Evidence of meeting #124 for Public Safety and National Security in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
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 motion passes and the debate is adjourned. There being no business, this is the end of the—
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I may have misheard, but I thought that the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
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....
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
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 security clearance. If you look at section 19 of the CSIS Act, it talks about the disclosure of information. It goes through a whole series of pieces of information.
Subsection 19(1) says:
Information obtained in the performance of the duties and functions of [CSIS] under this Act shall not be disclosed by the Service except in accordance with this section.
Subsection 19(2) goes on to say:
The Service may disclose information referred to in subsection (1) for the purposes of the performance of its duties and functions under this Act or the administration or enforcement of this Act or as required by any other law and may also disclose such information
I'll jump down to paragraph 19(2)(d), which applies. Paragraphs 19(2)(a), 19(2)(b) and 19(2)(c) don't apply to what I'm referring to here. It says:
where, in the opinion of the Minister, disclosure of the information to any person or entity is essential in the public interest and that interest clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, to that person or entity.
I think it's quite clear that the minister has the authority to provide information. In this case, what the NDP and the Liberals are after is Mr. Poilievre receiving this security clearance. However, the act says that he can receive the information without receiving the security clearance. It's not necessary.
I would be hard-pressed to believe that anyone in this country thinks the public interest is being served by withholding the names. The Canadian public deserves to know who these people are. It deserves to know. Then, action needs to be taken if there is any active member of Parliament who is not acting in the best interests of this country. I'm shocked that there are those who believe it's best for our political leaders to be handcuffed, if you will—pardon the pun—and not be able to speak what they know.
I strongly support the leader of our party Mr. Poilievre's decision not to be gagged or limited in the scope of what action he can take if the Prime Minister ever makes the decision—which he should, in the best interests of this country—to release the names of the individuals alleged to have some wilful involvement in protecting foreign states and working for foreign states against Canadians' best interests. It should be in the public interest that those names be disclosed. I can't think of any reason why the Minister of Public Safety, or the Prime Minister for that matter, would not think this is in the public interest. It's alarming to consider the fact that we keep doing this little dance about whether or not the names should be released and whether, if the leader of a political party is aware of the names because they've received this political briefing, they can then act. Well, it's quite clear that you can't act. You're prohibited from acting, which is unfortunate.
I know that Mr. Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP, came out recently with some very strong statements about his position on the whole idea of the CSIS Act and whether or not political parties should have this briefing. He says he agrees with Mr. Poilievre's decision to not receive a security clearance.
Mr. Mulcair said, “I agree completely with Poilievre's decision not to take the bait. 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.'”
This is so true. Instead of this dark cloud hanging over Parliament.... Canadians and parliamentarians don't necessarily know who's working for whom. Trudeau should do what a leader is supposed to do: safeguard our nation and ensure that those who sit in the House of Commons who aren't working for Canada are exposed and dealt with according to the law.
Was that a dramatic statement I made that somebody fell over back there, or...?
Conservative
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Yes. Thank you.
We know that politics is filled with political games and partisanship. There's a time for it to go away. When you're dealing with foreign interference, that's a time for it to go away. It's a time to identify those who are a risk to our country and a risk to our democracy. I will be so bold as to suggest that those who are actively working for the interests of other governments and other entities besides Canada and Canadians are traitors. Traitors need to be dealt with according to the law. We need to ensure that the protection of our national security is maintained at all costs.
The Prime Minister has released information more than once. He stood up in the House and before the media and talked about the murder of Mr. Nijjar, releasing sensitive information. At the Hogue commission just recently, he took the liberty, under oath, to speak what I would suggest are very blatantly complete falsehoods. If they aren't falsehoods, where's the evidence? Present the evidence. Let's see the evidence.
He is not doing that. When pressed at that commission, he admitted that there are allegations of other members of other parties who also are of concern with respect to the security of information or foreign interference. I think it's important that those names come out. I think it's very important. Canadians have lost trust in government over the last nine years. In a lot of institutions they've lost trust. I hear in my riding all the time about losing trust in this government, and by extension all governments.
I think the least that can happen or that should happen is that the information be provided and the Prime Minister make a decision to brief Mr. Poilievre without security clearance, as allowed by the CSIS Act in paragraph 19(2)(d). That allows the government to offer information to any Canadian on specific risks of foreign interference without forcing them into sworn secrecy or controlling what they say. Prime Minister Trudeau really has no excuses. He can and should release the names.
