EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security NUMBER 124 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, October 18, 2024 Le vendredi 18 octobre 2024 Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE October 18, 2024 Committee NUMBER 124 NUMBER 124 NUMÉRO 124 124 18 10 2024 2024/10/18 09:20:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la sécurité publique et nationale Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security SECU Chair Mr. Ron McKinnon 1 44

(0920) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Ron McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 124 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Members, please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

We have been having some sound issues, so if there are any, if they persist and haven't been resolved, please bring them directly to our attention. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee commences the consideration of the request to undertake a study of recent events surrounding the expulsion of Government of India diplomats and the situation of foreign interference in Canada. I will give the floor to Mr. MacGregor. Mr. MacGregor, please go ahead.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, committee members. First of all, I want to start by thanking everyone who joined with me in signing the Standing Order 106(4) letter. As you can imagine, it's pretty rare that we get unanimous support for an emergency meeting, but I think the revelations from the RCMP that were delivered to the Canadian public on Thanksgiving Monday were nothing short of explosive, and I think they demand this committee's attention. I will be moving a motion, Mr. Chair.

I know that the clerk has both French and English copies available—hard copy and digital—for members who are participating in person and online. Before I move the motion, I think it's important to add a bit of brief context, because of course this is not the first time that we have been witness to serious allegations involving the Government of India and its agents in Canada.

In fact, it was more than a year ago, in September of 2023, that the Prime Minister stood in the House of Commons and levelled these accusations against the Government of India, accusing it and its agents of nefarious criminal activity, election interference and a whole host of things. Needless to say, the Prime Minister's rising in the House of Commons and making such a statement did make headlines around the world. Since then, the Hogue commission has released an interim report. That was in May of 2023.

If you read that report, you can see that there are broad mentions of India's interference in Canada throughout. Then, of course, in June 2024, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians released its special report on election interference, which again mentioned the activities of the Government of India throughout. That brings us, Mr. Chair, to October 14, 2024, this past Monday.

For the RCMP—indeed, for any police force that is conducting an active investigation—to come out with such explosive revelations I think underscores just how serious this is, and I think the RCMP made a point that they were doing this because some individuals in Canada have their lives directly in danger.

The threat had reached such a level that they felt compelled to ignore the traditional way of going through the judicial process and made these accusations public so that particularly the members of the South Asian community whose lives might be in danger could be forewarned and so that we could remain extra vigilant. I also think, Mr. Chair, that the House of Commons and the Senate came together quite quickly in June of this year to pass Bill C-70 , which contained important legislative measures to deal with foreign interference.

With all of these events coming together and culminating in what we saw on Monday, I think it is quite appropriate for this committee to be seized with the matter. With that in mind, I would like to move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study concerning the electoral interference and violent criminal activities carried out by agents of the Government of India, as identified by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' report and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's report from October 14, 2024, and the subsequent expulsion of six diplomats from the Government of India.

As a part of this study, the committee hold no less than six meetings, ensuring an equal distribution of time for witnesses, and invite the following ministers, senior officials, and expert witnesses from impacted communities and academia to provide briefings:

1. Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Mélanie Joly.

2. Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc.

3. RCMP commissioner, Mike Duheme.

4. National security and intelligence adviser, Nathalie Drouin.

5. Experts from Canada's South Asian community.

6. Brampton mayor Patrick Brown and any former leadership candidates of the 2022 Conservative Party leadership race.

7. National security subject matter experts.

With that, Mr. Chair, the motion is moved. I hope that copies have been distributed to members. I will give my time back to the chair. Thank you very much.

(0925) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. We'll start the debate now. I see that Ms. May has her hand up.

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC) :

Does she need unanimous consent?

The Chair :

Pardon?

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Chair, I may need unanimous consent to be allowed to speak, but I have had a top secret security briefing from Nathalie Drouin and from the new head of CSIS, Daniel Rogers. I'd appreciate an opportunity to support this study and also to suggest a reason beyond the one Alistair just mentioned for why the RCMP had to move forward and make this information public, because there's a larger context that has to do with having to disclose that with regard to the criminal activities, criminal charges have already been brought.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Mr. Chair, she needs unanimous consent.

The Chair :

Hold on for just a minute, please. I understand that as a member of the House of Commons, you can participate. You do not require unanimous consent. I'll let you carry on.

Ms. Elizabeth May :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add some more context. I know I'm not a member of the committee, but as the leader of the Green Party, I have top secret security clearance, and as a leader of a party, like all party leaders in the opposition, I have received briefings from Nathalie Drouin, the national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister , and I also, on that call, was with the newly appointed head of CSIS, Daniel Rogers.

The context in which they had to go forward was that they were aware that the RCMP was aware that the ongoing criminal investigations required that much of this was going to have to be disclosed in court for the defence counsel for people engaged in the criminal prosecutions for the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. They were also aware that six diplomats and their proxies were involved in an active and continuing ring that represented a threat to Canadians. I'm not taking anything away from what my colleague Mr. MacGregor has said.

This is just to say that this is an additional reason for the urgency that led the RCMP to make public this absolutely chilling additional information. That was another part of that context. I'd like to participate in the hearings going forward. I promise not to take much of the committee's time.

I just appreciate the opportunity to say that after our briefings, some of us have more information than others, and I think that all Canadians should have the same kind of briefing that I received, just with care taken to ensure that certain parts stay behind an absolutely secure wall for national security reasons, while the rest can be shared with Canadians so they understand why there is the need for the public sharing of this information.

I completely agree with focusing on people who are most at risk, because there's an active effort by a criminal network, coordinated out of India, to collect information on Canadians in their normal patterns of life, such as what routes they are taking when they are walking their dogs. This couldn't be more significant and urgent. It should be disrupted so that Canadians can be reassured that the RCMP, CSIS and our intelligence apparatus are coordinating their work to protect Canadians' lives. I'll stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(0930) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. May. We'll go to Ms. Dancho, followed by Madame Michaud and Mr. Hallan.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In past practice, when a motion is not provided to members to review in advance, you have provided a five-minute recess to review it, so I would ask for that five-minute recess to review the motion, please.

The Chair :

That sounds reasonable. We will suspend for five minutes.

(0930) (0945) The Chair :

The meeting has resumed. We'll carry on with Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The allegations of the RCMP are extremely concerning and must be taken very seriously by all parliamentarians and certainly by this committee. What India has allegedly done on Canadian soil represents an outrageous assault on Canada's sovereignty and is completely unacceptable. Foreign interference from any country, as we know, including from India, must be put to a stop. The first job of the Prime Minister and the Canadian government is to keep citizens safe from foreign threats. That is the first job of the Prime Minister and the Canadian government.

The first job of the official opposition, of course, is to hold the government accountable for their ability, or lack thereof, to prevent foreign interference and to keep Canadians and people in Canada safe from foreign threats. We certainly expect the full criminal prosecution of anyone who has threatened, murdered or otherwise harmed Canadian citizens or people on Canadian soil.

The public safety and national security committee, as we know, has the responsibility to look into this matter promptly, in a professional manner and thoroughly on behalf of Canadians and all those who have suffered in Canada as a result of the federal government failing to prevent foreign interference over this last number of years. Mr. Chair, I want to mention that the Conservatives on this committee, and the official opposition at large, certainly take this matter very seriously. We are deeply concerned that the situation under the Liberal Prime Minister continues to worsen for Canadians.

It is shocking to learn from the RCMP that 13 individuals are facing an imminent threat, potentially as bad as murder, from a foreign government, notably from India. We are very seized with this issue as Conservatives. On this committee, we are, of course, reviewing the motion put forward by Mr. MacGregor. We thank him for bringing forward his Standing Order 106(4) letter. Of course, we were keen to sign it so that this committee could look into this matter very thoroughly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did want to include my thoughts on this, and I believe my colleagues would like to as well.

(0950) The Chair :

Thank you. We go now to Mr. Uppal, followed by Mr. Hallan and Ms. Lantsman. I apologize. Next is Madame Michaud. [ Translation ] The floor is yours.

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

No problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank Mr. MacGregor for proposing this emergency meeting. The Bloc Québécois didn't hesitate to sign the letter requesting this meeting, because this is an incredibly concerning issue. Initially, I was afraid that if we called only the RCMP to testify before the committee, we wouldn't be able to learn more than what had already been revealed by the RCMP, given the ongoing investigation, of course. Now, I think the witness list is very reasonable. I think the various proposed witnesses will be able to tell us more.

I'm therefore in favour of the motion. I do have a question, though, about the wording. It may just be a bad translation, but on the sixth item on the proposed witness list, the English version says “any former leadership candidates”, while the French version, if translated, says “all former candidates”. The words “any” and “all” don't have the same meaning. I would like Mr. MacGregor to clarify something. Do we want to invite any of the candidates in the 2022 Conservative Party leadership race, or do we want to invite all of the candidates? I'd like some clarification on that.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the motion.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Madame Michaud, perhaps you could offer that as an amendment to ensure that the—

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Actually, I'm asking for clarification, since the two current versions don't mean the same thing. I'm just asking if it's Mr. MacGregor's intention to have all of the Conservative leadership candidates testify or just any of them. I won't move an amendment, since I don't know what the real intention is. The English version is probably accurate. By “any”, do you mean “ n’importe lequel ” in French?

[ English ]

The Chair :

I will ask Mr. MacGregor to clarify that. Would you like to jump in quickly?

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Yes, Mr. Chair. The word is “any”. That's how I intended it in the English version. I'm sorry if it didn't come out clearly in French.

The Chair :

I guess we'll take it as a friendly amendment that the French version as well incorporates that as “any”. [ Translation ] Is that okay with you, Ms. Michaud?

Ms. Kristina Michaud :

Yes.

[ English ]

The Chair :

We'll go now to Mr. Uppal.

Hon. Tim Uppal (Edmonton Mill Woods, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, we are dealing with a very serious issue after hearing of the allegations that the RCMP has made against agents of the Indian government. We heard accusations of murder on Canadian soil, extortion, the use of organized crime, intimidation and coercion. This is a matter of protecting our sovereignty and protecting our democracy. It's important for us, as a committee, to be able to get answers for Canadians. Any government's first duty is to protect the safety of Canadians and, of course, to take steps to stop foreign interference here in Canada.

