parties. He thus argued that the number of members from the government party should not be limited to one or two, particularly since ministers participate by video conference from their office on Parliament Hill and take part in activities in the building where the House is sitting.

He also acknowledged several times that the virtual House is the extension of the physical House. The member feels that the under-representation of members of the government party and cabinet physically present in the House is unacceptable and should be corrected to guarantee the application of the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

The member for La Prairie supported the position expressed by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

The member for Kingston and the Islands responded that this was not a point of order because, according to the rules governing the hybrid House, there is no difference between participating in the debates in person or remotely. He added that the choice to limit physical presence was done out of respect for the health and safety of members and employees of the House administration.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is essentially asking the Chair to decide on two questions: whether a minimum number of members from the government party must be present in the House, and whether ministers participating remotely impairs the principle of ministerial responsibility. On January 25, 2021, the House adopted an order that allows members to participate in deliberations by video conference until June 23, 2021. Since it is up to the House to establish its own rules, it occasionally decides to amend its practices on an ad hoc basis or for specified periods of time.

As a servant of the House, I am here not to judge the wisdom of its decisions, but to enforce the rules it establishes. A careful reading of the order that currently governs our work gives no indication that the role and functions of members who participate in deliberations by video conference differ from those who are physically present. In fact, there is a will to take the necessary measures to allow them to contribute fully by stipulating that those who participate remotely count for the purpose of quorum. Members can table documents and reports, present petitions and vote. I would add that there is no limit on their right to intervene under any heading of the Order of Business.

Thus, in the eyes of the Chair, there is no difference between a member who is participating in person and one who is participating by video conference with respect to attendance contributing to deliberations or quorum. For the same reason, there is no grounds to conclude that ministers participating by video conference impairs accountability or the principle of responsible government.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned that it was agreed to limit the number of members present in the House in order to follow public health guidelines and to allow members to participate in the deliberations of the House safely. However, at no point did the House specify in the order of January 25, 2021, a minimum number of members who must participate in person. In the absence of any indication to the contrary from the House, the choice of method of participation remains at the discretion of each member.

In closing, I want to remind the members to be judicious in their interventions and points of order to avoid mentioning the presence or absence of members or ministers in the House, which is contrary to the Standing Orders.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has seven minutes remaining in his debate.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there are several problems I have with the motion on the floor. Some are problems of substance, and some are problems of process. Some relate to the fact that this motion is extraneous to the issues that really matter to Canadians, who are going through a once-in-a-lifetime public health and economic emergency that demands the full attention of the House of Commons.

I will begin with the problems of process.

The principle of ministerial responsibility is a golden thread that runs through Westminster parliamentary democracies around the world. The concept of confidence is something that our entire system is built upon. The House must maintain confidence in the government in order to have the government stand. Indeed, the government is made up of, in part, the executive, including cabinet ministers. Whether the opposition has confidence in the staff of those ministers is not relevant to who remains in government. Though it is essential that the House maintain confidence in itself.

I have certain, serious reservations about calling the individual political staff of cabinet ministers before committees in the present circumstances, in part because it is not truly their responsibility but that of their employer, which in this case is the minister.

However, some of my reservations are informed by experience. I am speaking about some of the matters that relate to the Canada student service grant having had an investigation. I have been on the finance committee. I know similar issues have been pursued before other committees, including the ethics committee.

I was supportive of the idea to undertake a study and call certain ministers before that committee, including the Prime Minister. However, what I saw during that experience was very little interest in truth-seeking and rather a great interest in creating a political circus, particularly when it came to the staff who did appear, including not just political staff, but non-partisan public servants as well.

On one occasion, when the chief of staff of the Prime Minister attended, I saw behaviour that was unbecoming of a parliamentary committee. I saw not only questions about the development of programming, but also drive-by smears on her family members. It was reprehensible to watch that kind of attack, not just on those of us who put our name on the ballot and expect this sort of public scrutiny, or on staff, but on the family members of staff.

Moreover, I will point out that there has been no shortage of consideration of many of the issues that are being pursued. There was literally hundreds of hours before the ethics and finance committees. The Prime Minister himself testified at the finance committee. The chief of staff testified as well before the finance committee. The Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth testified before both the ethics and finance committees.

Both committees also had the benefit of the testimony of the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is the head of Canada's public service. A number of public servants attended, gave testimony and answered questions. There was a significant waiver of cabinet confidences, and to some degree solicitor and client privilege, in these instances. Thousands of pages were disclosed, giving all of the information that one could conceivably want to see regarding the development of that particular program.

