Debates of June 17th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question that my colleague asked. We are hoping that the minister will finally conduct an act of honour and do so on his own. However, right now, it is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible, and he has presided over this culture of cover-up and corruption.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's remarks. I have a similar question to the last one, and perhaps it is rhetorical, but does she feel that there is any way the Prime Minister can continue to have confidence in his defence minister, when it seems that his defence minister has lost the confidence of the men and women in the armed forces?

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

Madam Speaker, all we have to do is look at the Prime Minister's own past misconduct. He dismissed an allegation of his groping with “she experienced it differently”. Then there was the bullying on the floor here during a vote, hitting an opposition member in the chest.

Where the honour and dismissing have to come from is from the top, and that begins with the Prime Minister, who has dishonoured our entire country.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada's military is in crisis on the defence minister's watch. An institution that has been revered for over a hundred years, Canada's military has liberated occupied nations, fought for democracy, freedom and peace, and brought honour and respect to our country and Canadian citizens. Now it is facing some of the darkest days in its history.

Canada's military is entrusted with protecting and preserving Canadian values, but it must also embody them. However, serious abuse of power, sexual misconduct and discrimination at the highest levels in Canada's military continue unchecked, and the defence minister and the Prime Minister have failed to act. That is why today's opposition day motion calls on the House of Commons to censure the Minister of Defence, and why it is so important.

Members of the government will cry that today's motion amounts to nothing more than petty partisan politics. That, in itself, is evidence that the current government understands neither its sworn obligation, nor the dire situation that Canada's military is in.

Members of Parliament are elected to govern, and governing is much more than merely passing laws. Governing, at its most fundamental, is about ensuring that those entrusted with leading the country embody the values of honesty and integrity that Canadians expect, and are held to account when they have broken that most sacred trust.

In his direction to ministers in 2015, the Prime Minister charged them with “[c]reating the culture of integrity and accountability that allows [them] to earn and keep the trust of Canadians”. The Prime Minister went on to say, “Whether a Minister has discharged responsibilities appropriately is a matter of political judgment by Parliament.” Therefore, any attempt to characterize today's opposition day motion as partisan or petty politics must be vehemently rejected. It is the role of Parliament to judge a minister, and not one we take lightly. Today, this House of Commons is fulfilling that most difficult and serious responsibility.

The defence minister has not acted with integrity and accountability. Instead, he has consistently misrepresented the facts, refused to answer direct questions, failed to implement important changes to improve the military's culture and turned a blind eye to serious allegations.

In 2018, allegations of serious misconduct were made against the former chief of the defence staff, General Vance. For three years, the defence minister knew, and key officials in the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council and the minister's office knew, and they all did nothing. No one else would have known, if two parliamentary committees, the defence committee and the status of women committee, had not decided to study this serious military misconduct.

What Canadians have learned through the testimony at those committees and in the media has simply shaken us to our core: hours and hours of jarring testimony detailing accounts of abusive power, misogyny, rape, sexual harassment and discrimination.

We heard testimony of investigations that were never carried out or were covered up, evidence that was lost or tampered with, and serious crimes that were pleaded down to an administrative slap on the wrist, purged from the records and simply forgotten. We heard from victims who were threatened into silence and themselves blamed for what had happened to them. They told us how their careers were destroyed and they were drummed out of the military. Perhaps most tragically, we heard from victims who believe they will never be able to get justice for what happened to them.

To quote retired Colonel Bernie Boland, “The entire institutional weight, influence, power, intellect and knowledge is directed against [victims] rather than what it's purportedly supposed to be.... Equal justice for all is not being applied here at all.”

All of this, in Canada's military? How could this possibly happen in a country like Canada, where justice, accountability and the rule of law are our foundation?

The former chief of the defence staff, General Vance, the highest military officer; then his replacement, Admiral McDonald; Vice-Admiral Edmundson; General Fortin; General Rouleau; and Vice-Admiral Baines are all either under police investigation or have had to step aside for questionable conduct. Even more general and flag officers are complicit, through their actions or their silence.

The failure of Canada's military starts at the top of the chain of command, and the top is the defence minister. Under the National Defence Act, the defence minister is responsible for the management and direction of the Canadian Forces, and it is his duty to hold those at the most senior levels to the highest standards. A military has great power. It is the one group of people in Canadian society entrusted with the ability to bear arms and to commit acts of violence on behalf of the country. In a democracy, citizens need to know that the military is held in check by our elected officials.

The minister had a responsibility to take swift and immediate action regarding the allegations against Vance, but for three years he did nothing. While he may not have conducted the investigation himself, it was up to him to ensure that one was done. As elected officials, our loyalty is to country first, before party and before individuals; we are here to act in the best interest of the country.

