Debates of March 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister

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

She asked what else we could do.

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

She asked for other ideas about what we might do, Mr. Speaker, and I am suggesting that the option on the table is the best option for the time being, because part of the problem is a lack of information about what happened during a key event. To get that information is a first step in assessing whether there are further steps. To be able to clarify what exactly happened is the thing to do. That may be sufficient and then we may be able to move on. If not, we are going to be able to take that information to assess what the next best steps are. That is why I think this is a good important first step.

As a side note, we may have a bit of a dispute as to the facts. My understanding of that particular agreement that the member mentioned was that there was a state-to-state dispute settlement resolution, not an investor-state dispute resolution mechanism. Perhaps some further research is warranted in terms of seeing who is right.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Veterans.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

We have been here all day talking about this motion, and somehow it has morphed into different areas, areas of trade and talking about what the government side seems to think is the success of this trip from a trade standpoint. I would call it a colossal failure, given the amount of domestic media and domestic consumption it received. The amount of negative perception of the Prime Minister is unbelievable.

I have a quick story. I was at the Barrie Colts game the other night and people were yelling at me, “Hey, where's your hockey costume?“ It certainly is indelibly etched in the minds of Canadians, so much so that they are mocking the Prime Minister for it.

I also want to remind the House of the motion and why we are here. I will read it so we are not talking about trade, or any other issues with respect to the trip to India, except one. The motion reads:

That, given the Prime Minister has supported a claim that the invitation issued to a convicted attempted murderer was the work of a foreign government attempting to interfere in Canadian foreign relations, while others in the government, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, claimed that the invitation was an “honest mistake” on the part of the Canadian government, the House call upon the Prime Minister to instruct his National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide the Committee the same briefing he gave to journalists on February 23, 2018, and that the briefing take place in public and no later than March 30, 2018.

Over the course of this issue, I have spoken to many seasoned veterans, members of Parliament who have been around this place for a long time, and they have never seen the type of situation we are now seeing with respect to the national security adviser, Mr. Jean, being placed in a position to provide political cover for the Prime Minister and his disastrous trip to India.

Let us call this what it is. On that fateful Sunday night, the Prime Minister's Office decided it was going to throw the non-partisan national security adviser out in front of the media to provide a briefing that somehow rogue elements of the Indian government had some part to play in this disastrous trip. Imagine the contempt of putting a non-partisan national security officer in front of the media to float this conspiracy theory. We later found out the Indian government has denied this. It was all done to provide cover for this disastrous trip.

This was a situation that was conceived by the Prime Minister's Office. I can only imagine who might have come up with this. I am thinking Gerald Butts, because he seems to be at the bottom of all of these types of situations, and of course Katie Telford as well. This was conceived to try to find a solution to the political disaster they had going on in the country. They threw Mr. Jean out there, effectively throwing him under the bus, like we have seen with other ministers. The Prime Minister's Office has thrown ministers under the bus, all to protect the Prime Minister's image. That is what this is all about.

We get this national security adviser floating this conspiracy idea out there in front of the media, and we are asking for clarity because of the confusion and contradictory stories going on. The member for Surrey Centre has taken responsibility. We have heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs talk about the fact that his was an honest mistake. We have had the Prime Minister stand up in the House and say that if our non-partisan officials say it to be true, then we are to believe them. We want to get to the bottom of this. That is all we are asking.

Earlier today, the committee on public safety asked again that Mr. Jean come before the committee to explain his version of events, just like he did to the media on that late Sunday night in an attempt to cover up the Prime Minister's disastrous trip. It is not so much to ask.

We heard earlier today that there are ministers of the crown and senior bureaucrats who come to committee all the time, yet the Liberals and the Prime Minister are sitting there, and Gerald Butts and Katie Telford are saying that this is an issue of national security. If it was an issue of national security, why did he hold a briefing with the media to float this conspiracy theory? It does not make sense, just as it does not make sense to not have Mr. Jean stand in front of a duly elected, duly constituted parliamentary committee and explain to members of Parliament what this so-called theory is.

