Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech by saying that the ultimate role of any member of Parliament is to hold the government to account. If a member of Parliament does not hold a government appointment, such as parliamentary secretary or minister, and is not part of the executive branch of government, the member's job is to hold the government to account regardless of political stripe.
What we are debating here tonight is an issue of Parliament holding the government to account on a very serious issue. Parliament heard of a potentially very serious national security issue that occurred at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, involving two scientists who may have ties to the Chinese Communist Party and also be involved in the transfer of very serious biological materials that could have public health consequences.
In terms of the role of Parliament holding the government to account, there was a pretty obvious question which ensued, which was what happened here. Were national security protocols followed? Are the national security protocols that are in place to prevent this type of situation adequate? Do we need to fix it? That is actually the role of Parliament to address.
On June 2, there was a House of Commons order which passed. Parliament debated and passed a motion that would require the government to hand over to the House of Commons documents about what happened in this situation. Again, this is the role of Parliament holding the government to account.
The government elected to defy this House order and proper procedure was followed. A question of privilege was raised in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, you ruled that privilege was broken because the government had an obligation to follow the order of the House so that it could be held to account.
What we are debating here tonight is a motion to address the consequence of that breach of privilege. This is very important because when the government chooses to defy the will of Parliament, it is choosing to defy the will of the Canadian people. Each of us here represents a group of Canadians. There need to be consequences for that action in order for democratic principles to be upheld, but, more important, to ensure that we can get to the bottom of this and that good public policy is applied.
This matter is not a light one that we are addressing here tonight. It is a very serious potential national security issue. It is our role to ask those questions of adequacy of procedure and then also to determine measures of censure for those who were involved in defying the House order. That is actually our job, and that is what we are here to do tonight.
The motion that we are debating tonight, in terms of censure, would require the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to attend the bar of the House for the purposes of receiving an admonishment delivered by you, Mr. Speaker, and to also deliver up the documents as passed by the House order.
Why is this an appropriate censure? I want to debunk a few of the Liberal talking points tonight. I am actually hoping that Liberal members of Parliament will understand that their role is to first hold the government to account, not to be partisan. Let me debunk the three Liberal talking points that I have heard in debate tonight.
The first is that some documents were handed over to a committee, NSICOP. I want to be very clear. This is not a committee of Parliament. For the government to hand over documents to a committee that was not specified in the House order that meets in secrecy is not meeting the terms of the House order, so that is a bunk talking point. The government is factually not in compliance with the House order and requires to be censured on that point alone. The Liberals do not get to choose where it goes. To take the acronym out would be like the government saying it decided to send the documents to any other committee of their choosing. That is not how it works. It was a House order. The government has to be compliant with the House order. That is debunked Liberal talking point number one.
Number two is another one that I heard, which was that if the House decided to it, it would be trying to destroy a public servant's career, but that is also bunk. The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada serves at the pleasure of the people of Canada, not the Liberal Party of Canada. In choosing to be complicit in the Liberal Party's decision to not hand these documents over, he is also complicit in violating this House order. He had a role. His salary is paid by the taxpayers of Canada. He had a role to actually advise the minister and government that they have to be compliant with this or resign. He had a choice and he chose to be complicit in this, so he should be admonished.
I could list a variety of other issues where the Public Health Agency of Canada has failed Canadians over the last year. We are debating a matter at the health committee right now about the government being in violation of the order to hand over vaccine contracts in an unredacted format. We will be addressing that at health committee. I could also address his flippancy or his lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation of sexual assaults at quarantine hotels and the response that he gave to me at committee. I could address the fact that today there were reports that the former president of the Public Health Agency of Canada spent close to $19,000 on a personal toilet at the agency. Clearly, something is amiss there.
To the matter at hand, defying an order of Parliament is something that a public servant should think twice about. We are not a dictatorship, yet, I hope, and public servants do not get to just defy the will of Parliament. That is not what we pay them to do, so censure in this matter for him is important because it sends a message to the rest of the public servants to understand who they are accountable to.
The third point that I heard tonight was that this is not about mischief. Let us think about that for a second. This is a very serious matter. There was an order from the House to the government to hand over documents and it was not complied with. This is a very serious matter. The government members also talked about using up time with House debate for other matters. This is a matter of privilege. It takes precedence in the House.
My colleague who just spoke and graciously shared his time with me talked about the fact that the government prorogued Parliament and used a lot of time up that it could have used for a legislative agenda. It is not Parliament's problem that the government House leader cannot figure out how to schedule legislation. That is not my problem nor of the people I represent. A breach of privilege surely is and there needs to be consequences for that.
There is no talking point on which this stands. We are either a democracy or we are not. Getting to the bottom of what happened with a potential major and national security issue is fairly important, but understanding that the will of Parliament is supreme is equally as important, as are my privileges in the House. There is no talking point on which the government stands.
I think what I am hearing tonight in debate is that there is consensus emerging certainly among opposition parties that, in the interest of democracy, this censure motion should be supported. I certainly think it should be supported.
As was said in debate by other members tonight, it does not matter what flavour of government is in power. There has to be some consequence for this sort of an issue. We have outlined that tonight.
I will just make one more point as well. The original order actually talked about the ability to address matters of national security right in it. I will just say this. This is a very important issue. I feel that the censure that is provided in this motion is well addressed and well aimed. There should be consequences for violating the will of Parliament and breaching the privilege of members like myself. I encourage all of my colleagues, including members of the Liberal Party, to support this motion in support of democracy and in support of the primacy of Parliament.