Chair, I could go on and on, but I will pass my time to whoever is next on the list.
Can you put me back on the list after, please? Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. Motz.
We go now to Ms. Dancho, followed by Ms. O'Connell, Mr. MacGregor, Ms. Lantsman, Ms. May and Mr. Motz.
Ms. Dancho, go ahead, please.
Conservative
Raquel Dancho Conservative Kildonan—St. Paul, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the perspective from Mr. Motz, given his experience on NSICOP for a time, so it is good to have on the public safety and national security committee an individual who does have a security clearance, and I appreciate his expertise in that regard. I may be wrong and there may be others on this committee who have that security clearance, but not to my knowledge.
Thank you, Mr. Motz, for your expert feedback in that regard.
Mr. Chair, I want to go on a bit more about what we've learned recently. I do feel that this is a concern. The motion that we passed—and just to review, we passed it collectively and unanimously as a committee—said that we would have about six meetings and that we'd have the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Public Safety, the RCMP commissioner and the national security intelligence adviser. We'd have other experts.
There was a little bit of politicking in there from the NDP, but there were certainly a lot of good experts there. We all unanimously agreed, I believe, to have the CSIS director, the deputy minister of public safety, the deputy minister of Global Affairs Canada and other subject matter experts.
If we had a few of those individuals here today, we could ask them, for example, why it was that it was not revealed to Canadians and it was not in the U.S. indictment. It was not in the public domain that other Canadians were allegedly targeted by the Indian government, or through the Indian government through various criminal entities, and that there was an individual in Winnipeg who was killed.
In fact, I remember that because it was two days after the Prime Minister stood in the House and made quite a bombshell statement about the Indian government's alleged connections to the killing of Mr. Nijjar. Two days later, another member of the Sikh community was murdered or killed in Winnipeg, and it's been connected now, allegedly leaked from Canadian security officials to The Washington Post, that the individual was identified to them but not to Canadians as Mr. Gill.
I do find it odd that we're having to, again, learn from American news outlets things that security officials refuse to tell Canadians. Of course, the Liberal government is the head of government and has been for nine years. It's interesting to see the situation they've created. We've heard the Prime Minister repeatedly talk about leaks and how, when the information first leaked to CSIS about Chinese election interference in various recent elections, the Prime Minister was more focused on the leaks than anything else.
When it comes to a number of issues about this issue and others, whether he's on the public inquiry with Justice Hogue or not, he often says that he can't speak about it because of national security, yet we have his own officials who seem to have leaked information to The Washington Post that was not made clear or not made public to the Canadian public.
We certainly have a situation where the Sikh community, in particular, has been...I would imagine and what we've heard from my quite notable colleagues in the Sikh community.... I represent a number of Sikhs, and I've heard from them that this is very unsettling for them.
I do feel that we have the obligation to ensure that we're doing our due diligence in this regard. There are a number of holes to fill. A lot of this doesn't seem to make sense in a timeline. It doesn't seem to add up. We're trying to piece together things that were allegedly leaked to The Washington Post that apparently Canadians aren't entitled to know but a Washington Post journalist is. That may speak to a realm of secrecy and of revealing intelligence when it suits the Prime Minister.
I would like to know why this information was leaked. Did the Prime Ministerknow? Did he authorize it? Was it part of some sort of campaign to get the American officials on board? I would imagine that a lot of American presidential staffers, congressmen and women, senators and others read The Washington Post. Was there some sort of strategy in that regard? Did we need the Americans to come out and help us because we're not able to stand up for ourselves after nine years of the Prime Minister and his lack of strength on foreign interference? Why is it that they knew and we didn't know?
We could be asking officials that today.
If the RCMP commissioner was here—we have invited him—I would ask him why he never acknowledged that, as an example, “Mr. Gill's killing”—I'm just going to read part of The Globe and Mail's reporting—“in Winnipeg was connected to India nor did the RCMP reveal other sensitive information reported by The Post.”
We've also invited Ms. Drouin, who's the national security adviser, and Mr. Morris, whom I believe.... Actually, do we have him on the list? Perhaps we should add him.
