Debates of March 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the issue here is so important that we need clarification. There are so many different ways to explain it. We want the truth, not only for us but for all Canadians. If the journalists had the chance, privilege, and the authority to receive that kind of briefing from this high-ranking civil servant, all Canadians deserve that too. There are so many contradictions with the government.

First, the Prime Minister said that this was a conspiracy created by India. However, it was contradicted by the member for Surrey Centre who said many times that he was the one who decided to welcome this guy. This was a contradiction of the criminal, Atwal, who said that he got there by himself. This was a contradiction of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who said that it was an honest mistake.

Is it an honest mistake, as the top ranking Minister of Foreign Affairs said, or is it a conspiracy as per the Prime Minister? We want the truth.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We are familiar with his journalistic standards. He really gave us a factual account of the progression of the scandal. I cannot find another word to describe it. It is a scandal.

Now I would like to benefit from his analysis, whether political or journalistic. Why are the Liberals refusing to answer? Why did they adjourn the proceedings at committee when it came time to talk about it? Now we have to discuss this motion. Why are we hearing all sorts of diversions today from our Liberal colleagues participating in the debate?

Why?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, as the old saying goes, one lie begets another. At first, the Prime Minister said it was the hon. member’s fault. Then he changed his tune and said that it was not the hon. member’s fault, that it was a plot fomented by the Indian government, as his senior official said. This contradicts what the hon. member for Surrey Centre said and what the criminal Atwal is saying, and it is in direct contradiction with what the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. The only way to shed light on the situation is to allow Mr. Jean to testify before all Canadians, the way he did before a number of journalists.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are several different stories, as my colleague has pointed out so well. We want to find out what is actually going on here.

The government's argument is that somehow the public service is being impacted. Could the member tell me if he thinks the national security adviser to the Prime Minister is just one more public servant? Could he also tell why the government is refusing to allow the national security adviser to come into an environment where he can speak freely to members of Parliament.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the journalists had the chance to have that kind of briefing, all Canadians must have that kind of briefing.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this today. One of the things that we have noticed over the course of the last two and a half years is that the hallmarks of the Liberal government seem to be arrogance and attacks, constant arrogance and constant attacks.

We heard it today from the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. He used a common approach earlier today. The Liberals use this approach oftentimes whenever anybody criticizes the government. They refer to the election of 2015 as though, somehow, because 40% of the people that voted in Canada voted for them, there should be no opposition in this country.

When we take a look at what Canadians voted for in 2015, it is kind of interesting. They voted for a promise of democratic reform, for example, a promise that was completely broken by the Liberal party. We had opposition members from all parties come together on a proposal for electoral reform. A committee put together by the government recommended to the government an avenue, but because it was not the Liberal avenue, the avenue the Liberals wanted, they rejected it wholeheartedly. Then what did they do? Of course, they blamed the opposition.

The Liberals promised modest budget deficits in their platform and a balanced budget by the next year. Of course, we are nowhere near a balanced budget. We are going to be running deficits for decades to come. However, every time the opposition raises a question, a legitimate question about a promise that was made in the platform and completely ignored, all we get is attacks from the government.

The Liberals promised a new era of accountability and transparency. How did that go for them? We saw over the course of the last year, as we discussed in this place, the Prime Minister's visit to the Aga Khan's private island. There were legitimate questions that were ultimately borne out by the Ethics Commissioner in her report, a scathing report. All through that year, every single question, every legitimate question was met with accusations of mudslinging by the opposition.

We were promised sunny ways in this place, a new era of sunny ways. Then, this morning when we were raising a very legitimate question about our relationship with the world's largest democracy, the hon. parliamentary secretary referred to it as character assassination. Somehow by raising these legitimate questions it is character assassination because we have the gall to suggest as parliamentarians that a senior public servant would appear before a parliamentary committee. Somehow that is character assassination.

How did we get here? Let us take a look at that.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the contrast between former prime minister Stephen Harper and the current Liberal Prime Minister. I found a little research on that contrast. I found a Canadian Press article from 2012 after Prime Minister Harper visited India. Here was some of the coverage. This is symbolic of the coverage that came out at that point:

Harper has made encouraging the flow of trade between Canada and India the focus of his six-day visit to the rapidly growing South Asian nation.

He has said repeatedly that Canada needs to branch out past its usual trading partners if it wants to weather the international economic storm....

He went through all the elements of his government's strategy for bringing stability to the economy—the “five t's” he called it: more trade, lower taxes, more training, the transformation of government process to get rid of red tape, and support for technology and research.

Those were the good old days. Because the parliamentary secretary wants to contrast things today, we contrast this with a CNN article following the current Liberal Prime Minister's trip to India. Here is what CNN had to say. This is how Canada's Prime Minister is viewed on the world stage:

[The] Canadian Prime Minister...'s scandal-ridden trip to India may be over, but the controversy surrounding it refuses to go away.

