Public Safety Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Tohti, do you want a chance to...?

[Mehmet Tohti]

Yes.

It is really important to have a clear definition. The U.S. Senate introduced Bill S. 831 for what will be called the transnational repression policy act. That bill on transnational repression clearly defines what transnational repression is.

There are names and numbers for definitions of offences. Most of those definitions are amended as a result of consequential amendments. When you add one thing, the related bills need to be updated, consequently. For that reason, we need, as part of this important bill—Bill C-70—to clearly define what transnational repression is.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

I took note of how you had a slight bit of disappointment that we weren't using the term in the Criminal Code. However, I think, given that the Security of Information Act is being amended in these ways and that there are some significant punishments—some of these are up to life imprisonment—perhaps there's an area of the bill where the committee can look at inserting the definition. We've noted that and I appreciate your testimony.

I wanted to save my last question for the World Sikh Organization.

Mr. Singh, with regard to your comments about amendments to the Criminal Code, you referenced the definition of “sabotage”, which specifically says:

endanger the safety or security of the naval, army or air forces of any state other than Canada that are lawfully present in Canada

If you read further down the bill, there is a section that says:

For greater certainty, no person commits an offence [if they are] participating in advocacy, protest or dissent but they do not intend to cause any of the harms referred to in [that paragraph].

Are you satisfied with that, or do you think this committee needs to establish guardrails that are better than what's already in the bill?

[Balpreet Singh]

I gave you the example of the Ottawa protest from March 2023. This was, by all accounts, a peaceful protest, but when you have accusations of grenades being thrown, how is that going to affect individuals who want to come and protest?

I mean, is this opening it up to foreign governments basically threatening or throwing the sink at these dissenting communities and hoping something sticks? On the other side, even if you know you're going to be exonerated at the end, it puts you in this long process and you just decide that it's not worth the risk.

This is how I see a lot of things in this entire bill: They're double-edged swords if they're used by foreign governments. For example, the Sikhs are a stateless people. We have networks in countries across the world. Now when India accuses us of Khalistan advocacy, of being directed by foreign entities, is this going to cause us trouble here? I hope not, but what are the safeguards? This is what I'm confused about.

This is intended to stop transnational oppression and foreign interference, but will it be a wet blanket for communities like mine, who are advocating for causes that foreign governments do not like and which they're willing to use all of their resources to stop?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We're going to start our second round now. It will be an abbreviated second round, ending with Mr. MacGregor.

We will start with Mr. Genuis for five minutes, please.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I do have to respond just a bit to Mr. Gaheer's line of questioning—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The Liberals want to praise the Prime Minister's—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

There's a point of order.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Chair, the member opposite who's speaking right now, Mr. Genuis, claimed earlier that he's done more for the Sikh community than I have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

That is debate—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

—on the House floor.

We just wanted to do a quick search. This member did not speak at all. When we had an emergency debate on the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, this member did not speak, and he's claiming that he's done more.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'll respond to the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

This is debate. I don't want to get into a debate.

We want to deal with our witnesses to get the information they have to offer us. I'd recommend that you guys take this up off-line.

I would encourage you to get back to questioning the witnesses.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The World Sikh Organization, the organization represented here, has actually done rankings of members of Parliament by the volume of their raising Sikh issues. I would refer the member to those rankings and how I performed in them if he wants to know how often I speak about Sikh issues in the House.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

So why didn't you speak about Hardeep? Why didn't you speak on Mr. Nijjar?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Can I speak, Chair? Can you bring the member to order?

The Liberals want to praise the Prime Minister's public statement in the House even though this Liberal government has done nothing substantively to combat foreign interference.

Following the assassination of Mr. Nijjar, I submitted Order Paper Question No. 2488, regarding information-sharing between Canada and India. The government confirmed in response to that question that the information-sharing agreement signed by the Trudeau government is still operating and information continues to be shared.