We want to ensure that this government takes national security seriously. At the Hogue commission, the Prime Minister himself admitted that the Indian government has been committing foreign interference here in Canada for a number of years. However, this has continued; this has gone on. In the U.S., we have seen that the Americans have been able to stop incidents of murder and assassination, but unfortunately that has not happened in Canada. Arrests have been made earlier in the U.S., but that has not happened in Canada. I think it's important that we, as a committee, look into the reasons for this.

We can look at what the gaps are in order to best protect Canadians, our democracy and our sovereignty, and to ensure that Canadians are kept safe.

(0955) The Chair :

Thank you. We'll go now to Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC) :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on this. I think that these very, very serious revelations by the RCMP on Monday came as a shock to many, but I will say to many in the Sikh community that this is definitely something about foreign interference that the Sikh community knows well and has been talking about for more than 40 years. In Canada, we're at a very critical point now in our history for this very, very important issue on foreign interference that's being committed. The allegations that the RCMP made, those serious ones, I'd just like to read into the record. This is from their statement.

...the RCMP has obtained evidence that demonstrates four very serious issues:

1. Violent extremism impacting both countries;

They mean India and Canada.

2. Links tying agents of the Government of India (GOI) to homicides and violent acts;

3. The use of organized crime to create a perception of an unsafe environment targeting the South Asian Community in Canada; and

4. Interference into democratic processes.

Investigations have revealed that Indian diplomats and consular officials based in Canada leverage their official positions to engage in clandestine activities....

By far, they're not the lightest of allegations that have been made by the RCMP on foreign interference happening in Canada. Canadians should feel safe in Canada. Canadians should be safe from extortions. Canadians should be safe from murder. They should be safe, and their families should be safe. We should be living in communities that are safe from threats of violence, not just from anyone living here but also from any foreign governments. After nine years, that's not how Canadians feel. We saw last year that a Canadian was killed on Canadian soil, allegedly by a foreign government.

India is what the RCMP has alleged, or there are allegations towards it. It's a very difficult time in Canada right now after nine years of this Prime Minister . I think that's why it's very important that we don't just study this. Real action needs to be taken now for the safety of Canadians. It's been far too long. As I said before, for the Sikh community, this is something they've been advocating for more than 40 years. The allegations that were made by the RCMP on Monday were more of a vindication of the advocacy that has been going on for the last 40 years.

A criminal is a criminal, and a Canadian is a Canadian. We should not look at any type of religion. This has nothing to do with religion or anything like that. This is simply about foreign interference happening and Canadians feeling unsafe in Canada. That is a very, very serious thing that we need to address here. I'm very, very happy that my Conservative colleagues and I all want answers on behalf of Canadians. As our leader has said, any foreign interference from any country, including India, is unacceptable and must be stopped. That's why we're here today.

Given that we know all this information and given the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar last year, I do also want to point out that the U.S. went from allegations to arrests in one week,

whereas under this Prime Minister , there were allegations. Absolutely nothing happened after that. It kept the communities at large feeling very unsafe that these allegations were taking place and that this could happen to anybody. No arrests were made immediately; just allegations were made. That is another thing that I hope we can cover in this study. Given all of that, Mr. Chair, I'd like to add a few people to the list if my colleagues would agree to that. I would like to amend some of the witnesses we want here. The first is the director of CSIS, Daniel Rogers.

The second is the deputy minister of Public Safety Canada, Shawn Tupper, and the third is the deputy minister of Global Affairs Canada. I think adding those three would give us a wider range to be able to study this issue. If you want to call it a friendly amendment, that's what we're proposing. Thank you.

(1000) The Chair :

I'll take that as a simple amendment. The discussion now is on the amendment. We have the director of CSIS, the deputy.... I'm sorry. Could you say them again?

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

First is the director of CSIS, Daniel Rogers. Second is the deputy minister of Public Safety Canada, Shawn Tupper. Third is the deputy minister of Global Affairs Canada.

The Chair :

Is there any discussion on adding those witnesses to the list? We'll go to a vote on that, in that case—

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.) :

I'm sorry, Chair, but I have my hand raised.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. I missed who spoke there. Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

Ms. Iqra Khalid :

Thank you very much. I understand and appreciate the witnesses who are being added here—the CSIS director, the deputy minister for Public Safety and the deputy minister for Global Affairs—but I'm just wondering, given how the scope of this motion is being outlined, why we need to add these witnesses to this list. I'm hoping the member who's moving this amendment can help us clarify what exactly he is seeking to extract from the witnesses named in his amendment.

The Chair :

I should just clarify that apparently we don't have a director of CSIS at the moment. We have an interim director, Vanessa Lloyd, so we'll consider that modification to be made. Who's next? We'll get clarification from Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, I think it's very self-evident that the people we're putting forward more than likely had a direct link to anything that was happening at that time, and if we really want to study this issue of foreign interference, I think it's important to hear their voices in this debate as well. They have the expertise, as we know, to answer some of these questions, because they have a direct link to information that can be helpful in this. I'll end there.

Ms. Iqra Khalid :

If I can take back the floor for a second, Mr. Chair, I think 100% that getting as much information as we can from as many people as we can is a really good thing, so I have no problems with these names being added.

The Chair :

Next on my list is Ms. Lantsman. I'm wondering whether you want to speak after we vote on this amendment. You do. Okay. Is there any other discussion on this proposed amendment? No. (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Thank you. We go back to the motion as amended, and we go to Ms. Lantsman, please.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks for bringing this forward to the committee. As my colleagues have already said, the news and allegations from the RCMP are certainly concerning, and I think this committee is the right place to be seized with that. Furthermore, any interference from any country, including India, is entirely unacceptable and should be stopped. It is the government's first job to keep Canadian citizens safe from all of these foreign threats and the foreign interference that we know has been happening in the country for some time.

For nine years, the Liberal government has failed to keep Canadians safe and has failed to take national security and foreign interference seriously, and Canada has become a playground for these activities. We have heard that over and over again, and we hear it over and over again from experts. I suspect that the witnesses at this committee would not try to hide that. Canadians need to know what and when, and they need to know why it took so long for the government to act. This is just another example of the Prime Minister 's failure on foreign interference.

We heard the Prime Minister at the commission admit that our intelligence agencies have been gathering this information for years, indicating that India had been committing foreign interference on Canadian soil, and it's very clear that the Prime Minister had done nothing about it. Even when provided the opportunity to do something about it and protect Canadians against extortion and the violent actions that the RCMP has brought to light that Indian officials have engaged in, they voted against Bill C-381 , the protection against extortion act, in the House of Commons, which was brought forward by my colleague.

At every single juncture, the Prime Minister has not acted on the information that he has. I think this committee, and those watching this committee, should know that. His government stalled for years on the creation of a foreign influence registry, and it was only introduced as a result of Conservative pressure. For those watching this at home, I hope this committee reveals the inaction of the Prime Minister over his years of knowing information and his continued inaction, as we heard about just this week, in letting Canada become a playground for foreign interference. That's on him.

I hope this committee gets to the bottom of all of this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

(1005) The Chair :

Thanks, Ms. Lantsman. I am advised that Daniel Rogers is in fact the new director of CSIS. He was appointed three days ago, but he will start on October 28, so we will make those appropriate adjustments. Before we go to Mr. Gaheer, I want to ask Mr. MacGregor to clarify something in the motion. The clerk has pointed out that in the English part of the motion it says, “the committee hold no less than six meetings, ensuring an equal distribution of time”. We're unsure what “an equal distribution of time for witnesses” means. Maybe you could clarify that for us, Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just trying to ensure that.... The wording of the motion says “no less than six meetings”, so I think it's quite open. I was just trying to find a space where the parties' witness lists were all treated in an equal manner. If people have an issue with that or want further clarification, I don't want to interrupt the proceedings. From what I've heard so far, there seems to be broad agreement with the overall direction this motion is taking, so if people want to clarify that or suggest a friendly amendment, I'm open to that, but I don't want to, in any way, delay other committee members.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. The clerk wanted to know if it's going to be one hour per.... Anyway, I'm proposing that we let our esteemed clerk sort this out as best he can. I think he will give us a fair.... Ms. Dancho, do you wish to speak on that point?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to our adding the amendment of the additional deputy ministers, we would like them to appear separately. Of course, they're welcome to come with their ministers, as they normally do, but we would like them to appear separately, on their own, for questions, and not at the same time, so that we can ensure we're getting the full breadth of the committee's potential to question those deputy ministers on their knowledge and expertise. They should be appearing separately on their own for at least one hour each, but notably, two hours probably has been a good standard in the past. I leave it to you.

The Chair :

I will rely on our esteemed clerk to execute this in good faith. He will do his best, as he always does. We will continue now with Mr. Gaheer. Mr. Gaheer, go ahead, please.

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer (Mississauga—Malton, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank my NDP colleague for bringing this motion forward. It's of grave concern to our party, to this committee and to me personally as a practising Sikh. Canadians were rightly shocked last year when the Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons and declared on the House floor, on the record, that there was credible evidence to show that agents of the Government of India were involved in the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Nijjar, on Canadian soil. Since then, we've learned a lot.

In February 2024, the RCMP created a multidisciplinary team to investigate and coordinate the efforts to combat further threats that existed. We know that members of the South Asian community and members of the Sikh community are being targeted with credible and imminent threats to their lives. That brings us to the events of a couple of days ago, when the RCMP made statements alleging the involvement of agents of the Government of India in serious criminal activity in Canada, including homicides, extortions and interference in our democratic processes. I now want to highlight how unprecedented this is.

This is an extraordinary situation. The RCMP normally does not comment on [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] to protect Canadians from political interference. Obviously, it's going to be the RCMP that's going to—

(1010) The Chair :

Mr. Gaheer, you cut out there for a minute. You cut out just after you said that “the RCMP does not comment”. Then there was a gap.

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

Okay. I will continue. Obviously, this is an unprecedented situation, where the RCMP is commenting on an ongoing investigation—which they normally do not do—and this is because of a threat that's posed to Canadians. We've seen that the Government of India has refused to co-operate with Canadian law enforcement agencies, despite having been presented with that evidence of the involvement of their agents in serious criminal activity in Canada.

There's organized crime being used to engage in intimidation, threats, violence and interference targeting members of the Sikh community and the South Asian community within Canada. We support this motion.

