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...?