Debates of May 4th, 2021

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled “Room to Grow: Strengthening Food Processing Capacity in Canada for Food Security and Exports”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Human Rights

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present this petition today.

The petition deals with the ongoing human rights abuses within the People's Republic of China. Specifically, petitioners call on the government to apply Magnitsky sanctions to enforce human rights in the case of practitioners of Falun Dafa and Falun Gong, who are persistently persecuted within the People's Republic of China by the Chinese Communist Party.

Old Age Security

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a citizen's initiative turned into a petition. One of my constituents is asking the government to pay special attention to our seniors.

I therefore invite the government to change the name of the old age security program, which has been around for 70 years. It is a simple gesture but a very important one to show respect for our seniors.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Allegations of Sexual Misconduct in the Military

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

moved:

That, given that:

(a) women and all members of the Canadian Armed Forces placed their trust in this government to act on claims of sexual misconduct;

(b) the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff was informed about a specific sexual harassment allegation against General Jonathan Vance three years ago;

(c) the Prime Minister asserts that this sexual harassment allegation was never brought to his attention; and

(d) the Prime Minister said that those in a position of authority have a duty to act upon allegations,

the House call upon the Prime Minister to dismiss his Chief of Staff for failing to notify him about a serious sexual harassment allegation at the highest ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces and for being complicit in hiding the truth from Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this morning with my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

I am going to be beginning debate today on our opposition day motion and, to be frank, I wish this was not a topic that we were discussing. There are a lot of very important and pressing issues that are facing the country today, issues such as vaccines, and the fact that we do not have enough vaccines and that there are very mixed messages coming out from the government about vaccines. There are also issues like the economy and jobs, and the fact that Liberals have no plan to secure our future.

At the foundation of those and other issues really is the question around trust and confidence that Canadians can put in their government; trust and confidence that their Prime Minister is telling them the truth; trust and confidence that the Prime Minister is acting in their best interest and not in his own; trust and confidence that when people do the wrong things at the highest level, they are held accountable.

That is why today we are debating the cover-up of sexual misconduct allegations against the chief of the defence staff by the Prime Minister, by his office and by his Minister of National Defence, and the fact that the cover-up needs to be brought to light and that people need to be held accountable to ensure that it never happens again.

Our men and women in uniform serve our country every day with honour and integrity, many times sacrificing not only their own lives, but their mental health, their own emotional and physical stability and health. They sacrifice their time with their families. They even sacrifice their relationships.

Women in military, women in uniform, have a unique sacrifice. They give up time with their own children, sometimes their very young children. They give up their own time to even have children. They give up so much to serve this country and they expect and they want to have confidence that their government will serve them with the same integrity, honour and sacrifice. Our women in uniform put their faith in their government to protect them from harassment, from sexual misconduct, from having their superiors being able to take advantage of their position of authority. Sadly, the Liberal government has failed them in doing so over the last number of years.

Today, we are going to be talking about what happened. We are going to talk about who knew, who did not know and who should be held accountable. We know the Minister of National Defence knew. We know that the ombudsman testified that he brought specific allegations of sexual misconduct to the Minister of National Defence back in 2018. We know the Minister of National Defence, at the time, told the ombudsman he did not want to hear about it, and he turned a blind eye. Unbelievably, he even refused to speak to the ombudsman again. I am sure throughout the day, we are going to hear more about what the Minister of National Defence did and did not do.

What I would like to focus my remarks on at this point is what happened in the Prime Minister's Office, the highest office of this land, and who should be held accountable for covering up those serious allegations.

We are being told to believe that the Prime Minister did not know. He has told Canadians, he has told the media and he has told this House that he did not know about the allegations until just recently when all of us learned about them just a few months ago. We are told through testimony that the Prime Minister's chief adviser knew, as well as his chief of staff, Katie Telford, but apparently they did not tell him. They withheld this important information from the Prime Minister. That is what we are being told that we should believe.

For context, and this is important, let us remember that in March 2018, the Prime Minister and his office would have known that the evidence of him inappropriately groping a woman in 2000 was going to be brought to light. I personally recall the spring of 2018. It was one of the worst-kept secrets in Ottawa. There was an article circulating written by a young reporter detailing her very unpleasant experience with the Prime Minister when he was 28, in the Kokanees. If so many of us knew about this article, the Prime Minister and his office would have to have known.

He must have known that at some point it was going to be made public and he was going to be asked about it. In that context, it is important to consider what the Prime Minister could have reasonably been thinking and what his state of mind could have been. He could have been thinking that if he fired General Vance for allegations of sexual misconduct, he was also going to have to hold himself to the same standard when the evidence of his more egregious conduct came forward.