The only amendment that I would like to introduce will be along the lines of misinformation and disinformation, given that right after the RCMP made their statement and the Prime Minister , the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs came out to make their statements, we saw this very coordinated effort through Indian media channels—and by the Government of India, frankly—to engage in a disinformation campaign.

This followed the announcement that six Indian diplomats and consular officials would be expelled from Canada to ensure that Canadians and diaspora communities are protected from acts of political interference, violence or intimidation on Canadian soil. What we've seen as a response from Indian media and the Indian government is an attitude of deflection and denial and just outright lying about the situation and what's happened. I would demand to include another bullet point in that list in the motion, something along the lines of “witnesses to testify on the impact of the disinformation campaign”.

I can leave it to Mr. MacGregor to propose that language, maybe, or to the clerk. That's my amendment.

The Chair :

Okay. Your amendment, I understand, is to add to that list of bullet points a category of witnesses, which is.... I'm sorry. Say that again.

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

It's “witnesses to testify on the impact of the disinformation campaign by India”.

The Chair :

It would be a category under point 7 or maybe point 8—

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

It's for point 8.

The Chair :

—and would say “witnesses to testify as to the misinformation campaigns”. Is that correct?

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

It's “disinformation”. There's a difference there. Disinformation is when it's actually by design.

The Chair :

It's not “misinformation”. Okay. All right. We have an amendment on the floor. The motion as previously amended is now being proposed to be further amended. Is there any discussion on that amendment? Ms. Dancho, do you have a question on that?

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I do, yes. Thank you. I just wasn't quite clear on where in the motion it would be emphasized, but I don't see any issue with this.

The Chair :

It would be at the end of the list.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Okay. It's just that when he was talking about it, I felt that he was almost putting it into the bulk of the explainer at the beginning.

The Chair :

The list is a bunch of categories. He just wants to add a point 8.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

I understand. That's fine.

The Chair :

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Gaheer's amendment? (Amendment agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Did that wrap up your question, Mr. Gaheer? Did you have more?

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

No. I just wanted to amend the motion. I thank my NDP colleagues for bringing this motion forward.

The Chair :

Thank you. We'll go now to Mr. Lloyd, I believe.

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

I will cede my time, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. Do we have any more questions or discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, I will call the vote. (Motion as amended agreed to [ See Minutes of Proceedings ])

The Chair: Thank you very much. That wraps up our business. Thank you very much, all. We are adjourned—

Mr. Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Chair...?

The Chair: Go ahead.

(1015) Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

I had my hand up.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. I was too quick.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you. This is related to the same subject matter that we have before us. I want to put one more motion on the record for colleagues to consider. It is related to the subject matter at hand. The clerk has digital and paper copies. It reads as follows:

That, given the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report on violent criminal activities linked to agents of the Government of India from October 14, 2024, the Hogue Commission's identification of foreign interference activities by Russia, Pakistan, China, and Iran, and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' special report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions, the Chair reports to the House that the committee calls for all federal party leaders to apply for the appropriate security clearance level in the next 30 days in order to review classified information and take necessary actions to protect Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I think it's important that we move this motion, because all federal party leaders have now received security clearance to review unredacted briefings on this very serious matter—all except for one. I think it's high time, given the revelations we heard on Monday, that we present a united front. I think it's incredibly important for this committee to report back to the House that we recommend this course of action. I will leave it there, Mr. Chair. I think the motion is self-explanatory. Thank you.

The Chair :

This does relate to the matter at hand, I think, very directly, so I will consider it in order. I see that Mr. Lloyd wishes to speak to this.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you Mr. Chair. It's our very strong contention as Conservatives that anyone—any member of Parliament, any member of our political parties—colluding with foreign powers to advance the interests of a foreign nation's agenda in our country needs to be named so that Canadians can know. We must be fully transparent and clear the good name of the Parliament of Canada, which has been sullied these past many months by innuendo and allegations that were made without full evidence.

It's the contention of the Conservative Party of Canada that we need to release all those names so that we can we can take appropriate action and move on. We strongly believe that a motion like this, which attempts to force the hand of all federal leaders on the security clearance front, is an attempt to muzzle the Leader of the Opposition from speaking out on the very important issue of foreign interference.

We have to remember that I was raising the issue of foreign interference at this committee years ago, and we were assured repeatedly, by ministers of this government, that foreign interference was not taking place in Canada's elections. We were being reassured that foreign interference was not serious in Canada. This was just two years ago, and due to leaks from CSIS and our security agencies, we have now come to learn that this was not the case and that there were widespread allegations of foreign interference.

Sadly, today, with the recent RCMP announcement on Monday, it's escalated to the lives of Canadians being threatened—allegedly—by a foreign government. How was this allowed to happen? Back in 2015, working in the previous government, I remember that it was unheard of that foreign governments were threatening the lives of Canadian citizens, yet after nine years under this Liberal government, due to its complete lack of action and lack of proactive activity to protect Canada, this was allowed to proliferate in this country.

There are not just allegations against India: There are a number of countries that see Canada and its leadership as a completely soft target for foreign interference. It's a lack of leadership in Canada under this Liberal government and under this Prime Minister , who now decides to try to weaponize the issue of foreign interference for his own political ends to distract from the very real problems his leadership is facing, even within his own party. To try to weaponize the issue of national security for his own partisan ends is, frankly, disgusting.

I find that what this Prime Minister has done is disgusting, and so I move forward with an amendment to this motion. It is that we release the names of all members of Parliament, all parliamentarians, who are alleged to have interfered with...who knowingly colluded with foreign powers.

(1020) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. We have an amendment on the floor, and the discussion is on the amendment. We have Mr. Hallan up next. Do you wish to speak on the amendment?

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

He moved an amendment, so it's a new speaking list, is it not?

The Chair :

I'm asking whether you want to speak to this amendment.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

I'll speak to the amendment.... Well, I do want to go to a vote.

The Chair :

There is a list on the main motion once it's done.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

I'll wait for that.

The Chair :

I'll open it up. Are there any questions? Is there any debate on the amendment by Mr. Lloyd? I see Ms. Dancho and I see Ms. May. She's had her hand up for a while. I'll start with Ms. May and then go to Ms. Dancho and Ms. Khalid.

Ms. Elizabeth May :

Mr. Chair, thank you so much for allowing me to speak to this point. As someone who has a top secret security clearance and is perhaps more aware of the legislative framework around security of information, I feel duty bound to say that this motion would be very inappropriate and in fact would be calling on people who have access to top secret security information to break the law. I know that can't be Mr.

Lloyd's intention, but the Security of Information Act, which used to be called the Official Secrets Act, requires that information that is collected and has a top secret security designation not be made public. There are many reasons for this, including that we could be risking the lives of intelligence assets of the Government of Canada; these are people—real, live human beings—unknown to us around the world who help Canadian security agencies and the RCMP collect information.

Even the publication of the numbers of people involved can help a hostile foreign power work backward by inference and figure out that if Canadians know about that, they can only have obtained it from this source, and then that source's life could be in danger, so it's very important that all.... I agree with the intention of Mr. MacGregor's motion. It's very important. I really do urge Mr. Poilievre , as a friend and a colleague, to ask for his top secret security clearance to clear the air. It must be done. However, that is another matter altogether from saying that the names should be made public.

To do that is to urge colleagues to break the law and, perhaps even worse, place Canadian intelligence assets at risk. I think the amendment might come back to the committee after the committee and all members have had briefings on this point, not from me but from our intelligence apparatus—the people at CSIS, the people who handle security within the Privy Council Office, the RCMP and so on—so that everybody around this committee table is fully informed that releasing the names is a non-starter and a threat to Canadian security and can actually jeopardize lives. Thank you.

The Chair :

We'll go now to Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's interesting; Ms. May's story seems to have changed quite a bit in tone and scope from her perspective when she read the unredacted NSICOP report. I just find it interesting that her perspective has recently changed. Anyway, I would say that this amendment to ensure that the names are released would be in line with what a number of our allies do. For example, the United Kingdom rightly names and shames any members of Parliament who are acting in a treasonous manner or who are colluding with foreign countries to undermine the United Kingdom's national interests.

I do believe that Canada should be doing the same. I agree with my colleague Dane Lloyd that otherwise, the Prime Minister , to his own advantage, seems to just be weaponizing this so-called secret information that he continues to talk about without actually saying the names. I certainly would agree with a former NDP leader who won many more seats than the current leader of the NDP. He said just recently, “I agree completely with Poilievre 's decision not to take the bait.” He's referring to Mr. Trudeau 's claims.

He said, “Trudeau's been trying for a year and a half to restrain what Pierre Poilievre can do by trying to say, 'Come and get this private briefing—and oh, by the way, then you'll be held to an official secret and you won't be able to talk about this anymore.' ” It seems notable, and frankly formidable, that former NDP leaders would agree with Pierre Poilievre , our leader of the Conservative Party, that any effort to do this is really an effort to put him under some sort of gag order so that he can't really do his duty to hold the Prime Minister accountable for matters of foreign interference.

It's interesting to see that Mr. Singh is now working hand in hand with Mr. Trudeau yet again to try to gag-order Pierre Poilievre from being able to speak about this issue. It's interesting that Mr. Singh recently made a big show of ripping up some so-called informal coalition with the Liberal government, but it would appear now that the NDP is really helping Mr. Trudeau to carry water on the shameless partisan politics he's playing in the foreign interference inquiry.

It was quite a serious, respectable and professional undertaking until the Prime Minister decided to make some sort of ruthless and shameless political show and circus out of the whole affair. I think it's really important for this committee to remember—and certainly Canadians will—that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to be dragged kicking and screaming into this foreign interference inquiry.

You'll remember that he had first denied there was any election interference from China, for example, and had denied that anything was going on with the member for Don Valley North in that nomination, yet here we are, in a foreign interference inquiry, and there is clear interference from not only China but also India, Iran, Pakistan and Russia. We are, in fact, at the worst point in history when it comes to foreign interference, and we've had the same Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for nine years. What does that say about his leadership or lack thereof?

I would also point out that the person in this country most responsible for foreign interference and preventing it and keeping national security safe is the Prime Minister of Canada . If we've had the same Prime Minister of Canada, and now this has come to such a point that the RCMP has had to announce that 13 individuals are in peril because foreign interference has become so bad, what does that really say about his leadership? What's interesting to me is that in the foreign interference inquiry, which he's made a farce of with his recent partisan attacks, he's really trying to do two things.