They denied any classified information was shared. However, as The Globe and Mail points out—I'll just quote it, actually, because it's better that way—“The U.S. indictment identified the killing of Mr. Nijjar, but never mentioned the names of two other Canadians targeted for assassination, including Mr. Gill from Winnipeg.” It quotes a former senior executive at CSIS, Dan Stanton, who said that the information about Mr. Gill's killing would have been considered classified as would the intelligence links to Mr. Shah since it wasn't in the public domain until reported by The Washington Post.
It's interesting. Everyone was focused on Thanksgiving with their families on Monday. I reviewed what the Prime Minister shared, what the RCMP shared and what Minister Joly and the Minister of Public Safety shared. They shared a bit, but we certainly should have all just gone and read The Washington Post article for real answers.
I mentioned earlier that this isn't the first time we've had to turn to American media to get answers about what Canadian security intelligence knows, yet we have a Prime Minister who goes to the public inquiry and releases classified information as he sees fit. I find it very interesting, Mr. Chair, that it's being weaponized on one side and then used as a shield on the other when they don't want to talk about things that perhaps aren't helpful to them.
Again, what sort of confidence are we supposed to have in the government when, after nine years, we have multiple foreign governments interfering in our democratic processes and our institutions? We have alleged murders, in fact, by foreign governments in Canada. That's after nine years of Liberals running the show. We have a situation now where they don't feel Canadians are entitled to information, but Washington Post journalists are.
We could be getting to the bottom of this today. I would really appreciate the opportunity to question the RCMP commissioner, the CSIS director and others, but instead, we have a situation where a motion has been put forward by the NDP, and this is something they knew we would not be able to support. We've made our position very clear. We do not feel that we will be able to fulfill our opposition duties to hold the government accountable if our leader is silenced.
I know Ms. May is with us. Perhaps she can chime in on this. I'm sure she will. I remember her press conference. I believe it was the one in the spring when she was talking about how she read the unredacted version of the NSICOP report.
Ms. May, I apologize. I'm just going to paraphrase what you said. From memory, you didn't have any worries about anyone in Parliament. You were very confident about that. That was my take-away from what you shared. However, you also mentioned that you had to check with the RCMP on what you wanted to say, and I'm sure you did, because you had classified information.
Imagine a world now where any time our leader wanted to speak, question others, speak to media or whatever it might be to fulfill his duty—he's brought this up in question period a number of times over the last year and a half or two years—he'd have to check with the RCMP to see exactly what words and sentences he would be allowed to share. I feel that would put him in quite in a difficult position, so we won't be able to support this. We've made our position very clear on that.
We'll continue to talk about this, but perhaps my words have moved the NDP, so I'd like to check in again. I move to adjourn the debate on this motion, and I'd like a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Once again, the nays have it.
We shall continue with Ms. O'Connell, followed by Mr. MacGregor, Ms. Lantsman, Ms. May and then Mr. Motz.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Let's remind Canadians what's actually happening with the Conservatives right now. Despite their twisting themselves into pretzels and knots to try to fool Canadians, Canadians won't be fooled. We are in this situation because Conservatives are filibustering our meeting because they don't want to deal with a very serious issue around national security.
I've written down some quotes from the members opposite. Actually, Mr. Motz, who sat on NSICOP, talked about how he would be “handcuffed” and silenced if the Leader of the Opposition were to get his security clearance. However, Mr. Motz, who sat on NSICOP and who has security clearance, as do I, as we sat together on that committee, spoke for over 15 minutes. Talk about being handcuffed—he had no problem speaking for over 15 minutes about national security issues even though he's been privy to national security information and national security clearance.
That's what Conservatives are trying to suggest. They're trying to suggest, on one hand, that they deserve to know this information, but they don't want to be the ones to break the law to release it. They're saying things like “do what a leader is supposed to do”. Isn't Mr. Poilievre trying to become prime minister of this country? However, he doesn't want national security clearance. Is that leadership? Is that what Canadians expect out of a prime minister—to close their eyes to some of the most sensitive information in this country?
If Conservatives feel that this information from NSICOP should be released, Mr. Motz, release it. If not, why? Why are they silenced? It is because they understand that releasing national security information would harm Canadians, would harm agents in the field and would, frankly, be illegal. They're trying to suggest that the Prime Minister is hiding something, yet their own members would have every ability to release it if they felt that they wouldn't be then arrested for breaking the law. They talk about a lack of strength and getting to the issues around India, which we all have agreed unanimously to support. It's incredibly important, but we can't get to it because we are in a filibuster because Conservatives don't want to act like the adults in the room.