[The Prime Minister] has become embroiled in a fresh spat, following his apparent endorsement of allegations that factions within the Indian government had actively sought to undermine his visit to the country last week.

The comments, made during [the Prime Minister]'s first parliamentary session since returning to Canada, provoked a swift rebuke from the Indian government, with a spokesman for India's foreign ministry labeling the suggestion “baseless and unacceptable.”

The CNN story goes on to talk a bit about the background and describes some of the bewilderment that Canadians must feel when they are looking at the situation. The article states:

It remains unclear how Atwal, a known militant who in 1987 was sentenced to 20 years in a Canadian court for his part in the attempted murder of a visiting Indian state minister, managed to obtain a visa to enter into India.

Atwal was one of four men who ambushed and shot Malkiat Singh Sidhu, a then-member of Punjab's cabinet, who was visiting Canada for a relative's wedding, badly wounding him.

In the sentencing, the judge called the crime “an act of terrorism in order to advance a cause.”

This is CNN's story, which I will read one more quote from, because it is unbelievable that this is the face of Canada on the world stage today because of this trip. It quoted India's Ministry of External Affairs as stating:

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....

That is the way the world is viewing the situation, and that is what is leading to some of the confusion that we are dealing with today.

Then we come to the debate in Parliament and an opportunity for the opposition to question the government on these conflicting stories. We come to some interviews that have been conducted, and members who are involved in the story commenting on some of these things.

On February 27, our leader asked this question of the Prime Minister:

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether anyone in his office arranged, organized or participated in the media briefing provided to reporters that included the allegation that the Government of India was somehow involved in his embarrassing blunder in India?

Of course the Prime Minister replied, “When one of our top diplomats and security officials says something to Canadians, it is because they know it to be true.”

We have the Indian government saying it is not true and we have Canada's Prime Minister saying it is known to be true. Clearly, we have a problem here.

Further on, the member of the NDP caucus for Timmins—James Bay asked the Prime Minister another question. The Prime Minister, in his response, said, “The member responsible for the invitation has taken full responsibility, and I will be following up with that member later this afternoon.”

Now it is even more confusing. We have the Prime Minister, the same day in question period, saying that the story told by the senior diplomat is true but also that the member for Surrey Centre is fully responsible, which are two conflicting things.

Then we move on and we have the foreign affairs minister weighing in with an answer in an interview recently. She said, “So Evan, what I'd like to say about that is that obviously it was a mistake that Mr. Atwal was initially invited to that reception in Delhi, and it was the right thing to do to appreciate that this was a mistake and to withdraw the invitation; and, you know, it's very good that we did that. I was in Delhi on that day, and I had a meeting with my Indian counterpart...the Indian foreign minister”, and this is really interesting, she said, “I started off the meeting by saying to her that it had been an honest mistake and that the invitation had been withdrawn”.

The Indian government is saying that none of what was said by the senior Canadian official was true and we have our Minister of Foreign Affairs meeting with her Indian counterpart and starting off the meeting by saying to her that it had been an honest mistake and that the invitation had been withdrawn. We can understand that Canadians would be rightfully confused by the situation we are facing right now.

I have been a member of Parliament for 12 years. I have sat on many committees and had the opportunity to hear from dozens of public servants on issues that matter to Canadians. I want to know from the Liberal Party why this case is any different.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting when we hear from hon. members who were previously in government and their recollection of the glory days of the Stephen Harper government. What they do not tell us is that during those glory days, the 10 years Stephen Harper was in power, they had the lowest GDP growth since the dirty thirties. They ran deficits. They are vehemently anti-deficit when they are in opposition, but when they were in government they ran deficits nine out of 10 years, and they had the worse job creation record since the 1950s.

Does the hon. member realize that in the last two years our country has created over 600,000 jobs? Does he realize that unemployment is at its lowest rate in 40 years? Does he realize that during the last trip to India over $1 billion of trade arrangements were made between Canada and India, adding another 6,000 full-time, well-paying jobs to our country?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, in 2015 the budget was balanced. We constantly hear Liberal members of Parliament talk about how fantastic the economy is today. My question simply is this. How in the world could we be running an $18 billion deficit with no plans to get back to budget balance for decades if the Liberal government has done such a fantastic job? I think that answers the question.

I also want to highlight the ridiculousness of the Liberal position. We are having a debate about whether to invite a public servant to a committee on the Atwal affair and the member of Parliament does not ask a question about that at all. The Liberals have absolutely no rationale for that, and this just simply highlights that.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try very hard to address my question to you.

