Debates of Feb. 28th, 2018

Prime Minister's Trip to India

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations and insinuations made by the members opposite are based on their own experience of torquing our professional—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I am having trouble hearing the answers. I would encourage members to show respect for this place.

The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the Conservatives opposite torqued our public service every chance it could get for partisan advantage, so I can understand they think everyone behaves that way. We do not.

Every day, whether in this case, or in their everyday work, all the non-partisan security agencies do an exceptional job in the service of Canada's national interest, and Canadians can be reassured that beyond the partisan nature of this House, our professional public servants are—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing partisan about this. It was the Prime Minister's trip that turned into a disaster. It was the Prime Minister's Office that mishandled the invitation that went out to a convicted attempted murderer, and then for the first time in history they decided to use an independent public service as a human shield for his terrible news cycle.

If the Prime Minister is so sure about what he is saying, will he confirm that no one in the Prime Minister's Office or in the public service under his control organized the briefing that was provided for the media laying out this allegation?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, governments organize media briefings all the time. It is only the Conservatives opposite, who consistently for 10 years torqued the public service to their own partisan ends, who see anything nefarious in it. Unlike the previous government, we respect in particular the ability of the public service to provide non-partisan advice and support to the government.

All Canadians can be assured that the only interest on which our security agencies focus is the interest of Canadians.

The Budget

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians expected real action from this government, but this budget once again left them feeling underwhelmed.

The government keeps telling us that the economy is doing well, but most of the Canadians we talk to are wondering who exactly is benefiting because they cannot make ends meet.

This budget is timid and does not help Canadians. There are desperate needs that need to be addressed right now, and yet most of the funding will not be allocated until after the next election.

When will this government stop making promises and start taking action?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, with budget 2018, we are taking the next steps to improve equality, competitiveness, sustainability, and equity in Canada. Our budget plan will allow us to continue to invest in strengthening and growing the middle class and to lay a stronger foundation for our children's future.

By closing the gender wage gap, supporting shared parenting, and introducing a new entrepreneurship strategy for women, we are also making significant progress toward equality. Canadians can all be very proud of this budget.

Health

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Some of it will be done after the next election, Mr. Speaker.

Let us talk about pharmacare for a minute. The Liberal government is making a big deal about setting up an advisory council, but this morning the finance minister said that the government will only be moving toward means-tested pharmacare. To quote him, he said that they are dealing with the people who don't have it. We in the NDP believe that everyone should have access to affordable medication. The time for universal pharmacare is now.

Why is the Prime Minister even bothering with another long consultation, when his finance minister has already spilled the beans on the outcome?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, every year almost one million Canadians give up food and heat to afford the medicine they need. The high cost of prescription medication means that sometimes sick Canadians must do without.

As part of budget 2018, we are creating an advisory council on the implementation of national pharmacare which will recommend options on how best to move forward together on this important issue to ensure every Canadian has access to the medicine they need. This builds on significant actions over the last two years to make prescription drugs more affordable and accessible.

Prime Minister's Trip to India

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the Prime Minister's botched trip to India, he has actually managed to make things worse by blaming so-called factions in the Indian government for the invitation extended to Jaspal Atwal, a claim that was swiftly denounced by India's foreign affairs ministry as “baseless and unacceptable.”

Is the Prime Minister trying to create an international diplomatic crisis?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we have full confidence in the work that our national security agencies and professionals do, and we support them in their professional, non-partisan work.

We will continue to respect and support the work that our intelligence agencies do, because that is what Canadians expect of their government, and that is what Canadians expect of all of us.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Prime Minister accomplished very little on his eight-day trip in India with a dozen MPs, all at the expense of taxpayers. He could have raised some issues that are important to Canadians, but no, all he managed to do was to create tension with a very important country in the region.

Is this how the Prime Minister wants to put Canada back on the world stage?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we recognize that India's thriving economy presents some significant opportunities to strengthen Canada's middle class.

We secured more than $1 billion in investments from deals between Canadian and Indian companies, which will help create more than 5,800 quality jobs for Canadians. The investments will stimulate the growth of Canada's economy, will encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, and will increase co-operation.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the theory his national security advisor gave to the media was true, and that rogue members of the Indian government conspired to embarrass Canada. However, the Liberal member for Surrey Centre also took responsibility for the Prime Minister's international embarrassment. He was punished for that yesterday.

How can both of these versions be true?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the member opposite, we will always defend the integrity of our senior security and intelligence officials and the excellent work that they do.

Unlike the previous government, we will always listen to them and respect them. We respect their ability to provide impartial advice to the government, and we know that everything they do is in the best interests of Canada. All Canadians should be proud of the non-partisan work our security officials do every single day.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there is just one problem. Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that the theory put forward by one of his national security advisers was true. He has also said that it was the member for Surrey Centre acting alone that resulted in this embarrassing incident. How can the Prime Minister, at the same time, blame rogue elements in the Indian government and the member for Surrey Centre?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians on this side of the House, we respect and appreciate the work done by our professional public services, and particularly in regard to our national security agencies and information agencies. We believe them when they put forward their information and their recommendations to us.

At the same time, the member for Surrey Centre has taken responsibility for his role in the invitation extended to this individual and has apologized.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister actually saying that the member for Surrey Centre has taken sole responsibility for a scheme concocted by the Indian government? Is that the assertion that we are led to believe? How can they both be true? If, on the one hand, it is the Government of India that has implicated itself into Canadian government affairs, that is a profound allegation that has serious consequences that cannot be thought about lightly just to get through a 24-hour news cycle.

Why is the Prime Minister so irresponsible about this very important bilateral issue?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we support and accept the counsel, the recommendations, the extraordinary work, and the advice of our national security agencies and information agencies. We support our professional public services and accept the information and recommendations they give to us.

At the same time, as I have said, the member for Surrey Centre has taken responsibility for having extended the invitation to this individual and has apologized.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, nobody believes that there was a single person in the Prime Minister's Office who was not provided a list of invitees. Nobody believes this ridiculous assertion that the responsibility lies with rogue elements or factions in the Indian government. By having an independent national security official brief the media anonymously right in the middle of a negative 24-hour news cycle, the Prime Minister has implicated the independent public service in his disastrous trip.

Will the Prime Minister confirm or deny that anyone in his office orchestrated the briefing to shift the blame on this?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to explain this to the members opposite, who did not learn this through 10 years of government. We saw that regularly in their behaviour in the Harper years.

Professional public servants, particularly those in the national security and information areas, do extraordinary work based on their professional qualifications and based on their analyses. When they make recommendations, or when they make statements to Canadians or to this government, we, on this side of the House, choose to believe them. On that side of the House, who knows?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would have us believe that an independent national security officer took it upon himself to brief the media right in the middle of a terrible news cycle that was embarrassing the Prime Minister. If that is not the definition of politicizing national security officials, then I do not know what is. Nobody is believing it.

The Prime Minister needs to learn that there are serious consequences to these types of allegations, that governing is more than just Instagram posts, and that when one makes this kind of allegation, there are consequences.

Will the Prime Minister identify who in his office orchestrated this media briefing?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be helpful to folks here if the member opposite actually were to state whether or not he believes that the professional public servant, who functions in a non-partisan way, was not telling the truth or was not clear on what he was saying. This is the issue that the member opposite seems to be getting at, that he does not believe our professional public servants in what they tell Canadians. If that is the case, then the member opposite should say so.