House of Commons Hansard #274 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.

Topics

Access to Information on Prime Minister's Trip to IndiaPrivilegeOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan

I thank the member for Durham for his additional submission. Of course, he will understand that each time he adds something to his submission, it has to be considered. However, I look forward to coming forward with my ruling soon.

The hon. opposition House leader.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader what she has planned for the remainder of this week as well as next week. I am hoping that we can all agree on a number of things that need to be done, and then we can carry on with business as usual, but I would be very interested to hear what the government House leader has to say about that.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, members are here to work on behalf of their constituents, and we will focus on the priorities that Canadians sent us here to focus on.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will begin debate at second reading stage of Bill C-71 on firearms. We will resume this debate next Monday and Tuesday.

Tuesday we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-68, the fisheries legislation. Also, following question period that day, we will deal with the ways and means motion on the budget tabled earlier this morning. Finally, on Thursday, we will commence report stage and third reading of Bill S-5, on vaping.

I would like to remind colleagues that we will have Friday sitting hours for Holy Thursday next week.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, in earlier comments I had the opportunity to address the Canada-India relationship, the quality of which has been squarely put at issue by the opposition in debate on this motion. I was at the point of discussing the Rohingya crisis and the Canada-India relationship with respect to the plight of the Rohingya.

Several local organizations in my riding, including the Islamic Society of North America and the Association of Progressive Muslims of Canada, are justifiably alarmed over the treatment of ethnic and religious minority groups in Myanmar. Canada, India, and the international community at large cannot stand idly by as this situation continues to destabilize and innocent Rohingya lives are put at risk. We do not want a repeat of what happened in Rwanda or Darfur.

In addition to its regional importance, India is also a major actor globally, with a strong and influential presence in the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the Non-Aligned Movement, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the Commonwealth, the G20, the BRICS International Forum, and other important elements of global architecture. As the opposition well knows, these are institutions where Canada also plays a key role, providing opportunities for Canada and India to act together.

It is therefore not surprising that during his visit to India, our Prime Minister engaged his counterpart on a wide range of topics of concern at the global level. These include climate change, peacekeeping, and counter-terrorism.

The two leaders agreed to strengthen bilateral and international co-operation to address climate change and secure a clean energy future, for example in commitments to promote the implementation of the Paris agreement. They urged research institutions and industry in both countries to collaborate to promote greater use of solar technology, acknowledging that renewable energy is a pathway to a low-carbon and more sustainable energy system. The two prime ministers also agreed to add renewables and energy efficiency to the agenda of the regular Canada-India ministerial energy dialogues.

On peacekeeping, the two leaders affirmed the benefits of co-operation to provide an effective response to global challenges. In that context, they stressed the importance of integrating gender perspectives into peace and security activities and interventions in line with the international women, peace, and security agenda, including prevention of conflict-related sexual violence. Canada has a long history in peacekeeping, while India has long been one of the top contributors to the United Nations peacekeeping operations, so there is much that we have done and can do to co-operate bilaterally, for example on training.

The national security challenges facing Canada and India are different in type and in intensity, but they have many factors and many elements in common. Thus, enhanced co-operation between our two countries where interests overlap is another area of potential benefit. The leaders welcomed the agreement on a bilateral framework for co-operation on counter-terrorism. At the same time, our Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi agreed to develop bilateral co-operation in other security fields, including defence interactions and cybersecurity.

India and Canada share significant structures, values, and goals, including a democratic political framework, a pluralistic society, and a basic commitment to a global order dedicated to security, prosperity, and respect for internationally agreed-upon norms and rules.

On that basis, it is very much in Canada's interest to seek out areas where we can work more closely with India to—

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I am sorry to have to do this again. Just before question period I raised the issue of relevance. While the member has raised many important and I am sure interesting points, he has yet to address the motion.

I understand the latitude that is given to members when speaking in the House and the breadth that the Speaker gives in this matter, but I would ask that the member actually address the motion while he still has a couple of minutes left.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. The relevance rule does apply to all debate in the House, and he intimated a good understanding of that convention as it applies to debate.

