Evidence of meeting #124 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was evacuation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave the answer there. We're way past time.
Ms. Normandin, you have two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, you told us earlier that you shared the information you received on vulnerable persons with the chief of the defence staff during secure briefings.
You also said that the logistics on the ground for determining evacuation meeting points were organized between groups on the ground and the military.
You said you were not involved in that part of the operation.
That being said, an article in the Globe and Mail on June 27 states:
Mr. Sajjan confirmed in a statement Wednesday—
That would be Wednesday, June 26, 2024.
—that he texted the Canadian military about what was happening on the ground based on his conversations with Calgary-based Manmeet Singh Bhullar Foundation, which had arranged to privately sponsor the Afghan Sikhs.
Which of the two versions is the correct one, the one today, or the one on June 27?
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
What are you referring to? Is it the Globe article there?
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
It quotes your statement of June 26. It says:
“confirmed in a statement Wednesday that he texted the Canadian military about what was happening on the ground based on his conversations”—
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
What are you referring to there? Is it the Globe article?
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
It's the Globe article.
What I'm trying to tell you is that how it is portrayed is inaccurate. It's clearly stated that any information I received during that time, whether it was from them or any other group, was relayed through the chain of command. Then they had that information.
Just imagine, again, if I had received information and not pushed it forward.
Then, the triaging of the information was done by the Canadian Armed Forces.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
So you are saying that the statement in the article is not yours.
Is that correct?
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I'm telling you that the Globe and Mail article is inaccurate. I said that very clearly in my statement.
I'm saying that, yes, I did receive information from the Bhullar foundation, but that article made it seem like this group was not part of a government policy. I want to make it clear that it was part of a government policy, and that the information I received was passed on. That's as I did with many other groups that called me at that time. Information was provided, and then the Canadian Armed Forces did what they could with that information.
My clear point here is that the Globe article insinuated that I gave special treatment to Sikhs because they look like me. I want to make it very clear here that it was actually government policy that I was executing. It is just a coincidence that the Minister of National Defence at that time—me—happened to look like them and share a similar religion.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I just want to make sure. The statement the article refers to never existed.
Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Madame Normandin.
Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
A lot of the questions that I have are mainly about what we lack now and what the Office of the Ombudsman for National Defence is trying to do to help on where we go from here. There are a lot of lessons that need to be learned from those extremely difficult situations, so that we continue on in the best light possible.
I think you've been very clear. Again, I want to say thank you for being very specific. I completely understand the statements that you're making.
I think one of the things that we need to look to now is what was raised in the letter. What are your comments on where we need to go, going forward, to ensure that we don't continue to repeat the same mistakes and don't place labels on people—again, simply, as you said, because of the coincidences that you wear a turban or that you are a Sikh?
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Hang on. Can I finish what I have to say?
He is here for a specific purpose. He is not here to do a “go forward” or anything of that nature.
He is accused of improper use of his authority while he was the Minister of National Defence to favour a particular group.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
The questions are limited to that. If he wishes to comment....
You're welcome to do so, Minister.
I just want to focus members' minds on the reason the minister is here.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Well, I would suggest that I provide him with the opportunity, considering he clearly has not—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We're not taking opportunities today. We are simply dealing with the motion.
Liberal
Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I would like to stay on the motion at hand, but I will say that I think it would have been very easy to see some of the facts that I raised. They could have easily been seen by the people who actually wrote the article or by anybody else. It wasn't just the government policy timeline. Members of Parliament wrote letters for this group. I can't believe.... I think we found dozens of petitions that were also put forward.
I'm here to clarify your questions, of course, but at the same time, I see that a lot of this information that I'm talking about could have been found publicly as well.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being here today.
Are you saying unequivocally that the Globe and Mail article was wrong?
Liberal