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.