Debates of June 16th, 2021

Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In all honesty, I would have preferred to talk about the environment this evening, but maybe it is because of the Liberal government's lack of transparency that we are here. How is it possible? We do not have an answer to that question.

Why does my colleague think that the documents were sent to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, contrary to what was ordered?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister has set a tone from the top down in his government. Quite honestly, that tone is one of disregard for Parliament. I do not take it as being personally against parliamentarians in general. I believe he simply thinks that this is the way he would like it, so this is the way it should be.

NSICOP may be valuable for our national security agencies and our intelligence committees to be able to see what the values of parliamentarians are based on the context of their operations. The Prime Minister could also learn from those as well.

However, that is not accountability. That is a form of checking in with the values of parliamentarians that are on that committee. It is not the accountability of this House, and it is not a committee of this House. As has been said before, NSICOP could actually be ordered by a minister or the Prime Minister to stop reviewing a particular file. That is not what we are asking for here.

We need more light and less deflection from the government.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government routinely defy ethical codes. The Prime Minister has violated the ethical code more times than any other prime minister in Canadian history. Liberals do not take seriously the fact that this is a breach of privilege.

I would like to ask my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola why he thinks the Liberals are refusing to take what is a breach of an order of the House, a very important thing, as the Speaker has indicated, and this debate seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, if one is not part of the cabinet, the executive, then one has the responsibility to hold the government to account. Maybe that happens in the government caucus. However, I imagine that there are many people who just kind of raise their eyebrows.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester made the motion for the production of documents on the Canada-China committee. There are members, backbench Liberals who want to know. What we need from the government, as I said, is more light, more clarity and less deflection.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start, as I have started a number of speeches throughout my career, by talking a bit about one of my favourite political philosophers and building on what the previous member said. He talked about more light. To me, that brought up one of the greatest allegories in the history of political philosophy, which is The Allegory of the Cave.

The Allegory of the Cave is of course foundational to political philosophy. It has been cited literally millions of times in the preceding 2,000 years. The Allegory of the Cave says to imagine children who, nearly since birth, instead of being raised in the sunlight of day, are put in front of a wall with a flame behind them, so the only thing they see are shadows on the wall. Because it is all they have ever seen, they believe that is reality. They have no possible way of knowing there is a great big world outside. All they see are these shadows of these puppets on the wall, and so they believe that what reality is.

As the story goes, as Socrates tells the story, one individual gets up and sees the outside world. He sees it is amazing and that there is so much than just shadows on the wall. The tragedy of the story is that, when he comes back, because his eyes have difficulty seeing in the dark, all the other prisoners think he has been blinded, so they never want to go outside in the world.

The relevance, as I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands is about ready to raise a point of order, is that this is directly relevant to what is happening here, as we are just seeing the shadows. We have newspaper reports and little bits of the story. The Prime Minister is willing to explain and give the unredacted documents to a committee of parliamentarians but not a committee of Parliament. This is the very definition of seeing the shadows on the wall but not actually getting to see the reality.

With that, I would like to go through some of the chronology of what has happened here. This has not been a rush to order. This has not been any type of parliamentary tactic. The evidence being that the first issue occurred on March 31 when with the committee of Canada-China relations adopted a motion ordering the Public Health Agency of Canada to produce within 20 days unredacted copies of all the records of dismissal of the two individuals in question.

On April 26, what PHAC finally provided was heavily redacted. This goes against parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy. Speaker Milliken ruled that Parliament has the absolute unmitigated right to demand whichever documents they have. It should also be noted Parliament did not demand these documents be publicly disclosed, but that they go to an officer of Parliament, the law clerk, an individual in whom I am sure all parliamentarians have the highest level of confidence, for review.

On May 10, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations adopted a second motion ordering the production within 10 days of the unredacted copies of all documents related to the dismissal of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Dr. Keding Cheng relating to the transfer of deadly viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The motion called for the documents to be reviewed in camera by the special committee with the law clerk of the House to determine what information was to be made public.

After the committee failed to receive that, on May 20, the Public Health Agency of Canada provided heavily redacted documents, which did not satisfy the order of May 10. On May 26, this matter was of course reported to the House, at which point we brought a motion for those additional documents. The motion of censure that is in question today—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. We have a point of order from the hon. member Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member forgot to mention that he intends to split his time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was honestly getting to that. I would never forget the fabulous member for Calgary Nose Hill, who, I am sure everyone will agree, is one of the best parliamentarians in all of Canada. I would certainly never ever forget about her or any others, although the reminder is greatly appreciated.

