Candice Bergen

[Business of the House, March 22nd, 2018]

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

[Privilege, March 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege regarding misleading information that has been presented to the House by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Safety.

During question period on February 26, 2018, I asked the government a number of questions regarding a briefing provided to the media by the Prime Minister's security adviser, Daniel Jean. The briefing attempted to explain how a convicted terrorist ended up at an event with the Prime Minister during his trip to India. The reason Mr. Jean gave was that the Government of India conspired and manipulated events in order to ensure the attendance of Jaspal Atwal at the reception. My first question to the government was simply, “What proof does the Prime Minister have that the Government of India did this?”

As you know Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety did not provide any evidence to this claim, nor did he refute it. Instead he said:

I can say that the invitation that was issued to this particular individual, Mr. Atwal, should never have been issued. Indeed, as soon as it was discovered, it was rescinded by the Government of Canada.

This statement supports the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she told the Indian foreign affairs minister that Jaspal Atwal's invitation to the event was an honest mistake. If we follow the evolution of the responses from the Minister of Public Safety on that day, the answers begin to also support the theory of Daniel Jean, a theory that blames rogue elements in the Indian government.

The Minister of Public Safety said on February 26:

...Canada has very strong, very proficient national security and police agencies. They are well trained in what they need to do to protect and advance the Canadian national interest, and they have done their jobs in relation to the trip to India. They have done that job exceedingly well to make sure the best interests of Canadians are served and protected.

On February 27, 2018, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister the same question, and the Prime Minister, in his one answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, combined both the notion espoused by his Minister of Foreign Affairs that the invitation was a mistake, and Daniel Jean's theory laying blame on factions in the Indian government.

The Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, as we have already said, this invitation should never have been sent. As soon as we realized that it had, the invitation was withdrawn.

Canada's national security and law enforcement agencies are non-partisan, highly competent, and very effective. We have faith in them to protect Canada and Canadians. They continue to work very hard to serve and protect the interests of Canadians.

Later in question period, on February 27, the Prime Minister introduced to the House a new character to this saga. He said:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, this individual never should have been invited. As soon as we found out that he was, that invitation was rescinded. The member responsible for the invitation has taken full responsibility, and I will be following up with that member later this afternoon.

The member he was referring to was the member for Surrey Centre.

When pressed as to the conspiracy theory, the Minister of Public Safety out and out dismissed it as false when he said, in response to my question on February 27:

...the hon. member, both today and yesterday, has provided her interpretation of events. In fact, her insinuations and her accusations are false.

At the same time, that same minister and the Prime Minister continued to support the public servant who claimed, and has never retracted or explained to any member of Parliament, or clarified his comments, that the Indian government was behind the events that led to Mr. Atwal's attendance at the reception. This contradiction continued all last week, and it continues to this day, despite more evidence that the conspiracy theory may be bogus.

Mr. Atwal, at a press conference last week, confirmed that he asked the member for Surrey Centre for an invitation to the Prime Minister's event. We in the opposition have given the government ample opportunity to clarify this matter, and it refuses to do so.

This contempt for the House is not unlike a matter that was raised in 2002. In 2002, another Liberal government refused to clarify the record, forcing the opposition to raise the matter as a question of privilege. It would seem that once again the opposition needs to take this extraordinary step and seek the authority of the House to cut through the contradictions and falsehoods to finally get to the truth.

In addition, the official opposition has dedicated its opposition day tomorrow to call on the Prime Minister to instruct Daniel Jean to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, to give the same courtesy to members of Parliament that he gave to the media about his government's theory regarding the Indian government's involvement in this matter.

It is my sincere hope that the Prime Minister will see fit to not show further contempt for this House and allow his official to at least treat members of Parliament the same as members of the press gallery.

In your ruling of yesterday, Mr. Speaker, while on an unrelated matter, you touched on the issue of respect that members of Parliament are expected to receive from the government and its officials in these situations. You said, Mr. Speaker:

...as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable.... There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

On February 1, 2002, the Speaker ruled in a matter in regard to the former minister of national defence. The former hon. member for Portage—Lisgar alleged that the minister of national defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew what prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days. The Speaker considered the matter and found that there was a prima facie question of privilege. He said:

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House.

The authorities to which Speaker Milliken was referring included the following from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which states on page 115:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has...been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

The Speaker, in 2002, accepted the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House and made the following statement. He said, “Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation”. The Speaker went on to say:

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar [ironically] to move his motion.

On February 25, 2015, the House leader of the official opposition raised a question of privilege regarding statements made in the House by the former member for Mississauga—Streetsville. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville had deliberately misled the House during debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act, when he stated that he had witnessed evidence of voter fraud first-hand. On February 24 and February 25, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville admitted that, contrary to his original claim, he had not actually witnessed what he originally claimed to have witnessed. The Speaker found that by taking something the member knew not to be true and presenting it as eye-witness evidence, something so egregious constituted contempt.

