Debates of March 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have an appreciation for the fact that memory can sometimes be a selective thing in this place.

However, the Liberals are forgetting that it is not the first time a national security adviser, or a former one, would have appeared before committee. In 2010, the same committee, despite the heckling, had a report on comments made in the media by Mr. Richard Fadden. He came before committee, clarified remarks, and then a report came out. It is not that complicated.

I know there are concerns about what it means for issues of national security. The member has quite eloquently pointed out the ability to go in camera and things like that. To just talk about the lack of respect for public servants is ludicrous.

I sit on that committee. This morning, who did we have? We had representatives from CSC and the Canadian Armed Forces. Two weeks ago, when the Minister of Public Safety was there, we had the deputy minister, folks from the RCMP, and folks from CSIS. This is a regularly occurring thing.

Certainly, if there is any kind of sensitivity, we can trust the judgment of parliamentarians to know when we need to take these things in camera, when there are questions that need to be asked.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that commentary. He is absolutely right. I trust the members on the public safety committee to be able to question members of the public service in an efficient way to ensure that accountability is held on behalf of the people of Canada.

The member just listed an entire group of agencies and commissioners who are regularly forced to appear before the committee to answer questions. We even call it question period. It is not answer period, of course, but it is even called question period. That is what committee meetings are supposed to be, a period of questions and answers. I trust the member to do his job, why the Liberals do not?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a couple of hours, this House will begin voting for about 30 hours on a ways and means motion, because the Liberal government will not actually allow Daniel Jean to come to committee. For a caucus of about 186 people to vote for 30 hours to prevent one hour of testimony at committee, what does the member think they are hiding?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, everything. Obviously, we will know whether the information given on February 23, during the media briefing, was indeed correct and which the Prime Minister confirmed on February 27, or, whether since then, when the story changed, it is either the foreign affairs minister or the public safety minister who are telling the truth, or it is the member of Parliament for Surrey Centre who is telling the truth. Who knows?

It will be a lottery of truth for an hour at committee. The Liberals could avoid 30 hours of voting by allowing to be accountable, by simply agreeing to allow a committee of the House of Commons to exercise its privilege on behalf of the House.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have not had one question about this in my particular office. I am wondering how many Canadians contacted the other offices in this regard.

There are so many very important issues facing us. I am not sure what the general Canadian interest is in the question posed by my friend from Calgary Shepard. How many people actually got in touch with his office? We had none.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps his constituents did not communicate with him, because they were not expecting to get the truth. I have had a few hundred people contact my office to speak about this.

I trust the committee will be able to schedule more time, if it needs to, and to manage its own affairs as per the wishes of the committee members. I have been on committees, like PROC, that have gone on for hours on end. The committees can manage their own affairs. I trust that if they need an extra four hours to consider new subjects, they can do so.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to discuss today's opposition day motion. Hopefully after today, the Liberal government will decide to do what is right for Canadians and instruct the national security adviser to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide the committee with the same briefing he gave journalists on February 23, 2018, and that briefing will take place in public no later than March 30, 2018, and finally provide some clarity to all Canadians.

First, I would like to discuss the facts. A convicted attempted murderer was invited to dinner, an event hosted by the Canadian High Commission. We know the Prime Minister believes that the Indian government is responsible for a convicted attempted murderer embarrassing him on his trip.

Second, we know a Liberal MP has been punished for inviting the convicted attempted murderer on his trip.

Third, we know that the Indian government has issued the following statement in response to a question regarding invitations to the convicted attempted murderer. The official spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs of the Indian government has said:

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.

This leaves me and many Canadians with a number of questions. How can the Prime Minister's conflicting narrative be true? Is the Prime Minister hiding facts and evidence?

I believe it is imperative that the national security adviser be called upon to testify and to provide members of Parliament with the same information he gave to journalists so that Canadians can adequately judge the validity of the Prime Minister's theory.