Concerning the trip to India we have been speaking about since this morning, I wonder whether my colleague had the chance to read the La Presse article of March 14 in which the High Commissioner of India to Canada and the High Commissioner of Canada to India are quoted. A conference on international relations took place in Montreal on March 13, and I had the honour of attending. The High Commissioner of India to Canada said that he believed that the Prime Minister’s visit to India was very important, but that it found its way into the news for the wrong reasons.

These are people who know what was going on at the time. The aim was to develop and broaden relations between the two countries, and they succeeded. There were several meetings between ministers, and everything went well.

There are 1.4 billion people in India. It is an English-speaking Commonwealth country. It is one of the countries with which we could do the most business.

Can you tell us about the economic benefits?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind hon. members that they must address their questions to the Speaker and not directly to the other members. I am certain that the hon. member was not asking my opinion.

I will allow the hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin to answer.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to stand up and agree with a member of the Liberal Party, but I wholeheartedly agree that a visit of the Prime Minister to any foreign country is important. I wholeheartedly agree that this particular visit made all sorts of media coverage all around the world, for all the wrong reasons. That is exactly why we need to vote for the motion and shed some light on why that happened.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the motion specifically puts into question the professionalism of some of our most senior public servants. Members of the opposition parties can say whatever they like, but let us not forget the professionalism that is brought to the table day in and day out by our civil servants. These individuals are at the top of their careers. When they make these statements, they do it with professionalism. They bring to the table a great deal of experience and expertise and reflect what is in Canada's and Canadians' best interests.

When it comes time to vote on this resolution, I would encourage members to reflect on what the hidden agenda of Canada's official opposition party is. I would argue that we are doing a disservice by suggesting that the motion should actually pass.

There are a number of things I would like to share with the House. The mover of the motion talked very quickly and off topic. He was not really talking about why civil servants should be coming forward; rather, he attacked the Prime Minister, and a member made reference to my question about character assassination. The member continued to compare Stephen Harper's trip in 2012 to what has taken place this year. He said Prime Minister Harper went to India and promoted trade. However, he did not share the full story about that trip to India.

I was sitting in the opposition when Stephen Harper went to India. The member did not tell the House that Stephen Harper had to bring his car with him, I guess because he did not have confidence in the vehicles in India. It cost $1 million. That made some headlines.

Even if that had been in the headlines, I would still not underestimate the importance when a prime minister travels abroad in order to enhance relationships. When the mover of the motion talked about a comparison, members across laughed when I said I would compare the Harper administration any day to this administration. They are very proud of Stephen Harper and good for them. They can get behind him all they want, but I can tell them that the Prime Minister is very much in touch with Canadians. We have a prime minister who actually holds public town halls in the different regions of Canada affording Canadians the opportunity to ask the questions they feel are important. The Prime Minister has been in Winnipeg twice hosting those types of forums. That is one of the major differences between the two prime ministers.

When I look at the India trip, yes, there were some very important things taking place even back in 2012. I will acknowledge that. In 2012, not only did I criticize Stephen Harper for taking the car over, to the tune of $1 million, but I also acknowledged, whether I was speaking at gurdwaras or within my community, that having the prime minister travel to India is a good thing.

I believe that the opposition, a joint opposition nowadays, is doing a disservice to that wonderful relationship that we have with India today.

[An hon. member]

No way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, way. You are.

Mr. Speaker, they do not even realize that.

We have a growing Indo-Canadian community. It is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada today. We can look at the city of Winnipeg and the impact that community has had on Winnipeg over the last 10, 20, 30 years. It is virtually second to no other community. In fact, in the north end, it is one of the driving forces behind the economic activity we are seeing in a very real and tangible way.

One of the greatest assets we have as a nation is our diversity. If we look at the Indo-Canadian community in particular with over a million people of Indo-Canadian heritage, it should be a given that any prime minister would make India a priority, as this Prime Minister has done.

Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000 Canadian businesses in one form or another today have some sort of economic link to India. That number is growing every year. Hundreds of those businesses actually have a physical presence in India. Those individuals are helping create jobs here in Canada and in India.

Do the Conservatives and their NDP friends, who want to help them a lot nowadays, recognize the many benefits that were derived out of that trip? They want to focus on an innocent mistake as opposed to talking about the opportunities. If they got in touch with their constituents, they would find that India is a country that warrants the attention this government is giving it. If we continue to develop those relationships, both countries will benefit. That is really what that trip was all about.

Imagine $1 billion of extra activity between two countries in good part because of that trip, at least partly as a direct result of the trip. That will generate thousands of jobs for Canadians. We do not hear opposition members recognizing that, but that is fine. They do not have to. We are not twisting their arms.

I would have been more encouraged by the debate if the opposition motion had been about how important it is that Canada build a stronger relationship with India, maybe even looking at ways to enhance trade between the two countries.