I am sure the Prime Minister would have been faced with a very serious personal choice had he known about the sexual allegations against General Vance, a choice of either dismissing the chief of the defence staff for what he had done or ignoring the allegations, thus protecting himself. When the Prime Minister was confronted with the groping incidents, he skated around it by saying that some women experience things differently. He gave himself a pass on his conduct, which I believe in and of itself shows how far away the Prime Minister is from being a feminist. It is classic misogynist behaviour to blame and dismiss the woman. Looking back now it all makes sense as to why the Prime Minister would have known about Vance but covered up the allegations.

In that same context, let us follow the Prime Minister's assertion that he did not know, that everyone around him knew but he was kept in the dark. Let us pretend that is reasonable, which I personally do not see as believable. That would mean the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford, knew and she did not tell him. It means that Katie Telford knew of these allegations yet allowed the Prime Minister to go ahead between the course of 2018 and 2020 and not only praise General Vance publicly for his good work on Operation Honour, but also make him the longest-serving chief of the defence staff and give him a $50,000 raise. To me, it just does not seem believable that a competent chief of staff would allow her boss, the Prime Minister of this country, to put himself in such a vulnerable position and set himself up to be so badly embarrassed, discredited and disbelieved. If that was true and I was the Prime Minister, I would say with friends like Katie Telford who needs enemies? I would be furious with her, but I note the Prime Minister does not seem too furious, does he?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am just going to hold the clock for a moment. There seems to be a microphone on. I want to remind members to make sure their mikes are off because it is interfering with House affairs right now.

The hon. deputy leader.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, something about this whole story that is being told does not ring true, but it is what the Prime Minister is saying so we are going to call him to act on it, because in his owns words he said that those “in positions of authority” who know about a sexual allegation “have a duty to act”. We are calling on the Prime Minister to act on the fact that apparently Katie Telford knew but did not act.

On the other hand, if the Prime Minister knew and he is not admitting it, he needs to man up as soon as possible and admit he knew but did not want to act on it. Why? Because he was protecting himself.

What we are seeing is a pattern with the Prime Minister. We saw it with the SNC-Lavalin affair, where he denied to the country that he even knew there had been political interference. He denied it again and said that he did not interfere. It became clear when we actually heard the voice recording that there had been political interference. Similarly, as in the Vance cover-up, the SNC interference was for the Prime Minister's benefit, because he was worried about votes. At the end of the whole horrid SNC-Lavalin incident, two very smart and capable women were ousted, the hon. member for Vancouver Granville and Jane Philpott, the former health minister, and the Prime Minister came out smelling like a rose, at least in his own mind.

I hope today we are not seeing the same thing whereby the Prime Minister, in an attempt to protect himself at all costs, has not only failed to protect our women in the military, but in the end another competent woman, Katie Telford, will pay for his mistake. Make no mistake, her reputation is tarred. Do not get me wrong, if she covered it up she deserves to be fired. If she did not cover it up and he is not telling the truth, he needs to stand up, tell the truth, own up to what he has done and, maybe if not for once in his lifetime, but for sure once in his career as Prime Minister, take responsibility for his mistruths, his conduct and his cover-up.

Winston Churchill said, “I no longer listen to what people say, I just watch what they do. Behaviour never lies.” I believe that is where we are with the Prime Minister and his claim of being a feminist. His actions show he is not a feminist. Canadian women are watching his behaviour, as are our women and men in uniform. The women in his own party, including those who work for him, have seen his behaviour, and if they have not seen it they need to take a hard look. The Conservatives have certainly seen his behaviour—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time for debate is up. She will be able to continue during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a serious situation. We need to speak out against it and we need to take action to address it.

The Conservative motion and the statements made by the member must not make anyone lose sight of the fact that the two parties chose to do nothing about Jonathan Vance. The Conservatives appointed him chief of the defence staff even though they had already heard about certain situations before doing so. I think your track record on this issue is not consistent with the fervour you are demonstrating today.

Where is your mea culpa in this situation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member that she is to address her questions and comments to the Chair, not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct something. The Liberals have been trying to deflect from what they have done in this current situation. They are trying to do that by blaming others.

The fact is that it was the Conservative government that actually initiated the Deschamps report. When rumours around General Vance were heard, Conservatives acted on them. That is very different from the current government. When given very concrete evidence from the ombudsman, the Minister of National Defence pushed it away and covered it up for over three years, and instead gave General Vance a raise, a promotion, and praised him. This is very telling, as is the fact that the Liberals are not owning up to it.