I want to turn my attention not just to the problems of process, but to what I believe is the motivation for today's motion, which is that the official opposition seems bereft of ideas that actually matter to Canadians who are struggling to get through the COVID-19 pandemic. It looked at the jobs numbers that came out for the month of February, in which 259,000 Canadians obtained a job they did not have one month before, and there has not been a question about our job numbers in question period since. Now that the vaccine rollout has really hit its stride, and we are seeing two million doses per week arriving within our borders, we are no longer seeing questions about vaccine administration.

The Conservative Party seems to be in a very difficult place. They try not to draw attention to the issues that matter around jobs and the economy. They try not to draw attention to the government's public health response when it seems to be going fairly well. They try desperately to avoid attention on some of the issues that are plaguing their internal politics. This includes the fact, which I might point out, given the Supreme Court of Canada's decision today affirming that climate change is real, which should not require any affirmation, 54% of their members recently voted at their partisan convention to deny a motion that included those very words.

The reality I see is, we are dealing with a party that desperately wants to avoid drawing attention to the government's record because we have had a world-class economic response to this pandemic, and its members want to create a political sideshow. They want to bring individual staff members of ministers before a committee to see if they can get that gotcha moment for their social media accounts.

I do not think that is appropriate in our system. Instead, it would be far better if all parties in this House would focus on the issues their constituents are actually calling them about, things like whether the government is actually advancing the kinds of economic supports that will keep food on their tables and a roof over their heads, or whether local businesses are receiving the kinds of supports that will help them keep their doors open. Instead, they want to call individual political staffers before certain committees.

Although some of the staff members did not sign up to have their name on the ballot and be scrutinized before parliamentary committees, some of the individual political staff I have worked with in the development of Canada's economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic are without doubt heroes. I think of the work they put in, staying up until one, two or three in the morning to email with MPs who had concerns or ideas to develop programs. That these programs are actually landing on the kitchen tables of families in my community today is nothing short of heroic. I want to take this opportunity to thank the political staff who have stepped up.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned the importance of ministerial accountability. I do hope he recognizes that when members of Parliament have concerns about the ethical conduct of people who are under the Prime Minister's employ, it says right there, the Prime Minister can come and speak on behalf of those people at committee.

That speaks to a greater concept, the concept of responsible government. This member pointed out that we have not heard questions about this or about that. When members of Parliament are elected, we are elected to decide whether we have confidence in the government. Quite honestly, we know there are clear issues in the Armed Forces, at the highest levels, and this is under the purview of the Prime Minister. We also know there is an issue about the involvement of his office and his staff with ethical breaches.

Does the member not agree there is clearly a point with ministerial accountability, where the Prime Minister can come on behalf of them? Second, does he not believe in the concept of responsible government, where each member can decide whether or not they have confidence in the government?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe in the principle of responsible government. I should give a plug to one of our provincial forefathers, Joseph Howe, who was responsible for advancing the notion of responsible government in Canada, right here in my home province of Nova Scotia.

One of the issues the member raised though, and I think maybe we will find common ground here, is that some of the members he spoke of are not staff of the Prime Minister's Office. They are staff of individual ministers. The concept of ministerial responsibility is an important one.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper said, “our precedents and practices are very clear. It is ministers and the ministry at large who are responsible to the House and to its committees, not their staff members. The staff members are responsible to the ministers and the members for whom they work.”

I take exception to his suggestion that only the Prime Minister could alleviate the need for staff to testify. The relevant minister in each circumstance would do the trick just fine.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the issue before us is a serious one. We, as parliamentarians across all parties, need to make sure there is accountability, transparency and answers for all Canadians. That is really the crux of the issue here.

I fail to understand why the Liberals would not want to ensure there is clarity provided at committee. To that end, what is the justification from the member to say that the Prime Minister should not appear before the committee?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member's parliamentary work, having watched her in action during the entirety of my time as an MP.

To be clear, I did not make the suggestion that it is inappropriate for the Prime Minister to appear before committees. In fact, I supported his appearance before the finance committee on some of the same issues for which they are seeking to have him come back. What I think is important, though, is that it is not necessarily the Prime Minister who is the appropriate person to testify before all committees in all circumstances. When I look at some of the individual staff members who the motion contemplates should actually be testifying, in many cases I think a different minister would actually be in a better position to do so than the Prime Minister.