That is what we also ask of our military, and Lieutenant-Commander Trotter risked his personal well-being to do what is right. He said, “as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces I swore an oath to Queen and country to fulfill my duties, and there's the old adage of service before self. There may be blowback. There may be career implications”. He further stated, “My personal conviction as an officer of the Canadian Armed Forces is that I will put the service and my service members above my own needs and safety.”

Canadians rely on ministers to do the same, to put this country and Parliament before themselves and to accept responsibility when they fail to do so. However, after months of questions in the House and numerous appearances at committee, not once has the defence minister accepted any responsibility. Not once has he said he should have done something differently and, most important, not once has he committed to holding accountable those who have failed in their duty. Lasting change will only come when those who have failed are held accountable.

Governing does not mean to delegate and disappear. It means ensuring that government departments and public servants deliver the services Canadians need, to the standards they expect and in a manner that brings honour and pride to Canada as a nation. When it comes to the conduct at the highest level of the Canadian Armed Forces, the defence minister and the Prime Minister say it is not up to them.

If the defence minister and the Prime Minister are not responsible, then who is? The defence minister has clearly shown that he will not accept responsibility. He will not act honourably, admit he has failed in his duties and resign, and the Prime Minister will not hold him accountable and fire him. Rather than standing up for women, the Prime Minister has reinforced an entrenched and toxic military culture. His inaction has emboldened the old boys' club and denied women the opportunity to be believed.

Women in the military have earned the right to serve equally with respect. All men and women in uniform have sworn to give their lives for their country. In return, their elected officials must vigorously ensure they are protected by Canadian values.

Service to country is who I am at my core. My father was a major-general who served in the military. I followed him, like many others, in uniform and was honoured to wear the Canadian flag on my sleeve.

The defence minister has lost the trust and confidence of the military and Canadians. The crisis in Canada's military will not end until the defence minister is censured. I implore all of my colleagues in the House to support this motion and censure the defence minister.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, the issue of service before self is an interesting one. I think what we are getting here today is not being done in the service of Canada, but in the service of the Conservative Party. It is looking for somebody to beat up on, which is a very political act.

There have been misdeeds in the Canadian military, but this is not new. This was going on well before the member and I, and others, were elected in 2015. As she noted, some of this came to light through the work of committees. Where were those committees and where was the leadership of the government to permit that kind of activity and questioning the first time that General Vance's name and questions came up? Where were the committees then?

What should we prescribe as a process going forward to ensure that committees, ministers and MPs will be properly aligned to make sure this will be dealt with and dealt with effectively so that it does not happen anymore?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very disheartening question from my hon. colleague. If the Minister of National Defence, on his watch, is not accountable for the conduct and behaviour of all the men and women in uniform, then who is?

There can be no change if those who have failed are not held accountable. Regardless of what has occurred over the last 100 years, what is important is whether the minister can make a change in the military if he has lost the trust and confidence of the men and women in uniform and Canadians to fulfill that role.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I honour my colleague for the efforts she makes at committee, where I have spent time with her, and in the House to fight for women in the military. The work she does is incredibly important, as is how she raises her voice for this issue.

The motion brought forward by the opposition focuses on the Minister of National Defence. While I will support it, I wonder if the member could comment on my belief that it is not just the Minister of National Defence, but also the Prime Minister. It goes much higher than the minister. Who should be held responsible for this? Could she comment on that?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has done incredible work. It is an honour and a privilege to stand beside her as we fight for something that truly matters and is at the foundation of our country.

There is no question that as we, in our Canadian democracy, have a government and a cabinet, the Prime Minister has an incredible role. The fact that a minister has been allowed to be derelict in his duties, while his fellow members of cabinet and the Prime Minister have stood idly by, is another failing of the government. It is not petty partisan politics. They are entrusted with governing and representing the values of Canadians. When they fail to do so, we have to be open and committed to vigorously holding them accountable.

It is not only the defence minister who is accountable. It is the Prime Minister and cabinet as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her service in uniform to this country and for her leadership in Parliament. She has been doing incredible work on this issue at the status of women and national defence committees in trying to right the ship and change the culture.

My hon. colleague has served, so she has witnessed first-hand the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces, which was described by Justice Deschamps as toxic masculinity. What do we need to do to change it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill has 10 seconds or less.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is not a question that can be answered in 10 seconds or less.

I thank my hon. colleague for his incredible work and his appreciative tone for those who have served.

What do we need to do? We need leadership that fulfills the roles and responsibilities of the Code of Service Discipline and fulfills the honour and integrity of the office they hold. That is not limited to those in uniform. It also applies to the defence minister, the Prime Minister and cabinet. Until individual—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council.