Who concocted this theory? Was it Gerald Butts? Was it Katie Telford? Was it somebody else in the Prime Minister's Office? These are fair questions, and they are fair questions that need to be asked at committee.

We talk about obstructing parliamentary privilege and we talk about obstructing parliamentary work. That is precisely what the Liberals are doing if they decide they are going to vote this motion down. They are obstructing the work of Parliament, and therefore, I would suggest that they are obstructing the work of Canadians in this House.

This has nothing to do with trade. This has nothing to do with that disastrous trip. This has everything to do with our getting to the bottom of the contradictory versions coming out of all these members and players who were involved in this so-called Indian government conspiracy. Quite frankly, what it has done is it has really deteriorated the relationship we have with India. If we want any evidence of that, clearly it is that the Indian government issued a statement that the theory being floated by the Prime Minister's Office through a non-partisan national security adviser was preposterous and ridiculous. The Indian government said it was ridiculous. We need and want to get to the bottom of that.

The other thing is that Mr. Atwal is a player in this as well. We actually have four versions of this event. When the Prime Minister was asked about this by the opposition leader he said that the briefing to the minister on Jaspal Atwal's affair included the theory which was advanced by the national security official that India was somehow complicit in organizing this invitation. Mr. Atwal said that he did it on his own. The response from the Prime Minister was, defending the professional non-partisan public service, “When one of our top diplomats and security officials says something to Canadians, it is because they know it to be true.”

Well, if it is true, extend the same privilege to members of Parliament and a duly constituted parliamentary committee and let them ask the questions. Let them find out what is true. Let them find out how this clandestine meeting with the press happened. Let them find out what information was given to the press. Let them find out why that information is not being given to parliamentarians. That is all this motion is asking for.

The Liberals are willing to sit here for the next 30 hours for votes, and all we are asking for is that Mr. Daniel Jean come to committee for one hour to answer questions. Think of the trade-off. Think of how ridiculous that is: 30 hours for the sake of one hour in committee.

My final comment is what are the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, and anyone else involved in this concocted preposterous story trying to cover up? What are they not telling Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member for Barrie—Innisfil.

The member said that when it comes to trade, this trip was a failure. In fact, this was a very successful trip. We have $1 billion of investment between Canadian and Indian companies that is going to come in and 5,800 middle-class, good-paying jobs, are going to be created. This is a success story. This is what we should be talking about. We should all be concerned about Canadians and middle-class families. This trip has brought that forward.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to be concerned about is the truth. This is a government that ran on the fact that it was going to do things differently. I do not even know what that means anymore, because we are not seeing anything of any value in truth, transparency, or accountability, and this is just one example of that.

What is funny about the issue of the trade that was purportedly done with India is that it has been reported that it was actually a net negative for Canada. Therefore, for government members to stand up there and somehow suggest that this was a successful trade mission, I would suggest that it was a failure on all levels, including, worst of all, a government cover-up.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

He often says that he is trying to seek out the truth and he believes that the government may be hiding things from Canadians because there are two seemingly conflicting versions of the story.

We have not yet addressed the possibility that the two versions do not conflict or that both versions are true, which would mean that the member for Surrey may have been complicit with the Indian government.

Has my colleague also thought about the possibility that the government is not clearing things up for Canadians because it is hiding something even more serious than we thought?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are actually four versions of this story that we are trying to get to the bottom of. The first version obviously is the Prime Minister's version, using a non-political national security adviser to suggest that there was an Indian conspiracy. There is the version of the member for Surrey Centre where he takes responsibility, and I give him credit for that. There is the foreign minister's version that this was an honest mistake, and there is Mr. Atwal's version that he actually invited himself. I think the more egregious part of this is that there was in fact this conspiracy theory floated by the Prime Minister's Office.

