Debates of Sept. 19th, 2023

Allegations Against Government of India

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the member's passionate speech; she is known for her passion toward human rights.

If we talk about India, even today we are getting news from Manipur that Christian women are being gang-raped in public. Holy Bibles are being burnt. When this is happening there, would the member think that we still need to have free trade talks when human rights are at risk?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, it has been a belief of mine for a very long time that Canada has moved too far away from our core values when it comes to our role in the world. We cannot put trade in front of human rights. Trade cannot be the priority instead of human rights.

We are looking at the Indo-Pacific strategy, which is a strategy that the current government has brought forward.

Making sure we are not engaging to the same level with China because of the human rights abuses that we know China is committing against the Uyghur people is very important. However, to then say that the human rights abuses by the Modi government that we are hearing about day in and day out do not deserve the same condemnation and do not deserve our standing up and and calling out that government for these abuses is wrong. If Canadians believe in human rights, we believe in human rights when they are in Canada, we believe in them when they are in India and we believe in them when they are in China. We believe in human rights anywhere in the world.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for her speech. She is always passionate.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where I had the opportunity to hear from members of the Chinese diaspora. They came to tell us that they are Canadians and that they are scared. That is what we heard over and over.

What does my colleague think the government should do to protect diasporas whose members are, in fact, Canadian citizens?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, that is a very important question. I am a member of the Canada-China committee as well, and at that committee we have also heard members of the diaspora telling us time and time again that they are afraid, that they need more action by the government and that they need more steps taken to protect them. This is not something that is new. In fact, one of the things that I mentioned in my speech is that they have been actually telling government representatives about this for 30 years.

Therefore, a couple of things need to happen. When we look into the foreign interference study, we need to make sure that we are looking at China, Russia, Iran and India, because those are the four countries that we have been told have the biggest influence on our democracy or carry out the biggest interference in our democracy. That is one step that we can take.

We need to have a registry so that we can know who these players are. We need to understand. Most importantly, we need to listen to the diaspora when they tell us what is happening in their communities. When they tell us that they feel unsafe and when they tell us that things are happening that are wrong and are an attack on our democracy and our sovereignty, we need to listen, and I do not think we have done that very well.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the depth that the members bring, both for Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton Griesbach. They have spoken numerous times through the course of this debate so far this evening.

We know about the mosques and gurdwaras across Alberta in Lethbridge, Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Fort McMurray and throughout Alberta. This is an important issue. We have had two members speaking up repeatedly during the debate, but there has not been a single Conservative MP from Alberta who has spoken even one word in this debate this evening.

To my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, why are Alberta Conservatives completely silent in this important debate?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Honestly, Mr. Chair, I wish I could answer that question. The people of Edmonton, the people of Calgary, the people of Alberta deserve to have their representatives engage in this debate, and that is not happening. I expect that it has to do with the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, Stephen Harper has said that Modi is a great leader. He is a good friend of Stephen Harper, and he was the prime minister who was in power when the current leader of the official opposition was part of his cabinet.

The leader of the official opposition has said publicly that we should not be critical of India. I am sorry, but when we hear what is happening in India, there is no other option but to criticize those attacks on human rights by the Modi government.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am rising today on behalf of the residents of Brampton South on an important issue. I will be splitting my time with the President of the Treasury Board.

It is a fundamental right that every person, regardless of their background, should have the right to safety and security. When these rights are threatened, we must all speak up.

On June 18, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen, was murdered by two masked men outside a Sikh gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia. I wish to join my colleagues across the House in offering our thoughts to the family and loved ones of the victim.

Homicide investigators said the incident was targeted. They are releasing descriptions of the suspects and are pleading for information. What was even more concerning was to learn that our national security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between foreign state agents and the alleged criminals. This is a matter that strikes at the very heart of our sovereignty and our values as a country.

Today I want to share my thoughts in this important take-note debate, which is supported unanimously. This alleged involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty. This is a serious allegation that is contrary to the fundamental rules that free, open and democratic countries conduct themselves with. Canada is a rule-of-law country, and it is our responsibility to uphold these principles and the principles of international law.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said, this government has been guided by three principles since these allegations came to light: number one, that we will seek the truth; number two, that we will protect Canadians at all times; and number three, that we will protect Canada's sovereignty. This is what Canadians expect of us.

