Madam Speaker, in our democracy, Parliament seldom has to have such a serious debate on the failures of one of its members. We must not, under any circumstances, take this situation lightly.

Recent and not-so-recent events are forcing us to question how well one of our own is performing his ministerial duties. There is no denying that we are finding many faults with the Minister of National Defence, who must answer to the citizens we represent in Ottawa.

Before formulating my opinion, I want to make one thing clear: The minister is not the only one accountable. There is also the Prime Minister. He is the one who appointed the Minister of National Defence and signed his mandate letter.

In my opinion, tonight's debate is inextricably tied to the Prime Minister's judgment and his ability to spring into action when duty calls. Unfortunately, the fact that we are debating this in the House means there is a problem, a breach of our trust in the government on a specific subject.

The Prime Minister had plenty of opportunities to show the leadership that his role calls for, but he did not. The member for Durham's motion is harsh, but the reality is that we are indeed disappointed with the Minister of National Defence. The Bloc Québécois called for the minister's resignation just last month. We are even more sure that that is the only possible course since the most recent shameful episode of his term.

As opposition members, we have a duty to confront the government and its ministers about their actions. That is the essence of ministerial responsibility. It is the essence of our democracy.

The Liberals blame all their failings on systemic problems, yet they are the ones in charge of the system. There is still time to show that there is at least one working system in Canada that the government has full control over. The only possible course is for the minister to step down.

Let us start with some of the less serious criticisms of the minister. First, the minister misled Quebeckers and Canadians over the withdrawal of fighter jets in the fight against ISIS. The minister said that Canada's allies had no problem with the CF‑18s being withdrawn from Operation Impact, shortly after the Liberals came to power in 2015.

According to him and the Liberals, Canada's allies understood and respected Canada's decision to withdraw its CF-18s. That is not true. We expect the things a minister says to be true. We would never have expected him to say something so easily refutable, since a minister can usually count on competent staff to help him avoid embarrassment. The situation was the opposite of what the minister was saying: The Iraqis and our allies were strongly opposed to the withdrawal of our aircraft. The media obtained copies of documents indicating that such was the case.

When confronted with that revelation, the minister alleged in an interview that he had actually wanted Canada to keep its CF-18s there, which says a lot about the liberties the minister takes with the facts when it involves our allies. Sadly, the minister's blunders do not end there.

The government knows as well as I do that many Quebeckers and Canadians are proud of our military capabilities and the people responsible for our success. Many Quebeckers and Canadians respect and recognize the work being done by those risking their lives for us and our freedom. Our fellow citizens are humbled by the accomplishments of our soldiers.

Meanwhile, during a speech in India, the minister said that he was the architect of Operation Medusa in 2006 in Afghanistan. Actually, I should say that he took credit for the work of his colleagues. To give a little bit of background, this operation managed to surround and eliminate up to 700 Taliban fighters who had gathered to launch attacks on allied bases. Canada, the Afghan army and other allied nations managed to defeat the Taliban soldiers. The offensive was led by Canada thanks to many of our military officers.

The men and women who serve Quebec and Canada are very proud of their teamwork. Teamwork is not about playing the hero for the public or showing off at a reception by making self-important boasts.

Operations are not carried out solo, especially not operations like that one. Even de Gaulle, Churchill and MacArthur would never have claimed to be the architects of anything whatsoever. No matter the context, planning an operation depends heavily on intel from troops on the ground and the tactical skills of all kinds of people.

At the time, the minister was involved in planning Operation Medusa, but he was not working alone. Bringing this up again in 2021 seems silly, but it is part of a continuum of untruths and deceit that point to the minister's priority being his own self-interest. But wait, there is more. The minister presided over the indictment and removal of Vice-Admiral Norman. More Quebeckers and Canadians should be familiar with that story. The whole thing is an embarrassment and unworthy of the offices held.

Shortly before the 2015 federal election, the Conservatives announced that they had at long last granted a contract to convert a container ship into an oiler replenishment ship for the Royal Navy. The plan was to build that ship, the Asterix, at the Davie shipyard in Quebec, for once. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the first thing they did was try to cancel the contract in favour of the Irving family.

Scott Brison, the minister's good friend and the former president of the Treasury Board, was very close to the Irving family. He knew them. It is perfectly simple. He tried to derail the contract. I will give Mr. Brison credit for finally backing down once the story hit the media. It is very typical Liberal behaviour. That always seems to be the Liberal approach to decision-making. Do the Toronto Star, Global News, CBC and Radio-Canada know about this? If not, then we will do it. Do they know about this? If so, then we will not do it. That is how the Liberals operate. Sadly, it did not stop there.

The Liberals chose to behave like an angry mob: find the whistle blower and take him out. Who better than the good old RCMP to act as the political police and investigate the leak? That is what led to the filing of charges against Vice‑Admiral Mark Norman, who at one time was the second-highest ranking officer in the Canadian Armed Forces under General Vance. Instead of standing up and ending the witch hunt, the minister did what he does best, in other words protect his interests and the interests of the Liberals.

The Minister of Defence, like the current Prime Minister, did not defend Norman when Vance accused him publicly. The minister even supported Vance's decision to suspend Norman in 2017. As I said, that is embarrassing. It happened one year before Norman was formally charged with leaking confidential documents. “When the decision was made, I supported it”, the minister said. The Prime Minister still owes him for that, because he again looked ridiculous.

The numerous documents obtained by Norman's defence team proved that the Liberals were trying to rip up the contract. The government was so embarrassed that Brison resigned from all his roles. Even more embarrassingly, Norman was eventually completely exonerated, but he never got his job back.

The minister is not a team player. How many people have left under his leadership? Five, six, seven or eight people have left, and that cannot continue. Sometimes life gives us subtle signs. Can the minister see these signs? Can the Prime Minister see them? We, the opposition parties, certainly can.

It is also difficult to ignore what happened to former ombudsman Gary Walbourne. Several of my colleagues, who are more eloquent than I am, had the opportunity to speak more specifically about the problem of sexual misconduct in the army. The minister has become known for his failures on this matter.

Nevertheless, I want to come back to it because it ties in with what I was saying earlier in my speech. The Liberals' little clique was not happy with the ombudsman, an extremely important official in the Canadian military. He was dragged through the mud, accused of terrible things and had his funding cut off. The minister was at the centre of the disagreement with Gary Walbourne, who was just trying to do his job. When he approached the minister about setting their differences aside to address an issue more important than their feud, specifically an allegation that General Vance had committed sexual misconduct towards a female soldier, the minister did little if anything.

He did not want to hear about it, so he passed the puck to the Prime Minister's Office. Remember, the Minister of National Defence is the boss of the department. Quite aside from the substance of the case, which is terrible, I am interested in the minister's behaviour. The one time in his career when he could have really been the architect of something, he looked the other way.

He could have spearheaded a complete overhaul of the culture at the Canadian Armed Forces, but instead, we lost three years. The survivors lost three years. Once again, the Minister of National Defence has not demonstrated that he is a team player. Worse still, when the story first broke, he denied it, then admitted it, then pointed the finger at Gary Walbourne's incompetence.

The next step, taken straight out of the Liberal crisis management playbook, is to blame something systemic.

I have my own theory. A problematic culture, a systemic problem, is not an incantation. Something must be done. Waiting to be painted into a corner before deciding to do something is not worthy of the office of minister. That is exactly what we are talking about today, being worthy of the office, being responsible and accountable. The minister is no longer worthy of his office.

The Prime Minister may not see that, but I hope my hon. colleagues do.

Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

$559,293.00