I recognize that the hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore is in the second part of his remarks, the first part having been interrupted earlier for question period and for statements by members, so perhaps he is just in the process of bringing the House up to date on some of those points. I am sure he will get around to the question that is before the House this afternoon before he finishes up.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, on that point of order, the Conservatives themselves put the relationship between Canada and India squarely at issue. They commented, in fact, on clothing worn by members of the delegation. I would expect the requisite latitude to address the quality of the Canada-India relationship, including some of the very positive aspects our Prime Minister had the opportunity to discuss.

Two-way trade between Canada and India was estimated to reach $8.34 billion in the calendar year 2017. This represents an increase of 3.9% over 2016 and an increase of 30% over the last three years. An estimated 1,000 Canadian companies are active in the Indian market, of which 400 have a physical presence in our country. Despite this presence, there is a palpable sense that Canada-India trade could and should be higher than it is now, given that our mutual trade and investment numbers are low relative to the size of our respective GDPs.

Opposition members certainly do not want to talk about the significant outcomes from this trip, which included, by the way, a $1-billion two-way investment that will create some 5,800 good, middle-class jobs here in Canada. This is a significant investment that will absolutely help the Canadian economy.

India is the world's most populous democracy, one of the fastest growing major economies in the world, and a society on the cusp of a remarkable cultural, political, and economic transformation. On this side of the House, we practice positive politics, and we absolutely take the Canada-India relationship seriously.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, given the foregoing comments, I will take this opportunity to ask the member a question related to the motion.

Does he think it is reasonable to refuse and to block the testimony of Mr. Jean at the committee for public safety, when that public servant was used by the government as a shield to distract and misdirect people from the disastrous trip to India?

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not have had the opportunity to hear my earlier response at the beginning of my remarks. This motion is about an invitation that should never have been sent in the first place. As soon as that invitation came to light, it was withdrawn.

Canada's national security agencies are non-partisan. They are highly competent. They are effective. They are people, women and men, we believe in. We trust them to protect and promote Canadians' security and Canada's security. They do an excellent job in serving and protecting the interests of all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, other government members have given the same explanation as my colleague. They say that he is an independent and non-partisan official, as if that were a reason for not allowing him to appear before a committee.

I do not know which committee my colleague sits on, but officials appear before parliamentary committees all the time, and that does not cast any doubt on their impartiality. When we tried to invite Daniel Jean to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we were told to trust these officials and that they are independent and impartial.

What connection is my colleague drawing between Daniel Jean’s invitation to appear before the committee and the need for him to maintain his independence?

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

This individual is a competent, professional, non-partisan, independent civil servant. He has rendered advice to the Government of Canada. He has given advice to the Prime Minister, advice we trust and respect.

With respect to the integrity of the civil service, we have only the highest belief in the women and men who serve our country through these very important functions, functions that enhance and protect Canadians in matters of security, such as the one that is under discussion today.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fairly simple and straightforward issue. Mr. Atwal was mistakenly given an invite. Once it was discovered, that invite was rescinded, meaning that Mr. Atwal did not go to that second event.

The concern I have with the motion is that today we are talking about that particular civil servant. Tomorrow we could be talking about another civil servant, and then maybe a week from now, it will be another civil servant. This is a very slippery slope being suggested by the Conservatives. I do not know how they conned the New Democrats into coming onside with this particular issue, but quite frankly, it is a slippery slope.

I am wondering if my colleague and friend could provide his thoughts on that issue.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for the question and the direction of the question.

I think it is very important that the relationship between the civil service and the government be maintained. It is integral as part of its core function. Canada's civil service is held in the highest regard internationally for its impartial nature, its professionalism, and its excellence. When our civil servants interact with each other here in Canada or abroad, they are really seen as being of the highest quality.

The accountability is from the civil service to the government, and the government is accountable in the House of Commons. Those are the proper lines of accountability. They are the ones that have been in place. They are the ones that were followed here. They are the ones that, in my view, are entirely appropriate.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to have a say in this debate.

The answer regarding the invitation in India is already quite clear. The invitation should have in fact never been extended and, as we have said many times, when the existence of the invitation was discovered, we withdrew it immediately. Another point: we have full confidence in Canada’s security advisors and diplomatic advisors, who consistently act impartially in the best interests of Canadians.