I must say I am a bit jaded after my own experience, having been through one of these fishing expeditions at the finance committee. I literally sat through hundreds of hours, watched thousands of documents be produced and watched numerous ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, come to testify, only to see the opposition continue to try to drag the proceedings out, rather than getting on with the important work of government, including pre-budget consultations, and most recently, the consideration of Bill C-14.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary secretary, and I look forward to seeing if he agrees, with respect to the information that is being asked for, I think it is eminently reasonable to have the due diligence report that was promised by the Clerk of the Privy Council to a committee; clarifications offered by witnesses, whose involvement has been contradicted between testimony by ministers and documents tabled by the government; and the testimony of the government's partners at the WE organization.

We are looking for clarification there. It was not that long ago that the member for Malpeque took part in dragging a Conservative political staffer before committee, and the Liberals had no issue with it then. What we are looking for is an answer for Canadians. That half-billion dollars they wanted to give to their friends at WE—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I take exception to the allegation that I had anything to do with friends at WE. I have no friends who work for the organization.

In any event, I think the point he is trying to dig in on is whether the staff members he is calling to appear are the appropriate individuals to come testify and give evidence before committee. With sincere respect for the member opposite, I do not share his view.

I believe in the principle of ministerial responsibility. I believe that if there are concerns about the administration of a particular file, it is the responsibility of the minister who has charge of that file to come testify, either in the House of Commons during question period or as a witness before a particular committee. I think if we stick to our time-honoured tradition of ministerial responsibility, it would serve us well today and tomorrow.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I hope all my colleagues are doing well on this lovely spring day in the province of Ontario and in York region.

I will begin by going back to the heart of what brings us here again today. Why is that important? It is because I want to remind all my dear colleagues of the colossal effort, the incredible work, the collaborative work, as well as the sheer transparency that has already gone into the production of documents for the study of the government's decision to enter into a contribution agreement with the WE organization to administer the Canada student service grant.

Let us review everything the government has done to support the different committees studying this matter.

The ethics committee has held hundreds of hours in meetings on the subject of the Canada student services grant. The Prime Minister testified at the finance committee on this matter. I was there. The Prime Minister's chief of staff testified at the finance committee on this matter. Again, I was there. The Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth testified before the ethics committee as well as at the finance committee. The Clerk of the Privy Council testified before the ethics committee and before the finance committee. Even the Kielburgers testified multiple times at various committees. I believe the time allotted for the Kielburgers has reached almost 10 hours of testimony.

An unprecedented waiver of cabinet confidence was put into place to facilitate the disclosure of documents. Over 5,000 pages of documents were provided to various parliamentary committees. Despite opposition attempts to move privilege and contempt motions, the law clerk of the House of Commons verified that the government abided by the rule of law in providing these documents to the committees.

The Conservatives seem suddenly interested in supports for students, but it is surprising. Sadly, the Conservatives voted against Bill C-14 and the relief from federal interest on loans for students contained within that bill.

Let me make it clear. The heart of what we are doing as a government, and what I believe all of us as members of Parliament should be focused on during this most extraordinary period of time in the world's history, is getting through COVID-19 and ensuring our communities, businesses and our economy are back. We know Canadians have the potential, and we need to stand with them and beside them as our recovery continues.

The motion before us today calls on a number of ministerial staff to appear before committees. I would like state categorically that ministers are directly accountable to Parliament on the administration and duties exercised within their departments and for the actions of the political staff in their political offices.

The concept is not a new one. Allow me to quote the former prime minister in 2006, who stated the following in a document called “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers”.

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.

Ministerial staff, like public servants, are not accountable to Parliament for government policy decisions or operations. Public servants may be called to testify at committee on the implementation of policy decisions, but must defer to ministers to answer questions on policy and decisions. In the case of ministerial staffers, the scope of what information they have is more restricted than public servants since they are not involved in the operations of the department.

As a government, we had sent an exempt staff member to testify at committee, and we saw what happened. The staffer was badgered by the Conservatives, repeatedly interrupted, accused of a cover-up, accused of being untruthful and accused of something that was demonstrably false and easily verified with a simple Google search. It is evident that the Conservatives are grasping at straws, and I would say grasping at air.