There is a lot of room for the Canada-India partnership to grow. Canada needs to take advantage of the opportunity that presents itself with India. It is looking for a partner with strong education, advanced health systems, and who is a leader in green energy. We need to see where Canada can complement India and grow these partnerships.

Over the past several months the Prime Minister has fumbled important files, including Canada's bilateral relationship with India, NAFTA renegotiations with the United States, and Canada's budget.

The PM's trip to India was supposed to strengthen ties between our two nations, but instead the Prime Minister humiliated Canada on the world stage. This accusation has major implications and does nothing to provide greater market access to Canadian businesses looking to expand their operations inside India. The Prime Minister cannot just ignore this problem. He must address it.

On top of this, yet again, the Prime Minister has shown no concern for taxpayers and treated this trip as more of a vacation than a trade mission. This was apparent when the Prime Minister had a celebrity flown to India to cook for him and his entourage. This trip to India is just another repeat of the Prime Minister displaying his inability on the world stage. These failures show a clear lack of judgment and respect for Canadians. Trade missions are not reality TV. The Prime Minister has failed to take his responsibilities seriously.

India is a market of over one billion people, and in order for our businesses and manufacturers to remain competitive globally, we need a strong relationship. What a missed opportunity. International trade missions like the Prime Minister's trip to India are very important. They give us an opportunity to build better relationships.

The previous Conservative government put in a lot of hard work to strengthen ties between Canada and India. We signed the Canada-India social security agreement. This agreement helps facilitate the flow of people between Canada and India. We also announced the new Canada-India research centre of excellence. This centre of excellence will build stronger bilateral research ties and create valuable learning opportunities while generating positive economic and social benefits for both countries. Now we see the Prime Minister would prefer to eat with his celebrity chef friend, see elephants, and play dress-up instead of getting results and strengthening diplomatic ties. All this has proven to us is that the Prime Minister does not take his job seriously.

Going back to the facts, the government of India, a Liberal MP, and the convicted attempted murderer in question have all refuted the Prime Minister's theory that Atwal was planted at the Prime Minister's event in India. This is contrary to what was said in a media briefing arranged by the Prime Minister's Office, where a government official suggested that Jaspal Atwal's presence with the Government of Canada's Indian delegation was linked to factions within the Indian government. The inference was that the Atwal affair was a result of rogue Indian elements sabotaging the Prime Minister on the world stage, not a lack of due diligence by the Prime Minister or his office.

I support the motion today and hope that the government does the right thing for Canadians and the relationship we have with India. The Prime Minister must be responsible and instruct his national security adviser to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide the committee the same briefing he gave journalists on February 23, 2018, and that briefing must take place in public no later than March 30, 2018.

Canadians deserve to hear the facts and be provided with the evidence. By continuing to support a conspiracy theory that is not supported by any proof and has been met only with denials by those allegedly involved, the PM is making allegations without substance. The Prime Minister has a responsibility to properly represent Canadians and their interests. The Prime Minister is failing to be honest with Canadians. It is important that he clears up the confusion about the Atwal affair. Canadians deserve answers. If he has evidence of moves to sabotage Canada's reputation, he must present it. Otherwise, he should take responsibility for this massive failure of an international trip.

Let us all do the right thing here today and support the motion.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, the member and I belong to the same community, a Sikh community. During our tenures as members of Parliament, there are hundreds of thousands of people who come together in many different ways and take pictures. I am sure the hon. member has had the same experience. It is very hard to determine who we should take a photo with and who we should not, or who we should say yes to or who we should say no to.

First, I want to know if, in the member's experience, this is the case. Second, I would like to correct the member. Our Prime Minister is very serious about bringing communities together, unlike Mr. Harper, who pit one municipality against the other, one province against the together, one community against the other. This is the Prime Minister who has brought people and communities together, and this is where the credit should go. This is the Prime Minister who is going to make a difference.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, my friend from B.C. for the question. There are a couple of things here. We are all experienced MPs, including the Prime Minister. We should always be careful about who we are taking pictures with, or riding in their Hummer, or whatever the issue. We should know these things in advance.