You talk about a lack of strength. You know, it's not just previous NSICOP reports that the Leader of the Opposition, if he had his security clearance, could look at. The Leader of the Opposition could be briefed on the situation in India if he had his national security clearance, but he doesn't want to be. They send their members here to get clips to suggest that they stand up for the Sikh community, yet their leader won't even get briefed on the actual situation. They pretend to stand up for the Sikh community while not being briefed on it.
I'm curious. Andrew Scheer has met with Prime Minister Modi a number of times. What did they talk about? Perhaps Mr. Scheer should be a witness. Perhaps if the Leader of the Opposition had his national security briefing and could actually understand—
Conservative
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I just want to correct the member. The Leader of the Opposition has been briefed, but she says that he hasn't.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
That's debate. You're on the list for debate. You can carry on in debate.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It seems I'm hitting a nerve with the Conservatives now, hence why only they want to speak on this issue and then try to shut down the rest of the debate. They want Canadians to believe that they are the only ones looking out for their security while not getting national security clearance for their leader.
What are they hiding? What don't they want to know? Why won't they go into meetings with people like Prime Minister Modi, like Andrew Scheer has, and not stick up for Canadians? What are they hiding?
We're in this situation where we can't get to the very real work of this committee because Conservatives want to filibuster. They don't want to be leaders of strength. They don't want to be informed. They are putting party over country.
I was watching.... In the U.K., they are talking about foreign interference as well by Russia and China. I found it interesting how opposition parties spoke to the Prime Minister openly about their united commitment to stand up against foreign interference. What struck me so strongly was the fact that, in this country, Conservatives seem to be the only party that is willing to put party over country.
They don't want to have the briefings because they don't want to know the facts. They like to make wild accusations without knowing the facts. They don't want to know what's going on in their own party with members. They don't want to stand up for Canadians here at home. Instead, they want to attack for their own political advantage.
I'll remind the committee members that, when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister of democratic institutions, he was asked about foreign interference and why they did nothing. He said that it wasn't politically advantageous to do so at the time. This is a long history of the Leader of the Opposition not taking national security seriously. We now see the Sikh community being impacted by their wilful blindness.
If I'm wrong, Mr. Chair, then let's have the members of the Conservative Party stop their filibuster and let's vote. They can put their money where their mouths are. Let's vote on this and get to the India study.
If they continue to filibuster, then I think we know exactly the fake presentation they're trying to show Canadians. They're not actually standing up for the Sikh community. They're standing up for the Leader of the Opposition, so he can skirt his responsibilities to this country and so that their party can continue to pretend that it cares about national security while just putting its own political aspirations ahead of our national security. I think it's something every Canadian should see very clearly.
Let's see. Let's let them vote. Let's see where the votes lie, and let's get on with the work.
If the members opposite filibuster, that sends a very important message to the Sikh community in particular that the Conservatives will put their own political advantage over getting to the bottom of members of our community and Canadians being targeted. Conservatives don't care about that.
Let's see. It's time to vote. Let's vote, and let's see where Conservatives actually fall.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor, followed by Ms. Lantsman, Ms. May, Mr. Motz and Mr. Hallan.
Mr. MacGregor, go ahead, please.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Regarding the last two votes to adjourn, I'm certainly not going to let the Conservatives get off that easily, because—for Canadians who are watching the committee proceedings right now—the Conservatives are essentially running interference and defence solely for their leader. They simply do not have any justifiable reasons for this charade to go on any further. Their leader's reasoning for not getting security clearance has been thoroughly debunked by multiple national security experts.
I do believe that, given the seriousness.... This issue has come up in the past, but given the fact that we had these RCMP revelations come out on Thanksgiving Monday, I think the game has changed significantly right now. If you look at what is contained in that RCMP report—the references to very serious criminal activity on behalf of the agents of the Indian government—I believe this is a time when we have to put our country first and when the partisan interests of our party need to come second to the interests of Canada.