I was at a Canada House event one evening where businesses, non-profits, and others were in attendance. I was part of many of the informal discussions that were taking place. The Prime Minister addressed that group and talked about the importance of the relationship between India and Canada. Not only were people there appreciating what he had to say but there must have been dozens of phones recording what was being said by the Prime Minister, and I suspect it was all over social media.

When the Prime Minister of Canada makes a trip of that nature, we cannot buy that kind of advertising for Canada in India. It just cannot be bought. The amount of attention that was given because our Prime Minister went to India is significant among the people of India and also back home in Canada.

Many members of the Indo-Canadian community in particular have approached me and talked to me about the trip in a positive fashion. I can count on one hand, and maybe only use two fingers of that hand, the criticisms that have been brought to my attention personally on the issue. However, I would need a lot more than two hands to count the amount of appreciation that I have witnessed just from one community alone in regard to the benefits of the trip. I understand and appreciate just how important that trip was. It was about building relationships.

The New Democrats talk about the 14 MPs and I believe it was six ministers who went. I was one of those members of Parliament who went. I paid my own way to get there, but I can tell those members that I enjoyed the experience. I had the opportunity to meet with hundreds of individuals. I was able to speak to students at elementary and secondary schools and at colleges, to share all sorts of wonderful ideas and thoughts about how important it is that we continue to build those bridges. It was a fantastic experience. Most of my time was spent in the Punjab, one of the states I truly enjoy being in. I have been there before. Many of my constituents spend the months of January and February and even longer in the Punjab region of India. These ties give Canada a strategic advantage over other countries in the world. We should be fostering and encouraging that wherever we can.

Let us look at some of the benefits. I made reference to $1 billion. A billion dollars is a significant amount of money. On an annual basis, we are talking about 40,000 jobs, if we were to allocate it just to minimum wage jobs here in Canada. A billion dollars is a lot of money. More significant than that $1 billion is the amount of trade between Canada and India today. I believe it is just over $8 billion. In the last year or so, it has increased significantly. I suggest that if the opposition members were to open their eyes and get a better understanding of the potential that is there through an enhanced relationship between Canada and India, that number could increase dramatically, and I believe that it will. A good reason for it to increase is that we have a government in Canada today that has a very proactive approach on trade and is very much interested in what is taking place in India.

I was amazed. As I said, I spent most of my time in the Punjab. When the Prime Minister came to the Golden Temple, there were banners and thousands of people who wanted to see him. It is truly encouraging, and we should be proud of that fact, no matter what side of the House we sit on, because we cannot buy that type of public relations and advertising within the country of India.

I had no sense of what the international media were reporting here, but in India thePrime Minister was exceptionally well received, from what I could see. At the events that I participated in, a couple of them in New Delhi but otherwise in the Punjab, there was that recognition when talking to people, “Oh, yes, the Prime Minister of Canada is here.”

I have been to India before, and I have never seen a past prime minister receive the type of recognition this Prime Minister received in terms of having that physical presence in the country.

When we talk about that event, I posed this in one of my questions with regard to Mr. Atwal. Unfortunately, an invite went out that should not have, and when it was discovered it was rescinded. Rescinded means that it was taken away, and that the individual in question did not show up at Canada's High Commission. At the end of the day, at times mistakes happen. The government has been straightforward with that issue. However, what we see now is a concentrated attempt from the opposition to say that it wants this civil servant to come before a standing committee.

A couple of thoughts come to mind offhand. First and foremost, I believe we have a professional civil servant with an incredible career who acts in the best interests of Canadians, who did his job, and now, because the opposition wants to stir a pot and cause other issues, it says it wants him to come to committee. It wants to politicize it. Yes, that is what it is attempting to do. There is a standing committee for this. The Conservatives have already attempted to get the standing committee to deal with it. Standing committees operate on their own. Leave it with the standing committee, and let us see what happens.

I have been a parliamentarian for a good number of years, over 25 years or somewhere around there. At the end of the day, I have the deepest amount of respect for the fine work civil servants do. The Conservatives will argue today that this is an outstanding situation, and that they need to have this civil servant come before them, so they can ask him their politically charged questions. Well, they could make that argument for every public civil servant. On virtually any given day, they could be challenging civil servants to come before a committee of the House. Any opposition could generate why it believes a particular civil servant should be called before a committee of the House. Today, it just happens to be that civil servant.

If there was any sort of an official opposition that had confidence in the public service, as we do on this side, I do not believe we would be seeing this motion before the House today. If the Conservatives were true to their thoughts and feelings with regard to the importance of international trade, I would have suggested that today would have been a better day spent debating potential trade and other related issues with India. For example, I would like to hear what members across the way think we can do to continue to enhance those trade opportunities. We have so much in common with India, for example, a member of the Commonwealth, democracy, and a free market system. Most importantly, again from my perspective, we have an Indo-Canadian community of over a million people.