My second point is on the Prime Minister's judgment. India is a great country. There are over one billion people. We can do business with them as a great partner. Former prime minister, Stephen Harper, made excellent efforts to make some special ties with India. However, what we are seeing today from this Prime Minister is disturbing from my point of view. Who is telling the truth? Is it the national security adviser, the Prime Minister, the member of Parliament for Surrey Centre? The best way to find out is for the national security adviser to come to the public safety committee and tell us the truth, the same truth he told journalists.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the great job he is doing here today and his very interesting speech.

I want to change the direction a little. Daniel Jean is not the average civil servant. The members across the way are trying to convince us there is some sort of attack on the civil service here, but this is a person whose career has actually led him to the position of national security adviser. I would like to ask my colleague whether he believes the Liberals are actually damaging Mr. Jean's reputation, because I do not think any of us believe he came out and did that security briefing without being pushed out there by the Liberals.

The PM refuses to give clarity. There is no clarity from the foreign affairs minister, and Canadians really do not think Mr. Jean came up with this story on his own. I wonder if the member could comment on whether he thinks the Liberals will continue working to destroy Mr. Jean's career, or will they let him come forward and be clear on what really happened that day and speak to the rest of the members of Parliament?

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, going back to the national security adviser with 35 years of experience, for the Prime Minister to refuse to allow him to come to the public safety committee, that is tarnishing his reputation, because he can tell something to the public on one side but at the same time he cannot tell elected MPs in the public safety committee.

There are too many conflicting stories. There are too many conflicts between the countries. It is the biggest conflict between Canada and India I have seen since I began living here 44 years ago. This one is going to get worse. What we understand is that the day the Prime Minister left India the tariff on chickpeas was doubled, or put up to 60%. Was this punishment, a disagreement, or a coincidence? I would not know the answer, but sending the national security adviser to the committee would clear the air in no time.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with my dear colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I am pleased to speak today on the Conservative motion to invite Daniel Jean to provide the same briefing that he gave to the media, following the chaos of the Prime Minister's trip to India.

As I informed my Conservative colleagues on the committee when attempts were made, and as I informed the media, I will say again today that I support this motion. I do believe that parliamentary committees obviously have a responsibility to ask questions and obtain, at a minimum, the same information given to the media.

Regarding the national security advisor, concerns about having him brought before a parliamentary committee are legitimate, given how his appearance before a committee affects the ability of people who, inevitably due to the nature of their work, must work in the shadows. I understand the concern, and I take it very seriously.

However, first we need to acknowledge that greater transparency is being asked from these agencies and those working there. That goes without saying. After all, these individuals have their hands on the switch that controls very important powers that have an impact on Canadians.

Given what has been said in the media, these individuals have significant influence over public opinion and even diplomatic situations.

We saw it in 2011 when then-CSIS director Richard Fadden made controversial public comments about a situation involving Chinese spies. Without rehashing all the details, he was called before the same committee that had reported on the matter and had called for his resignation. The Liberals supported the report then. There was not just Richard Fadden; there was also a Privy Council official.

So we do not need the Liberals coming here and shedding crocodile tears about the reputation of public servants, since these officials must be held to account. We agree with the Conservatives on this. Of course, we must always be careful to ensure that these calls for accountability do not end up preventing people from doing their jobs. That is understood.

However, when someone in this position feels free to make public statements and in any circumstances—there is nothing more public than commenting to the media—, I believe that it is entirely appropriate for us to feel free to have this individual appear before a parliamentary committee to provide essentially the same information.

I must say we understand that it is problematic given a trip that went nowhere. Ultimately, we are talking about an eight-day trip, which is already a very long absence for a prime minister, since in the meantime other matters are not being taken care of.