I believe the interests of our country right now demand that we form a united front. That means all federal political party leaders getting the clearance necessary to receive those briefings so that they can make informed decisions within their own caucuses and so that our foreign adversaries can see, when they look at the House of Commons, that yes, we have our political differences and we fight very hard on the floor of the House on many different issues, but when it comes to an issue as serious as foreign interference, we stand united and we have a united front within which all political party leaders are getting the briefings necessary to take relevant actions.
Now I want to refute a few points that were brought up in arguments by my Conservative colleagues.
Mr. Motz earlier talked about the CSIS Act, and I want to quote Wesley Wark, who has been at this committee many times and who has been a member of both Liberal and Conservative governments as a national security adviser. He has briefed them. I just want to quote from this iPolitics article. It says:
Wark also shut down the idea previously floated by the Conservative Party that the federal government had other avenues of briefing Poilievre on critical information that don't involve a security clearance, namely invoking the “threat reduction measures” included in the CSIS Act.
“He [is] playing with the public on that one too,” said Wark. “Threat reduction measures are not meant to be a tool to provide intelligence to people. They've been used as a workaround by CSIS because they don't otherwise have the authority to share intelligence.”
“The important thing to understand about threat reduction measures is that they are targeted. They are not designed to provide broad information.”
That directly refutes the arguments that were just made by Mr. Motz at this committee.
This is a time, I think, when the continued refusal of only one leader in the House of Commons to get security clearance is raising far more questions than is necessary, questions such as, what could possibly be holding back the Leader of the Opposition from getting it? Is he even able to get it? Are there concerns about his ability to apply? Is that why he's not making it?
The other thing that's bringing me quite a bit of levity is the fact that my Conservative colleagues love to quote Mr. Mulcair, the former leader of the NDP. I haven't spoken to Mr. Mulcair since 2017. He doesn't represent our party anymore. He is paid, I believe, by CTV, to be a political commentator. He is not a national security expert, and if he's on the air and you're quoting him as an authoritative source and you're completely ignoring the many CSIS officials who have spoken out on this measure, I think you're obviously doing the argument here a complete and total disservice.
I also want to talk about some other quotes on this particular subject. In the Hill Times, former CSIS executive Dan Stanton was also quoted. I'll read from the article:
Stanton said Poilievre deserves criticism for not getting a security clearance. He said that classified data is necessary for the Conservative leader to take action on any compromised members of his party.
He said Poilievre's explanation that his chief of staff takes briefings “is ridiculous.”
“Briefing his chief of staff is pointless,” said Stanton. “[He] cannot advise [Poilievre] as to the contents of the briefing. Nor can [the chief of staff] take the action a party leader can and should.”
I want to also go back to the iPolitics article because there are more quotes here from Wesley Wark, who basically said that the arguments being made by the leader of the Conservatives are nonsense. Mr. Wark said:
...the Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn't need the clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings.
“Pierre Poilievre's idea that it's sufficient for his chief of staff to be briefed for him and for his chief of staff to share that information with him is complete nonsense,” Wark told iPolitics.
“And Poilievre, having been a former privy councillor and minister, knows it's nonsense.”
Ward Elcock, the former director of CSIS.... I don't think you can get more authoritative than that. It says:
Both Wark and Elcock agreed that there was no reasonable justification for Poilievre not to pursue the security clearance.
I know, from conversations I had in private with the RCMP and with CSIS, that they absolutely would like it to be a fact that every single federal party leader has the necessary security clearance.
Everyone keeps on talking around this table about a “gag order” being placed on the leader. First of all, I'm not sure it's actually physically possible to place a gag on the leader—he's not a verbally challenged person—but they're missing the point completely here. This is not about what you can and cannot say. This is about actions, and the leader of each party wields an incredible amount of power in their caucuses. I mean, that has just been a trend in politics. There has been a centralizing focus of power, and in each party caucus the party leader has the ability to determine who has which parliamentary roles, who sits on which committees and, most importantly, who gets to have their nomination papers signed to run under that party's banner in the next election.
There's a huge difference between intelligence and evidence, which is why our national security experts are quite loath to have the names just released out into the ether, as there might not be room for proper judicial process. I think we have to respect those very real fears, Mr. Chair, and I'm not the one saying this: These are our national security experts, the people, the men and women who work in the field.