I will read the motion into the record. We went through a series of steps, and we asked over and over again for the documents. Unfortunately, the government failed to provide them. The motion reads:

That this House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the Order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, orders its President to attend at the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker, and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order.

The Speaker made an excellent ruling on this. If we were to follow the rules of criminal justice, and I am not saying this is criminal, but using it as an analogy, once we got to the realm of deciding what the punishment should be, we would look at a suspect's former conduct. We cannot decide guilt or innocence on this, but we can use the Liberals' previous conduct to decide what type of censure or penalty we should focus on.

We look at the SNC-Lavalin affair, which was a significant potential interference in our judiciary system, and we look at the WE scandal, or the numerous other ethical breaches of the government, and we have to take this seriously. We have to review the past indiscretions when we see this indiscretion, which is disobeying the supremacy of Parliament.

Another great political philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” When we know there is no more powerful office in the land than that of the Prime Minister and there are no concerns more important than that of national security, we have to take this with the utmost seriousness. I am sure that all parliamentarians will agree and look forward to unanimous support for this censure motion.

I continue to be extremely disappointed. As I said at the outset, I want to wake up from looking at the shadows and seeing the bits and pieces to see the outside world and the real threat posed by the Communist regime in Beijing.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I take national security very seriously, and I agree that we need to hold the government to account. There have been a number of serious ethical breaches.

In 1949, China became a Communist country. It has not changed. We know it is still a Communist country. On August 22, 2013, Conservative defence minister Rob Nicholson signed an agreement to deepen military co-operation with China. We had the Canada-China FIPA, signed in 2012, which gives Chinese state-owned corporations a great degree of power to challenge our laws and policies.

I would ask the hon. member when Chinese scientists started working at this level 4 National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg. We know there was a similar breach in 2009 when samples were taken from the lab. Was the Harper Conservative government complicit in having Chinese scientists working at this lab?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his concern with respect to national security.

Let us look at what is in front of us today. There was a serious breach and we need to focus like a laser on making sure that what happened does not happen again. We do not even know what happened because once again we are looking at just the shadows on the wall.

Sunlight, as the Prime Minister famously said, is the best disinfectant. We need to get transparency while balancing that with the confidentiality required for national security. Clearly, Parliament has spoken. We want those documents.

[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, like many, I have been listening carefully to what the official opposition is up to and their mischief.

We have a few days left: Thursday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. We have important legislation. We are supposed to be debating the budget today, not to mention conversion therapy, net zero and other very important pieces of legislation.

Does the member believe that we are maximizing the benefits for Canadians by having this debate this evening to the degree that the Conservative Party members want to continue to filibuster the government's legislation?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his prolonged service and many words in the House.

Clearly this is not mischief and I would take great offence to that. This is national security. There is nothing more important than protecting the citizens of this great land. To call that mischief is just ridiculous.

On top of that, it was the member's government that prorogued Parliament. We could have passed Bill C-10 and other bills already passed if the Liberals were not so busy trying to avoid the WE scandal by proroguing Parliament.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on an earlier question I asked about consequences and what the long-term impact of this matter is.

Governments come and go, but what has happened to this government over the last 18 months is a pattern has developed of Liberals simply flouting democratically passed motions in this House of Commons. They have done it with the production of health documents, refusing to deliver them, ignoring the instructions of redacting, and they are doing it with impunity. Documents were supposed to be presented to the health committee on December 7. It is now June and they simply have not done it.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague has any concerns about the future of Canadian government when a particular administration simply ignores a validly passed democratic resolution of Parliament and gets away with it. Is this something that he thinks is in the service of the long-term interests of the Canadian people and Canadian democracy?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for his excellent advocacy. Quite frankly, what upsets me is not that the Liberals flouted Parliament. We are the representatives of the people, so the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South, the great people decided to send me here and I am their representative. When the government says no, we cannot have that, it is saying no to the people who are our ultimate bosses and it is that connection to people that separates us from so many despotic regimes around the world.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to state for the record what a privilege it has been to work with my hon. colleague on the health committee and how I could not agree with her more when she states the fundamental obligation of opposition, and frankly all members of Parliament, is to hold a government accountable.