[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, unfortunately, what we have been listening to is very much political partisanship. The Conservatives, in particular, have spared no expense in looking into individuals and attacking their character. We have seen that virtually since 2015, and nothing has changed. Even during the pandemic, the Conservative Party remains focused not so much on policy, but on character assassination. I am disappointed once again, but not surprised, by the behaviour of the official opposition.

I was in opposition for many years, as I said before. Never before have I seen an opposition party attack personalities to the degree that this party has in opposition, even at a time when Canadians want us to work together. It is also disappointing to see the Bloc and the NDP join forces with the official opposition. I refer to it as “the unholy alliance”. By joining forces, they are trying to give a false impression to undermine the public's trust in our institutions.

I served in the Canadian Forces, albeit for a short period of time of just over three years. I enjoyed every day that I served in the forces posted out in Alberta. This is a government that has demonstrated a very strong, powerful commitment to the Canadian Forces. We have seen legislation, we have seen budget initiatives and we have seen a Minister of National Defence, who I would argue is second to no other in recent memory, commit to building a stronger, healthier Canadian Forces.

For those who have been following the debate on the floor of the House of Commons or in the committees, I will note what the unholy alliance of opposition parties is trying to accomplish. I suggest that the opposition, collectively, is feeling frustrated, and has joined forces to do what the Conservatives have been doing since 2015. It is quite upsetting that they have chosen the Minister of National Defence once again.

I remember when Jason Kenney heckled across the chamber to say he needed translation for English. That is where things started getting pretty rough for the opposition, and Jason did not want to back down. He wanted to take his shots at the Minister of National Defence.

As my colleague put in a question, this issue is not new. Sexual harassment and abuse of power are very serious issues in the forces. This was true back in the eighties, when I was there. I suspect members will find that they predate that time, and I suspect that they will likely continue. However, there are things we can do to minimize them and hopefully get them out of the system.

We have a Minister of National Defence who understands the members of the forces, so when the Conservatives attack his character, I take exception to it. Virtually from day one they have been attacking this particular minister on a personal level. I note Jason Kenney again, and what I would suggest to be racial comments from him.

Prior to being the Minister of National Defence, he was a detective with the Vancouver Police Department. Prior to that, which is how most know him quite well, he had a role in our Canadian Forces. I will expand on that a little later. He was the first Sikh Minister of National Defence and was also in command of a Canadian Army Reserve regiment. Those are just some of things people will find about the minister if they do a very basic google search. To say that he should relieved of his responsibilities or should step down is just silly.

When I look at what we have been able to accomplish through the leadership of the minister, the investments today and the commitments for tomorrow for members of our Canadian Forces, I will compare that any day to what Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did.

I made reference to the fact that sexual harassment did exist. There is an imbalance. There is the shame and the exploitation. They are very real. The Minister of National Defence has been very clear that we are committed to making the much-needed institutional and cultural changes that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces need, and we continue to make that commitment.

We have invested in the health, safety and well-being of all our defence team members. We have committed well over $200 million in the most recent budget toward eliminating sexual misconduct. The minister has indicated that we will look for ways in the coming days to ensure there is an independent system established to deal with this issue. The minister has been very clear to those who want to listen and do not have the selective hearing my Conservative friends across the way do that he has absolutely no tolerance, zero tolerance, for any form of sexual misconduct and that we acknowledge the courage of those who have come forward.

Those are not my words. That is the sentiment of the Minister of National Defence and he has made that very clear not only to members of the Canadian Forces, but all Canadians. That is the reality. We have invested money, we have a process system that will ultimately see some tangible results, but that is not good enough for the Conservatives. They say he should have done more. It is really ironic.

I asked the Bloc and the NDP, who say they will support this motion, about the behaviour of the leader of the Conservative Party. That is not a problem for them. I do not hear them saying anything about that. I asked them if they were going to give him a pass and they completely avoided the question. Like the buy-in on this Conservative motion, they want to focus on the minister.

What did happen? Back in July 2015, allegations were first raised under the Conservative government. What is truly amazing is that the leader of the official opposition was one of the individuals who was made aware of the rumours of misconduct. How many questions did he ask on the floor of the House in regard to that? When did he start asking questions? It would be an interesting question for the leader of the official opposition.

It was serious enough that the leader of the official opposition asked his staff back then to notify the then prime minister's chief of staff, who then took it to the Privy Council Office for a review. In other words, they took the very same steps our minister has taken. The primary difference might be that our minister did it a whole lot quicker than what the current leader of the official opposition did. What a double standard.