There are so many possibilities, and the sky is virtually unlimited in terms of how we can continue to build those bridges between Canada and India. The relationship today is far better between Canada and India than it was two years ago, and it will continue to get better. I predict now, and make it very clear, that we will continue to see more relationships being built, and more trade opportunities between both great nations.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, I do not know what it is about that member, but everybody from the opposite side wants to help him out. When you ask a question, you wait for the answer. That is the way it works here, so I do not want to hear any yelling back and forth.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it feels so good to be able to say “Mr.”

I have a lot of trouble with the speech my colleague across the aisle delivered with such passion. We know that he absolutely hates former prime minister Stephen Harper, but I would just like to point out that the former prime minister is no longer here. We can bad-mouth him whenever we like but, but today, the question is not what the former prime minister did, but what my colleague’s Prime Minister did in India.

My colleague spoke passionately about the relations we need to have with other countries. We are all in agreement here. We are even more in agreement that we have enormous confidence in the officers of Parliament. That is precisely why the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security wants to meet with Mr. Jean. The reason is that we no longer trust the Prime Minister. I know that I, personally, have lost confidence in him.

They talk, they talk, and they talk, but they forgot to talk about what happened in India, the excesses of certain boozy evenings when the Crown Royal was freely flowing. What they are not telling us is that there needs to be a certain model for foreign trips. What is asked of any prime minister from any side to the House is to be professional.

Can our esteemed colleague across the way tell us just how proud he was of all of his prime minister’s costumes and just how ashamed and embarrassed Canadians were of what they saw not only in the Canadian press but also the international media?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I drew the comparison between Stephen Harper and our Prime Minister, because members of her own caucus were baiting the issue of the difference between the two.

When Stephen Harper went to India, he talked about trade. Our Prime Minister went to India, and he talked about trade as well. We talked about it, and we will see approximately $1 billion in additional commerce taking place. That will create thousands of additional jobs. We also talked about the middle class. Prime Minister Modi and our Prime Minister talked about the importance of the middle class not only in India, but also here at home.

That member talks about the Prime Minister being dressed in a Punjabi suit. What is wrong with that? Stephen Harper also went to the Golden Temple, and I did not criticize him for doing that. I thought it was a good thing for him to do. Equally, it was a good thing for our Prime Minister to do. To wear the Punjabi suit is a wonderful thing, and I appreciate that. I have also worn a Punjabi suit. There is nothing wrong with sharing in a heritage.

That is a positive thing, and people responded to our Prime Minister wearing the suit in a positive manner. It is only the Conservatives, more so than the NDP, who are trying to make something positive into a negative. The trip was a good thing.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my colleague’s opinion on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The members of his government voted against having the national security advisor appear before the committee. The mixed messages coming out of his government have led to a lot of confusion and frustration for all Canadians. They have possibly undermined relations between Canada and India. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that Canadians deserve to have the facts and to get real answers and to have the advisor appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in order to get to the bottom of this once and for all. If they have nothing to hide, they will vote in favour of the motion, it can be studied in committee, and once and for all, Canadians will be able to get the facts and the truth.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here are the real facts. An invitation that went out should not have gone out. When it was found out, it was rescinded. Those are the real facts.

Another fact is the NDP, working with the Conservatives, now wants to call a professional, apolitical, civil servant to come before committee. That is what they want to do today. Maybe tomorrow it will be another civil servant from another ministry, and then the following day, or next week, it will be someone else from the civil service. Where does it end?

I would suggest that the opposition, the unholy alliance across the way, should have more confidence in the professionalism that is within our public service. If they did that, it is quite possible that the motion we are witnessing today on the floor of the House would not have been necessary. Rather, we could be talking about the wonderful attributes of Canada's Indo-Canadian community, and the potential that is there between Canada and India into the future.

[Karen Ludwig, Liberal, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to listen to our parliamentary secretary for public safety talk at great length about the trip to India, and the outcomes of that trip. Could my hon. colleague share with us the importance of cybersecurity between Canada and India?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, Canada and India have a great deal in common. When it comes to the issue of cybersecurity, there is much room for both governments to continue to work together in terms of doing what we can to protect things such as confidential and privacy issues on the Internet. In the world, today, through the Internet, we are a lot closer than we think we are, which is why it is really important that both Canada and India continue to work together.

Unfortunately, I was not a part of all the discussions that took place. I went there because I had an interest in promoting a better relationship. I spent most of my time, as I said earlier, in the Punjab. For me, it was reaching out, meeting with everyday individuals, and having the opportunity to communicate positive messages about Canada to colleges and educational facilities.