Number one is to distract from his failed record to prevent foreign interference in this country and the fact that he's created an environment in which foreign interference is worse than it has been at any time in Canadian history. Foreign adversaries and others feel that we are a weak country that they can bully under Prime Minister Trudeau 's so-called leadership. The second thing is that the Prime Minister is trying to distract from the fact that he has an ongoing revolt in his caucus that is looking to overthrow him.

It's no wonder he's doing this, but certainly, if he continues to weaponize this, as my colleague said, then he should release the names. Canadians deserve to know who in Parliament right now or in the past has been undermining the national interest on purpose to aid a foreign country. They absolutely deserve to know that, and those individuals need to be held accountable. I would also say that it's interesting that he won't do so. I wonder why that is. Well, perhaps it's because it makes the Liberal Party look bad. Again, he was the one who denied that there was election interference from China, for example.

He's the one who denied there was any issue here at all, and yet here we are. He continues to deny that there's any issue there. I would suspect that this is why he's not releasing the names. I think we could put this to bed. It's rapidly devolving into some McCarthy witch hunt as a result of the Prime Minister 's actions. I think we can easily clear this up today by releasing the names. Canadians deserve to know. The Prime Minister should be showing leadership in this regard and in ensuring that he's actually taking action on this intelligence.

(1025) The last thing I would say, Mr. Chair, is that it's not clear why we are taking intelligence if we're not able to utilize it to ensure that these individuals are held accountable. If they semi-wittingly or unwittingly know, then they should know and they should be informed, so I think it is imperative that Parliament learn who these people are, if any, and move forward with that information. Mr. Chair, I'd also say again that the responsibility for national security lies with the Prime Minister . The only reason we are here is that he has failed to protect it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. We'll go now to Mr. Gaheer, please.

Mr. Iqwinder Gaheer :

Thank you, Chair. It's rich that the Conservatives are talking about this issue when their leader engages in wilful blindness by burying his head in the sand and not getting a top secret security clearance. He can quite literally get a top secret clearance, learn the names of the people in his own party who are vulnerable or have been vulnerable to foreign interference and have engaged with foreign governments and then remove those names. Because he has the ultimate power in his party, he can remove those names from his party.

This subamendment that's been brought is practically out of order, because the RCMP and CSIS have stated that anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally. Obviously, in this case, to reveal publicly the names that are classified at this time would be a criminal offence. That's what this subamendment is asking for. It's asking the Prime Minister to engage in a criminal offence. What we can see is that for the last few months and for the last year, Ms. May and Mr. Singh , from the Greens and the NDP respectively, have done a wonderful job of commenting on this issue.

They have not been muzzled at all on this issue, so I think it's very rich that the leader of the Conservatives engages in this behaviour, refuses to get a top secret security clearance and points fingers. This subamendment is a non-starter, and we should just go to a vote.

(1030) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer. We'll go now to Ms. Lantsman.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate that members of this committee think that the motion is out of order because they don't like it, that's not exactly how it works. What we're seeing now, here at this committee, is that there's only one party in this country that is calling for the release of these names—the names that the Prime Minister has alluded to, the names that we know are being kept secret. Everyone else is trying to work to hide the names, particularly in the changing stories of Ms. May from before and after she was briefed.

Now we see that the NDP is trying to distract from what was brought to this committee as a serious issue today—the serious issue of foreign interference by India—and they're now playing politics with it. Listen to this: “I agree completely with Poilievre 's decision not to take the bait. Trudeau has been trying for a year and a half to restrain what Pierre Poilievre can do by trying to say, 'Come and get this private briefing—and oh, by the way, then you'll be held to an official secret and you won't be able to talk about this anymore.' ” Do you know who said that, Mr. Chair?

That was Thomas Mulcair, who was the leader of the NDP when the NDP used to be an opposition party that wasn't helping the Liberals cover this up. The question is this: What is the government trying to hide? Everybody watching might not know that the CSIS Act allows the government to offer information to any Canadian about specific risks of foreign interference without forcing them into sworn secrecy or controlling what they say.

However, this motion is particularly about releasing the names that Canadians deserve to know of any parliamentarian, in any party, who has been wittingly associated with foreign interference or with a foreign government working against the interests of Canadians. Receiving a secret briefing would, even according to the Prime Minister 's chief of staff, prevent the recipient from using that information in any manner. I don't think that's very smart for the only opposition party that can force the Prime Minister to come clean with Canadians on what he is trying to hide.

This particular motion that was dropped at committee is a mockery, the same kind of mockery that the Trudeau government has repeatedly made with foreign interference. What we witnessed at the public inquiry this week was nothing more than well-rehearsed partisan smears by a failing Prime Minister who is facing rejection from Canadians from coast to coast and is increasingly facing it from members of his own Liberal Party, who are conducting letter-writing campaigns to oust him from his leadership.

It is beyond rich for the Prime Minister to grandstand, given the record that his government has on not taking foreign interference seriously. With all of the benefit of information from the government agencies that he has and with all of the information that he was warned with, including in the Liberal Party, he refused to act. This Prime Minister and his government repeatedly claim that they weren't aware of foreign interference happening right under their noses, despite a massive paper trail of warnings from officials.

It is Justin Trudeau 's government that mysteriously sat, as we learned from the inquiry last week, on a CSIS surveillance warning, a warrant application for a Liberal power broker, for 54 days. Still there are no answers about that. The minister says that he doesn't know. Other ministers say that he doesn't know. There are staffers who gave absolutely no answers at that commission. It is Justin Trudeau 's party that willingly allowed Chinese high school students to vote in the now infamous Han Dong nomination race, and that was fine.

It was Justin Trudeau who ignored calls from the Leader of the Opposition to release those names to Parliament. He has repeatedly done that, and now the entire country is asking for those names. You cannot go to the committee under the guise of providing information, drop that kind of partisan smear job on members of Parliament and then not come clean with the names.

(1035) The only people who are looking to have those names told to the Canadian public are in the Conservative Party. We are fighting, now, every party that is working with Justin Trudeau and his government to cover up these names. Canadians deserve to know which members of Parliament in which party, no matter what, are colluding with foreign governments, wittingly or unwittingly. Others are willing to limit their ability to hold government to account on important issues of national security; Conservatives will not do that. Mr.

Poilievre will not be left under a gag order, unable to speak about any of the information he receives. All of that is to say that these names have to come out. There's only one person who can do that, and that's the Prime Minister of Canada . The government, through CSIS, is authorized by a particular

section in the CSIS Act. It's

section 12.1. He could act at any time to utilize threat reduction measures and notify the leader of a political party of issues concerning national security. He did not do that. Instead he chose to make it public in an inquiry and cast aspersions, with absolutely no evidence and no follow-through to let Canadians know who those people and members of Parliament are. This tool has been available to his government since he started, since 2015. He could use that tool to inform Pierre Poilievre , but he's not doing that. All of that is to say that the amendment on the table is to release the names.

Again, there is one party asking for this Prime Minister to release every single one of those names. The other parties, which are purportedly in opposition, are helping the Prime Minister to hide those names and the identities of all of those members of Parliament. The question really is, for the entire committee, “What on earth are you hiding? What is the Prime Minister hiding?” I think that's the question we have to get to the bottom of in this committee.

I hope that members will vote for this amendment to make those names public for the betterment of our national security and for every Canadian to know who represents them and, ahead of the next election, who they are actually voting for, which country they are working for and whether they have Canadians' best interests at heart. Only the Prime Minister can do that. Everything else is pure politics. That's what we've seen this week and, unfortunately, that's what we're seeing right now at this committee.

The Chair :

Thank you. We go now to Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Thank you, Chair. Once again, we see this costly cover-up coalition in full force. Jagmeet Singh , in this fake theatrical performance that he probably learned from Justin Trudeau , pretended to rip up his so-called agreement. Then, once he used the people of Winnipeg, he taped it right back together. Once again, we're seeing the Liberals, the NDP and, obviously, the leader of the Green Party try to cover up, divide and distract Canadians from this flailing Prime Minister . This is a very serious issue of foreign interference.

The RCMP has alleged that members of the South Asian community have been targeted by a foreign government—in this case, India—and made allegations of murder, extortion and violent threats. What do the Liberals and the NDP do, with the help of the Green Party? They want to distract from a Liberal revolt happening within Justin Trudeau 's caucus. They want to distract Canadians from the pain and misery Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh have caused them with the high cost of living by doubling their housing costs and making sure there's more food bank usage than ever before in this country.

On top of all of that is letting Canada become a safe haven and a playground for foreign interference. I'd like to give one clear message to Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh from our common-sense Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre , in a letter he just recently wrote: “Release the names of all MPs who have collaborated with foreign interference.” We can put this whole thing to bed. Canadians want to know. Canadians want to know who are those MPs working in the best interests of foreign governments and not in the best interests of Canadians. It shouldn't be that hard to do. As Mr Poilievre also wrote:

The CSIS Act allows the government to offer information to any Canadian about specific risks of foreign interference without forcing them into sworn secrecy or controlling what they say.

and further:

Receiving a secret briefing would, according to Justin Trudeau's Chief of Staff, prevent the recipient from using “the information in any manner”, and “even where that is not the case, briefing political parties on sensitive intelligence regarding an MP could put the leader or representative of a political party in a tough position, because any decision affecting the MP might have to be made without giving them due process.

In clear words, Justin Trudeau and the NDP are trying to muzzle not just the leader of the Conservative Party but all Canadians. Justin Trudeau doesn't need to wait for an inquiry. According to the CSIS Act, he can walk over to Pierre Poilievre and give him the names. He doesn't need to continue to muzzle. He muzzled the NDP leader because of his greed for his $2.2-million pension, and he's also obviously muzzled the Green Party leader . This is why Canadians are so fed up and want an election now.

Common-sense Conservatives are the only MPs inside the House of Commons and outside the House of Commons who are calling for the names to be released now. Can you imagine that there are people sitting in the House of Commons today who are not working in the best interests of Canadians? This can include anyone. A sitting member of the House of Commons could have major implications in trade deals by doing what's in the best interests of foreign governments and not in the best interests of Canadians.

(1040) Ms. Iqra Khalid :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We have Ms. Khalid on a point of order.