We must recognize that foreign interference poses one of the greatest threats to Canada's sovereignty and national security. Any form of interference not only puts the integrity of Canada's democracy at risk but also undermines our country’s ability to safeguard institutions and our sovereignty. This government has always been clear that we will never tolerate any form of foreign interference and we will always protect our democracy. That is why we have taken strong action as a government to protect our democracy and our electoral system from foreign interference by pursuing a foreign influence transparency registry, conducting a review of our national security oversight processes and investing in our national security institutions. It is part of our comprehensive approach at ensuring that the integrity of our democratic processes remains robust and resilient. That is why we must ensure that this killing is thoroughly investigated.

I am a proud Bramptonian, and our city has always been a place where people from diverse backgrounds come together, work hard and contribute to our shared prosperity. It is these residents, like those across the country, who have the right to feel safe and secure within their community. I want to assure all residents in Brampton and in communities across the country that their safety and security remain our top priority.

No matter one's background, culture, race, religion or affiliation, acts of violence or foreign interference against any community need to be investigated, and they are investigated.

As the Prime Minister has said, the intention here is not to provoke or escalate. We should remain calm and grounded in our democratic principles and values as we follow the evidence.

I urge all of us to stand united in protecting values important to Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, yesterday when I heard the Prime Minister's remarks in the House, my thoughts first went to people back home in Winnipeg. I think of folks I see in the community, folks I see when I visit Guru Nanak Darbar and folks at the Khalsa Diwan Gurdwara. I wondered how that news would be received back home in the community.

I have had the opportunity to reach out, talk to some folks back home and hear about the concern people have. Tonight, we have heard a number of ways that concern takes shape. People are concerned, for instance, about going to political demonstrations. People are wondering about visits home and what may happen when they go back to see family, depending on their own political views.

There is something that we are grateful for in Canada. It is something that we treasure and fight for, to have people be able to take the political positions they take without fear of violence and death. I am very proud of the work that the NDP has done to get a public inquiry into foreign interference under way.

Can the member reflect on how that public inquiry may help bring more truth to light for Canadians and lay out a path that helps allay some of their fears?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, yes, I said that in my speech. I am from Brampton, and Bramptonians are concerned, like other Canadians are. That is why the Prime Minister made the statement. Let us remain calm and steadfast in our commitment to our democratic principles. We have full trust in our law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies, and they are working hard on that. In the meantime, we all stand together. That is what all Canadians expect us to do and that is what we are ready to do.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, from the beginning of this debate, we in the Bloc and the other parties have deplored the events that have taken place. My colleague opposite is from the region where the crime in question took place.

I would like to hear her thoughts on our concerns. While we sympathize with everyone affected, and despite our desire to learn more, does my colleague have any idea why the Prime Minister waited until Monday to make the statement?

Also, is she aware of any discussions the Prime Minister may be holding with leaders of other countries to find out why we did not receive the support of other countries in this matter initiated by the Prime Minister yesterday?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, wherever the crime is committed, it was committed on Canadian soil. I am from Brampton. It was committed on the west side of Canada, but it is in Canada. Wherever it was committed, we are all Canadians and it is unacceptable on Canadian soil. That is why I mentioned that the Prime Minister is so transparent and our government is transparent.

The hon. member knows that we cannot comment when the investigation is going on. Our number one priority is to protect Canadians. That is what our government has committed to do. We all committed to do that. That is what Canadians expect from us and that is what we are doing.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Chair, these credible allegations of a link between the Government of India and the killing of my constituent, Mr. Nijjar, are immensely troubling. It is a substantial attack directly on Canadians and Canadian values, with a specific focus on Sikh Canadians.

Can the member speak to the importance of all Canadians coming together to denounce this and affirm shared Canadian values?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, no matter where we come from, no matter what our background is, safety and security is the main thing. We all share these sentiments and we all stand together, and that is why the debate is happening. The investigation is going on and we are all looking forward to that.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chair, as you may be aware, I come from a family originally from India.

Both of my parents came from India. They have passed now, but my father was from Tamil Nadu and my mother was from Jandiala Guru, a small town outside Amritsar. Many years ago, they immigrated to the province where you hail from, Mr. Chair, Nova Scotia, and settled in a small rural town of 5,000 people.

I was born there. Life was good there. I really like the province of Nova Scotia.

I want to say that, regardless of where we hail from, we all in this country should always defend the rule of law, human rights and Canadian sovereignty free from foreign interference. That is ironclad and what I am here to speak about this evening.