The opposition raises the importance of ensuring that parliamentarians are kept informed of security issues. On that, we absolutely agree. We agreed when former national security minister Anne McLellan introduced Bill C-81 in 2005 establishing a national security committee of parliamentarians. This bill died on the Order Paper when Stephen Harper’s Conservatives took office in 2006.

We agreed when former Liberal MP Derek Lee introduced a similar bill in 2007, when our colleague from Malpeque did the same in 2009, and when the member for Vancouver Quadra did so in 2014.

Each time, the Conservatives opposed the idea that parliamentarians of all parties and of both Houses should have access to secret information, and that they be kept informed of national security issues in Canada.

Fortunately, as my colleagues know, Bill C-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, received royal assent in June 2017.

Then, in November, the Prime Minister made it official by saying that “[i]n our system of responsible government, there is no substitute for scrutiny by parliamentarians.”

I am pleased to say that the committee is now in place. Its mandate is to review any matter relating to national security for all government departments and agencies. It will be supported by an independent secretariat headed by an executive director, who will be appointed shortly. The committee will be composed of eight MPs and three senators, all of them holding the highest security clearances.

It is now the appropriate vehicle for parliamentarians to thoroughly review and report on certain national security matters.

The committee is able to analyze the work of a wide range of government departments and agencies involved in security and intelligence.

Establishing this committee closed a loophole in our national security accountability framework. Before, Canada was an outlier in the Five Eyes alliance, since it was the only one not to have such a committee. However, establishing this committee has made Canada a transparency and accountability leader since our committee of parliamentarians has access to ongoing national security and intelligence operations.

By contrast, our committee’s Australian equivalent may only conduct statutory reviews or consider their agencies’ spending and administration. It must obtain a minister’s order to review other matters.

In our case, if the committee believes that a national security matter warrants review, it may simply do so.

In the United Kingdom, the committee must obtain a memorandum of understanding from the Prime Minister in order to review matters that go beyond the work of the three British agencies.

Our committee, with its distinctly Canadian design, has a much broader reach than those of two of our important foreign allies, who also have a Westminster-style system similar to ours.

I was pleased to witness the various debates during all the readings and to see how thorough a review it was given by the standing committee.

The expert consensus is that this new committee strengthens the accountability and effectiveness of Canada’s national security and intelligence system. Bill C-59 will further strengthen it by establishing the national security and intelligence review agency.

Since the current government took office, Canada has made great strides in national security transparency and accountability.

All that is to say that when I hear the opposition insist that parliamentarians should have access to security information, I cannot help but contrast the Conservative decade with the past two years.

The Harper government repeatedly rejected the principles of transparency and accountability when it came to national security. The current government acted to bring in significant transparency, openness and accountability with respect to national security.

We should all be confident that Canada’s security advisors and diplomatic advisors act impartially and in the best interests of Canadians.

They deserve much better than the insinuations and allegations on which this motion is based. I for one have full confidence in their professionalism, expertise, and service to Canada.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague opposite on our motion today, but I did not hear a lot in response to the content of the motion. There are only three possible scenarios in this situation: either the Prime Minister is telling the truth, the Minister of Public Safety is telling the truth, or Mr. Atwal is telling the truth.

Which one of these three does he believe?

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, national security matters are taken very seriously, no matter what they are. Expertise and impartiality are key characteristics of the professionals who represent us, and I will never cast doubt on their statements or advice.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his insight on this matter. At the end of the day, one of the most important things for the function of the government, or the House, for that matter, is our ability to have the utmost faith in our public servants. As the member for Winnipeg North said earlier, once we start to allow the House, through the direction of the Prime Minister, to demand that people come before committee, we run the risk of starting to challenge those individuals. It is a slippery slope.

I am wondering if the member could tell us, in his opinion, why it is so important that we maintain this level of professionalism and respect for our civil servants so that we can continue to get non-partisan, professional information from them.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

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

Not only do we have high standards for the quality and professionalism of our staff, but creating this committee of parliamentarians with Bill C-22 also shows that we want to enhance as much as possible what we want in terms of monitoring, if I may put it that way, to ensure we have the highest standards of quality and meet the expectations of all Canadians.