It would have been nice if they had come back with something concrete to offer us. They did not discuss the chickpea tariffs, nor did they discuss the issue of innovation and technology development, in which India is a key player. They did not discuss certain human rights situations in the region. We have learned that very few meetings were held during the eight-day trip, considering the number of staffers who accompanied the Prime Minister and the number of days they spent there. I think there were more photos than meetings during this trip. That is the problem.

We understand that there is a certain superficial aspect to a prime minister's foreign trips. The Prime Minister is representing Canada abroad and wants to project a positive image. That is fine. I have no problem with that. However, once the photos have been taken and the nice family moments are over, which, again, are things I have no problem with, then it is time to get to work.

The results leave something to be desired.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister seems to have been using his imagination when he talked about a $1-billion investment in Canada, because it was closer to $250 million. That is not a paltry amount, but it is only a small fraction of $1 billion.

In short, the trip was a disaster from start to finish. I have been an MP for seven years, and never before have I heard so many comments about a prime minister's trip abroad. It goes to show just how much this trip has captured the public's attention. The Liberals missed a golden opportunity to talk to one of the world's largest economies about the many important matters that require discussion, including not just economic issues, but all kinds of geopolitical issues as well, such as human rights.

Getting back to the question of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, the Minister of Public Safety raised a possibility during the infamous media scrum that took place under some rather crazy circumstances, and again when he appeared before the committee. He talked about the new committee of parliamentarians as a possible avenue for examining this matter. This poses a number of problems.

First of all, this committee was only recently formed. It is still finding its bearings and only recently began its work and determined its mandate. Its mandate exists, but it will be further clarified by the work it does. We cannot start throwing every file that makes the headlines at this committee. There is a lot of work to be done. Ever since the bill passed and the committee was created, barely one year ago, every time something winds up in the news, the minister says that it does not matter because the committee of parliamentarians can study it. That is worrisome for several reasons.

First of all, the committee needs to be free of all partisanship. If it starts looking at really politically controversial issues or only the ones raised during question period, it will never get anywhere and we will never have the rigorous reports we expect to get, like Commissioner O'Connor's report on the Maher Arar affair. Those are the kinds of recommendations we want to see from the committee of parliamentarians. It should not be examining every controversial issue that makes the headlines. That might be the case one day, but not in this instance. I am not saying that it would be inappropriate for the committee to examine these files, because in some cases, it would definitely be entirely appropriate.

Secondly, there is the fact that the government is using the minister to try to get out of sticky situations. The same thing happened when CSIS was taken to court for workplace harassment, discrimination, homophobia, and islamophobia. When I asked the minister about it, he initially told me he would not comment because the matter was before the courts. Then, to get out of being accountable, he said that it was not so bad since the committee of parliamentarians was going to look into it. No matter how important it may be, the committee cannot constantly be used to get out of being accountable.

The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has a mandate to address certain issues after all. It is not always appropriate to address the issues of the day, but in this case, it would be quite appropriate to devote an hour or two to a little meeting so that we can hear something that has already been said in public. There are some questions that we as parliamentarians have every right to ask, questions that Canadians have. No matter our opinion on the veracity of such statements, they remain important and the hon. members do have a responsibility in this regard.

Earlier, I was heckled by a Liberal member when he told me that the members had voted to adjourn debate and reject the motion moved by my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, because national security issues are sensitive. Let's call Mr. Jean before the committee, and once he is there, if we deem that the discussion must remain confidential because it deals with sensitive and confidential matters that concern national security, then we can decide for ourselves. There is no need to use this secrecy as an excuse for flat out refusing to have him testify. In conclusion, I would say that this trip was a disaster, and the government missed opportunities to advance some important issues.