What we are saying today is that there can be no fix for this terrible problem, this terrible situation, until the Prime Minister owns up to the cover-up he has participated in.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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]

Madam Speaker, I listened very closely to the government House leader as he addressed the issue at great length yesterday.

In terms of what I heard from the government House leader, does the opposition member have any regrets with respect to things she put on the record that might have actually misled Canadians on this issue?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, my biggest recollection yesterday from the government House leader was him throwing the F-bomb into the House of Commons. I would think he would have regret about that.

The only regrets here should be with the government and the so-called feminist Prime Minister, who, time after time, throws strong and capable women under the bus. We have seen it with the hon. member for Vancouver Granville and Jane Philpott, and we could ask many women in the Liberal caucus. We are seeing it currently with the Prime Minister saying that Katie Telford knew but nobody told him about these sexual misconduct allegations. It is just not believable.

We are calling the Prime Minister's bluff. If, indeed, Telford did not tell him, he can fire her. However, if she did tell him, he needs to own up to it, he needs to take responsibility, and he needs to, for once in his career as Prime Minister, do the right thing for the men and women of the country and for the military, and not to protect himself.

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

Madam Speaker, the issues of sexual allegations in the military are deeply concerning.

What I find really shocking today is that the Conservatives are trying to use this to exploit the issue. It is completely unacceptable that they are bringing it to Parliament to decide who gets fired and who does not. That is not something Parliament should be doing. This is a very disturbing issue, and the Conservatives are taking this issue and exploiting it for their own political benefit, not for the men and women in uniform.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would completely disagree.

What the NDP is mostly concerned about is propping up the Liberals every chance it gets. It is sad to see the NDP abandoning the men and women in uniform, instead of showing some courage, taking a stand and calling the Prime Minister, his office and the Minister of National Defence to account for what they are doing.

I am not surprised. The NDP has lost all relevance, and it continues to do so today.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the deputy leader for her great opening comments and for bringing forward today's motion. We are calling the Prime Minister's bluff today, what he knew and what he did not do.

First, I want to tell those who serve our country in uniform that it is very clear that there is a huge problem in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces with this ongoing and serious problem of sexual misconduct. We ask a lot of those in uniform. They serve in the Canadian Armed Forces every day, and they have taken the oath to protect each and every one of us. It is incumbent upon us as members of Parliament to do our best to ensure that they have a safe work environment. That means they should not be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace.

When our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers, our mothers and fathers serve this nation, they should never be subjected to sexual harassment. This unsafe culture must change. That is why our leader of the Conservative Party suggested, over two months ago, an action plan that the government could take today and implement and get real results.

As our leader said, we would order a service-wide independent investigation into sexual misconduct in the military. That would be from top to bottom. During that investigation, all general and flag officers' promotions and salaries would be frozen so that we can weed out any of the problems and then bring forward the proper promotions.

We would introduce policies to ensure that future complaints of sexual misconduct are made to a truly external, independent body that is completely outside of the chain of command. To change the culture and to ensure that we have a true egalitarian society within the Canadian Armed Forces, we would bring forward policies to make greater representation of women and other under-represented Canadians among the top ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces and all the services: air force, army and navy.

We have to ensure that the women and men who serve our country can do it with honour and without compromise. That all starts by making sure we have a safe environment and having women at the command table.

There is no question that what we are dealing with here today as a motion is about accountability. We already know that the Minister of National Defence was offered evidence of sexual harassment by the former chief of the defence staff, retired General Jonathan Vance. The Minister of National Defence pushed away that evidence instead of looking at it and acting upon it, as he is required to do as the minister and as is defined under the National Defence Act. By not taking that evidence, the Minister of National Defence failed our women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The minister has said on multiple occasions that he referred that allegation to his chief of staff, Zita Astravas, who was his former chief of staff at that time, three years ago. This was March 1, 2018, and she passed that information on, as we found out at the national defence committee only two weeks ago, to the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Katie Telford. Then Katie Telford had Elder Marques, who was a former senior adviser to the Prime Minister, initiate the contact with the former military ombudsman, Gary Walbourne, with the former Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, who has also testified at committee, and with Janine Sherman, who was the deputy clerk to cabinet.

We have heard lots of testimony at committee. We have read much about these allegations and the fallout that has been impacted upon in the media.

What we have to get down to today is that there is responsibility here for what Katie Telford did with that information. As our deputy leader, the member for Portage—Lisgar, just said, if we are to believe the Prime Minister, then that means Katie Telford withheld critical information about the top soldier of the land and that General Vance, who has the top security clearance in the country, was potentially compromised and could be easily blackmailed based upon these allegations of sexual misconduct.