It is vital that national security matters be examined by the right people, in the right way, with a recognized protocol and process, in a confidential manner, where it is important and in a transparent manner, as necessary.

As for the second part of the question, at no time did we refuse. In fact, the motion moved this morning at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security simply implemented a previous request to adjourn debate. It was not a refusal, but simply a delay, because it was the subject of debate in the House today.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to dodge the issue because we pointed out that there is a problem with debate at the committee of parliamentarians created by Bill C-22. Everything that happens within that committee is top secret. No information comes from the committee. A report was put on the Prime Minister's desk.

The problem is that the Prime Minister is involved in this situation. There is the Prime Minister's version and then there is everyone else's version. How can we get an answer if only the committee has the information? They really want to bury the truth.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will not read too much into the question from my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The parliamentary committee in question is made up of parliamentarians from both sides, including Conservatives. He needs to have some faith in his own colleagues when it comes to the review and analysis of national security matters. I hope that the member has some faith in his colleagues.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate at this hour, because so far I have been listening to a whole bunch of deflection and different subjects being brought up.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Markham—Unionville, my dear colleague from Ontario.

As I see it, there are only three possible scenarios. I am going to go through them, and explain what they are. Mostly, I am going to explain why the public safety committee has to be allowed to meet Daniel Jean.

The first scenario that is possible, and has been floated by the government, is that agents of the Indian government, from, I guess, a Tom Clancy novel, somehow managed to invite Mr. Atwal at some point. He got to the high commission to enjoy wine, food, and drink at the expense of taxpayers of Canada. This notion was actually floated by the national security adviser, and confirmed by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons during an exchange with our leader.

The second scenario is that this was an honest mistake by the member of Parliament for Surrey Centre. That is a notion that has been floated by the public safety minister, by the foreign affairs minister, and by the member himself both outside of this House and to the media.

There is a third scenario available, which is that this was a purposeful act by the Government of Canada to include Mr. Atwal, on purpose, because of poor judgment, incompetence, and oversight. Hanlon's razor says never to ascribe malice when incompetence is sufficient. Any one of those could fit within that third scenario. That is not the one the government uses often, but there are only three scenarios available.

There are only three possible variations on what happened. We have gotten the first two scenarios quite often. We want Mr. Jean to appear before the public safety committee, and tell the committee members exactly what he told the media, and then answer questions. I believe in parliamentary supremacy, that this House of Commons, through its committees and through this chamber, can exercise complete oversight over government. That is our role here.

Members of the backbench are not members of the government. They are members of the government caucus. Just because they support the government on most votes, nearly all votes at times, does not mean they have to defend every single action. This is one of those cases where they should exercise their better judgment as members of Parliament, and demand that Mr. Jean appear before the public safety committee.

We want the same information that was given to the media by the same person who gave it to them, for him to appear before the committee, and give it to members of Parliament. It has never been a question about Mr. Jean's professionalism, his ability, or his competence. Mr. Jean is a long-time public servant. That is the excuse given by the public safety minister.

Seemingly, members of Parliament are not allowed to meet competent, smart, professional members of the public service at a committee of the House of Commons that is supposed to keep them accountable. That is seemingly the excuse floated by the public safety minister, that this man is so professional that he just cannot force himself, and we cannot ask him to appear before a committee. It seems it is right for the Prime Minister of this country to hide behind his national security adviser, and then refuse to allow him to appear before the public safety committee of the House of Commons. That seems like an aberrant, impossible argument to make. It defies logic.

I would like to meet this gentleman. I would like to meet him at the public safety committee, in fact. I think he is a professional, so why am I not allowed to meet him? That is the government's position. The Government of Canada is saying this man is so professional that I am not allowed to meet him. That is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps he is calling right now, asking if he could speak to me.

This is a gentleman who was the deputy minister of foreign affairs, and according to media reports, he was pushing the Government of Canada to sign an extradition treaty with the People's Republic of China. This is a gentleman who later was appointed as the national security adviser, and was in Beijing during the inauguration of the extradition treaty, the transfer of offenders treaty. I would love to meet him at the public safety committee if only members on the Liberal side would allow for it to happen.

I do not know why the government caucus members want to protect the frontbenchers on this. I do not know why they are protecting the executive council on this. Government ministers are impeding the ability of the House of Commons to hold public servants accountable.