Ms. Iqra Khalid :

Thank you. I take a lot of exception to the member calling into question the integrity of members of Parliament, in our Parliament, with what he's saying. I take major exception to that.

The Chair :

Thank you. I think that would be Standing Order 18, and I would advise members to be cognizant of that.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Yes. Look, Mr. Chair, we see once again that the Liberals will do anything to distract away—

Ms. Iqra Khalid :

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair. I don't appreciate.... If the member has points to raise on his motion, as is absolutely his right, please do so. Please don't try to call into question the integrity of members who are in this chamber.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair...?

The Chair :

Go ahead, Ms. Lantsman.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman :

I just want to remind the member that it was the Prime Minister himself, at the inquiry, who called into question the integrity of members of Parliament by naming parties and affiliations without actually putting the names down, and that's exactly what we're arguing here today.

The Chair :

Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Hallan.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Thank you to the great Melissa Lantsman from Thornhill, our co-deputy leader, for that clarification. I also didn't know that hurt feelings could be points of order, because that's what it seems like the Liberals keep doing—

Ms. Iqra Khalid :

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We have Ms. Khalid on a point of order, please.

Ms. Iqra Khalid :

Please don't. It's not nice. Make your arguments, as is the right of every parliamentarian in committees. Let's not call people names. Let's not go down this path. Let's be respectful, please, of everybody.

(1045) The Chair :

Thank you for your point of order. The point is well taken. Please, everybody, try to be polite to each other.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

I'll continue, Mr. Chair. Hopefully, I'm not interrupted because I hurt feelings, but further to our leader's letter to Justin Trudeau :

Furthermore, my Chief of Staff has received classified briefings from the government. At no time has the government told me or my Chief of Staff of any current or former Conservative parliamentarian or candidate knowingly participating in foreign interference.

This is in stark contrast to what the Prime Minister has alleged and what we've heard Ms. May flip-flop on from when she said she took the briefing to now and to what the NDP is claiming. Our leader goes on to say:

If Justin Trudeau has evidence to the contrary, he should share it with the public. Now that he has blurted it out in general terms at a commission of inquiry — he should release the facts. But he won't — because he is making it up.

and:

...Justin Trudeau is doing what he always does: he is lying. He is lying to distract from a Liberal caucus revolt—

The Chair :

Mr. Hallan, it is inappropriate parliamentary language to refer to a member as “lying”.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

I just want to get some clarification. I'm reading a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister —

The Chair :

It's not acceptable.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Thank you. I'll retract “lying”, but I will say that what our leader is saying in general is that Justin Trudeau is misleading. It's “what he always does”. He is distracting “from a Liberal caucus revolt against his leadership and revelations he knowingly allowed Beijing to interfere and help him win two elections.” Later the letter states:

It is beyond rich for Justin Trudeau to grandstand, given that the record now shows that he and his government, with all the benefits of government agencies, were repeatedly warned about foreign interference — including within the Liberal Party — and refused to act.

It is Justin Trudeau and his government who repeatedly claim that they just weren't aware of foreign interference happening right under their noses, despite a paper trail of warnings from officials.

It is Justin Trudeau's government which mysteriously sat on a CSIS surveillance warrant application for a Liberal power-broker for fifty-four days.

It is Justin Trudeau's party that willingly allowed the PRC consulate to bus in PRC international high school students to vote in the now infamous Han Dong nomination race.

It is Justin Trudeau who has ignored [our leader's] calls to release the names of Parliamentarians referenced in this spring's NSICOP report who have wittingly worked for the benefit of foreign governments against the interests of Canadians.

This is nothing but a cover-up. Once again, Justin Trudeau , with the help of the NDP, is just trying to distract away from the pain, misery and foreign interference they have allowed in this country after nine years. This is nothing but politics for these people. This has nothing to do with the safety and security of Canadians or the democracy that we should be upholding. The sovereignty of Canada is not being upheld by these parties. It is only the Conservative Party that is asking for full transparency and for the names to be released. That's what this is all about.

We're calling the bluff of this costly coalition, this cover-up coalition, now. Just release the names. Release the names of those MPs who are not working in the best interests of Canadians. It is that simple. There should be no excuse now. There should be no reason for anyone to doubt that any parliamentarian who is duly elected to the House of Commons is working in the best interests of Canadians. I also want to mention that it's this Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau , who admitted at the public inquiry that there are Liberal names and names from every party.

Conservatives are not scared of the names being released. We're saying to release the names now. Only the Liberals and the NDP in their cover-up coalition are afraid. What we want to know is this: What do they have to hide? What do they have to hide? They're scared to go to an election because they're scared of Canadians, but they are wilfully letting foreign interference, which includes threats, violence, extortion and even alleged murder, happen in this country to Canadians, all so they can cover up their incompetency. This is nine years of Justin Trudeau with the help of Jagmeet Singh.

I'll make it clear one more time: The common-sense Conservatives are asking for the names to be released immediately so that Canadians can feel safe once again on Canadian soil. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1050) The Chair :

Thank you. We'll go now to Ms. May. Ms. May, go ahead, please.

Ms. Elizabeth May :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my friends and colleagues around the table, I make it very clear to my friend from Kildonan—St. Paul and to Melissa Lantsman as well that I haven't changed my position at all. I don't own any flip-flops. I don't flip-flop; I stand on principle. I was trained as a lawyer—I'm honoured to have been admitted to the bars of Nova Scotia and of Ontario—and so, when I went through the process of getting top secret security clearance, I was very mindful of what I could and couldn't say.

I was quite sure when David Johnston, as former special rapporteur, opened the door for the first time that leaders of opposition parties could seek top secret security clearance and potentially obtain it—you don't get it as a right—had something in my past been uncovered that would make me subject to blackmail or intimidation or to being compromised through any form of interference, then I wouldn't have obtained top secret security clearance. I would have been denied it. Now, I go to the matter of, “Did my story change?” No, not one bit.

I read the unredacted version of the report of the committee of parliamentarians. I think it's important for me to explain to my colleagues how I navigated this: How do you obtain top secret security clearance, read information that must, by law, remain secret, and still talk about it? Well, the answer is that you're careful as you navigate, and so, before I spoke publicly, I shared with security agencies the notes that I planned to use in the press conference.

I want my colleagues around the table to know that some things I had intended to say, which I thought would be non-controversial and not reveal any secrets, included the exact number of people who were considered “witting” or “semi-witting”. I repeat again that I do not believe any of our colleagues currently serving in Parliament, at least in terms of the report I read....

There may be other information, and certainly the Prime Minister had other kinds of briefings that I haven't, but based on the text of the report of the committee of parliamentarians, into which our colleagues from the Liberal Party, Bloc Québécois, NDP and Conservatives put an enormous amount of work.... Our colleagues read 33,000 pages of top secret security material and condensed it into a report that they could all stand behind, and then, with some deletions and other modifications to make it publicly accessible, it became public information. I was able to read the report unredacted.

I stand by every word I said, but before I said a word—because I wasn't gagged, clearly, and I was able to talk about it—I went through my notes with security experts to make sure I didn't inadvertently violate any laws of Canada or place at risk any of our intelligence assets. To my colleagues around the table, I want you to know that I actually edited and changed what I was going to say in the press conference, not taking out names but even the number of people who might be considered “semi-witting” or in any way potentially compromised.

That's to say again—I repeat—that to my knowledge, no one currently serving in Parliament, in the House of Commons, was compromised or is serving the interests of a foreign government. There are some people who were referenced as “semi-witting”, but I was told clearly that even the number, the numerical categorization of how many people might fall into that category, could not be said publicly without placing at risk the lives of our intelligence assets around the world. I want my colleagues to understand that this isn't a game. This isn't politics. I'm not playing games here.

I'm telling you how it is when you navigate, with top secret security clearance, what you can say and what you can't say. The amendment to this motion to release all the names sounds grand if you operate in ignorance of the law and of how security and intelligence operatives and intelligence and security information gathering operates in the real world, where there are bad people. We have to be careful as members of Parliament not to allow political rhetoric to get in the way of what we do to serve Canadians. I just wanted to clear that up. I hope it helps.

We can't just say, “Release all the names” unless we're operating in ignorance of the ongoing knock-on effects that it could have in terms of endangering the lives of intelligence assets of Canada. I navigated this as carefully as I could because I think it's really critical that Canadians know as much as we possibly can share without violating national security.

(1055) I think this committee is on a good path in choosing to have an investigation. Again, I do believe it's important to clear up any suggestion that foreign interference had an impact on the Conservative leadership race. That's an obvious point. That's already out there in public. That's on page 32 in paragraph 72 of the public version of the committee of parliamentarians' report. I think Mr. Poilievre would want to know exactly what is referenced there and get a top secret security clearance. Unless there's some reason he thinks he won't get it, I can't see any reason why he wouldn't want to obtain it.

I think I've made it clear and I think Mr. Singh as leader of the New Democratic Party has made it clear— Mr. Blanchet is still in the process of getting his top secret security clearance—that we believe we can serve the people of Canada and share the information that we can share without breaking the law and help all Canadians understand.

Again, I wrote each individual leader of all the parties in the House of Commons to please get top secret security clearance so that we can meet as a group, as a unified force, and tell foreign powers, whether Russia or the People's Republic of China or India or any of the sources of foreign interference, that we operate in Canada as a solid wall and we tell foreign powers, “We're not giving you space here. We unify.

We pull together.” For that, it would certainly be helpful if all the leaders of all the federal political parties obtained top secret security clearance so that we could work together without the risk of violating the security establishment and the safety and security of non-Canadians somewhere else around the world who are sharing information with our operatives. Those people must not be placed at risk because of reckless political rhetoric here at home. I do wish that this committee is able to continue on the study and that the accusations of one party versus another are kept to a bare minimum.

I guess it's impossible to avoid it altogether, but I haven't changed my story—not one bit. I do believe you can have top secret security clearance and navigate that responsibility. It's an onerous responsibility to respect the security establishment of this country, navigate it and share with Canadians that we have, in terms of elected members of Parliament, not one person who has actively worked against the interests of Canada. There is, as we said, the category that the committee used, and the language that they used, of “witting” or “semi-witting”. It's unusual language, but that's the language they used.