I believe we are faced with the same scenario today, except government members refuse to admit it, as the previous Liberal government refused to do. On March 3, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling, citing what Speaker Milliken was faced with in February 2002 when the then-minister of national defence provided contradictory information to the House. The Speaker went on to conclude:

In keeping with that precedent, I am prepared to accord the same courtesy to the member for Mississauga—Streetsville.

At the same time, the fact remains that the House continues to be seized of completely contradictory statements. This is a difficult position in which to leave members, who must be able to depend on the integrity of the information with which they are provided to perform their parliamentary duties.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedent cited earlier in which Speaker Milliken indicated that the matter merited “...further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air”, I am prepared in this case for the same reason to allow the matter to be put to the House.

The House has been presented with several conflicting answers to one very simple question about the appearance of Jaspal Atwal at the event in India. This is a grave situation that has not had a satisfactory resolution.

Parliamentarians have a right to obtain accurate and non-conflicting information, even clarification, when asking questions of the government. If the media got this information, members of Parliament should have this clarification. In this instance, this has not occurred.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Privacy, March 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed that Christopher Wylie, who is the individual who is in the middle of this international Facebook scandal and is also very clearly and very widely known to the Liberal Party, provided advice to the government on how to get information from Canadians regarding government policy, and then used that personal information for the Liberals' own partisan Liberal purposes.

This is shameful. We have to know what the Liberals let this individual have access to. More important, what have they done and what are they doing with these techniques of Christopher Wylie?

[Privacy, March 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: the Liberal research office works hand in glove and is paid by the Prime Minister's Office. It is the Prime Minister's research office that hired Christopher Wylie, who is very well known in Liberal circles, to provide advice, new techniques for mining data, we do not know.

Would the Prime Minister tell us what he paid, using taxpayer dollars, Mr. Christopher Wylie $100,000 to do?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 19th, 2018]

With regard to the destruction of the Golden Lampstand Church and the Zhifang Catholic Church by the Chinese government: (a) does the government condemn the Chinese government’s actions and, if not, why not; (b) did the government raise any objection to these actions with the Chinese government and, if so, what are the details, including (i) who raised the objection, (ii) what is the title of the Chinese government official who received the objection, (iii) date of objection; and (c) since November 4, 2015, has the government raised the issue of the persecution of Christians by the Chinese government with anyone from the Chinese government and, if so, what are the details?

[Public Safety, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just our allies sounding the alarm but national security experts in Canada as well. Ward Elcock, a former CSIS director, told The Globe and Mail, “I would not want to see Huawei equipment being incorporated into a 5G network in Canada”. Dick Fadden, former national security adviser, is saying that we do not want Canadian infrastructure to be available to Huawei.

With what these Canadian experts are saying, will the public safety minister commit to a re-evaluation of Canada's ties with China-owned Huawei?

[Public Safety, March 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, serious concerns are being raised about China-owned telecom company Huawei having access to 5G technology. Recently, a U.S. Senate committee heard compelling testimony from four U.S. agencies, including the FBI and the CIA, which says that Huawei poses a serious cybersecurity threat.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that there may be a threat to Canadian cybersecurity? What is he doing to stop China-owned Huawei from spying on Canadians?

[International Trade, March 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, well, if farmers have friends like the Liberals and this Prime Minister, they do not need any enemies, because look at the results these Liberals are getting: increased tariffs. Maybe just stay home instead of causing all this damage. Instead of maintaining a strong trading relationship and ensuring access for Canadian producers, the Prime Minister has made protecting his own image and covering up his blunders his main priority. He has put that in front of the interests of Canadians.

Again, the Prime Minister has created a huge mess. We are seeing the results with this tariff increase. This could just be the first shot across the bow.

What is the Prime Minister going to do?

[International Trade, March 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the minister makes my very point. It actually does not matter how hard he works, because when the Prime Minister is blaming India for causing problems with his trip, the Prime Minister is damaging all the work everybody in this place is trying to do for Canadians. His conspiracy theory against India is causing a breakdown in our relationship. The Indian government said yesterday that the chickpea tariff increase was due to circumstances that make it necessary to take immediate action. Well, we all know what circumstances that is referring to.

Why did the Prime Minister act so irresponsibly, both while in India and now at home?

[International Trade, March 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, India, with its over 1.2 billion people, provides Canada with the largest potential for export growth. Unfortunately, that potential and opportunity is being damaged because of the Prime Minister's incompetence. Last night India raised the duty on Canadian chickpeas to 60%, a clear signal that India is understandably upset, and Canadian chickpea producers are the first to pay the price.

The Prime Minister has damaged our relationship with India. What is he going to do to fix this mess?