Debates of Sept. 19th, 2023

Allegations Against Government of India

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Chair, I think it is premature to talk about what might happen should information come to light. I think we should focus on the need for that information to come to light, and that is why it is our position that the Prime Minister should disclose the information he has that led to his statement yesterday. I think only then can we start to talk about what might come after that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for taking the tone he has taken, as did the hon. member just now, that we need to see more evidence and that we need to know. These charges are grave. I am as alarmed and aggrieved as any member in this House. I would have liked to have, right away, in response to the Prime Minister, extended condolences, support and deep sympathy for the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Unfortunately the official opposition chose to deny me the unanimous consent to speak then, but that does not stop me from thanking them for taking the very sober tone that we need to see the evidence.

Would the hon. member's leader reconsider the offer to have top-secret security clearance so that those of us who are leaders of opposition parties in this place, but particularly the leader of the official opposition, have access to materials that are classified and top secret? I ask, because I think, especially given the gravity of these recent revelations from the Prime Minister that the Government of India may have committed murder on Canadian soil, we need to see all the evidence. Does this House leader believe the leader of the official opposition might reconsider rejecting the opportunity to get top-secret security clearance?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Chair, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands knows full well that this offer was made in relation to a different kind of foreign interference, the foreign interference by the Communist regime in Beijing, and that it was part of a multi-faceted attempt by the government to avoid transparency on that issue.

Our position is that the Prime Minister made a very public statement yesterday. He rose in this House and made a very public statement. He delivered a statement to the media. He is making very public allegations, so we do not believe there is any reason to have secret briefings where those who attend those briefings have to keep those secrets. We believe Canadians have a right to know what happened, and the evidence that led to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday should be released so that all Canadians can understand what is going on.

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

Madam Chair, I am listening to the House leader of the opposition, and what he has just said is that he is asking for evidence that is to go before courts for people who have not even been charged yet to be disclosed in public, so that everyone may know, and then those who are not even charged yet could possibly run away, go away and hide their deeds.

I think I have a lot of respect for the member. He has been a Speaker here. He understands the rule of law and order and knows, I hope, the basic fundamental principles of law and order and evidence in court proceedings that one cannot do that. It would be very irresponsible for a Prime Minister of any party to ever get up and give evidence in this chamber.

I think the duty in this chamber was to give reassurance, so I ask the hon. opposition House leader to clarify why he would want evidence of an ongoing investigation to be given out in public.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Chair, that is just complete nonsense. I did nothing of the sort. I said that the Prime Minister had information. He had evidence that led him to make a very public statement and a very public determination yesterday. That is all we are saying.

We are not in any way saying that something might rise to the level of an actual court proceeding. We are saying that the information that was provided to the Prime Minister that led to the statement should be made public, that the evidence that he has should be put forward so that Canadians can understand what is going on. Perhaps they are trying to dance between the semantics of certain definitions of words, but I think it is safe to say, that when the Prime Minister rises in this place and makes such a statement, the gravity of which is so profound and so serious, it does merit an explanation for Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Chair, I do not think anybody is trying to dance around anything. I would just like to seek clarity on what was just said.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition issued a similar statement to what the opposition House leader is saying. Would he agree then that any evidence that would be germane to this case and that would be gathered by officials in their investigation should not be made public, even if it was given to the Prime Minister at one time? Would he agree that should remain—

[The Deputy Chair, NDP, Carol Hughes]

A brief answer from the official opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Chair, I guess we could start with the government releasing some information. In all different areas the government has an aversion to transparency and accountability. It would be a great conversation to start. It can start by sharing what it believes it can at this moment. I think Canadians would welcome that.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, yesterday, in a spectacular statement, the Prime Minister accused India of being behind, so to speak, the assassination last June of a Sikh separatist in Canada, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to express my most sincere condolences to the members of his family, who must be going through an even more difficult time after hearing this news from the Prime Minister yesterday.

Like my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I must say that we appreciated the transparency from the Prime Minister in this very worrisome affair.

Like the House leader of the Bloc Québécois, I am once again offering our party's co-operation in getting to the bottom of things. We must not overlook the importance of this revelation. If it turns out to be true, it would amount to an outright, extraterritorial and extrajudicial execution on Canadian soil, in violation of the rules of international law, which is an extremely serious act. If by chance the Prime Minister's allegations, which seem to be based on intelligence information, were to turn out to be false, we would have to conclude that the Prime Minister was very imprudent, not only because of the seriousness of the charges, but also because of the importance of India and the importance of the Indian and Sikh communities within Canada.

The tone has changed since yesterday. The Prime Minister is now calling for calm, and I think that is very wise. We need to avoid histrionics and speculation. We need to get to the bottom of things. Calling for calm will force us to consider what is happening. As we know, relations between Canada and India have already been strained for several years. Canada has accused India of this extrajudicial and extraterritorial killing, and India has been accusing Canada of harbouring Sikh separatists on its soil for several years now. India is even accusing Canada of having connections to the Khalistan separatist movement.

I must admit that, as a separatist, I think the idea that the Liberal government would have any connection whatsoever to any separatist movement in the world is a bit far-fetched. That being said, I still think that we need to take a close look at what could have happened, given the gravity of the events.

I want to thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for drawing my attention to Sam Cooper's article in The Bureau, which refers to a confidential version of the report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, on the Prime Minister's trip to India. I can talk about it more openly because I was not a member of NSICOP at the time and because that media outlet reported on it today.