In Canada, over the last number of years, we have seen a great influx of students coming from India. We are talking about thousands of additional students. What impact do members think that has economically here in Canada when things of that nature happen? That is why I say that there were so many positives that came out of that trip.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with wonder, as I often do, to the hon. member, and not the good kind of wonder, by the way. All morning he has characterized our very rational motion of calling on a professional public servant to be allowed to do his job, which allows us as parliamentarians to do our job. It is interesting that the member's main concern regarding Stephen Harper's trip was regarding a security decision made entirely by our professional public service.

What is the criteria the member uses to decide when to stand up, and valiantly defend public servants, and when to throw them under the bus?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to check Hansard, he will find that I never raised the issue of having that civil servant come before a committee of the House. The Liberal Party did not do that. Why? It is because it was a decision made by a professional civil servant. Therefore, the member makes the case. Why does the Conservative Party want to pursue this? I did not, and the Liberal Party did not, when Stephen Harper took the advice of taking that car. There seems to be a double standard.

The bottom line is that we need to respect our public servants for the fine work they do, and it should not be that today we call this one, tomorrow we will call this one, and next week we will call this one. It is a very slippery and dangerous slope. The Conservatives may have convinced the NDP to join them on this cliff, but I am sure not going to.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand in the House of Commons in this debate with my Conservative colleagues. Just seeing the degree of animation, vitriol, and concern from the Liberal deputy House leader kind of reminds me of something an old bomber command veteran told me. He said, “You know you're over your target when you're getting heavy fire from the ground.” The desperate machinations of the Liberal Party on this issue show us that this, I believe, is an attempt by the Prime Minister's Office to obstruct Parliament from getting to the answers on the Atwal affair or to cover up the whole situation with Mr. Jean.

To illustrate that, in the time I have, I will start my remarks with a quote. My friend from Winnipeg, the deputy House leader for the Liberals, knows I love reading what people said when they were in opposition and comparing that to their positions in government. I am going to do that right now.

In opposition, with respect to public safety and security issues for Canada in October 2014, someone said, “being able to ask questions is essential in a democracy, even in difficult situations—especially in difficult situations.” The person who said that, when in opposition, was then the MP for Papineau, now the Prime Minister of Canada. I agree with that sentiment. I wonder what has happened to the Prime Minister. Difficult questions in difficult situations need to be asked when it comes to public safety and security. Remember, he said “especially in difficult situations”.

The difficult situation Canada finds itself in vis-à-vis the India Atwal scandal is perhaps the greatest diplomatic scandal Canada has ever witnessed. I do not say that with hyperbole, because India is a close friend to Canada. It is a Commonwealth partner. It is a country that bilateral trade doubled under the Conservative government of which I was a part. Many of us, and many Canadians, remember fondly. It is a Commonwealth partner with which we have enhanced relationships on security, nuclear technology, and bilateral relationships in trade. That has all been put at risk because of the careless and reckless actions of the Prime Minister. The trip was entirely premised on domestic politics. Virtually everyone who was on the trip, including the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party, my friend from Winnipeg, and virtually every event the trip had in its plan was based on currying favour and winning votes here in Canada, and it all backfired.

The denial by the Prime Minister and the public safety minister to allow parliamentarians to ask questions has led to the Atwal India affair and the cover-up I am concerned about, and has brought us here today.

For Canadians watching at home, let us see if we are being unreasonable here. My friend, the deputy House leader, almost foaming at the mouth, suggests we are not bringing in appropriate debate, that we are overstating the scandal with the Prime Minister's trip to India. Let us see what our request is.

All the opposition is asking for is that Daniel Jean, the national security adviser to the Prime Minister of Canada, provide members of Parliament with the same briefing and the same ability to ask questions that Daniel Jean gave to members of the media. Canadians, through the members of Parliament, deserve the same right to hear from Mr. Jean on this wild India conspiracy theory. Suggestions by the public safety minister that this material is somehow confidential is wrong. Why? Because the Liberals' own conduct shows that. By putting forward the national security adviser to select members of the press gallery, who write stories that thousands or millions of Canadians read, the Liberals were directly saying that anything Mr. Jean was saying was not top secret, was not confidential, because he was briefing people who tell things for a living.

That same basic right belongs with each member of Parliament. I have before you, Mr. Speaker, a privilege motion saying that my privilege and my rights, as both a member of Parliament and as the foreign affairs critic to hold the government to account for the most disastrous foreign trip in the history of our country, are being fettered as a member, or hampered, by the Prime Minister's unwillingness to allow the national security adviser, Mr. Jean, to appear before a committee of parliamentarians to give the same briefing and answer the same questions the Prime Minister's Office allowed him to do for the media.