Are the NDP, the Bloc, the unholy alliance, saying that no harassment of this degree took place over the last 10 years, that this is relatively recent and that our party is ultimately responsible? There is an institutional issue that needs to be dealt with, and this government, in particular the minister, are committed to dealing with that issue, unlike Stephen Harper and the current leader of the official opposition who both had a chance to do so.

For the members at the standing committee, in particular those from the opposition parties, where was their interest in this issue pre-2015? Did they attempt to study the issue? Often what happens is issues come up and committees will respond to them, departments will respond to them. That is typically what would give the committee the mandate to look into things and to investigate them.

I do not think members are naive. I believe we all understood there was a very serious issue, just like I know there are very serious issues with systemic racism in other institutions, whether it is with the RCMP or the Canadian forces. These issues exist. If the standing committee had wanted to study the issue in a truly non-partisan way, I am sure there would have been far greater progress.

Earlier today, when we had the tabling of reports from committees, we even heard some members comment on how effective committees could be when their members worked together. With the official opposition, policy does not matter. It is how its members can tear down the government and the people who make up the Government of Canada. That is their primary objective, and today the focus is on the Minister of National Defence, again.

I asked a question about the character of the individual. I referred to this quote earlier, a wonderful quote by Brigadier-General David Fraser, who was in charge of NATO's regional command south in Afghanistan back in 2006. His comments reference today's Minister of National Defence. He said:

I have had the pleasure of having Constable and Major [Minister of Defence] work for me for the past nine months on OPERATION ARCHER/ATHENA, Canada’s contribution to the global war on terror in Afghanistan. I must say that Major [Minister of Defence] is one of the most remarkable people I have worked with, and his contribution to the success of the mission and the safety of Canadian soldiers was nothing short of remarkable.

He tirelessly and selflessly devoted himself to piecing together the ground truth on tribal and Taliban networks in the Kandahar area, and his analysis was so compelling that it drove a number of large scale theatre-resourced efforts, including OPERATION MEDUSA, a large scale conventional combat operation that resulted in the defeat of the largest TB cell yet identified in Afghanistan, with over 1500 Taliban killed or captured. I rate him as one of the best intelligence officers I have ever worked with—fearless, smart, and personable, and I would not hesitate to have him on my staff at any time in the future.

Members in my constituency look see him as a hero, and he was. Literally tens of thousands of people look up to him, and the Conservative Party wants to take him down. They are saying that it is not personal. What garbage. The NDP and the Bloc might be fooled into believing that, but I am not.

Many thousands of people who know the Minister of National Defence do not believe it either. They understand what is taking place today. Shame on the combined unholy alliance of the opposition parties that have made the determination to try to censor a hero, a Minister of National Defence who has brought not only legislation before the House but budgetary measures to increase the funds for the armed forces, which Stephen Harper could not and did not do. I would compare the current minister of defence to Jason Kenney any day.

Do members of the unholy alliance of opposition parties believe there should be no consequences for the current Leader of the Opposition? Had he acted based on the standards that the opposition parties are talking about today, General Vance would never have been in the position in the first place.

At the end of the day, the opposition members had a choice. They could continue their character assassination line, something which they started back in 2015, as the records will show, going after one minister after another with a special focus on some ministers over others. It is not the first time they have called for a minister to resign. On the other hand, they could have actually talked about an issue. After all, we are in a third wave of the pandemic. Canadians are dying because of the COVID pandemic.

Yesterday, a bogus question of privilege was raised by a member who stopped just before Private Members' Business. He still has not come back to finish it. That shows just how important the question of privilege was. I stood and said that it would be a good opposition day motion, because it was on policy. The member wanted to talk about issues affecting the pandemic, Canadians, taxation policies and so forth.

The problem is that the opposition wants to shy away from policy. It does not want that. The official opposition wants to assassinate the character of those within cabinet and try to give a false impression. That is really unfortunate. No matter how hard that focus is, whether it is on the floor of the House or in our standing committees, this is a government that will continue to be focused on the pandemic and on ensuring Canada is in a good position to recover, no matter what sort of approach the unholy alliance of opposition parties chooses to take.

I am very disappointed in the Bloc and the NDP. I hope that at some point they have the ability to justify their behaviour—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite made a number of comments about the previous service of the Minister of National Defence. I would like to note, and if he had been listening to the speeches he would know, that nobody has attacked the service of the minister while he was in uniform. Rather, they are talking about his lack of accountability and leadership since he has become the Minister of National Defence.

I know the member served in the Canadian Armed Forces and understands the chain of command, so I would like him to answer this very simple question. Who do the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report to?