We are asking to get to the bottom of it. We want to know why Mr. Jean decided that he was going to go out in front of the media late on a Sunday night and tell this story, and not tell this story to parliamentarians. We also want to know who put him up to it, and I think we can speculate who did that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the heart of all of this, because there is so much conflicting information that surfaced, there really was an international incident as a result of it, we as parliamentarians have a right to know. I think Canadians, equally important, have the right to know. Is that not the intent behind the motion that we are debating today?

The purpose is to have officials who have perhaps some knowledge of this situation appear before the committee so that we can actually get at the truth. Once we do, it could be that all of the things that the government is saying are valid. It may well be exactly that, and then we can once and for all put this to bed instead of relying on what we suspect is spin from the government.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a terrific point by my hon. colleague. Effectively, what the government is trying to do is to obstruct the ability of our parliamentary committee to have the national security adviser come and explain the same version of events that he did on that Sunday night to members of the media. That is all we are asking for. I think it is not too much to ask to get down to the truth. There are, as we say, conflicting versions of this story, but there is one version that does not make sense. It does not make sense because it did cause a large international incident with one of our closest allies, India.

All we are asking for is to get down to the bottom of this. As parliamentarians we have that privilege. However, it seems we do not have that privilege or we are seemingly seeing a government that is clear and intent on obstruction. Thirty hours of votes are about to come up, at a minimum. All we are asking for is one hour for our national security adviser to come and speak to the committee. The Liberals are willing to sacrifice 30 hours. What are they hiding? What are they covering up?

Let Mr. Jean come to committee and answer the rightful questions that parliamentarians can ask.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise to talk about today's very relevant opposition motion. I will begin by reading the motion, after which I will tell a story of sorts, the story of something that never should have happened to Canada. The motion that we are moving today through my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles reads as follows:

That, given the Prime Minister has supported a claim that the invitation issued to a convicted attempted murderer was the work of a foreign government attempting to interfere in Canadian foreign relations, while others in the government, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, claimed that the invitation was an “honest mistake” on the part of the Canadian government, the House call upon the Prime Minister to instruct his National Security Advisor, Daniel Jean, to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to provide the Committee the same briefing he gave to journalists on February 23, 2018, and that the briefing take place in public and no later than March 30, 2018.

This is a very simple motion that simply asks a senior official responsible for security to testify before members of the House and representatives of the population at a meeting of a committee mandated to examine major issues for Canadians in certain areas of activity, in this case national security.

The story I am about to tell is a simple one. It is the story of a Prime Minister who had been living in the clouds for a few years, travelling here and there, around the world, taking selfies with world leaders and others. The Prime Minister, who was really proud of his performance abroad, made quite an impression with his haberdashery and hair. However, it seems that the Prime Minister had little to say on his many trips. One day, the Prime Minister, emboldened by his previous trips and the fawning press coverage he had earned purely on the strength of his image, and certainly not on his substance or any achievements made for Canada, decided to take a really big trip to a really big country, a country with which Canada does a lot of trade, a country that also has a great deal of history and culture.

Our Prime Minister decided to bring along his family, his ministers, his MPs, and all kinds of people. That is where danger lurks. When we become overly ambitious, and believe we are a little too good for the position we hold, we become less careful, surround ourselves with a large entourage and, at some point, unfortunate things happen, as they did.

We can look at this trip through the eyes of the international press. A French President made a similar trip to India soon after our Prime Minister. I will quote the March 14 edition of Paris-Match: “Unlike Nicolas Sarkozy, who, in 2008, spent only 35 hours in India, Emmanuel Macron took his time. In those three days, the French President made many gestures and declarations of friendship towards India.”

Sarkozy spent just 35 hours. President Macron took his time; he spent three days. Our Prime Minister took eight days. If something had come out of it, if Canadians had benefited, it is not a stretch to say that we would have understood. We would have been happy. Unfortunately, nothing positive came out of it for our economy. Nothing good came out of it for our agricultural sector. Many people characterized the trip as a fiasco.