If a party leader were aware that there may be some compromised individuals in their caucus, this kind of clearance would allow them to take the necessary briefing to ensure the person is nowhere near sensitive parliamentary proceedings and, what's most important for Canadians so that they can have confidence in our elections, that the person does not run under their party banner.
Again, Mr. Chair, all of the arguments that were put forward by the Conservatives and by their leader have been directly refuted by men and women who are former and active members in our intelligence and security agencies. If the leader of the Conservative Party thinks he knows better than them, he should have the courage to go on the record and say so—level with Canadians—because right now it's becoming increasingly clear that this is nothing more than a partisan charade. It is meant to.... I don't know what the actual reasoning is, but I think the Conservatives have definitely painted themselves as agents of chaos in this Parliament, and this is yet another example of it, at a time when we should be taking this extremely seriously.
I would love to get to our study on India. We have a study about Russia going on. There are all kinds of important matters that this committee needs to be seized with. It's great that we had that unanimous consent last week to get into that, but if we are serious about that, let's get to a vote and get this to the floor of the House of Commons. Maybe we can have a concurrence debate, and then the wider House can be seized with this issue and we can have a debate about what the right course of action is.
I don't think that this going on and on serves Canadians, so I urge my Conservative colleagues to stop their speaking spots and listen to the evidence that's been presented by multiple people who work in this field. Let's get on with this.
Let's show our foreign adversaries that, while we may have our political differences, on this front we stand united. We stand united in wanting all of our federal party leaders to have the security clearance and briefings necessary, so that they can take the actions within their respective caucuses to make sure that in the next election there is no candidate who might be compromised by a foreign power.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.
We go now to Ms. Lantsman, followed by Ms. May, Mr. Motz, Mr. Hallan and Mr. Shipley.
Conservative
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Thank you so much.
On the heels of what I witnessed last night in the House, when Liberal member after Liberal member came to debate an emergency debate last night on this issue and spoke directly to those in many of their communities, and frankly right across the country in all of our communities, about the pain that this has caused the communities.... This is, of course, on the heels of the NDP bringing forward a motion in the House, right after question period, to set up a parliamentary committee to study interference from India as a stand-alone committee. It was actually Kevin Lamoureux who ran back to his seat and said, “No, we cannot have this.”
Today, in this committee, we have members who have put forward this motion after getting complete agreement from everybody on this committee, from every party, to study the importance of interference from India. They now get this unserious motion. What the NDP has done, it has helped the Liberals again block us from doing this work. That happened the first time yesterday when Kevin Lamoureux said, “No” and blocked an actual committee of the House that could do this.
Today, we see on two occasions already that both the Liberals and the NDP have blocked this committee from doing the work it was supposed to do. We could be hearing right now from the head of the RCMP and CSIS. We could be hearing from all of these.... Hearing members of the House from every party speak to the importance of this last night, I think this has created great division in the country. It's division caused by the Prime Minister, but it's created great division between communities. The seriousness of this issue was certainly something that we saw in the House from all members.
The very fact that they said no to a committee and no to a study in the public safety committee suggests that their actions are really different from their words for every single community, not only for the Sikh community but for every single community on every single issue. Foreign interference.... We're speaking about India today, given the revelations, and the seriousness of the RCMP press conference on that holiday Monday.
However, on every single issue, it's always divide and distract, whether it's the Beijing interference that was ignored by the Prime Minister, the Chinese police stations that were found to be operating in this country or interference from the tyrannical regime in Iran, which this government refused to deal with for the better part of six years by not listing the IRGC as the terrorist organization, allowing 700 agents that we know of to intimidate communities, to raise money and to organize.
Whether it's political interference from any number of places, the Prime Minister has allowed Canada to become a playground for these activities. With every single expert, every time you read it, there's more and more that is revealed. It is revealed because of the Hogue commission, a commission that only came to existence after the Prime Minister appointed his family ski buddy to be a rapporteur and produce a Coles Notes version of a report. It was only after Conservative pressure that we now have the Hogue commission. Clearly, we found out more from the Hogue commission than we ever did from Mr. Johnston's Coles Notes on the issue.
I think that was deliberate by the government to instill a friend and somebody who would be friendly to the interests of the Liberals who have benefited from foreign interference. We know that, as well. The Hogue commission has given Canadians more interest.