As well, I would like his feedback or comments on the fact that former senior officers are reaching out to me saying the minister no longer enjoys the confidence of either the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. Victims are also reaching out to me, and the one word they are using to describe the Liberal filibustering at the defence committee is “brutal”.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the same leadership the Minister of National Defence demonstrated so clearly in his days prior to entering into politics is the same leadership he brings to the Department of National Defence. As there are thousands of members in the Canadian Armed Forces, not all of them will be happy with the individuals within a government.

The issue of sexual harassment is one of substance. It is very real and tangible. This government is doing more on that front than the previous government. That is a fact.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his presentation. He said he was disappointed to see the Bloc and the Conservatives joining forces in calling for the defence minister's head, shall we say.

Does he not think that victims of harassment are the ones paying the price for these machinations to keep the minister on?

This looks to me like an old boys' club trying to protect one of its own. Does the parliamentary secretary agree that victims are being forgotten in all this?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not. If we were to take action to benefit the victims of the harassment taking place today in our Canadian Armed Forces, the unholy alliance of opposition parties would take a different course at the standing committee. The purpose of their current course at the standing committee has one purpose, and that is to embarrass the current minister as opposed to dealing with this very serious issue.

This is an issue that directly affects hundreds, if not thousands, of members in the Canadian Armed Forces. I do not need to be told how important the issue is. I understand, as does the minister, which is why we would like to see more productivity on the issue rather than personal attacks.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, based on the speeches here this morning and the comments made, it is obvious to me that the Minister of National Defence served within our Canadian Armed Forces, as well as with the Vancouver Police Department, with honesty and integrity, but in 2015 something changed. In 2015, he joined the Liberal Party.

We heard in the speeches this morning that he has misrepresented the facts and the truth, refused to answer questions and instructed Liberal members at committee to engage in meaningless filibustering. Something changed when he started running with the posse of the Liberal cabinet.

My question for the member is this: Does he think the systemic moral corruption and rot within the Liberal Party has claimed another victim?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the member across the way, I have never experienced that rot that he talks about within the Liberals. That might be the case in the Conservative Party, but it is definitely not the case in the Liberal Party.

The member and his colleague spoke about honesty, integrity and leadership, and those three very important characteristics, those very same attributes, are things the Minister of National Defence has brought from his previous life to the House of Commons. I believe he stands by those characteristics day in and day out, serving members of the Canadian forces, Canadians and his constituents on a daily basis.

I find it a disgrace that the unholy alliance of opposition parties has taken this opportunity to discredit a man that deserves a lot more credit for the things he has accomplished for our country. Shame on all of them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc member that asked a question said that we should be concentrating on the victims, which we totally agree with. The NDP and the Bloc have said that today. If we look at the committee records, we will see time and time again that the Liberal members are the ones who concentrated on the victims.

Unfortunately, what the other three parties concentrated on was an anonymous email that, for the privacy of the person, no one knew what was in it. Unfortunately, most of the members in the debate here do not realize that there was roughly an hour of testimony at committee on all the things this minister has done dealing with sexual misconduct, which is more than any other minister in history.

Does the member think that it would really hurt those victims to remove the minister who has done more than anyone else, is ready to action right now and who says there is a lot more that needs to be done? That would hurt the victims the most.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the unholy alliance of the opposition parties really wanted to do something positive today, they could withdraw the motion. It is a disgraceful motion. They could amend it, so we could talk about the victims of sexual harassment and those who are being exploited by individuals in powerful positions.

If there was any honour, we would see them withdraw the motion or amend the motion and deal with the subject matter, so we could talk about the victims.

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

Madam Speaker, it is disheartening to listen to the member for Winnipeg North with his continued Liberal deflection, dithering and delays, which we see all too often from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. We are now seeing it from the parliamentary secretary himself.

He would rather sit here and talk about how we have more victims because of the lack of action by the Minister of National Defence. When he learned of the General Vance allegations and was presented with the evidence, he pushed away from the table, turned a blind and covered it up for three years. He took honour out of Operation Honour by leaving General Vance in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces during that entire time.

The member for Winnipeg North has no moral authority to come in here and try to pass judgment, when he should be standing up and saying, “Yes, we need to censor the Minister of National Defence. Yes, we believe in ministerial accountability.” If he will not do the honourable thing and tell him to resign as the Minister of National Defence, then will he tell the Prime Minister to fire him?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. He is absolutely and totally wrong. This is how a double standard is applied. This is a member from the Conservative Party who believes that the Conservative Party did absolutely no wrong, yet they are the ones who actually found out about the allegations in the first place. Had they done their job according to their standards today, he never would have been there.

[An hon. member]

Wrong.