Why did he allow the national security adviser to speak to the media? It was to save face in the midst of the disastrous India trip, where the Prime Minister was being mocked internationally for having no agenda, for having multiple elaborate costumes at events that made even Indian politicians and members of the arts community feel uncomfortable, for not taking the trade minister and the agriculture minister to India when, at the moment, the most pressing bilateral issue was a potential tariff increase to chickpeas and pulse products.

He did not take people to do work. The member for Winnipeg North may have paid his own way, because this was a domestic, political trip. Everyone who went, the schedule, the photos, the agenda was all premised on preening the Prime Minister before his supporters, his fundraisers, and voters in a few ridings. When it backfired, it backfired on him and on all Canadians.

Our request, to quote Mr. Swift, is a modest proposal. Parliamentarians are entitled to the same information that the Prime Minister's adviser gave to members of the media. That is our basic right as parliamentarians, which is why there is a privilege motion in front of you, Mr. Speaker, but also why we have brought this important debate to the House of Commons today.

For those following this debate, they have followed this saga for over a month. I have never seen such negative international headlines about a Canadian prime ministerial visit. One foreign columnist said that it was a moving train wreck. Is that what those members mean by “Canada is back”? Canada has a world-class, stellar reputation around the world, and it has been put at risk because of the Prime Minister and because of the India scandal with Jaspal Atwal.

Let us get to the bottom of the scandal and the two competing stories from the Liberal government.

One story was that the member for Surrey Centre invited Mr. Atwal, admitting afterwards that he should not have, but took sole responsibility and resigned for it. He fell on his sword, saying, “My bad, it was all me.” Then, a few days later, when the Prime Minister allowed his national security adviser to meet with the media, the government floated this sinister and, we would submit, preposterous theory that Mr. Atwal was invited by the India government to embarrass the Prime Minister. Both of those things cannot be true.

When the Prime Minister and the public safety minister deny parliamentarians their right to ask questions about which story is true, they are impeding Parliament and are covering up which story is true from Canadians.

I will show, directly in quotes by all the key figures, what I mean. Jaspal Atwal, himself, in a rather comical at times press conference he held a few weeks said this, “When I asked to consider attending the reception, I had assumed there would be no problem. No one at any point indicated there would be any issue”. He is confirming that he asked the MP for Surrey Centre to go. He did not expect there would be an issue, because the Prime Minister calls him “Jas”. They are friends. We have seen pictures going back several years. Mr. Atwal said that the Prime Minister and him had a nice chat years ago in his Hummer on a visit to British Columbia.

At the press conference, Mr. Atwal also confirmed he had been to India several times. This was not a magical trip where he was first granted entry; he had been there several times.

This is what Mr. Atwal's lawyer said at the same press briefing. He stated, “He basically went to this occasion, put his name in, he assumes he was vetted appropriately, he has not hid who he was, he has not changed his name.” The lawyer for Mr. Atwal confirmed that Mr. Atwal asked an MP to go, and assumed his name would be vetted by both the MP for Surrey Centre and by the Prime Minister's Office. Therefore, we have Atwal to the MP for Surrey Centre. This is the chain of evidence.

What did the MP for Surrey Centre say? He said:

As you know, an individual planning on attending tonight’s reception had his invitation rescinded. Let me be clear--this person should never have been invited in the first place. I alone facilitated his request to attend this important event. I should have exercised better judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

I thank the MP for Surrey Centre for admitting that he alone was responsible for the invitation.

Later, the MP for Surrey Centre said this to the Surrey Now-Leader, a paper in his riding:

“Look, I took full responsibility as soon as I found out that this had happened and I, you know, the name came from my office, I should have vetted them before I forwarded them, I should have looked a bit more diligently at it, I am a new, young Member of Parliament, a rookie you can say so obviously I am learning from my mistakes.”

He said, “my mistakes” and “I alone”, yet the Prime Minister of Canada had his national security adviser go to the media and suggest something else. Therefore, we have two conflicting statements from members of Parliament from the Liberal Party. One is from the member of Parliament for Papineau, which he still is, and also the Prime Minister, which means I hold him to a higher standard than I hold the MP for Surrey Centre, because the national security adviser advises him. When he asks the national security adviser to go and say something that is contrary to what his own MP is saying, that is scandalous. All we are asking for is the right to ask Mr. Jean questions like the media did.

Let us go further. Let us go to the Prime Minister's cabinet, and the responsible minister, someone I respect a great deal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What did she say on CTV when asked about her meeting with her bilateral partner, the Indian foreign affairs minister? The minister said, “I started off the meeting by saying to her that it had been an honest mistake and that the invitation had been withdrawn.”