When I was young, we were one of the very few South Asian families in the province at the time. That did not matter because the people of Kemptville, Nova Scotia, embraced our family and we had a wonderful childhood there. I will say that is the story of towns and cities across this country. In fact, it defines Canada, and we need to hang on to the respect and integrity that typifies so many towns and cities across our country.

My parents' way of raising us was to enrol us in all of the extracurricular activities they possibly could so that we felt as though we were very much a part of the community, but I, like many children of immigrants, understand the anxiety, emotions and affinity people have regarding their ancestral home. We have all learned to embrace our backgrounds and all they entail as part of the Canadian identity. Diversity and inclusion are our biggest strengths. My ethnic background is part and parcel of my entire identity, which is made up of different components, including being a mother, a professor, now a member of Parliament, a Canadian and a Canadian of Indian origin in fact. I am a Canadian who is very proud of my Punjabi and Tamil heritage.

Yesterday, like so many, I was appalled to learn about the credible allegations of possible involvement by a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the family and loved ones of Hardeep who are having to relive this horrific incident. My thoughts are with them and, today especially, I am thinking about my parents and what this means for so many of us who have our roots in India. I know this is a very difficult time and as the process unfolds it will continue to be difficult, but I want to be very clear that our government takes any and all allegations of foreign actor interference in Canada extremely seriously.

Canada is a country that is governed by the rule of law, and the protection of our citizens and the defence of our sovereignty are fundamental to our society, to our security and indeed to our very being. As the Prime Minister said, we must let law enforcement and security agencies take their course for the continued safety of all Canadians and we must take all necessary steps to hold the perpetrators to account.

Today I have shared things that I have never shared in this House of Commons before, because we do need to remain unified and empathetic, and we must remain a country where our democratic principles and the rule of law are protected. All Canadians have the right to feel safe in their communities and free to practise their religion of their choice, and our government will always protect this right.

I hope that we can remain united and allow the justice system to run its course, but I want to echo what the Prime Minister said. We will remain committed to democratic principles, the rule of law and human rights.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, speaking about sharing things that have never been shared in the House and the kinds of feelings this is bringing up, in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam I have had a lot of community outreach this week: people reaching out to me and sharing their stories.

I wonder if the member would not mind expanding on the impacts of what kinds of feelings are coming out from Canadians and immigrant Canadians who have come here for safety in Canada.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for her service to her community on behalf of all Canadians. I have heard from many constituents as well as members of the broader South Asian community, and I will say that there is concern coming from the community and Canadians generally about the Prime Minister's words yesterday, especially because people want, need and should be able to feel safe in their own communities. It is for that reason that I thought I would stand in this House this evening to express how important it is for us to have confidence in a government that will always protect the rule of law, democratic principles and human rights.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, as I scope the room and have been listening to this, I unfortunately have not heard too many of my Conservative colleagues speaking. However, the one who spoke, the opposition House leader, brought up some legal questions and said we need more evidence and that the Prime Minister should share what he knows with this House and with Canadians.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, has been my professor. She is a legal eagle and she has also been part of the cabinet and knows what is said in cabinet as well as evidentiary laws. I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board to reiterate about the only thing the Conservative caucus members have asked, which is whether the Prime Minister can reveal information in an ongoing investigation. Has the Prime Minister, without credible evidence, ever made a statement such as this before?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I can confirm the veracity of the statement made by my hon. colleague just now relating to our past collegial relationship as professor and student.

I will say that it would be highly imprudent for anyone to comment on potential or actual evidence in the process of an ongoing investigation. Therefore, the question for us to adduce such evidence while an ongoing investigation is occurring is simply inappropriate. We cannot and should not be involved in an independent investigation, which must take its course, especially for the grieving families of the victim.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, we are hearing from diaspora communities that they are afraid. They are afraid of violence being perpetrated against them and their loved ones.

The threat against this particular individual was known, yet this individual still lost his life, was still murdered. I am just wondering what the government can do to reassure members of the diaspora community. What can the government do to make Canadians feel safe again in their homes, in their communities and in their places of faith?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, of course, this affects not only members of the Sikh community but every single person in Canada. Every individual, regardless of age, ethnicity, cultural background or religion, must feel safe and secure in their own community. That is fundamental to our democracy, it is fundamental to a country governed by the rule of law and it is absolutely central to the Canada that we know and love.

