Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise to talk about today's very relevant opposition motion. I will begin by reading the motion, after which I will tell a story of sorts, the story of something that never should have happened to Canada. The motion that we are moving today through my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles reads as follows:
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.
This is a very simple motion that simply asks a senior official responsible for security to testify before members of the House and representatives of the population at a meeting of a committee mandated to examine major issues for Canadians in certain areas of activity, in this case national security.
The story I am about to tell is a simple one. It is the story of a Prime Minister who had been living in the clouds for a few years, travelling here and there, around the world, taking selfies with world leaders and others. The Prime Minister, who was really proud of his performance abroad, made quite an impression with his haberdashery and hair. However, it seems that the Prime Minister had little to say on his many trips. One day, the Prime Minister, emboldened by his previous trips and the fawning press coverage he had earned purely on the strength of his image, and certainly not on his substance or any achievements made for Canada, decided to take a really big trip to a really big country, a country with which Canada does a lot of trade, a country that also has a great deal of history and culture.
Our Prime Minister decided to bring along his family, his ministers, his MPs, and all kinds of people. That is where danger lurks. When we become overly ambitious, and believe we are a little too good for the position we hold, we become less careful, surround ourselves with a large entourage and, at some point, unfortunate things happen, as they did.
We can look at this trip through the eyes of the international press. A French President made a similar trip to India soon after our Prime Minister. I will quote the March 14 edition of Paris-Match: “Unlike Nicolas Sarkozy, who, in 2008, spent only 35 hours in India, Emmanuel Macron took his time. In those three days, the French President made many gestures and declarations of friendship towards India.”
Sarkozy spent just 35 hours. President Macron took his time; he spent three days. Our Prime Minister took eight days. If something had come out of it, if Canadians had benefited, it is not a stretch to say that we would have understood. We would have been happy. Unfortunately, nothing positive came out of it for our economy. Nothing good came out of it for our agricultural sector. Many people characterized the trip as a fiasco.
That is not all. I want to remind members of what happened during this trip. I will quote another newspaper, Le Parisien:
On his official trip to India...the President of the Republic—of the French Republic—has no intention of repeating the recent clothing blunders of the Prime Minister of Canada.... As the saying goes: when you meet a man, you judge him by his clothes; when you leave, you judge him by his heart. There is no question that foreign leaders have their outfit choices scrutinized when they travel abroad. The Canadian Prime Minister learned this bitter lesson during his official trip to India in February. Draped in many traditional outfits—sparkly ones, at that—[the Canadian Prime Minister] drew the wrath of local dignitaries and the international media was shocked by this Canadian's wardrobe faux pas.
That should do wonders for our reputation. The French press says Mr. Macron's trip was a success and the Canadian Prime Minister's trip was a fiasco. That is what people will remember.
Now, what is the connection between the Prime Minister's clothing, the Prime Minister's trip, the eight-day duration, and the number of ministers, MPs, and other people who joined him? It is simply this, that perhaps there were people on this grand voyage who should not have been there.
The Prime Minister was anxious to change the subject in the international press. He urgently needed to find something to draw attention away from the fiasco of his trip. His way of diverting attention was to embarrass a senior national security official and have him take the blame for the presence of a convicted terrorist who had been invited by the Canadian government, by an MP, or by someone else. It is hard to know who, exactly, since it has become so difficult to get all the information on this issue.
My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said:
Every major nation knows that it is important to maintain good relations with other countries. Year after year, we, as elected representatives, work hard in partnership with our staff in diplomatic affairs and other services to sign free trade agreements and increase our exports to new markets.
That is what we expect from a prime minister. That is what we expect from a delegation. If it takes a large delegation to get the job done, then we applaud that.
Unfortunately, when a large delegation gets no results, it turns into a fiasco and the Prime Minister is forced to make decisions, lead people to believe things that may not be true. They may well be true. It is hard to know because the Prime Minister refuses to allow the official in question, in charge of national security, to come and provide an explanation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
The Prime Minister made a rather serious statement. He said something that, unfortunately, was not corroborated by the Indian government. If it had been, then we would understand. The Indian government was quite critical of the following statement by the Prime Minister:
We have seen the recent exchange in the Parliament of Canada regarding two invitations issued to Jaspal Atwal by the Canadian high commissioner, for functions hosted in honour of the Canadian prime minister in India....
Let me categorically state that the government of India, including the security agencies, had nothing to do with the presence of Jaspal Atwal at the event hosted by the Canadian high commissioner in Mumbai or the invitation issued to him for the Canadian high commissioner’s reception in New Delhi. Any suggestion to the contrary is baseless and unacceptable.
How is it possible to establish a good relationship with India? This morning, I met with representatives of Canada's flax industry. They are very interested in accessing the market in India. Unfortunately, a diplomatic incident like this one will likely ruin our chances of signing those new agreements. It is important that the committee hear from Daniel Jean.
I will close with a quote from the Prime Minister. In answer to a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he said:
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, if we have a choice between believing the professional and non-partisan members of our public service, particularly on security matters, or believing someone who says the opposite, we will always believe our highly qualified professional public servants.
That is what we want to do. Let us allow Daniel Jean to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Let us allow Daniel Jean to tell his story and we will have all the answers we need to continue to move forward and perhaps even leave this serious diplomatic incident behind us. That is why I am going to vote in favour of my colleague's motion.