That is not all. I want to remind members of what happened during this trip. I will quote another newspaper, Le Parisien:

On his official trip to India...the President of the Republic—of the French Republic—has no intention of repeating the recent clothing blunders of the Prime Minister of Canada.... As the saying goes: when you meet a man, you judge him by his clothes; when you leave, you judge him by his heart. There is no question that foreign leaders have their outfit choices scrutinized when they travel abroad. The Canadian Prime Minister learned this bitter lesson during his official trip to India in February. Draped in many traditional outfits—sparkly ones, at that—[the Canadian Prime Minister] drew the wrath of local dignitaries and the international media was shocked by this Canadian's wardrobe faux pas.

That should do wonders for our reputation. The French press says Mr. Macron's trip was a success and the Canadian Prime Minister's trip was a fiasco. That is what people will remember.

Now, what is the connection between the Prime Minister's clothing, the Prime Minister's trip, the eight-day duration, and the number of ministers, MPs, and other people who joined him? It is simply this, that perhaps there were people on this grand voyage who should not have been there.

The Prime Minister was anxious to change the subject in the international press. He urgently needed to find something to draw attention away from the fiasco of his trip. His way of diverting attention was to embarrass a senior national security official and have him take the blame for the presence of a convicted terrorist who had been invited by the Canadian government, by an MP, or by someone else. It is hard to know who, exactly, since it has become so difficult to get all the information on this issue.

My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said:

Every major nation knows that it is important to maintain good relations with other countries. Year after year, we, as elected representatives, work hard in partnership with our staff in diplomatic affairs and other services to sign free trade agreements and increase our exports to new markets.

That is what we expect from a prime minister. That is what we expect from a delegation. If it takes a large delegation to get the job done, then we applaud that.

Unfortunately, when a large delegation gets no results, it turns into a fiasco and the Prime Minister is forced to make decisions, lead people to believe things that may not be true. They may well be true. It is hard to know because the Prime Minister refuses to allow the official in question, in charge of national security, to come and provide an explanation to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

The Prime Minister made a rather serious statement. He said something that, unfortunately, was not corroborated by the Indian government. If it had been, then we would understand. The Indian government was quite critical of the following statement by the Prime Minister:

We have seen the recent exchange in the Parliament of Canada regarding two invitations issued to Jaspal Atwal by the Canadian high commissioner, for functions hosted in honour of the Canadian prime minister in India....

Let me categorically state that the government of India, including the security agencies, had nothing to do with the presence of Jaspal Atwal at the event hosted by the Canadian high commissioner in Mumbai or the invitation issued to him for the Canadian high commissioner’s reception in New Delhi. Any suggestion to the contrary is baseless and unacceptable.

How is it possible to establish a good relationship with India? This morning, I met with representatives of Canada's flax industry. They are very interested in accessing the market in India. Unfortunately, a diplomatic incident like this one will likely ruin our chances of signing those new agreements. It is important that the committee hear from Daniel Jean.

I will close with a quote from the Prime Minister. In answer to a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he said:

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, if we have a choice between believing the professional and non-partisan members of our public service, particularly on security matters, or believing someone who says the opposite, we will always believe our highly qualified professional public servants.

That is what we want to do. Let us allow Daniel Jean to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Let us allow Daniel Jean to tell his story and we will have all the answers we need to continue to move forward and perhaps even leave this serious diplomatic incident behind us. That is why I am going to vote in favour of my colleague's motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is wrong in so many ways in the assertions he has made.

Quite frankly, if we take a look at the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals, it is this government and this Prime Minister that understand the true value of India and Canada, and the importance of that relationship. Today, $8 billion, with significant increases over the last couple of years. That is the type of trade and commerce that takes place.

As a direct result of this particular trip, there will be hundreds of millions of additional dollars and thousands of jobs. That is good for Canada's middle class and India's middle class.