There are some people in that category. On my reading of the unredacted version of the report, the MPs in the semi-witting or witting category have not committed acts that fall into the category of proactive betrayal of their country's interests. Those names, and even the number of people in that category, I have been warned by people in our security establishment must not be shared publicly. Therefore, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we can taunt various people to just make it all public. I'm not hiding anything. I do my best to be transparent. That's why I'm grateful for the chance to take the floor again.

I hope that has helped clear things up. I do hope we can all be on the same side here of getting as much information as we can. We've moved from where we were when David Johnston was made special rapporteur with the concern of how much foreign interests had interfered in our elections. We're now looking at very clear accusations that the RCMP uncovered—a network of operatives reporting to a criminal element within India, operating on Canadian soil to endanger lives. They're very different categories of foreign interference.

They all require deep respect and a degree of caution in how we go forward so that we don't betray any information that must be kept secure and secret in the interests of our ability to work with Five Eyes partners and be understood to be a country where secure and secret information remains respected and stays secure and secret. Thank you very much.

(1100) The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. May. We go now to Mr. Uppal, followed by Mr. MacGregor. Mr. Uppal, go ahead.

Hon. Tim Uppal :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I must say that this committee started off discussing a very serious issue of national security, an issue of protecting Canadians, an issue of addressing the very serious matter where RCMP made allegations of murder, extortion, organized crime, intimidation and coercion by agents of the Indian government. There was agreement by this committee to move forward and address that.

It's unfortunate that we have now gone to a place where we are discussing and debating how the NDP and the Liberals are working together to cover up names of MPs—not wanting to release names of MPs—who have not been working in the best interests of Canadians. Ms. May talked about how she cannot release those names and that she, in fact, cannot take any action based on the information that she has because she has taken that clearance and read the names. She has the information, but she cannot release the names. She cannot do anything with that information. That is particularly the point.

Receiving a secret briefing would, according to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau 's own chief of staff, Katie Telford, prevent a recipient from using the information in any manner. Essentially, the person who receives the briefing would not be able to use or do anything with that briefing. It is a gag order. It doesn't allow that person to take any action or discuss it with the information that they have.

Then she goes on to say, “Even where that it is not the case, briefing political parties on sensitive intelligence regarding an MP could put the leader or representative of a political party in a tough position, because any decision affecting the MP might have to be made without giving them due process.” That is why the better situation would be for the Prime Minister .... He brought this up at the Hogue commission. He's the one who came out and said that, yes, there are Liberals and members of other parties on that list. He should bring that information forward. He should bring it publicly.

He should release those names. In that way, political party leaders can take action as they see fit, based on those names, based on that information. Otherwise, as Ms. May herself has said, you cannot take any action. You cannot discuss those names, and you cannot release them. For that reason, that is a better way to go. Within the CSIS Act, there actually is a provision to be able to give the leader of a party sensitive information, pertinent information, especially when it comes to the national security of the nation. All of that process is available.

Justin Trudeau , as the Prime Minister, can give that information to any political leader, or he can release those names publicly. We would say that he release them publicly, because if there are members of Parliament who have been elected by Canadian citizens, by their electorate, and who are not working in the best interest of Canadians, then that information should be made public. That is the best way to deal with this. Canadians deserve to know who these people are. Let's get back to the situation that we originally were dealing with. We were on foreign interference, and this is coming out of that.

With regard to foreign interference, there are a number of steps that could have been taken to protect Canadians. It's unfortunate that we are now, on this very serious issue of foreign interference, discussing the NDP and the Liberals playing political games when we should be discussing how we can stop foreign interference. One of the very serious allegations that the RCMP has made against agents of the Indian government is that they were taking

part in the extortion of Canadians.

(1105) We have heard in the last number of months, for over a year now, that very serious cases of extortion are happening across the country. There have been shootings at homes. Homes have been burnt down; over a dozen newly built homes in Edmonton were burnt down. There are businesses that have been shot at, some alleged to have been directed by international gangsters. These are issues that we should be looking at and should be debating. I brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-381 , that would have given stricter penalties to anybody who takes

part in extortion with mandatory minimum sentences to keep extortionists in jail longer. There would have been a minimum penalty of at least three years if somebody were to commit extortion; a four-year mandatory minimum sentence if somebody were to commit extortion using a firearm; and a five-year mandatory minimum sentence if someone were to commit extortion in connection with organized crime.

This links back to exactly what the RCMP has alleged: that agents of the Indian government are working with organized crime in Canada, particularly an organized crime unit out of India, the Bishnoi group, to extort Canadians here on Canadian soil. That last provision would aim to convict anyone who is involved in organized crime and extortion with a minimum of five years in jail. Unfortunately, all of the NDP members in the House of Commons, as well as the Liberals, voted against that bill.

It is unfortunate that when we talk in this place about protecting Canadians, taking steps to ensure that Canadians are kept safe and ensuring that Canadians are able to express themselves freely, to have political opinions that are different from others and to do so in a peaceful manner, and solutions come forward, the Liberals and the NDP do not take action. They did not vote in favour of that bill. They essentially are saying that they are fine with not keeping extortionists in jail longer. That, again, really speaks to how serious they are about addressing these issues.

The issue that we are dealing with right now goes along in the same manner. We should be discussing ways of stopping foreign interference from any country, including India, and not looking at ways to make cheap political points, as they are doing right now. On the issue of security clearance, the same day that the RCMP made these very serious allegations, the Leader of the Opposition, Pierre Poilievre , received a briefing from Canada's security agencies. He received all of the information. He got the same briefing that the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh , got.

Provisions are there to be able to give the Leader of the Opposition the information that is required without gagging him and without his not being able to speak about that information or take action against that information. When it comes to the names of members of Parliament who have not been working in the interests of Canadians or have been colluding with a foreign nation, this is actually an issue that the Prime Minister brought up.

I know the Liberal member was saying that we should not suggest that some members of Parliament in this place may be colluding with a foreign government or cast aspersions on other members of Parliament. It was actually the Prime Minister himself who did so. Those names can and should be released. Canadians deserve to know who those members of Parliament are. No other individual, including a party leader, just like Elizabeth May said, can release that information. Nobody else can do that, but the Prime Minister can.

(1110) If there are serious national security issues that the Leader of the Opposition should know, CSIS has the ability, within the CSIS Act, to provide that information to the Leader of the Opposition—the future prime minister—to ensure that he can take appropriate action.

Instead of going down this path of the NDP helping the Liberals cover up these names and getting together to make these cheap political points, I think this committee should continue with what we originally started off with, which is dealing with the very serious issues of foreign interference, of Canadians being assassinated—murdered—on Canadian soil, of extortion taking place across the country, of organized crime being used by a foreign government and of the intimidation and coercion of Canadians.

This is a matter of our sovereignty and our democracy, and this committee now has—because of the NDP and the Liberals—turned to trying to make cheap political points. I suggest that we get back to the very important issues. There are a number of questions that we have and should have as Canadians. If the RCMP alleges that a foreign gang is using gangsters in Canada and international gangsters to carry out extortion and the other organized crime, intimidation, then how is it that those Canadians, those people, are in Canada? Why are those people in Canada?

The RCMP statement reads, “Through our national taskforce and other investigative efforts, the RCMP has obtained evidence that demonstrates four very serious issues”. These are issues that we should be addressing here. One is “Violent extremism impacting both countries”. This is an issue that this committee should be looking into. There is also “Links tying agents of the Government of India (GOI) to homicides and violent acts” that are happening here in Canada.

There is “The use of organized crime”—they actually named an international gang—“to create a perception of an unsafe environment targeting the South Asian Community in Canada”, and “Interference into democratic processes.” It also says, “Investigations have revealed that Indian diplomats and consular officials based in Canada leveraged their official positions to engage in clandestine activities”. These are very serious issues. I must say that these issues are very serious, but they are also ones that have been very difficult to speak to Canadians about.

I had a number of phone calls from members of the Sikh community and others from across the country, but I also had to have conversations with my children. They're old enough now to hear about information and news, and they're also concerned about what's happening in our country. I talked to many Canadians who said that it's not the same country that they came to, a country that has that safety and security. After nine years of this government, we are not as safe as many people used to believe and not as safe as people were. There are a number of ways that information can be shared in order to protect Canadians.

What the Prime Minister wants to do is have our leader gagged, essentially, sworn into secrecy and provided some information but then not be able to talk about it, to tell Canadians about it or to take any action on it. CSIS already has ways of providing that information to the leader. In fact, the Treasury Board Secretariat's policy on government security has provisions through which they can provide that information to the leader. Cabinet ministers and, possibly, privy councillors can be provided that information. There is the NSICOP, a committee, that has been provided that information.

(1115) As I said before, there are the threat reduction measures, commonly known as TRMs, under

section 12.1 of the CSIS Act. This information can be provided to the Leader of the Opposition to be able to take action as appropriate. As for the names of MPs who have been possibly working or colluding with, knowing or unknowingly, and the leaders of the different parties...because there are Liberals on that list. I believe the Prime Minister also said members of the NDP. I know that he specifically mentioned Conservatives to make that political point, but there are Liberals on that list as well. The leaders of those parties, if that information is provided properly, can take action as they see fit.

I also think the information should be provided publicly. As I said, I think it's important that we get back to the very important issue of foreign interference in this country. Let's drop this attempt at making political points here in this committee and work at taking steps to protect Canadians. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. We will go now to Mr. MacGregor.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to take the opportunity to address a few of the points that my Conservative colleagues have made. I am going to do so in a respectful manner, and I'm not going to resort to petty insults. First of all, I raise this point because, given Monday's revelations, I think it is incredibly important for Canada to show a united front, and right now we're at a stage where the only federal party leader who is refusing to get top security clearance is Mr. Poilievre of the Conservatives.

This has gotten to a stage now where his continued refusal to get this clearance is raising far more questions than is necessary. I don't know what his motives are. I know the Conservatives keep on talking about him being gagged. It certainly hasn't prevented our leader, Jagmeet Singh , from talking openly and frankly about this in a way that does not risk top security information. Perhaps, for Mr. Poilievre , ignorance is bliss.

Perhaps it allows him to continue talking on Twitter and to Canadians about things he knows absolutely nothing about, and maybe he simply wants to have that freedom to keep on spouting off nonsense and remain in ignorance. I don't know; that's up to him. He can still refuse to take the clearance. This is simply asking him to do so. He is not even named in the motion. It simply asks that all federal party leaders get the necessary security clearance levels so that we can take the necessary actions to protect Canadians.