What I don't understand is that everybody watching this will see that the motion on the table is a political motion. We could very well be studying this issue, but first, it was Kevin Lamoureux who said no to the committee, and now we see the Liberals and the NDP working on stopping this committee from getting the work done.
There are lots of questions you can ask today, particularly as to why The Washington Post has information that Canadians don't even have through a briefing that was sanctioned to be given by politicians in this country, by politicians in the governing party. I think Canadians have way more questions than they have answers, and I think the government has increasingly failed on this issue, and it's becoming very clear.
We saw the Prime Minister, last week particularly, at the Hogue commission. If you think it's inappropriate to name the names—which are some of the nonsense arguments we've heard from everyone—of those who have either wittingly or unwittingly been part of foreign interference efforts in any way, then you should think that it's equally inappropriate for the Prime Minister, at the Hogue commission, to be casting aspersions, frankly, on members of Parliament, be they Conservatives or Liberals. If I were a Liberal.... I understand that there is a bit of a mutiny against him right now, and whether there are 20 or 40 people, we don't know. Certainly they can maybe apply to speak at caucus tomorrow and make it all known to the Prime Minister that they don't have confidence in him anymore.
In all of that, you should be furious with the Prime Minister. He has just put on the table, in such an inappropriate way.... He has cast aspersions on every single member of Parliament in this place, including those in his own party. He said that Liberals are involved. If you ask a few more questions and if you prod a little, he certainly didn't offer that information, but he said that. If I were serving as an MP, if I were still hoping to get into cabinet in the dying days of a Liberal government and if he had cast an aspersion about my allegiance to the country, I would be furious, but that's neither here nor there.
Let's talk about the Prime Minister's failure on the foreign interference file, frankly, more generally. It's the Hogue commission that let Canadians know.... We still don't have answers to this. Why did a CSIS warrant sit on the desk of a minister in the Liberal government for 54 days, a warrant about a Liberal power broker, which could actually have had an effect on the election of a member whom we sit in the House of Commons with? We know this is true. We know that members of parties, all parties, frankly, have been the target of this.
We had members of parties at the Hogue commission. In fact, a member from the Conservative Party testified at the Hogue commission about being targeted by a foreign government, about his family being targeted by a foreign government.
I'll go back to the Hogue commission. If the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be there and who is supposed to act with the dignity of the office, is able to say that some members are involved in this, then we want to know why he wouldn't release the names. Why not put everybody on a level playing field? Why not protect the people in his own party, who have served him loyally for nine years, hoping that things would get better in this country? Why not put their names out? If you can talk about party affiliations, and if you can talk about where they are in their careers, then certainly you could put those names out because I think that's what Canadians want to know. I'm happy to talk about this motion for as long as it takes if it means doing the responsible, accountable thing of releasing the names.
On the idea of being sworn to secrecy, I can only just give you the example of how ineffective the NDP leader has been because he's been sworn to secrecy. I can only tell you how ineffective the Green Party leader has been because she's been sworn to secrecy on this. In fact, their stories don't even match. If I were them, I would want to at least be able to tell Canadians, with regard to the foreign interference that the Prime Minister is talking about very openly in the Hogue commission, that he has actually done something about it.
We know that he did something with one member, the member for Don Valley North. We know that he no longer sits in caucus, but if the Prime Minister has evidence of others, frankly, who are engaged in foreign interference, then Canadians should ask the question of what he's actually done about it. The answer is nothing. There is a long paper trail of evidence of foreign interference in every part of our political process, whether it's in nominations or....
By the way, I know that lots of things are said in committee when you're trying to argue, but the Leader of the Opposition was briefed on this on October 14. To my NDP colleague, after the Reform Act was passed, leaders don't sign nomination papers, official agents do. I don't want to let facts get in the way of their arguments, but if you're actually going to explain to Canadians your position, then I think you should do it on a factual basis.
Here is the factual basis. This Prime Minister has used foreign interference to be the most divisive Prime Minister in the history of this country. I think that's the one clear take-away from the debate last night. We are a country divided. We are a country divided based on where you come from, when you got here, what language you speak and what your customs are. Unfortunately, it is the Prime Minister who is at the forefront of all that. He's using this issue of foreign interference to drive further division into the Canadian public.