Why does the member across the way, on the one hand, recognize India, but on the other hand, does not see the value of that trip?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the trip to India was important, as do all of my colleagues, the NDP, and the people watching at home.

The real problem is that the Prime Minister's trip to India was not done in the interest of Canadians. It served merely to satisfy our Prime Minister's desire to please, and it was damaging for the industry, the economy, Canada as a whole, and our future with India.

Our exports of lentils and chickpeas have dropped since this government took office. Why? Rather than going to India to remedy that situation, the Prime Minister made it worse. That is the reality.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, along with me, the hon. member was elected in 2015. I presume, like me, he used to watch Parliament all the time. I used to watch when the Liberal Party talked about muzzling senior bureaucrats. They would refer to muzzling senior bureaucrats. They accused the previous government of doing that.

Would the hon. member not agree that, in fact, the hypocrisy could be cut with a ginsu knife, and that the Liberal Party is muzzling senior bureaucrats?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is not only muzzling senior officials, but it is also using them for partisan purposes to defend the interests of the Prime Minister rather than the interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.

It is not this Prime Minister who is muzzling bureaucrats. In fact, this Prime Minister and this minister are standing with bureaucrats to make sure we are here to protect them. It was the Conservative government that was muzzling employees all the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, one can say all kinds of things. The reality is this: in 2010 or 2011, the national security advisor to the Prime Minister's Office appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Why does the government refuse to allow the current national security advisor to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, if it has nothing to hide?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to “The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records: A Sourcebook on the Law and Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena Powers for Canadian and Other Houses”. Some members of Parliament on that side may recognize the name, because it was actually written by a former member of this House, a Liberal Party member, called Derek Lee. He wrote on page 54:

It is an essential and undisputed privilege of both Houses of Parliament, which they possess in common with every other court, to summon Witnesses before them for examination upon any subject on which they may require information to guide them in their deliberations...

This falls well within the definition that is provided by a former Liberal member of Parliament to call forth witnesses to a committee. Would the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely appropriate to hear from witnesses at committee. That is the role of committees. That is what we must do.

What could the national security advisor not say to parliamentarians that he has not already said to journalists? What question does the government not want the national security advisor to answer that he has not already answered when asked by journalists? Why are the Liberals so afraid of this senior public servant's testimony? If he is so qualified, as I believe he is, then he is capable of judging what is in the public interest when answering the committee's questions. That is all.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[For continuation of proceedings see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

Business of Supply

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I will let him know there are about three and a half minutes remaining in the time for the business of supply this afternoon. I will interrupt him in the usual way when that time comes.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the opposition members is that they would have Canadians believe that the motivation for this opposition motion is as pure as the driven snow, but Canadians know better. They know the opposition's record when it comes to politicizing public servants. They studied their record very closely. That is why Canadians came to the sound judgment in 2015 to toss that party out of government after having muzzled scientists, after having censored researchers, and after having politicized national security.

The Conservatives are doing it again right now. What they would seek to do right now is call into question the professionalism of Canada's most profoundly respected national security adviser. Canadians are not buying it. They know better and we see right through it.

In the very few minutes that I have left, let me clarify exactly why this is not a motion that is becoming of this chamber. The answer with respect to the invitation is already very clear. In fact, the invitation should never have been issued, and when that invitation was discovered, it was immediately rescinded.

Another point that needs to be noted is that this government has great confidence in the security and diplomatic advisers to the government, who always act in an impartial fashion, and always act in the best interests of Canadians. The opposition should know better.

In the mandate letter of every minister, the Prime Minister notes the government's commitment, “to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government”.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition members can heckle, they can laugh, but they know that we live up to these words every single day. I am proud of the Prime Minister's record on it. I am proud of the Minister of Public Safety's record on it. There is integrity in every single one of those words.

The Prime Minister adds, “It is time to shine more light”, another concept that the opposition ought to adhere to a little more often.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!