Now, here we are, and we are dealing with these issues that are very problematic. At the very least, I think that we can request to have someone appear before parliamentarians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the comments by both the NDP members and the Conservatives this afternoon. Both have spoken very highly of the committee, its ability to do its work, and its ability to make sure that it does the proper research and investigation in dealing with things. They seem to, a lot of the time, give a lot of credibility to the committee. If that is the case, why, when the committee had a motion to invite this federal public servant to come before it and the committee voted it down, did they not have the same amount of respect for the committee that made that decision?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they did not have the courage to vote it down. They adjourned debate because they did not even want to talk about it, and it was the Liberal majority on the committee that voted it down. I think we know where that comes from. At least when the Conservatives were in power they had the decency to empower the parliamentary secretaries to say that the PMO was going to run what happens at committee. Instead, now it happens in more subtle ways. However, at the end of the day, it is all the same thing, whether it is a punch in the face or a knife in the back. In this case, it is a knife in the back and not wanting to go ahead with what is going on.

Here is the problem. I have the utmost faith in the public service. This notion that we do not is ludicrous. If there truly is nothing wrong, and if we have faith in Mr. Jean, then let us have him before the committee, and he can repeat the statements that were made to the media. That is the minimum.

If this were some side conversation someone had overheard, or had these statements been obtained through some kind of subterfuge, I would understand. However, what I find extremely problematic, and it is a habit the Liberal government has gotten into, are comments being made through the media, the most public forum possible, and not having those comments made to a parliamentary committee. That includes technical briefings on legislation done for the media before they are done for MPs, and things of that nature.

Even if the Liberals want to reject the motion, they should at least have the courage to explain why, when the debate comes up, and not adjourn debate and run away with their tails between their legs.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, who is also a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, on his speech and on his support for the motion. I have a very simple question for him. What is so complicated about asking a senior security official to come tell parliamentarians what has already been told to journalists? What could this person have to say that would be detrimental to our country's national security? What question could he answer that the journalists had not already planned to ask? Why are the Liberals so worried about allowing Daniel Jean to testify before the committee?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee's mandate is to deal with public safety issues. Witnesses who work for the department, various agencies, and the RCMP regularly tell us they cannot provide specifics in response to a given question. That is the nature of their work. I do not always like it because those agencies certainly have transparency issues, but that is a debate for another day.

I want to set that aside for now. Those people exercise good judgment in deciding what they can and cannot say publicly. Most of the time, that is exactly why they are in those jobs. In answer to my colleague's question, it may be that the Liberals themselves doubt Mr. Jean's ability to appear before the committee and exercise his judgment about what he can and cannot say publicly. Lastly, I said it before in my speech and my response to the Liberal member and I will say it again and again: the media is the most public forum there is. When politicians are considering whether a statement is appropriate, they ask themselves if they would be comfortable saying it on the record. That often happens automatically. If Mr. Jean felt it was appropriate to say those things in a press briefing, I think he can say them to parliamentarians.

Regardless, none of that changes the fact that this whole affair shows the trip was badly managed from start to finish.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to put some thoughts about this motion on the record. Like me, I think a lot of people in Elmwood—Transcona have the impression that we would like to move on from this whole India trip issue. However, there is a reason why it is hard to do that, and I will come to that.

We do not want to do that because the trip was a debacle from start to finish. It is frustrating for Canadians to see from the outside a trip where it appears that more thought and planning was put into the Prime Minister's outfits than was put into the meetings he was having over the course of his trip. It is frustrating when it appears that more thought went into who he was going to bring along to cook his meals than there was about who was going to be at political and diplomatic events.

That is the impression I think a lot of Canadians have of the trip. From what I can tell, it is a pretty fair impression. It is a frustrating thing. It would be nice to say that something came of the trip. The one concrete result that will have a direct result on Canadians is the fact that India's tariff on Canadian chickpeas went up to 60% within a matter of days of the Prime Minister leaving the country.

I can understand that the Liberals may feel this is a coincidence, because they obviously do not put a lot of thought and planning into their relationship with foreign governments, or the India trip would not have happened in the way it did. However, most governments do think about their actions, the consequences of those actions, the timing of their actions, their import, and the meaning that those will have for other countries in the world.

