Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
We have been here all day talking about this motion, and somehow it has morphed into different areas, areas of trade and talking about what the government side seems to think is the success of this trip from a trade standpoint. I would call it a colossal failure, given the amount of domestic media and domestic consumption it received. The amount of negative perception of the Prime Minister is unbelievable.
I have a quick story. I was at the Barrie Colts game the other night and people were yelling at me, “Hey, where's your hockey costume?“ It certainly is indelibly etched in the minds of Canadians, so much so that they are mocking the Prime Minister for it.
I also want to remind the House of the motion and why we are here. I will read it so we are not talking about trade, or any other issues with respect to the trip to India, except one. The motion reads:
That, given the Prime Minister has supported a claim that the invitation issued to a convicted attempted murderer was the work of a foreign government attempting to interfere in Canadian foreign relations, while others in the government, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, claimed that the invitation was an “honest mistake” on the part of the Canadian government, the House call upon the Prime Minister to instruct his National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide the Committee the same briefing he gave to journalists on February 23, 2018, and that the briefing take place in public and no later than March 30, 2018.
Over the course of this issue, I have spoken to many seasoned veterans, members of Parliament who have been around this place for a long time, and they have never seen the type of situation we are now seeing with respect to the national security adviser, Mr. Jean, being placed in a position to provide political cover for the Prime Minister and his disastrous trip to India.
Let us call this what it is. On that fateful Sunday night, the Prime Minister's Office decided it was going to throw the non-partisan national security adviser out in front of the media to provide a briefing that somehow rogue elements of the Indian government had some part to play in this disastrous trip. Imagine the contempt of putting a non-partisan national security officer in front of the media to float this conspiracy theory. We later found out the Indian government has denied this. It was all done to provide cover for this disastrous trip.
This was a situation that was conceived by the Prime Minister's Office. I can only imagine who might have come up with this. I am thinking Gerald Butts, because he seems to be at the bottom of all of these types of situations, and of course Katie Telford as well. This was conceived to try to find a solution to the political disaster they had going on in the country. They threw Mr. Jean out there, effectively throwing him under the bus, like we have seen with other ministers. The Prime Minister's Office has thrown ministers under the bus, all to protect the Prime Minister's image. That is what this is all about.
We get this national security adviser floating this conspiracy idea out there in front of the media, and we are asking for clarity because of the confusion and contradictory stories going on. The member for Surrey Centre has taken responsibility. We have heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about the fact that his was an honest mistake. We have had the Prime Minister stand up in the House and say that if our non-partisan officials say it to be true, then we are to believe them. We want to get to the bottom of this. That is all we are asking.
Earlier today, the committee on public safety asked again that Mr. Jean come before the committee to explain his version of events, just like he did to the media on that late Sunday night in an attempt to cover up the Prime Minister's disastrous trip. It is not so much to ask.
We heard earlier today that there are ministers of the crown and senior bureaucrats who come to committee all the time, yet the Liberals and the Prime Minister are sitting there, and Gerald Butts and Katie Telford are saying that this is an issue of national security. If it was an issue of national security, why did he hold a briefing with the media to float this conspiracy theory? It does not make sense, just as it does not make sense to not have Mr. Jean stand in front of a duly elected, duly constituted parliamentary committee and explain to members of Parliament what this so-called theory is.
Who concocted this theory? Was it Gerald Butts? Was it Katie Telford? Was it somebody else in the Prime Minister's Office? These are fair questions, and they are fair questions that need to be asked at committee.
We talk about obstructing parliamentary privilege and we talk about obstructing parliamentary work. That is precisely what the Liberals are doing if they decide they are going to vote this motion down. They are obstructing the work of Parliament, and therefore, I would suggest that they are obstructing the work of Canadians in this House.
This has nothing to do with trade. This has nothing to do with that disastrous trip. This has everything to do with our getting to the bottom of the contradictory versions coming out of all these members and players who were involved in this so-called Indian government conspiracy. Quite frankly, what it has done is it has really deteriorated the relationship we have with India. If we want any evidence of that, clearly it is that the Indian government issued a statement that the theory being floated by the Prime Minister's Office through a non-partisan national security adviser was preposterous and ridiculous. The Indian government said it was ridiculous. We need and want to get to the bottom of that.
The other thing is that Mr. Atwal is a player in this as well. We actually have four versions of this event. When the Prime Minister was asked about this by the opposition leader he said that the briefing to the minister on Jaspal Atwal's affair included the theory which was advanced by the national security official that India was somehow complicit in organizing this invitation. Mr. Atwal said that he did it on his own. The response from the Prime Minister was, defending the professional non-partisan public service, “When one of our top diplomats and security officials says something to Canadians, it is because they know it to be true.”
Well, if it is true, extend the same privilege to members of Parliament and a duly constituted parliamentary committee and let them ask the questions. Let them find out what is true. Let them find out how this clandestine meeting with the press happened. Let them find out what information was given to the press. Let them find out why that information is not being given to parliamentarians. That is all this motion is asking for.
The Liberals are willing to sit here for the next 30 hours for votes, and all we are asking for is that Mr. Daniel Jean come to committee for one hour to answer questions. Think of the trade-off. Think of how ridiculous that is: 30 hours for the sake of one hour in committee.
My final comment is what are the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, and anyone else involved in this concocted preposterous story trying to cover up? What are they not telling Canadians?