I want to state that, at its most basic, what this is about. Of course, there are facts and issues that every government prefers not to see the light of date because they do not suit its narrative, may show it has mishandled a situation or just make it look incompetent. That is precisely the work of opposition, to ferret those issues out so the Canadian public has a full view of the entire record of a government so they can cast a meaningful ballot during an election, which everybody in this country seems to think is going to happen in the fall.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. How important is it that the Canadian people get accurate information about what happened in the Winnipeg lab and how the current federal government has handled it in order for Canadians to cast a meaningful ballot at the next federal election?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's compliment back at him. It has been a pleasure to serve with him and work with him on the health committee over the last several months. He has a shared commitment to serving the interests of Canadians in the best way possible and to work across party lines to get that done in a time of need.

His question relates to the severity of the situation at hand. In a prior life, I worked with the intellectual property management part of the University of Manitoba. We did work with the National Microbiology Lab. I understand the types of materials that are transferred through there in a very intimate way. They need to be treated with a great degree of security and safety. It is up to Parliament to ensure those protocols are adequate and are followed. We cannot do that unless we have the information that was requested in the House. That is why this order must be completed and this motion tonight should be adopted.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was doing a little research today and on November 27, 2015, there was a document posted on the Prime Minister of Canada website. It is a 107-page document entitled, “Open and Accountable Government”. I want to quote a couple of lines from there.

It states:

The trust of Canadians will also rest on the accountability of our government. In our system, the highest manifestation of democratic accountability is the forum of Parliament.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. She has been here many years more than me. I am a relatively new member and she has much experience. Is she surprised or shocked at all at how far the current government will go to cover up the details of the transfer of these dangerous viruses to China?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Parliament should review what happened because we need to understand what happened and how to fix this problem to ensure it never happens again. That is our duty to the Canadian people.

We need these documents so we can propose policy to move forward, ensure that if protocols were not followed those who were in charge of that are censured and not put in positions of responsibility, so the Canadian public can be assured of their public safety. That is the role of Parliament and the government should not be preventing Parliament from undertaking its role in that regard.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like we are seriously getting gaslit on this, especially around the accusation of mischief. The whole point of this is the government is failing to answer to Parliament and the Liberals are accusing us of holding up this place. We have seen this not only with these documents, but also with the recognition of the Uighur genocide and calling the IRG a terrorist organization. The current government completely ignores Parliament, but when Parliament does not do exactly what it wants, it accuses us of mischief. I wonder if my colleague has any comments around that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is supreme. I would love to get the vaccine contracts that were promised under a House order and a subsequent order of the health committee. We have spent billions of taxpayer dollars on them and we do not understand what recourse is available to us regarding the contractual obligations that have clearly not been followed up. The Canadian public has the right to know that so they can make decisions on who is governing them in the future and whether or not the policy is adequate. This is how democracy functions and it is not functioning right now, which is why the Speaker made this ruling and why we need a censure in place. I certainly hope all colleagues will support this motion so we can get on with the business of making adjustments to ensure Canadian public safety is put in place.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this House to address the pressing issues facing this country, but the subject we are debating here tonight is unfortunate. It is a very serious question that has been brought forward to all parliamentarians about the actions of the government, specifically an agency of government, that has truly called into question some of the very basic democratic principles that our nation is built on.

In the Speaker's Ruling earlier today, it very specifically outlined why this debate needs to take place, that the actions of the government are contemptuous and violate the privileges of who we are as a democracy. I want to touch on that word “privilege” for all of those, and I am sure there are many folks watching these proceedings, who need to understand.

Privilege is a word that is often referred to as something that has to do with status. Parliamentary privilege is a little different. It speaks to the primacy of what democracy is in our country, the fact that our democratic system elevates Parliament, the House of Commons, the lower chamber of Canada's Parliament, to be the voice of its people. Every square inch of this nation is represented by the 338 seats within this chamber.

I do find it very interesting. A question I ask students when I am speaking to classes is simply this, “What is the highest elected office in our land?” Many students think it is a trick question. They point out a number of things. Sometimes they will refer to the executive, the Prime Minister and the Governor General on occasion. It kind of depends on where they are in the social studies curriculum. There are a few students who do understand the reality of the member of Parliament, and the primacy of Parliament, the role that Parliament plays in our nation.