Therefore, it is hard to believe that a government that typically thinks about its actions, even though we may not always get that here, would just as a matter of coincidence have that significant of a raise in tariffs shortly after a visiting head of government, who it is obviously quite angry at. I do not think most governments are as flippant as this one in their interactions with other government. Therefore, I do not take that to be a coincidence at all. That was one consequence of the trip.

Then we were told that we are supposed to be really happy about the trip because it was great for trade. However, the trip itself had a $500 million trade deficit. The Liberals talked about $750 million' worth of investment being drummed up. I may not have all the numbers right on this, but I think the number was $750 million or it might have been a billion dollars.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

One billion.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It was a billion. My thanks to my colleague for helping a guy out.

It was a billion dollars, $250 million of which were investments from India to Canada, $750 million of which were Canada to India. That seems like an unlikely outcome for a successful trade mission from Canada to India. I could understand if the Indian government planned a trade mission to Canada and went home with those numbers. Their citizens may be pretty pleased and feel their government did a good job. However, that is not the case. It is the opposite. A $500 million trade deficit on the trip itself and a significant raise in the tariffs for Canadian chickpeas appears to have been the outcome.

Therefore, this is why Canadians are frustrated with the trip. I think it is why most of us, and certainly the Liberals, would like to put it behind us and forget about it, except that another negative outcome of the trip was that it needlessly had a really negative impact on the relationship between the two governments because of a lack of vetting. We are trying to figure out where exactly that misstep occurred, when a person convicted of political violence in India was invited to an event with the Prime Minister. That goes beyond embarrassment. It is an international incident.

Compounding that was the fact that instead of owning up to a mistake from within either the Liberal Party or the Government of Canada, it was still not exactly clear where the error occurred or who was really in charge of the trip, or whether the trip was for political purposes, or official government business. Part of the problem is that we do not know. The person was allowed to get into that event.

It is important to emphasize that the national security adviser was not ad-libbing or deciding to get into a political debate on his own, causing an international incident. It is very hard to believe that. I say that because I want to reinforce the fact that this is not about calling into question the integrity or the judgment of the national security adviser. The Prime Minister then repeated the idea publicly that somehow it might have been a conspiracy of the Indian government to embarrass him. He really should have taken responsibility for what was an error either on the part of the Liberal Party or the Government of Canada. We are trying to sort that out.

It is not just that it was a kind of fluffy extended photo op instead of a real government business trip. It is not that it ended up having negative trade consequences for Canada instead of positive trade consequences. It is that coming out of that trip there was an international incident and a government that has not taken responsibility and has floated at least two competing accounts as to what happened.

On the one hand, the Liberals have an MP who says that he takes the blame, that he is responsible, that it is on him. On the other hand, they have a Prime Minister saying that it might have been a conspiracy of the Indian government. The way he chose to spread that theory was by sending his national security adviser into a media briefing and pushing the story out through that briefing.

In order to move on from this trip, people need to know what happened, how, and who was responsible. An important part of that story is better understanding what happened at that press interaction between the national security adviser and the media.

This motion simply asks to get the national security adviser in front of the public safety committee so that conversation can happen and parliamentarians can get a better sense of what exactly was said, reported, and discussed at that meeting. It would give members an opportunity for cross-examination and to ask some questions in case the account in itself is not exactly clear and there are some extant questions, which is also appropriate, so we can get a sense of what really happened and then put this whole sordid affair behind us.

Unfortunately the Liberal government refuses to enable that final step to get to the bottom of what happened and to have some measure of accountability for what ultimately was very poor judgment on the part of the Prime Minister to go out and promote that theory without any real evidence and without even really standing by it. If we are going to make that kind of allegation about another government, we have to be sure of ourselves. We had better also be darn sure what the point of doing it is and what it is we are trying to achieve. In this sense, the whole thing kind of ties back to the original problem with the trip, which is the purpose never was really clear.

