Evidence of meeting #129 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 conservative.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
Mr. Motz, thank you, but let's make sure that we are being specific with our complaints. Thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
Yes. Ms. O'Connell is still speaking, Ms. Fry, but I have you on the list after Mr. Chahal.
Conservative
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
Again, if we had rules on misinformation being spread by the Conservative Party, we would never be able to conduct any meetings. It's more of an uncomfortable situation. I think they also made the mistake of hoping to do this motion in camera but unfortunately forgot that we were still in public. Now Canadians are going to see that they put forward a motion without any mention of our study on foreign interference by India. It was Mr. MacGregor's amendment that at least acknowledged that, which I'm speaking to right now. However, the fact that this motion came prepared without mention of it should send shockwaves to our community, to the Sikh community, to several other communities that have been raising alarm bells about the violence that they have experienced.
Again, to see Conservatives put forward a motion completely ignoring the very damning testimony that we heard and the very concerning testimony.... Something that moved me was Mr. Moninder Singh's testimony in which he spoke about the fact that there were threats of violence made towards him and his family, and that, to him, security almost became difficult to imagine and understand anymore because of how serious these threats were.
The thought that you have to think about.... He mentioned being around other people, including us in this room, and what that meant to their safety and security, people who weren't even involved in some of the allegations and the things that he was being targeted for. The fact that he had to worry about his own personal safety in even coming in person to the public safety and national security committee, and then the suggestion here today was to move away from that study, to ignore those concerns....
Mr. Motz is shaking his head no, but the motion presented had no mention of India and foreign interference and the testimony we heard. Frankly, I feel that the testimony we heard was just getting started. We had just heard from our public safety and national security advisers. We had a few community members. I've mentioned already one, Mr. Moninder Singh, and there were others. However, we were really just getting started.
To program away from that, I find that deeply concerning. I know of community members myself, but certainly I think my colleagues from the GTA, Vancouver and elsewhere in British Columbia are seeing that first hand and have probably heard from their communities of the very real threats. Conservatives in the House often raise the issue of extortion, but they don't raise the issues and allegations laid out by the RCMP around extortion being used as a form of foreign interference by the Modi government and that it's been linked to organized crime. However, there's no mention of any of that at the public safety and national security committee until Mr. MacGregor brought forward this amendment.
I think we all should be deeply, deeply worried that Conservative members could hear that testimony and say that that's not enough and that we should move on. It makes me wonder because we also heard testimony, I think, from every single witness who was asked whether the Leader of the Opposition should receive his security clearance so that he can properly get the full briefing and the scope of the information around the foreign interference of India and the attempts against our democracy. Every single witness said yes—every single witness—so it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone that the Conservatives now bring forward a motion completely ignoring that testimony.
There have been questions raised in the media around the Conservative—
Conservative
Doug Shipley Conservative Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON
On a point of order, Chair, I want to point out that obviously, there's a filibuster going on right now to prevent this committee from doing any work and studying some very serious issues that we're all discussing around this country right now. I think that's a shame on behalf of the Liberals.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
Thank you, Mr. Shipley. That is not a point of order.
We will go to Ms. O'Connell.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I won't apologize for standing up for our communities, which have been threatened with violence. Conservatives want to change the channel.
They moved a motion. They want to fight with me now because—
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
On a point of order, picking up on something that Ms. O'Connell said, she said there's no mention of India in the motion. I'm a bit confused because there is. The motion talks about India.
Can the chair clarify for the committee that we are talking about India in this motion?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
It's a point of clarification. It does refer to India. Technically, you are correct, Mr. Lloyd.
Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
The amendment brought forward by Mr. MacGregor prioritized—
Conservative
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
It was opposed by you guys. Why did you oppose the inclusion of India?
Conservative
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Of course the Conservatives would like to get to that.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
Give me just a moment, please.
Committee members, talk through the chair, please. Thank you.
On a point of order, I have Mr. Chahal.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My colleague Ms. O'Connell was trying to give a speech. I find it quite disrespectful that a number of colleagues turned on their mics at the same time. It's hard for the interpreters to interpret when a number of members are speaking.
I would just ask that one member speak at a time so the member can be heard. Members can express their points of order individually if required.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Raquel Dancho
Thank you, Mr. Chahal. It is an important suggestion, but I don't believe that's a point of order either.
Ms. O'Connell, go ahead.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
Like I said, I'm not surprised. It's going to continue to happen. I'm going to be interrupted quite a lot because that was the intention of the original motion. It's not for the fact that Mr. MacGregor moved an amendment. The original motion made no mention of our study on foreign interference in India.
I believe Mr. MacGregor is very sincere in wanting to continue that study. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have brought forward a motion with zero mention of it. They then want to say that they care too, until the writing is here in front of us in black and white. Their intentions are very clear.
It is a huge disservice to the testimony we've heard, along with the serious nature of the allegations. The fact is that the Conservatives have yet to ask a question about the allegations of India's involvement in extortion, a murder and other violence, while undermining our democratic institutions by purporting disinformation and misinformation. The Conservatives have yet to ask a single question in this study, so it should be of no surprise to any Canadian that they would like to program away from this.
The other component, which I was speaking to before I was interrupted, again, shouldn't be any surprise. The fact is that witness after witness actually confirmed what I think we all knew and felt, which is that if a leader of an opposition party wants to be prime minister one day and wants to stand up for the safety and security of Canadians, they should also want to get security clearance so they can be properly briefed. I think we had CSIS and others confirm that in order to get a proper briefing on the full extent of the foreign interference by the Indian government, security clearance was the best way to get it.
It's incredibly cynical of politics and politicians that as soon as the Conservatives start being criticized, instead of diving into these allegations, they want to change the channel, change the subject. Then they raise points of order suggesting a filibuster.
Again, I am not going to apologize for standing up for our communities.
I think Conservatives should be made to feel very uncomfortable for their actions today, and I'm sure their constituents will let them know, but that's on them.