I do want to address some of the points that my Conservative colleagues have been making about how this would prevent a party leader from taking action. I completely disagree with that, and here's why. We know that in political parties, the leader wields an enormous amount of power. The leader is able to determine who in caucus has what parliamentary roles. The leader is able to determine who gets to run under the party's banner in the next election. They have to sign the nomination papers. If Mr.

Poilievre were to get this security clearance, and if he were to learn of certain individuals within his own party—I'm not singling out the Conservatives, because we've heard allegations about members in the Liberal Party—what it would allow him to do is to take the necessary internal actions to perhaps isolate those individuals and, if it's very serious, to prevent them from running as members of Parliament under the Conservative Party banner in the next election. He could do all of that without having to breach the top security rules in place that prevent the divulgence of this information.

It is false to claim that he can't take action when, in fact, he could. If there's a compromised member of Parliament or someone who goes over the threshold of suspicious activities on behalf of a foreign power, Mr. Poilievre could prevent that individual from running in the next election, and that would inoculate us against having that person in the House of Commons in the 45th Parliament. That is a direct action that the leader could take. I also take issue with the way the Conservatives are trying to frame the NDP.

There are two members of our caucus for whom this issue is deeply personal and who have been directly impacted by this— Jenny Kwan and Jagmeet Singh —so I take great issue with their saying that we are doing this for politics. This is a serious and personal issue for our party. It has directly impacted the lives of two of our caucus members, and that needs to be underlined. Both China and India have directly impacted two of my fellow caucus members. This is a very serious issue for us, and it is an issue that our leader takes very seriously.

That is why he took the appropriate steps to get his security clearance, which allows him to take actions that I may not be privy to, but I can operate knowing that the leader has the information he needs to govern his own caucus accordingly. That's what we're asking every party leader to do within their respective caucuses.

(1120) To show the Conservatives that I do support our in some way releasing these names...because the other thing I want to also put on point is that I've had many conversations with members of the security and intelligence community, both at committee and in private conversations. These are their words, not mine: There is a wide gulf between evidence and intelligence. This needs to be underlined. We can't just go about releasing the names without understanding that key point. I don't want to repeat what Ms. May said, but there is a very real danger that we could compromise the way we got that information.

What the Conservatives are essentially asking us to do with their amendment right now is to potentially put our own intelligence operatives at risk. I think, for anyone who sits on this committee, that is completely unacceptable. Again, these are not my words. These are words coming directly from the intelligence and security community. Conservatives know this, because they have heard those exact same words from those members at this committee table and in conversations they've had in private with those individuals. Mr. Chair, I am going to propose a subamendment to Mr. Lloyd's amendment to my motion.

His amendment was tacked onto the end.

It simply said, “that we release the names of all members of Parliament and all parliamentarians who are alleged to have interfered and knowingly colluded with foreign powers.” My subamendment to this would read as follows: “that the government release the names of all members of Parliament and all parliamentarians who are alleged to have interfered and knowingly colluded with foreign powers while protecting national security and those who gathered the intelligence.” Jenny Kwan and our leader has said it very much on the record that we would love for the Canadian public to know these names.

I hate the fact that I have to serve in the House of Commons with this cloud of suspicion hanging over us. I think Canadians deserve to know. It caused a huge uproar when that NSICOP report was released in June, but we also have to respect the very real concerns that our intelligence community has repeatedly relayed to this committee and its members. I do believe that, if there is a way of publicly releasing these names, it needs to be done in a very careful fashion. It needs to be done in a way that is fully coordinated with our national security and intelligence partners on this file.

I am not going to support just simply releasing the names with no context, but I will support a non-political, professional way of releasing the names that has the full support of members of the RCMP and CSIS. If Conservative members are willing to publicly say that they support the important work of those agencies, I hope they will support this subamendment to their amendment. I'll conclude there, Mr. Chair.

(1125) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor. We are substantially over time. Our resources run out at 11:30 a.m., so at this point I will suspend. We will resume this discussion on Tuesday. The meeting is suspended. [ The meeting was suspended at 11:25 a.m., Friday, October 18, 2024 ] [ The meeting resumed at 11:05 a.m., Tuesday, October 22, 2024 ]

The Chair :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome back to meeting number 124 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are resuming our meeting of Friday, October 18, 2024. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I would like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the chair. Please raise your hand if you wish to speak, whether participating in person or via Zoom. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can.

We are resuming debate on the subamendment by Mr. MacGregor to the amendment by Mr. Lloyd to the motion by Mr. MacGregor. Since we have some people here who weren't present on Friday, I'll read the motion as it currently stands:

That, given the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report on violent criminal activities linked to agents of the Government of India from October 14, 2024, the Hogue Commission's identification of foreign interference activities by Russia, Pakistan, China, and Iran, and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians' special report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions, the Chair reports to the House that the committee calls for all federal party leaders to apply for the appropriate security clearance level in the next 30 days in order to review classified information and take necessary actions to protect Canadians.

Mr. Lloyd moved an amendment to that motion, as follows: “that we release the names of all members of Parliament and all parliamentarians who are alleged to have interfered and knowingly colluded with foreign powers.” Mr. MacGregor modified it with this subamendment: “that the government release the names of all members of Parliament and all parliamentarians who are alleged to have interfered and knowingly colluded with foreign powers while protecting national security and those who gathered the intelligence.” That's where we stand. We're starting a new speakers list. We have Ms. Dancho, followed by Mr. Lloyd.

We will be vigilant in looking for hands going up. With that, we will pass the floor to Ms. Dancho.

Ms. Raquel Dancho :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this subamendment. I will note, Mr. Chair, I find it a bit disconcerting that we're talking about this motion, amendment and subamendment, in general. Given that even just today, with the latest news on the India affair, it would appear that Canadian officials, for example.... This subamendment is interesting, because it talks about protecting national security, which is obviously important. Today, we learned that it would appear that national security officials in Canada leaked information to The Washington Post that Canadians weren't made aware of.

The Washington Post journalists apparently have a greater right to know information about this India issue than Canadians. That is something we could get into if we were studying the motion we all agreed to, which was to review the India affair and bring in various deputy ministers, the CSIS director, the RCMP commissioner, a number of security officials and other experts to testify on some of the information they knew and when they knew it. Why is it that The Washington Post knew before Canadians?

There are a number of issues, even putting that aside, that could fill in many of the blanks on this important issue that many Canadians are seized with, particularly Canadians in the Indian and Sikh communities. It's a bit disconcerting that we're seeing various parties playing politics with this issue. Our party's been very clear on where we stand on this motion, and that's not going to change. Certainly, I feel we could get back to the matter at hand. I believe all parties are interested in learning more, particularly in light of the breaking news today out of The Globe and Mail from Bob Fife. Certainly, Mr.

Chair, I think we should be moving on and getting back to the study at hand. In particular, if we were focusing on the study that we passed as a committee, we could be asking the commissioner today, “Why is it that we had to learn from The Washington Post that the killing of an individual in Winnipeg had been linked to the whole India affair, in general? Why is it that we had to learn it in American news, and that the RCMP didn't release that to the Canadian public?” I would like to know that, amongst other things. We could be doing that today. Instead, we're going to be focusing on playing politics.

Unfortunately, this motion is from the NDP, with presumably Liberal support. We've made our position very clear on this, and that's not going to change. I'd ask the members of other parties to consider getting back to the matter at hand, so we can focus on the India affair. Certainly, Mr. Chair, it would be worthwhile for this committee to immediately take up that study. I don't believe we could get to that today, but I would assume that, on Thursday, you could do the work to have various witnesses come and testify. If we're looking at this, I feel that the subamendment, in general....

Overall, I feel it is implied within it, but perhaps, in general, this motion was not moved in the best of faith. We've made our position clear, as I said. I do feel we could be focusing on the matter at hand. I believe all members of this committee are intelligent, can fight from their corners with respect and, certainly, have information to put on the record that would be of public interest on the India affair issue. Mr.

Chair, again, just waking up today and hearing repeatedly, for example, from the Prime Minister and others, that all of these issues are classified and we can't talk about them, it just seems.... I don't believe this is the first time, in fact, that we've seen various members of American news outlets in the United States get information before we get it. I believe you'll remember, Mr. Chair, when there was that issue of the Chinese spy balloon. American news had more information about what Canadian intelligence knew than the Canadians themselves. This isn't the first time we've seen issues like this.

When we're talking about protecting national security, I would wonder what processes were followed when The Washington Post journalists were entitled to some of this information, and we weren't. I think that is of interest to this committee, certainly, as the public safety and national security committee. It should be with haste that we have a number of these witnesses come to testify. Perhaps, we'll have them testify more than once, given the importance of this issue. I know we'll go through this today, but we've made our position very clear on this matter.

We do not feel that this motion reflects the best interests of the duties of the opposition to hold the government accountable. That is our position, and that's not going to change. Again, I'd ask other parties to consider that. If we can get to work as soon as Thursday on questioning members of CSIS, the RCMP and others, that would be of great public benefit by further understanding the details of this India affair. I'll leave it at that for now, and I ask that you put me back on the speaking list.

The Chair :

Thanks, Ms. Dancho. We'll go to Mr. Lloyd, please.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to echo the comments made by my colleague Ms. Dancho. They are very apt and disturbing. Information was shared with a foreign media outlet, The Washington Post, before Canadians were made aware of the situation involving the allegations that a foreign government, in this case India, has been sponsoring acts of crime in our country, which is of concern to all Canadians as our sovereignty is impacted in this case. I think that, if the allegations made by The Globe and Mail are true, then it illustrates a greater point that speaks to the subamendment my colleague Mr.

MacGregor put forward. He talks about how the release of the names must only be done in accordance with national security. I'll say that, at all times in my original amendment, it's implied that we will not violate the safety of agents who are in the field in the release of any information. However, with the addition of this subamendment, I have concerns. It's clear to me that we have a government that feels that it can leak information if it's to its own political benefit. Information gets shared with groups like The Washington Post.

Information is being leaked, like the Prime Minister outrageously at the Hogue commission selectively saying that he has information related to Conservative parliamentarians. I think that people in the media and across the country have rightly denounced and criticized that as a blatant partisan act by the Prime Minister. We know from security officials that foreign interference is a broad issue across this country. For the Prime Minister to try to weaponize information that he's privy to in a way that is vague really puts a cloud of suspicion over all members of Parliament.