We have the lead cabinet minister supporting the story from the MP for Surrey Centre, which is also supported by Mr. Atwal himself, the person at the core of the scandal. However, the Prime Minister has risen in the House repeated times and has hidden behind a conspiracy theory from his national security adviser who he is now blocking parliamentarians from asking questions. That is scandalous. It is a breach of my privilege and the privilege of the whole House.

Therefore, I hope some of the MPs on that side, particularly the ones in areas near me, like Northumberland and Peterborough South, and I will be spending a lot of time there. People in Peterborough and Whitby are concerned about this. A lot of people will be very worried about this scandal. No one believes the Prime Minister's story.

What does the Indian government say? Its spokesman said this:

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.

The Indian government is insulted by this, and it should be. It knows where the invitation came from, because the Prime Minister's own MP has admitted to the invitation. Jaspal Atwal, who asked for the invitation, has admitted it was the Liberal government. The foreign affairs minister has admitted it was the Liberal MP, the Liberal government is causing this scandal.

Now let us look at this smokescreen story that came out of the Prime Minister's Office through a civil servant I respect. Mr. Jean has had a great career for Canada and I am upset that officials in the Prime Minister's Office have sullied his reputation by forcing him to go to the media to concoct a story. Here is what CBC wrote after attending this briefing by the national security adviser.

After speaking to Daniel Jean, it wrote, “A senior government official with knowledge of the prime minister's security protocols suggested...rogue political elements in India may have orchestrated [the] embarrassing invitation” of a would-be political assassin to a formal dinner with the Prime Minister “in an attempt to make the Canadian government appear sympathetic to Sikh extremism.”

That CBC story was what the Prime Minister's Office was hoping to get by sending Mr. Jean out to speak. Let someone who advises on top national security issues go out and create an alternate story to the one the MP for Surrey Centre was already accepting responsibility for. I would suggest that is contemptuous of Parliament. That is knowingly sending a senior official to brief the media to create a parallel story to explain the Atwal invitation at a time when their own MP was taking responsibility for it.

Now we have a situation where Mr. Atwal, who asked for the invitation, the MP for Surrey Centre, the foreign affairs minister, and the Indian government are all suggesting the Prime Minister's story of the Indian conspiracy theory is a sham. That should trouble all Canadians because it has not only eroded our relationship with a close friend; it has embarrassed Canadians throughout our country.

As parliamentarians, our role here is to hold the government to account. When we are impeded in doing that, our privileges are fettered, they are obstructed, and Canadians by extension are being kept in the dark. The public safety minister in his famous elevator press conference suggested that it was okay for the national security adviser to brief members of the media and take questions on this conspiracy theory, but that it was also okay for the government not to allow MPs to have that information.

I do not agree. That is a breach of my privileges. It is unethical. It is a cover-up. We deserve to ask Mr. Jean the same questions because we have two stories. They both cannot be true and most people globally believe it was the MP for Surrey Centre. Most Liberal caucus members believe that too. The Prime Minister's preposterous story and the smokescreen, and the human shield he is using his national security adviser as, need to be pierced and we do that here with a vote in the House of Commons.

All we are asking for is the same basic right to receive information and to ask questions of Mr. Jean that the Prime Minister granted media members. Is that unreasonable when there are two versions of a scandal that we have to ask questions about? As shadow minister, I have to ask questions. Our proposal is a modest one. If the Liberal government whips and votes against this motion, I think we will be spending a lot more time with you, Mr. Speaker. The good thing is that I like you a lot, because we will be here a lot.

However, it is a sign that the Liberals hold Canadians and Parliament in contempt and that this is a cover-up. The Prime Minister has the chance of showing it is not a cover-up. Make his official available to the public safety committee. We have Canadians appear all the time. If they are willing to send that person out to the media to deflect attention away from an embarrassing trip, they had better be prepared to give the opposition the same opportunity to ask Mr. Jean those questions.

The government was elected and still uses the phrase “open and accountable”. Today, the Conservatives are going to make the Liberals accountable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect on a question that I was asked by the member from Edmonton just a few moments ago.

I brought up the example of $1.2 million that Canadians had to pay so that Harper would have a car in India for his India trip. The member then asked the question of what happened there with regard to the civil servant, and the member's colleague was right that the prime minister had nothing to with that decision. It was the advisers who provided that information. Even though I did not like the fact that $1.2 million was being spent for a car to go to India and even though I had a problem with it, I did not challenge the civil servants who made that decision. Now I suspect had I done that, the very member who just spoke would have been standing in this place saying, “No way do we want that civil servant to be called.” However, because he is now in opposition, now he wants civil servants to be called.

At least I am consistent. I am not too sure how consistent my friend across the way is on the issue, so I will pose the question to him. Why can he not have as much confidence in the public service as I do, whether I am in opposition or I am in government? I am consistent. Will he join me in being consistent?