In this instance and every other, we need to make sure that law enforcement can take its course and can bring perpetrators of illegal actions to justice. That is fundamental to operating and living in a country governed by the rule of law. Such is the country of Canada.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will begin by offering my sincerest condolences, and those of the Bloc Québécois, to Mr. Nijjar's family as well as to the Sikh community.

In my riding, there are not many people who belong to the Sikh community as such, yet I have still received many calls in the past day from people who tell me that these things should not be happening. They are asking why the diaspora community is not protected. Certainly, that is one of the first questions we must ask ourselves, but we must also take a step back and look at the big picture for a moment.

We did not just start hearing about foreign interference yesterday. There were many discussions in the spring, of course, but the topic has been on many lips for a few years now. Last spring, I asked dozens of questions, all of which went unanswered. The government downplayed the situation and said to be patient.

We rose numerous times to call for an independent public inquiry, a request that was repeatedly refused. Most days this spring, the government denied that an inquiry was important or needed. Our requests were brushed aside until it was impossible to brush them away any further. The government has been “actively passive”, to use a phrase I am fond of. It was quick to do nothing. However, its “do nothing” approach became an “allow interference” approach.

It is a sad observation to make today when we look at the state of the world, particularly with the situation in Ukraine, with Armenia. The world today is not as idyllic as it once was. There are rogue states. If we take off our rose-coloured glasses for a moment, we will realize that some of these rogue states are our partners. Some of our partners are rogue states.

Interference can take several forms. Of course, there is social media propaganda, for example. People can be manipulated into believing a lot of things. There is also corruption among elected officials, like we discussed at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, or the infiltration of institutions. Some people thought that the Trudeau Foundation had been infiltrated, which may or may not have been true. There can also be direct action, as we saw in Vancouver in the case at hand.

Throughout the spring of this year, we talked about Chinese interference, although my colleague mentioned China, Iran, Russia and India, which are the four countries in question. Witnesses told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the Standing Committee on Ethics that they were getting FaceTime calls in the middle of the day showing them their grandmother back in China and that they were scared. I myself saw and heard from frightened witnesses at the Standing Committee on Ethics.

We called for a public inquiry until this one could start. The commissioner was appointed recently. September 18 marked the start of the commission's activities. That same day, however, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons what happened in British Columbia in June. It was a rude awakening for several people who believed that this kind of thing only happened in other countries. This incident happened here at home. We found out that Mr. Nijjar was killed on June 18, 2023, and that the Government of India was alleged to be behind the killing. How is that possible when India is our partner? How is it possible when Canada is investing so much money with India under the Indo-Pacific strategy? It is impossible but true.

According to Sam Cooper, in 2017, the Prime Minister's Office apparently blocked a CSIS operation due to “political sensitivity” on the eve of his trip to India, which has since become famous for a variety of reasons. That is not all. In 2019, CSIS reiterated in a classified report marked “Canadian Eyes Only” that Indian interference had continued unabated.

It has been mentioned often this evening, but we cannot help but wonder why. Why is this information tolerated, downplayed and kept secret when, as we now know, people's lives are on the line? People may escape death, yet still have their lives ruined. These kinds of things are not acceptable, and we cannot pretend that we did not know. The government was notified.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians also said that the government usually discounted warnings from CSIS about the behaviour of China and India toward diaspora communities. That goes to show that CSIS, the Prime Minister's Office and NSICOP all knew about it.

Honestly, it is hard not to wonder whether foreign interference is a sign of the times. It is happening more frequently now. Is it due to a lack of awareness about the importance of international relations? Is it due to a lack of courage by government? Is it purely, simply and unfortunately the product of indifference, neglect and tolerance of interference?

A fundamental distinction must be made, given everything that has been said so far. Intelligence must not be confused with evidence. We cannot jump to conclusions. We need to understand that intelligence suggests something, whereas evidence demonstrates something. The two concepts are not one and the same; they are on different levels. However, when I read the reports, I saw that they contained a lot of intelligence. A lot of intelligence does not equal evidence, but it should give one pause. It would seem, however, that despite the amount of intelligence at its disposal, the government once again decided not to listen to CSIS.

I want to say it again: We are not in a world where everything is rosy. There are rogue states that no longer hesitate to use any means necessary to advance their own interests. One example is surveillance. At the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, we conducted a study on Pegasus, a powerful surveillance tool used mainly by rogue states. There are ways of manipulating peoples' thoughts, as I was saying earlier, with propaganda and the conspiracy theories that abound these days.

