Erin O'Toole

[March 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my point is a question of parliamentary privilege continued from March 2. It is my understanding that questions of parliamentary privilege, both individual and collective, rank in higher priority than all matters before this place, including votes.

As a courtesy, I waited until the completion of the last vote to raise this matter, but as it is an extension of my March 2 question of privilege, which the Chair has yet to rule on, I am provided and afforded the opportunity to expand and provide additional information and evidentiary basis for my question of parliamentary privilege, and some of that will be based on the March 20 submissions of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

[March 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to use this opportunity to expand on my question of privilege first raised on March 2 in this place.

Since questions of privilege have priority over all matters in the House, I will make a short addition to that privilege. Until the Speaker decides, it is my understanding that I can add additional information to my outstanding question of privilege—

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in relation to my privilege motion made in this place on March 2, which is with the Chair right now. Until the Chair has ruled with respect to that privilege motion, I have the ability to add additional submissions to that motion from March 2.

As I rise, I would ask that this be done today in two ways. In the first part, I would like the Chair and his office to include my speech from the opposition day motion today, because the elements I expressed in my speech are germane to the privilege motion I brought saying that my privilege as a member and shadow minister has been breached or fettered by the refusal of the Prime Minister to allow Mr. Jean to appear before committee.

I am supplementing additional information for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, because today the Liberal members of the public safety committee once again refused to allow Mr. Jean to appear before them to answer questions and provide evidence with respect to the India conspiracy theory that Mr. Jean previously provided to select members of the press gallery. The additional reference from this presentation is once again the denial of the right of the standing committee to have Mr. Jean before it to give all members the ability to do their job unfettered with the information required.

With respect to that, I would like to add my submission of reference to the decision of Speaker Parent from November 1999, where there was a contempt suggestion by a member with respect to his privilege being breached. It is germane to this case because that case related to employees of the government who had information that a member needed to perform his duties as a member of Parliament.

The decision relies upon Erskine May, which states:

[A]ny act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

In this case, Speaker Parent decided against the member. However, the situation with Mr. Jean can be distinguished, because in that case Speaker Parent said that it involved an access to information request and there was no proceeding of Parliament impacted by the inability of members to access information required, which is their privilege. In this case, the vote today by Liberal members at the public safety committee, the consistent refusal by the public safety minister and the Prime Minister to provide Mr. Jean to a standing committee of Parliament to provide the same information he provided to members of the press gallery, is obstructing a proceeding of Parliament.

Also, the other proceeding of Parliament impacted by this obstruction is the Prime Minister's repeated references to the conspiracy theory and the suggestions that Mr. Jean, a leading public servant, has given to provide an alternate theory about the Jaspal Atwal invitation. In my speech today, I read into the record the report from CBC News that stated that Mr. Jean, who was later identified but was an unnamed official at that point, said that the invitation itself was part of an Indian government conspiracy vis-à-vis the Prime Minister's trip to India. That information was provided to members of the media, and the government continues to obstruct members from having the same rights as members of the press gallery.

If the information is being provided to the press gallery, which reports on public affairs, there is no way the government could suggest it is confidential or in some way secret. The national security adviser could not provide sensitive information to members of the press. If it was provided to them, we are entitled to it.

To distinguish the Parent decision from 1999 involving Minister Eggleton, I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the refusal today, obstructing a parliamentary committee in its ability to call a witness, a senior official of the Canadian government. The other parliamentary proceeding which distinguishes the Parent decision is the Prime Minister's repeated references to Mr. Jean's conspiracy theory and discussions to the media in question period. Therefore, our inability to probe and analyze that response by the Prime Minister by calling Mr. Jean to committee also violates my privileges and all of our privileges as members.

Until you rule, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to add additional supports for my motion from March 2 that our privileges have been violated by the obstruction of this government.

[Public Safety, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, enough with the denials from the government and that minister. He needs to be accountable. There is no elevator in this chamber to save him.

Members of Parliament deserve the same access to the national security adviser that the Prime Minister granted to the media. If the Prime Minister can send Daniel Jean to brief the media, why does he refuse to be transparent and not allow him to brief the democratically elected members of this House?

[Public Safety, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, while I like the hon. member's tie, I do not like his response.

Jaspal Atwal, the convicted terrorist at the centre of the India scandal, dismisses the Prime Minister's claims of an Indian conspiracy. The Liberal MP for Surrey Centre refutes the Prime Minister's claims by admitting responsibility. The Minister of Foreign Affairs refutes the Prime Minister's claims by saying it was an “honest mistake”.