All the questions about the issues in today's motion have been asked and answered and all the requested documents have been provided. Multiple ministers, including the Prime Minister, have appeared before committees on this issue. I can understand that the Conservatives are frustrated by the fact that the government has answered every question asked, but at this point, I think we can all see that this is just the Conservative ethics critic and the member for Carleton creating work for themselves.

In fact, back in 2014, the member for Carleton said that the decision on what to reveal is made by non-partisan public servants for whom it has long been a tradition not to reveal cabinet confidences. That has been the case going back to all previous governments of all party stripes.

Our government co-operated and supported the committees in their important work. When documents were requested, they were provided. Public servants acted professionally to do that. When they did not disclose everything, the Conservatives attacked them for doing their job.

The opposition keeps complaining about how the federal government discloses documents, but they recognized one very simple fact when they were in power. I would like to quote Lawrence Cannon, former foreign affairs minister under Stephen Harper, who said, “officials will provide all legally available documents. Officials have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Redactions are done by independent, non-partisan public servants whose only interest is the application of the law”.

By their actions, the Conservatives are showing us that they want to undermine public confidence in our institutions.

I would like to remind the House of the kind of behaviour the opposition has shown Canadians they can expect from it. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party posted the 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. The Conservative ethics critic sent a letter to a private company asking it to break the law. There have been numerous attempts at committee to compel the personal financial information of private citizens.

While the opposition may try to play political games and to create doubt in the public's mind with regard to the independence and the strength of our institutions, on this side of the House, we will stay laser focused on Canadians regardless of the Conservative Party's petty politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually have to commend the Minister of National Defence for his testimony on March 12 at the defence committee. When he was asked who was responsible and accountable for the failure of the allegations against the former chief of the defence staff to be investigated, the minister replied, “Yes, I'm absolutely responsible”.

If the parliamentary secretary agrees with the minister, what does he think are the appropriate steps, moving forward, to ensure that one of these investigations and the failure to properly investigate never happen again.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, so I thank him for his service.

I believe fully that ministers have lived up to their responsibilities to be accountable to Parliament during the period for the Canada student service grant. A number of ministers have made committee appearances. In reference to the Minister of National Defence, he also was a Canadian Armed Forces member and served the country in a number of instances. I commend him for his service to country.

This is how our system is supposed to work. Ministers are supposed to be accountable for the actions of their staff, and our government believes in that.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's motion contains several elements expressing an intention to do some investigating and shine a light on any corners that are still dark, dubious and questionable from a parliamentary point of view. This motion and everything that is going on right now are concealing political trials and partisan intentions. That is obvious.

Nevertheless, allegations of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces have been known for a long time. Does my colleague think it would be appropriate for Parliament and its committees to address this issue once and for all? There have been a number of damning reports in recent years on the independence of courts martial and complaints processes in the Canadian Armed Forces relating to the military hierarchy. These military entities and institutions and the many shortcomings they reveal must be addressed.

Partisanship aside, we parliamentarians have an obligation to examine this issue and find solutions, rather than engaging in endless speculation. I would like to know if my colleague is interested in finding solutions to correct these shortcomings.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no Canadian should go to work and be in an environment where he or she is having to deal with the issue of sexual harassment in any light. We must shine a light on that in any sector of the economy, in any organization and stamp it out fully. I completely agree with that.

I also completely agree with my hon. colleague's comment about this being a non-partisan issue and we must deal with the issue at hand, the sexual harassment, in the Canadian military or any organization in the country in which we are blessed to live.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have serious concerns with one of the things member mentioned in a response not too long ago, that the systems are working. It is very clear that the systems are, in fact, not working and they are especially not working for women in the military.

If Vance's appointment was an at-pleasure appointment, which allows for the appointee to be removed from office without cause, with cause or by any operation of law, why was General Vance not removed as chief of the defence staff when the minister was made aware of serious allegations? When is the government going to start picking women in the military over leadership?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my reference to the systems working is as a member of the ethics committee, the public accounts committee and last summer, the finance committee. I participated and continue to participate in committees with a number witnesses appearing and continue to attempt to work in a non-partisan manner with all opposition parties to ensure all documents are gathered and released, which the 5,000 documents have been.

My comment about the system working is that the Prime Minister appeared at committee at a certain point in time, the chief of staff came to committee and the Kielburgers gave almost 10 hours of testimony, I believe. We have gotten to the issues at hand. We now know that the due diligence was done and nothing untoward was done.

We continue to stand by Canadians as we continue to work through COVID-19. We will have their backs and get through this.