It sounds like a threat.
You know what? I've been threatened my whole life by folks. I'm not going to back down from a threat.
What I am going to do is that I'm just stating here what our two witnesses stated at the one meeting I attended. We have another four meetings, and I don't even know if four meetings will get to where we're going, but I want to get to four at least.
I do appreciate Mr. MacGregor for realizing that the Conservative motion was a complete avoidance of studying India and for bringing forward an amendment, which we're discussing right now. I think that's what we need to do. I don't think this committee should be programming a motion when we have the study of Russian interference and disinformation, the study of electoral interference, which is in meeting two, and the criminal activities of agents of the Government of India under way, with the important auto theft study that we have also and needs to be completed.
I will take time to further reflect on this amendment, but on the amendments that may be brought forward, what are some proposed amendments that I would personally, without talking to my colleagues across the floor—and I'd love to collaboratively have a moment to speak with them to see if they're actually interested in moving the important work of this committee forward and what amendments could I support.
Now, six meetings, that's what we need to focus on. Could it be eight? Possibly, but I think we need to do our six before we think about maybe future meetings. That's what I'm thinking. I am open to other opportunities to hear from members in their debate on whether—and I hope Conservative members will provide a rationale on why—they believe excluding India was important for them in their motion, because that is what we're studying here today.
Will they provide that rationale or will they go down a different path? I don't know. However, as I conclude my remarks in a few minutes here, this is an issue of accountability and transparency, which members of the Conservative Party so often talk about in election campaigns: “We stand for accountability. We stand for transparency. The public should know.” The public should know. Where's the accountability when this committee had an approved motion that members agreed on? Where's the transparency to the public? Where's the honesty? I don't see their leader showing or displaying any of that, and I'm referring to Mr. Poilievre because he has not had a security clearance.
We are accountable to the electorate. I will be looking forward to going to the next election and standing and fighting on this issue and many others that are important to my community. I look forward to the Conservative Party candidates who are going to run against me, if one ever gets a nominator or if their leader appoints somebody, which probably is what will happen. That's their belief in democracy: picking and choosing who the candidates are across the country to avoid nomination battles. Because of interference...? I don't know. What are they worried about? Having a nomination meeting where people can debate issues publicly on the important foreign policy issues or important domestic issues...?
Conservatives never show up to debates as well. Yes, I remember that. In my last campaign, we had several debates, and the Conservative Party member opposite never showed up to a debate. I would love to debate, in my riding, my next opponent. I've also challenged certain Conservative Party members to run against me, if they believe that I'm not worthy of being the elected representative of the future riding of Calgary McKnight. I haven't heard from that member yet.
I'm also saying to members that I'm looking for competition. I thrive on it. I'm used to hearing Conservative members talking a big game, but I'm also looking for one to take the nomination and to run against me in a public open nomination fight that they will have in their own party. That's democracy. Hand-picking a candidate to run against someone, which we've seen in a number of ridings, or disqualifying candidates for having a difference of opinion is not democracy.
I want to thank members of this committee. I know I took a bit of time in the last meeting, and I am taking a few minutes in this meeting as well to collect my thoughts. I do have a lot more to say, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for taking the time to listen.
I know that as you're a member of the Sikh community, you will understand the deep concerns that I have and the concerns of the communities that we represent across Canada. I really hope that the Indian government takes action within its own country, in its own judicial system, against members of its country who have been involved in any sort of interference in Canada so that we can bring justice to the families who have lost loved ones, whether it was from the Sikh genocide in 1984 or whether it is to the family of Bhai Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who is asking for justice so that they could take action according to their democracy.
We as parliamentarians should take the appropriate action at this committee and in Parliament to ensure that we continue to protect Canadians and that we continue to bring forward recommendations and to bring improvements through the work of this study so that Canadians of all faiths, in all communities in this great nation of Canada, can feel safe. That can only be done if we go through these important studies. I look forward to supporting, potentially, the amendment.
I am going to reflect on some of the issues the clerk raised when he read out the original motion that Conservative members brought forward to exclude India in the study, and Mr. MacGregor brought forward the amendment to include it. I think I do have some further reflections, and Mr. Chair, I will want to be put back on the speaking list at some point. I will reflect in the meantime and will collect my thoughts to engage in further debate.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and congratulations on your first day as chair of this committee. I look forward to working with you and committee members as we move forward.