Frankly, I think it devolves this foreign interference debate into a partisan debate when it really doesn't need to be. We will call this out. We will hold this government accountable when they put their own partisan interests above the national security of our country. We know that this is a Prime Minister who's facing an internal revolt. He's facing numerous pressures. He's attempting to distract in any way he can by outrageously using selective information curated solely to benefit himself politically and not to benefit the national security of our country. I will note that this all could have been avoided.

Our House leader, the Honourable Andrew Scheer .... In the wake of findings from the NSICOP report that there were members of Parliament who were compromised by foreign interference, Conservatives put forward a way that would respect our national security in a letter that was put forward to Parliament. It requested that the Hogue commission be given a broader set of powers and a broader mandate and receive the unredacted information needed in order to reveal, when possible, the names of members of Parliament or other parliamentarians, both current and former, who have been implicated in foreign interference.

I think it's only fair that those members of Parliament who are involved be notified about this. They're under a cloud of suspicion, and they need to have the ability to clear their names if they are innocent. Canadians need to be given a chance to, you know.... There will be an election by October 2025, guaranteed. Canadians need to know that the air needs to be cleared and that our Parliament is free from these serious allegations of foreign interference. I'm sure that, if this Liberal government had its way, Canadians wouldn't even know that foreign interference was happening in this country.

We saw the lengths that this government went to to hide this very serious information and the lengths it went to even to outright deny that foreign interference was happening. In the case of Minister Blair , when he came to this committee in his role as Minister of Emergency Preparedness and answering for his tenure as Minister of Public Safety, he said they had received no evidence that there was foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections.

This was the Minister of Public Safety saying this in 2022, and we now know, from the Hogue commission and from information what's been shared in the public space, that there was indeed foreign interference that affected at least eight ridings in the 2021 election. I feel very personally about this, because one of those members of Parliament was a good friend, Kenny Chiu, in Richmond. His name was slandered, and it was found to have been done by agents of a foreign government that was using its arm in Canada and numerous assets in Canada to spread falsehoods that Mr.

Chiu, a man of Chinese descent himself, was attempting to create a foreign agent registry that was going to list all Canadians of Chinese descent. It's a patently ridiculous, absurd and ludicrous idea, yet, as we've seen with foreign misinformation and disinformation campaigns, a lie can spread around the world before the truth has a chance to tie its shoes. Kenny Chiu was a victim of that. There were a number of other Conservative MPs in particular who, to the benefit of Liberal MPs in all of these cases, coincidentally, lost their elections because of this foreign interference.

If it had not been for leaks from our national security apparatus and if it had not been for the work of the Hogue commission and enterprising journalists like Sam Cooper, Canadians would have never known about this serious threat to our country's national security. They would have never known the depths and the extent to which foreign powers, be they numerous, are attempting to influence our country, intimidate politicians and intimidate diaspora communities in our country so they don't participate in politics or they vote out of fear instead of in their own self-interest. To see that be allowed to happen....

I saw a journalist tweet on X the other day that the Canada of 2015 seems so quaint now after nine years of this Liberal government. Certainly, we can't rule out foreign interference prior to 2015; however, the extent of the foreign interference that we've seen in the last nine years proliferating under this Liberal government is shocking.

If you took somebody who was here in 2015 and they could travel forward in time and they woke up in 2024, they'd be shocked at what has happened to their country—what has happened to our country—where not just one country but multiple countries with different complicated layers of intrigue are actively interfering in our democratic system and in our public debate, yet we have a government that said it wasn't even happening just a few short years ago.

We had here, previous to this motion coming forward, a motion to explore the very serious issue of foreign interference in relation to the alleged threats of India threatening Canadian citizens, particularly citizens of the Sikh community. These are very serious allegations, and the fact that we're not studying that right now, I think, is problematic. I understand that we're dealing with a motion here today related to clearances.

We have a Prime Minister who has access to this top secret information and has chosen to weaponize it for his own partisan ends and has, having had this information, failed to act for nine years. In the case of one serious allegation involving a former Liberal member of Parliament, the Prime Minister , who had been fully briefed on the issues related to that member of Parliament, stood up in the House and said that he looks forward to welcoming him back to caucus in the future. For the Prime Minister, with the knowledge that he has, to make a claim like that is absolutely shocking.

It's only because this information has not been transparent or has not been shared and has been basically kept, keeping Canadians completely in the dark, that this has been allowed to continue. The government has been able to get away with the selective release of national security information for the purpose of keeping Canadians in the dark about their members of Parliament. The fact is that there's been lots of talk about the importance of getting these security clearances.

However, it's also been noted quite effectively that even with these security clearances, there is basically nothing that any member of Parliament can do to act on this. It's been said earlier that the names can't be revealed. If a leader of a party were to get clearance and receive information that one of their members was compromised by a foreign state, they couldn't kick that member out of caucus because, if there was a risk, as has been said, that the information about that member had been gathered clandestinely by a member of our intelligence or our allies' intelligence, then it could compromise them.

I don't know what people expect when the Prime Minister , who has had this information for years—he's had this information for as long as he's been Prime Minister—failed to act in numerous cases within his own party. He has not removed a single member from his caucus. There was a member who left caucus voluntarily, but the Prime Minister has failed to act on these issues. I don't know how they can expect any other leader in this Parliament to be able to act on this information, especially when this information was ostensibly supposed to be shared with the chief of staff of the Conservatives.

They're being told that it's on a need-to-know basis. Well, I think the chief of staff needs to know. I think certainly the chief of staff to the Prime Minister knows this information. I know the chief of staff of the Conservative Party to be a man of honour and a man of integrity. I think that's entirely suitable. What we will not accept is a situation where our leader, who has been fighting the fight on foreign interference publicly in the House of Commons, would in any way be restricted in his ability to hold this Liberal government to account. We have Conservatives who are members of the NSICOP committee.

We have a chief of staff who has top secret security clearance. We have all the tools that the government says we should have at our disposal, yet what I see here from the NDP and the Liberals is just a blatant attempt to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from doing his constitutionally mandated job, which is to hold this government accountable for its failures. I think one of its chief failures is going to be remembered as its lack of action on foreign interference, which has allowed us to get to this point today. With that, I'd like to get back to the very important debate that we're having about India.

I was really sad to see that we didn't receive unanimous consent in the House yesterday. I heard a Liberal member deny consent for starting a committee to deal with this very important issue. With that, I would like to move a motion to adjourn, and I'd like a recorded vote, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Pam Damoff (Oakville North—Burlington, Lib.) :

Are we voting to adjourn debate on the motion?

The Chair :

It was a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

No, it's to adjourn debate on....

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Pickering—Uxbridge, Lib.) :

That would then call a vote on the motion.

The Chair :

The motion is to adjourn debate on the subamendment.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

Technically, I think the whole motion gets adjourned if there's a motion.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

No, we're on the subamendment.

The Chair :

We're on the subamendment, so we're going to take this as a motion to adjourn the subamendment.

Mr. Dane Lloyd :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I would maybe ask the clerk to clarify this: If you call a vote to adjourn debate, is that only debate on the subamendment or is that debate on the entire motion?

The Chair :

We are engaging in debate on the subamendment, so adjourning debate, to me, would be on the subamendment, but I'll check with the clerk. I am informed it would be a vote on the whole motion. We have a motion to adjourn the debate on the motion with the proposed amendment and subamendment. Mr. Clerk, take the roll, please. (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chair: The motion passes and the debate is adjourned. There being no business, this is the end of the—

Ms. Elizabeth May :

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I may have misheard, but I thought that the—

The Chair :

I apologize. I think I've gone into a catatonic state here. The vote is to carry on, so we're going to carry on. We have Mr. Motz, followed by Ms. Dancho, Ms. O'Connell, Mr. MacGregor and Ms. Lantsman. If I fall asleep again, please....

Ms. Pam Damoff :

We'll wake you up.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Motz, please go ahead.

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Chair. I think those who have been party to this, watching this debate, watching these conversations, this committee, just witnessed the true politics of not really caring about our country or the foreign interference that exists in this country. The Liberals and the NDP would sooner play politics with the issue of foreign interference and this very serious information we've received about India and its interference and the acts that have been alleged to have occurred on Canadian soil. I'm very troubled by that.

Last Friday, the emergency meeting resulted in a motion that we supported, calling for meetings to bring witnesses in to talk about foreign interference and the allegations of India's involvement in acts of violence on Canadian soil. We had a number of witnesses who were on the list to provide briefings to the committee, evidence to the committee, that would help us further understand this issue and then take the issue beyond just an understanding into some action that would go back to the House and force the government to take this seriously.

What I find really disturbing, beyond the obvious of the politics, is that, while this committee is seized with a responsibility to explore the India-Canada events that have occurred—and this is just what's on the surface; there's probably a lot more going on that obviously we don't know about—we're stuck spinning our wheels, talking about whether federal party leaders should receive a security clearance. Of course, we know there are some serious limitations. The comments made by Ms. May at Friday's meeting shone some light on the fact that there are things you cannot say after receiving this briefing.

That is very clear. Another member of this committee and I have top security clearance. We know the limitations that exist with receiving this information. What that means is that you've effectively put a gag order on leaders to be able to speak as freely as the Prime Minister is able to on some of these issues. You can't name names. You can't even take action, to be honest with you, if you receive this briefing. It's important to appreciate that even the Prime Minister 's chief of staff has indicated that receiving this security clearance would prevent a recipient from, and I will quote from her interview

summary:

...[using] the information in any manner. Even where that is not the case, briefing political parties on sensitive intelligence regarding an MP could put the leader or representative of a political party in a tough position, because any decision affecting the MP might have to be made without giving them due process.

That's from the Prime Minister 's own chief of staff on the fallacy that, if all political leaders receive this briefing, they can go back and act. We know that's not necessarily the case. What our leader, the Conservative leader, Mr. Poilievre , has made very clear is that we take this matter seriously. We're asking for the names to be released and that actions will be taken, and should be taken, by all parties, should there be anyone found to be willfully complicit in assisting any foreign state. What's interesting is the CSIS Act actually provides for an opportunity for people to receive information without receiving the s