If she did not tell the Prime Minister, that is very much an obstruction of a process to ensure that the chief of the defence staff, who reports to only two people, the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister, had conducted himself without honour and that his ability to serve our country was severely compromised. Therefore, if we are to believe that Katie Telford did not fulfill her own responsibilities in informing the Prime Minister, then she should be fired. However, really, this is about calling Justin Trudeau's bluff, because I do not personally believe that Katie Telford would not have told the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the very experienced member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman referred to the Prime Minister by his full name, and I think he would want to refrain from doing that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Yes, the hon. member did that and I would caution him about doing that. He knows very well that we are not to refer to MPs or ministers by their first or last names in the House.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do apologize. There has been a lot of media lately and I get to use the Prime Minister's name frequently, so it is just a matter of habit these days, but I will refrain and will call him the Prime Minister.

We also have to keep our eye on what is happening in the Standing Committee on National Defence, because after we learned from Elder Marques, a week and a half ago, that Katie Telford was the first point of contact between the Minister of National Defence's office and the Prime Minister's Office, we immediately moved a motion to have her appear. The Liberals on that committee have been filibustering and blocking Katie Telford from appearing at our committee. This again speaks to the reality of this being a cover-up. The Liberals would rather protect Katie Telford than protect the women and men who serve our country in the Canadian Armed Forces.

This has to stop. We need to make sure that those who are in the chain of command, from the chief of the defence staff to the Minister of National Defence to the chief of staff to the Prime Minister and up to the Prime Minister, are all being honest with Canadians and providing us with the facts.

These ongoing filibusters and cancellations of meetings are an affront to democracy, and it really speaks to what bounds the Liberals are prepared to cross to ensure that our Parliament is dysfunctional. We will continue in our committee to ask that Katie Telford appear, but we also believe that it is incumbent upon this House for us to pronounce on whether Katie Telford did or did not know or did and did not tell the Prime Minister of these serious allegations against General Jonathan Vance.

We have to look at all the facts. We have to keep in mind that even though we have been dealing with this now for over three months that this has been in front of Canadians and in front of our House and at the defence committee, we know that Katie Telford was very busy in March 2018 dealing with the false allegations and the charges that were brought against the former vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. He was charged on March 8, 2018 and that was in process. We also know that the Liberals were dealing with sexual misconduct within the Prime Minister's Office itself with Claude-Éric Gagné, so their hands were full and they may have been distracted.

However, it was no excuse for them to give Jonathan Vance a pass, give him a raise, and extend his contract for another three years while he was in charge of Operation Honour. That was demoralizing to all those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen two times this week the Conservatives bringing forward opposition motions that do not serve the purpose of helping Canadians, as was pointed out earlier by the member for Timmins—James Bay. How would this motion actually help to advance the very important work that needs to be done in our military?

The member referred to the Conservatives' action plan on sexual misconduct in the military. Why not bring forward that action plan as an opposition motion to study here? That is something we could have a substantive debate on. We could discuss what that plan is and how the government might be able to adopt it.

Can the member explain why the Conservatives chose this motion, instead of bringing forward the action plan they have?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Kingston and the Islands is very uncomfortable with this conversation. He does have a very large base and the Royal Military College in his riding, and I am sure he is getting a lot of emails, phone calls and visits from those who serve and who have served who are disappointed in the Liberal government.

Really, it comes down to this: When we are dealing with this issue of sexual misconduct, it is time for the Prime Minister and the Liberals to stop hiding the truth from Canadians. They have to take responsibility for their actions, both in the Minister of National Defence's office and in the Prime Minister's Office itself.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also wondering about that. It is my conscience talking.

When we are dealing with an issue as significant as this one, we need to ask ourselves the following question: What is the ultimate intention in making today's debate so specific? The terms of the motion are quite valid.

That being said, what was the ultimate intention of taking action against an individual by claiming this will resolve the situation?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is about forcing the Prime Minister to play his hand and drop his cards. It is time to stop the bluff.

This is about making sure the cover-up ends and that Canadians, we parliamentarians and especially those who serve in uniform know the facts around the Liberal government not acting on Jonathan Vance's misconduct, which was alleged back in March, 2018. They undermined Operation Honour by leaving him in charge and extending his contract by another three years. They gave him a salary increase that was as high as $50,000, and they turned a blind eye to the tragedy that was occurring in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Sexual misconduct in the armed forces under the Liberal government is increasing. Over the last five years, one person was sexually assaulted every three days in the Canadian Armed Forces. That has to stop, and that will stop when we get down to the truth.