In the present case, it is important to note that after yesterday's condemnation in the House of Commons, Canada's friends, allies and partners did not appear to step up to support the Prime Minister. This surprises me, because when the two Michaels were detained, allied states quickly rose up in unison and supported him unreservedly. However, in that case, we were dealing with evidence, not with intelligence or allegations. There is a distinction there.

I wonder why no one is stepping up to support Canada this time. To move the debate forward, the government will have to present credible, irrefutable evidence. If it must act, it must do so in the public interest and set aside partisan interests. Speaking of partisanship, as my colleague from Montarville pointed out earlier, these allegations are coming at a very opportune time for the government, which was embroiled in all kinds of problems. That has been completely overshadowed by the matter before us this evening.

At the end of the day, the problem is that the relationship of trust between the public and the current government has been damaged. Trust is what makes it possible to believe without requiring proof. When we do not believe, we demand proof. Because of the government's laissez-faire attitude toward foreign interference, people doubt its intention to act. That distrust is harmful to the public interest.

Members of diaspora communities need to know that the government will protect them. They need to know that it will take swift and sure action in response to foreign interference and protect them. The people of Quebec and Canada need to know that the government has a credible plan to address foreign interference and that it is not just avoiding the issue, as we saw last spring.

In conclusion, we cannot put the economy ahead of security. Even though Adam Smith said that trade is security, this is about an economic partnership with a state that interferes in our affairs. That is not sustainable. We are just putting off dealing with the problem. We can no longer afford to be naive. We need to tell it like it is: The world is a tough place. We need to face the facts and take action. The government has to maintain both security and the sense of security.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, this matter is extremely sad. A Canadian citizen was killed on Canadian soil. The fact that the allegations and suspicions we heard in June have finally been addressed means that progress is being made. However, we must take action, and I think we all agree on that.

This evening, the NDP proposed that, with the help of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we increase protection for populations that may be vulnerable to this type of violent interference by foreign governments. We must also look at the situation of Indian diplomats and conduct a review. There are dozens and dozens of Indian diplomats, but so far, only one has been expelled.

We must also ban Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a violent organization that was involved in the massacre and violence against Muslims and Sikhs in India, but that also represents a threat in Europe and North America. Of course, we also recommend that the public inquiry include India. I know that my colleague voted in favour of this motion, which includes India in the public inquiry into foreign interference.

Does my colleague support this line of action? Does he agree that words are not enough and that we need to put words into action?

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his wise suggestions.

Many times this spring, I said that, while we were debating about whether interference had occurred, the interference was continuing to happen. While we were debating the need to appoint a commissioner or a rapporteur or what have you, the interference was continuing to happen. It continued happening and Mr. Nijjar was murdered in June.

Yes, it is high time we put words into action, rather strong, rigorous action, with the specific intention of protecting the public.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Trois‑Rivières for his speech, which, as always, was informative, sensitive and reasonable. I would say that it was an ethical speech.

That being said, he raised the issue of the lack of support from other governments. He also talked about how long the Prime Minister waited to make his statement in the House after he received the information. It is possible that this delay was just fine.

It may be just fine that no other country has supported the Prime Minister's position so far. That does not mean that the other countries do not agree. Maybe we will find that out later. It may also be just fine that our Conservative friends are silent on the issue.

Nonetheless, this leaves me with a lot of questions. I am not sure if my colleague from Trois‑Rivières can elaborate. In his view, is there a connection between those delays? Is it possible that the information obtained is not as reliable as we would like to believe? Perhaps it is reliable and I am asking completely useless questions.

I would like my colleague to say a bit more on this aspect of the issue.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, I always enjoy listening to the thoughtful and, most importantly, informed, speeches of my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord.

Was the information incomplete? Was the statement premature? Was an unsubstantiated judgment made? A lot of questions remain unanswered, and these grey areas are exactly why we find it hard to trust. The entire statement lacks sincerity. There have been so many twists over the years, sometimes it feels we are watching a terrible play.

In any case, I would hazard a guess that the lack of support may be due to a lack of evidence. It may be the result of a premature statement. Many questions could be asked. Nevertheless, we really have to get to the bottom of this. Like my colleague, I would like to hear my Conservative colleagues' views on the matter.