Public servants do not exist in the nether, on some superior plane to the House of Commons. Parliament exists in that plane. We exist here as a board of directors of the Government of Canada. It is supposed to be us holding it accountable, not the other way around. However, that is seemingly the argument being made by member after member on the opposite side of the House, and it is wrong.

The excuses that have been given by the government brings up a Yiddish proverb. Many members always wait for these. The proverb goes like this, “He is mediocre—not near to a wise man, not far from a fool.” We would like to ascertain which one he is the closest to. We will not be able to do that without Mr. Jean appearing before the public safety committee. Those three scenarios only have three logical end results, or three logical conclusions that we can draw.

If the information was good enough for the media where Mr. Jean floated a conspiracy theory worthy of a Tom Clancy novel, that rogue agents in the Indian government participated somehow in this invitation to Mr. Atwal, and confirmed by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons in debate, then it is good enough for members of Parliament to hear the same information at committee.

In fact, that is exactly what a member of the media tried to tell the public safety minister during the elevator pitch with members of the media not too long ago. If that is not the case, and if the information is so sensitive, then by all means, there are procedures at committee to deal with sensitive information.

I have had the privilege of sitting on the foreign affairs committee and the finance committee where sensitive information has been dealt with, like FINTRAC. There is a procedure to consider sensitive information where we can clear the room of members of the public if we need to. There are mechanisms for that to be done at committee, but it is still done at a House of Commons committee by members of Parliament.

We were sent here by residents of our ridings, by the citizens of Canada, duly elected all of us, to hold the Government of Canada to account, which is the front bench. It is the public servants who work, or the professional public service, we are always told. I agree, and I want to meet him at the public safety committee. I want to hear what he has to say. I want members of the opposition caucus to be able to question Mr. Jean, and ask him about the contents of that media briefing.

Lastly, if the information and the answers to be provided during the question period section at committee are so sensitive that only the national security intelligence committee of parliamentarians can see it, as the public safety minister said during his elevator pitch, then why was that information given to the media in an open Q and A session? Why did Mr. Jean float the conspiracy there?

If the information or content was so sensitive that only this particular committee of parliamentarians could then review it, then why did he say those things to the media? It is illogical; it is irrational. It does not make sense. The argument does not hold.

Therefore, the only correct thing to do, the only logical thing for the House to do, is to exercise its supremacy over the Government of Canada, pass this motion, and demand that Mr. Jean appear before the public safety committee. There is no other way out of this.

The Parliament of Canada holds the Government of Canada to account, not the other way around. If Mr. Jean is as professional as the government believes, and as I believe, then I want him to appear before the public safety committee and answer questions from all parliamentarians, opposition members as well as members of the government caucus who may also have questions to ask him. He is obviously contradicting one of the scenarios I mentioned at the beginning, or at least two of the scenarios, one from the public safety minister and one from the Prime Minister on Mr. Atwal. It can only be one of them.

The only way we will find out, the only way the people of Canada will find out, is if we pass this motion, and get to meet this professional national security adviser at the public safety committee. I look forward to a yes vote from all sides of the House.

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I come back to what I was talking about earlier on with this being a slippery slope. When we start ordering the Prime Minister to tell people to appear before committee, professional public service employees that we have, where does it end? Do we then start telling others to appear next week, if we question their judgment and question their input? Where does it end?

I do not feel as though it is entirely appropriate to order the Prime Minister, through a motion of this House, to instruct an employee of the federal government to appear before committee.

Does the member at least not see that setting this kind of precedent, and opening this kind of door, would not have more problems down the road if we start to cherry pick who we are going to call from time to time, or who we are going to order from time to time via the Prime Minister?

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime MinisterBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, truth is not a slippery slope. It is what this place is supposed to be all about.

Why do cabinet ministers appear at committees, joined by their public officials? They do it all the time during estimates. They do it when the committee demands that they appear.

This is absolutely no different. The motion does not call for the Prime Minister to appear. It calls for his national security adviser to appear. The slippery slope is when a public servant is sent to do his bidding, and then he runs over to a bus or, potentially, 20 buses afterwards, behind him. Maybe that is the infrastructure plan.