You don't have to go very far to see it. You can see this division playing out in the streets. You can see it on the streets with the protests happening right now in almost every major city, with absolutely nothing said from the government about where that funding is coming from or whether those protests are organic. I suspect they are not. In fact, there is evidence that they are not.
I want to go back to the issue of clearance, because that's what we're discussing at the crux of this motion. I want to talk about how political parties have acquiesced to the Prime Minister's silencing them. There used to be a time—in fact, when Thomas Mulcair was the leader of the NDP—when the NDP was an actual opposition party. They took their responsibility seriously to hold the government to account. I think that was a better time for the NDP. Even he agrees. He agrees, certainly, that taking security clearance would only muzzle the Leader of the Opposition in being able to do his job.
In fact, here he is saying, “I agree completely with Poilievre's decision not to take the bait. 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.'” Those are wise words from a once opposition leader, from when the NDP was an actual opposition.
Here's another one. According to the Prime Minister's chief of staff, it would prevent a recipient from:
...[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.
This is right from the Prime Minister's chief of staff.
You have the former leader of the NDP—who I understand doesn't talk to some of the caucus, which is neither here nor there—when the NDP was a respectable opposition party, and you have the Prime Minister's own current chief of staff saying exactly the same thing. I guess there is still agreement.
I know that the leader of the Green Party, Ms. May, brought up some issues about how she couldn't release the names. She's right in the sense that she can't release the names, but in fact it is exactly our point that she is restricted on what she is allowed to say. I suspect that, if I were her, I'd probably be furious about the fact that you continue to see foreign interference in Canada from not only India but from more and more countries and you have to stay silent while watching the Prime Minister do nothing at all about it.
The Prime Minister—and this would make me angry too, if I were muzzled with the security clearance—has actually demonstrated that he is able to publicly communicate classified information, like he did on the matter that brought forward these charges and this study at committee. It's not that he's withholding.... I mean, it is that he's withholding information. He's withholding releasing the names.
To go back to the conversation on releasing the names, I think it's incumbent on the Prime Minister to release the names. I think it's what Canadians want to hear. In fact, I probably have the experience of many parliamentarians where, because he has thrown everybody into the same mix—whether they're Conservative or Liberal members, members of Parliament who are not there, former senators, whatever is out there—and it casts aspersions on everybody. Once in a while, you get those Canadians who believe without any evidence, because the Prime Minister put it out there, that you are somehow involved in foreign interference.
I think that it would actually benefit every single member, and certainly the members of the Liberal Party, who we know are on this list, if the Prime Minister actually just released the names. We want to see the names released of all of the times when the Prime Minister failed to act on foreign interference, when he failed to do anything about the Beijing police stations, when he failed to act on the nomination of candidates where memberships were bought and sold—this actually had an effect on who ran as an MP, potentially, or at least, as we know, who is sitting in the House of Commons right now—and when he failed to do anything about the terrorists who lurk in our midst and terrorize communities.
We heard that all. We heard that all yesterday in Parliament over last night's debate, yet we are sitting here debating the unserious part of a serious issue that affects more and more Canadians, as we see. I think that it should be known to Canadians watching this that instead of studying this issue.... Frankly, first, instead of having a committee, which the Liberals said no to yesterday, they've said no to even studying this in a committee that already exists, where a motion was passed and they got agreement from every party. That rarely happens here in the House of Commons, but because of this issue, you get agreement from every single party to study the importance of this issue. However, there was the political stunt put forward by the NDP and supported by the Liberals. The coalition is working again to stop the study of something very important.
I suspect the Liberals have an interest in stopping the Minister of Foreign Affairs from coming here and giving, probably, four or six positions in the hour that she would sit here, in stopping the Minister of Public Safety from coming to this committee and stopping representatives and the head of CSIS and the RCMP from testifying at this committee.
Instead of doing the work, we're in this motion right now. I want people to see this. I want people to see the very fact that this motion—after passing a serious motion to study the issue of Indian interference—is the thing that's holding.... The words that you hear from the government on caring about this issue, on caring about the members of the community that it affects, and the actions that we see—this is stopping the study of this.
I'm going to put forward another, because I think that we should show people at home, once again, that the Liberals and the NDP are working together to stop us from getting to the bottom of this, to stop the study by committee.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move a motion to adjourn on the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ron McKinnon
Are you moving to adjourn the debate or moving to adjourn the meeting?