I further asked in the same question if any information had been shared with the Government of India regarding Mr. Nijjar specifically, before or after his assassination. I said in the question: “was any information shared at any time between law enforcement or security agencies of Canada and India regarding Hardeep Singh Nijjar?”

The government refused to answer the question. They flat out refused to answer my question about whether intelligence was shared with the Government of India on Mr. Nijjar. One would think that if the answer had been no, they would have just given a no.

Mr. Singh, I want to bring you into this conversation. Do you think it is inconsistent for the Prime Minister and for Mr. Gaheer to make statements in the House on the one hand but refuse to answer questions about whether this Liberal government shared intelligence about Mr. Nijjar?

[Balpreet Singh]

I can tell you that the community much appreciated the Prime Minister's statement in September, and it was farther than we've seen any prime minister go.

Are we completely satisfied with the record? As I said in my statements in 2017, according to The Bureau article, this network operating out of Vancouver that was targeting Sikhs was not cracked down on as a result of not wanting to endanger Canada-India relations, so these things have irked us for the past 40 years, but I mean, credit where credit is due: The Prime Minister's statement was really a turning point for our community here.

In terms of intelligence-sharing, you're right that the entire community wants to know: Was intelligence shared on Mr. Nijjar? We know that Mr. Nijjar was part of lists that India had sent to Canada on a number of occasions, with absolutely laughable intelligence—so-called intelligence. Was anything sent back? I certainly hope not, but if we can find that out, that would be great.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I think at a minimum the government should answer questions from parliamentarians. Again, if the answer was no, a simple no could have been given. We submitted that Order Paper Question 2488, and we haven't seen questions like that submitted from government members. I wish they would do more to stand up for the various communities they claim to represent.

I want to ask our other two witnesses something. Mr. Therchin raised the point about limits around travelling, fear of travelling, possible threats around visas being used as a vehicle for foreign interference. We've also seen the problem of people being rendered from third countries. This is the case of Huseyin Celil. Given how the Government of China seeks to exercise dominance and influence throughout the world, not just within their own borders, rendering from third countries can be a real problem, the abuse of red notices and other such things.

How can we combat these fears that people may have that if they speak out on certain issues they will be very limited in their ability to travel, not just to China, but also to other countries?

[Mehmet Tohti]

Yes, you raised a really important and crucial point. I've been living in Canada since 1998. So far, I can travel to the western democracies. I cannot travel to Central Asian “Stan” countries, for example. Turkey imposed a travel ban on me in effect since 2004 as did a number of other countries, for example, Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt. I would like to just go to Saudi Arabia. As a Muslim, I would like to perform my hajj, the duty. I cannot go because of the close relationship that Saudi Arabia has forged with China. They are acting upon Chinese requests at any time. It is quite a limitation for me.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Therchin, go ahead.

[Sherap Therchin]

I think one of the available mechanisms to deal with this—albeit maybe this is not within the scope of this committee—is the principle of reciprocity. I think it is an important mechanism to solve this problem. I had a chance to speak on this in the foreign affairs committee last year. The U.S. passed a bill on Tibet called the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act. Any Chinese officials, media, have access to visit any part of the U.S., but the same access should be available for American officials, media, journalists, congressmen and senators. If similar such legislation on the principle of reciprocity were passed in Canada—which could be extended to common citizens—I think it would solve this problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We'll go now to Ms. Zahid.

Ms. Zahid, you have five minutes, please.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thanks to all of the witnesses for appearing before this committee on a very important issue.

I'm glad that we are examining legislation on an important issue that the Harper Conservatives did little to nothing to address in over a decade in government.

My first question is for Mr. Tohti.

Mr. Tohti, thank you for being here. Thank you for your relentless advocacy for the Uyghur people. I know it has not been without personal cost.

Last year, you told the ethics committee about threats you received in July 2020 before your testimony at another parliamentary committee. Could you please talk about that and other ways the Chinese government tries to intimidate and silence people like you, who are standing up for the human rights of the Uyghur people?