Only two people cling to the conspiracy theory, the Prime Minister and Daniel Jean. Which one will appear before the public safety committee?

[Public Safety, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to public safety issues, someone once said this in the House:

...being able to ask questions is essential in a democracy, even in difficult situations—especially in difficult situations.

Who said that? The Prime Minister when he was in opposition.

If asking questions is essential to democracy, why is the Prime Minister obstructing the democratic process by refusing to let Daniel Jean appear before the public safety committee?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Once again, I agree.

India is a very strong and important partner. It is a Commonwealth nation. It is the world's largest democracy. That is why it is such an insult for the Prime Minister of Canada to be suggesting a conspiracy theory when none exists. Mr. Atwal himself said he asked. He is not an agent of the Indian government. The MP for Surrey Centre is not an agent of the Indian government. What is the Prime Minister saying?

That member should use the passion she has shown and her knowledge of the file at her next caucus meeting with the Prime Minister to say, “Stop it, sir. Give Parliament the right to question Mr. Jean.”

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest diplomatic fail the Canadian government has ever seen. World headlines have been written about it. As I said, a “moving train wreck” was the description, I think, by the Washington Post. If that is what the Liberals believe “Canada is back” means, we want to go back to going back, because we are embarrassed by this. The Indo-Canadian community is also embarrassed by this, as is the Sikh community. We know what happened in the 1980s is a very sad chapter and should never be glorified, but we know that is not the case today.

Why is this being talked about? It is because of that Prime Minister and a trip entirely about domestic politics. I will leave it there, because I am hoping to get another question from this side. I am hoping the people watching at home and the folks in the gallery see that our request is reasonable. We want to talk to somebody who the Prime Minister asked to talk to the media.

The word “Parliament” is related to the French word for “talk”.

We are supposed to talk here and in our committees, and for us to do our job we have to be given information. We have to be given access to officials and documents. The Liberals are impeding our ability to parler and to be strong MPs. We have heard excellent representations from this side, and rhetoric, vitriol, and obfuscation from that side. I hope Canadians are seeing sunny ways is nothing but a slogan.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I agree with her.

It is quite regular for committees of Parliament to call not just Canadians but seniors members of the government, senior officials. Just this week, I asked senior officials from immigration and citizenship questions.

I am sad to inform the House that the cover-up continues. Liberal members, likely whipped by the Prime Minister's Office, just turned down at the public safety committee the request to have Mr. Jean appear, again. They continue to cover-up our ability to find out which story is true, in fact, which Liberal story is true. The Liberal story from Jaspal Atwal and the MP for Surrey Centre, their story is one alternative theory, that the invitation came from Mr. Atwal to the MP for Surrey Centre who sent it to the Prime Minister's Office. We saw the pictures of Mr. Atwal.

The other theory from the Prime Minister's Office, through his adviser, is that the Indian government somehow did this. It is beyond the pale. It is ridiculous. Are we asking for a royal commission on this? No, we are just asking for answers. We are just asking for the official the Prime Minister allowed, actually encouraged, to speak to the media, to answer our questions. It is very reasonable. If we do not get it, with the accountability rhetoric we hear from these guys all the time, we will be talking about this late tonight.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member of how I started my speech and we will talk about consistency. “Being able to ask questions is essential in a democracy, even in difficult situations—especially in difficult situations.” Those were the words of the Prime Minister.

We are asking questions on national security, not because of a story in a newspaper that was speculation but because of a story planted by the Prime Minister. He sent Mr. Jean, whom I have said I have great respect for. I remember as a cabinet minister seeing Mr. Fadden, our national security adviser to Prime Minister Harper, being a sage counsel to the prime minister. We never saw him doing press conferences. We never saw him meeting with a group of journalists and saying, “Listen, here is really what happened”, because that is not the role of the national security adviser.

In fact, the Prime Minister has undermined that position and if we do not get what we want today Mr. Jean should resign, not because of his actions but because of the Prime Minister. Therefore, who is sullying the civil service? It is the Prime Minister.

That member can yell and scream, but he knows in his heart of hearts that we are right because what we are asking for is reasonable. The same briefing and the same ability to ask Mr. Jean questions that the Prime Minister allowed members of the media to have, MPs and Canadians deserve to have.