It is absolutely key to the discussion that we are having here tonight, and how fundamental it is for the future of our country. I want to thank the Speaker for being that custodian of this House, that custodian of Canada's democracy in so thoughtfully addressing such an important issue, and for the opposition House leader to bring forward a motion that outlined some specific action items that would be an adequate response to the contemptuous behaviour of government, and specifically an agency of government that is called to the bar.

Again, this is kind of a parliamentary term. Most people out there would not understand the history behind the bar of Parliament, what that represents and the strong millennia of tradition associated with that dating back centuries in the United Kingdom. To call an individual to the bar is a significant thing with significant symbolism, which bears out how significant this debate is. Further, the action item of calling upon the government to actually do what Parliament has said that it needs to do.

I find it tragic that we have to have this debate, that the Liberals have taken it upon themselves and developed a culture where they refuse to acknowledge that Canada is even a democracy. That is troubling on every level. I often hear from constituents about how absolutely fundamental it is that we steward our democracy well, especially at a time where we see so many aspects of that being challenged.

I would note how this particular motion has done something that is quite unprecedented. It has united the majority of members of Parliament, representing a number of different opposition parties, the official opposition being one of them. I have heard very thoughtful speeches from members representing all opposition parties this evening that acknowledge the significance of what we are debating here tonight.

It is fascinating and unprecedented, I think, to see how united all opposition parties and a majority of members of Parliament are in acknowledging how serious this is. Further, the second thing that is unprecedented is to see the flippant attitude that the government has used to approach such a serious issue.

I find it incredible and disappointing beyond belief that the government would take such an unserious approach and contemptuous approach to this. In fact, I find it interesting. A number of the speeches from the governing Liberals emphasized why this debate is even necessary with the ignorance and arrogance they approached Canada's democratic institutions with.

This has to be met with a serious tone and it is so unfortunate that has not been the case. I would note this motion that came from the committee that started this whole process included Liberal support. I would simply ask, where those members are now? Why are they not taking this seriously? Is it possible that the executive branch of our government, the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, have demanded silence on such an important issue?

It is a national shame; those members stood up in committee, to much political risk, I would suggest, especially with how the government has responded to the motion here today. It is a significant political risk. They have been silenced or are silent here tonight, and that is incredibly unfortunate and chips away at the strength of Canada's democracy.

When we look at this, we need to expand the context a bit. This is not a singular event. That is a key part of what we are discussing here. This motion and the actions leading up to it are not a singular event. I know some of my colleagues who have spoken before me have outlined aspects of that.

From the position of being on Zoom, we kind of have an interesting window into the perspectives of Liberal members. Whenever things are brought up about the Prime Minister, specifically his record, they are often shaking their heads. They are dismissing the seriousness of what some of his actions, or actions of the cabinet ministers, will have and the serious implications that will have on Canadian democracy.

The trust for what our democratic system is needs to be at the very forefront of everything we do. Democracy is fragile and the failure to recognize that could have disastrous consequences for the future of our country.

We see numerous examples from the Prime Minister's conduct, whether it be the numerous ethics violations, or the contemptuous way he treats Parliament and the will of Parliament, especially during a minority. It was not bad when the government was in the majority status because there was a level of control exerted, but ever since losing that, there has been a massive deterioration that has taken place.

We have seen time and time again the disregard for ethics, disregard for effective leadership and the absolute disregard for morals and ethics through cabinet decisions. It has been incredibly tragic and an erosion of trust within government.

There have been international embarrassments. Even this past weekend, when Bloomberg reported that the Prime Minister piped up and said he could be the dean of the G7 to help negotiate between the United Kingdom and Europe. The sense that I got when reading the response of international players was one that clearly shows that Canada is not taken seriously on the international stage. We see examples of judicial interference, and cabinet ministers being—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member can explain to you what the relevance of a G7 summit is to the motion that is before us today. We have heard numerous times today, in particular when the member for Ottawa South and I stood, about the importance of relevance. It has been ruled on a number of times today. Perhaps, you can encourage the member to come back to the discussion at hand, which is the motion that is before us.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands with respect to his point of order. Members know that they have to address their arguments in a way that is relevant to the motion before the House. I was listening to the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot and while, yes, he has been on this tangent, he opened with framing that as an example for the point he was making.

In these cases, when members choose to use these kinds of examples, it is relevant to the topic at hand as long as they tie those two elements together. I note the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is halfway through his remarks and I am sure he will keep his remarks germane to the question at hand.

The hon. member.