That lack of clarity might have played a part in why the Prime Minister shot his mouth off about a conspiracy in the Indian government instead of being precise about what he wanted to communicate and how. It has all the dressings of poorly managed political crisis management of “Oh no, we made a terrible mistake. We don't want to take responsibility for it. We don't want to own up to it, so what are we going to say in order to try and divert opinion?” This is where we get signs of a Prime Minister who, in a lot of ways, does not have the experience and the tact to conduct himself appropriately on the international stage. Throwing another government under the bus without being willing to back it up is something that is problematic.

There are times when the Canadian government may well take on another government, but I do not think that was the point of the trip. I do not think that was what he was trying to do. I do not think he substantiated those claims, and he does not seem to care to substantiate those claims. It is a real mixed bag.

People would like to move on but we need some answers before we are able to do that. We are in the awkward position of having the Prime Minister and members of his caucus providing contradictory accounts of what happened. Let us get one story, get it straight, and then move on from this.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said one thing that l agree with, and that is that he does not have his numbers right. In the interests of trying to assist my hon. colleague, I will clarify that from this recent bilateral trip to India, the Prime Minister and our members of caucus were able to secure two-way trade in the amount of $750 million. We can be proud of that. We were able to secure 6,000 jobs on Canadian soil. We should all be proud of that.

With regard to the tariff on chickpeas, as my hon. colleague knows that 95% of the chickpeas that are grown on Canadian soil will be exempt from the tariff. If my hon. colleague's party had a credible record on free trade, having never supported any real free trade deal of substance, he would know that. He would also know that the Prime Minister and this government are working very hard to secure an exemption from the steel tariff with our friends south of the border.

If he wants to move on, he should get his numbers right, and hopefully l have helped him to do that. Would he agree?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the operative words were “two-way trade”. I am right, even if I did not have the specific number right, that most of that overall two-way trade is going in the other direction. That is the issue.

If the member wants to define a real substantive trade agreement as any agreement that the NDP does not support, then it is definitionally true that we have not supported any substantive trade agreement. However, we have actually supported trade agreements in this place. We can play with definitions but that does not always help get at the truth.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whether my colleague agrees with free trade or not, I know in his province of Manitoba, pulses and these types of products are very important to the farmers. In case I am wrong, I want to ensure my numbers are correct.

The tariffs on lentils and pulses went to 30% and 50%. The chickpea tariff went from 40% to 60%. Are those numbers correct? Did the Prime Minister take the agriculture minister with him to India with his large entourage and did he come home with any type of agreement on the fumigation issue, which is costing our pulse producers substantially? We are seeing our exports to India go from $1.4 billion in pulses to closer to $900 million. I think those numbers are correct. I want to ensure I am right on that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe before we get to particular numbers, it is important to speak about this. There seems to be some confusion among my colleagues from other parties about the NDP position on free trade, which is surprising because we have been quite consistent for a long time on free trade.

Opposition to particular free trade deals is not the same as being opposed to trade. The NDP has always understood the important role that trade plays in the Canadian economy. It is something we support. However, there is a difference between that and supporting particular deals and provisions in them, which we do oppose, like chapter 12 in the TPP that will allow all the worst abuses of the temporary foreign worker program, which the Liberal government said it would fix, over the Harper era to be recreated in a way that gives the government less control over stopping those problems than it had with with the TFW program. We oppose provisions like that, not trade.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had originally intended to ask the member for Elmwood—Transcona about what would be satisfactory for moving on with the issue of the invitation to Mr. Atwal for the Canadian delegation. However, I parenthetically want to note that I wish the NDP had been consistent. I like to have allies in the fight against the investor state resolution that put foreign corporations in a superior position to domestic corporations. That is the position of the NDP. Unfortunately, when those member voted for the Canada-Korea trade agreement, they violated that position. It opens us up to Korean corporations having the ability to sue Canada if we interfere with their expectation of profits.

What could we do short of compelling a civil servant to testify? I have concerns about that and I wonder if there is something else we can do so we can move on with this.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in this case I do actually think that one of the best things to do is to hear from Daniel Jean. That is part of getting to the bottom of what has happened—