According to the article, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, planned a major intervention in 2017 to shut down rapidly growing Indian intelligence networks in Vancouver that were monitoring and targeting the Sikh community. Again according to this article referring to the NSICOP report, Ottawa apparently blocked the CSIS operation because of “political sensitivity” and because Ottawa feared it would have an impact on the Prime Minister's upcoming trip to India.

As well, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians stated that, in about 2016, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, discovered, and I quote, “‘an increase in the volume’ of Indian intelligence activity in Canada, targeting the Indo-Canadian diaspora and government institutions.”

If this were true, it would also be extremely troubling. It would mean that the Liberal government deliberately interrupted a CSIS investigation to avoid impacting the success of the Prime Minister's trip to India, scheduled a few months or weeks later. We know that the trip, despite efforts by the Prime Minister and his family to dress up like our Indian friends, was not a major success.

One reason for the poor showing is that the government had inadvertently, although the RCMP was aware, invited a Sikh separatist named Jaspal Atwal to one or two receptions held in India, which had apparently angered the Indian government.

As we know, relations between Canada and India are extremely tense, so much so that it was with great interest and hope, I think, during the Prime Minister's trip to that country for the G20, that we watched the meeting that was planned between the Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister. We thought at the time that it would be an ideal opportunity to rebuild bridges and reopen lines of communication.

What we found out today and yesterday is that the Prime Minister instead admonished the Indian Prime Minister for this alleged killing of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil.

I want to reiterate that we very much appreciated the Prime Minister's transparency yesterday. We expected nothing less from him, having been accused these past few months of waiting far too long to disclose sensitive information about Chinese interference in Canada.

I think he learned his lesson. He decided to inform Parliament quickly, but it depends on what is meant by “quickly”. Maybe in the wake of his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister he should have informed Parliament of this information or informed the public of this strategic or sensitive information.

When asked about this issue yesterday, the new Minister of Public Safety said that, since information was starting to leak, they thought it was a good time to tell Parliament about it. Coincidence can be an amazing thing sometimes. The government got wind of leaks just as Parliament resumed, just as it needed to get back on track because it was lagging in the polls. It needed to make an impression as Parliament got back to work.

I am not suggesting anything about anyone's motives. I am just pointing out that coincidence can do very good things. That raises another question: Why did the government wait until there were leaks to disclose the information? Had there not been a leak resulting in yesterday's announcement, might the Prime Minister have waited much longer to inform the public, thereby risking further accusations of taking too long to inform the public and Parliament of possible foreign interference on Canadian soil, this time with extremely tragic results?

Obviously, there are a lot of questions and, unfortunately, not a lot of answers.

We asked some questions earlier. Why wait until yesterday to share this information? We did not get an answer. Why are so few of Canada's allies speaking up? We did not get an answer.

I want to reiterate that we need to work together, to the extent possible, in order to get to the bottom of this situation, because this story is extremely concerning. We need to give answers to Canadians and Quebeckers.

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

Madam Chair, this killing, this murder, happened just a few kilometres from where I live. It has affected the entire Sikh community in the greater Vancouver area, in British Columbia and in Canada. We know that there is an extreme right-wing organization that has been repeatedly involved in killings, murders and violence, not only in India, but also in the UK and North America. I am talking about the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or RSS. It is a right-wing organization that advocates intolerance towards religious minorities.

My question is quite simple. One of the things the NDP has been talking about since we learned this information, since yesterday, is the importance of banning this organization, the RSS, in Canada. It is about ensuring that this organization can no longer carry out its activities, its threats and all the negative things it does to target religious minorities here in Canada.

Does my Bloc Québécois colleague agree with this approach?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, certain legal, legislative provisions allow the possibility of designating certain organizations as terrorist organizations. Our colleague has raised very legitimate concerns. If, at the end of a serious assessment, we are confident that these concerns are warranted, I feel it would be appropriate to consider including this organization on the list of terrorist organizations. For the time being, however, the matter requires further clarification. Again, I think we need to get to the bottom of things before moving forward on this matter as well.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the member of Parliament for Montarville. I have had the good fortune of serving on the foreign affairs committee with him and have travelled with him as well.

Maybe he can remind people in other democratic countries who might be watching this how democracies work. We can work in the same place, travel together, vote in the same election and have different political views, and we do not feel any reprisal or threat.

The reason I say this is that I get this question many times when we are speaking to our Indian counterparts. They ask us to quash independent movements or independent views that are held here in Canada, whether contrarian or not. They tell us to do that, but they forget that in a free and democratic country, people have the ability to express themselves. We constantly give a reminder that we have members from the Bloc who differ in their opinions on the sovereignty and boundaries of this country, but they are able to do it freely and openly, even in this House. I would like to hear from the member opposite about how he is able to do that here in this wonderful country.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, I certainly agree that I have this freedom of speech as an elected member of this House even if my political views go against those of most political parties represented here.

However, that did not happen out of nowhere. In the 1800s, people shed their blood in Quebec and Ontario, or Lower Canada and Upper Canada, as they were called at the time. The Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada fought for a number of civil and political freedoms and for a truly democratic and responsible government. If the current sovereignist movement in Quebec can hope to achieve its goal in a completely democratic and peaceful manner—as we saw in 1995 when 94% of the population turned out to vote without any acts of violence whatsoever before, during or after the referendum—it is because these people made it so that we could enjoy the democratic institutions we have today that make it possible for us to have civilized debates without violence.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Chair, in his speech, my colleague has brought awareness not only to the values of democracy we hold so near and dear here in Canada, but also to the incredible threat that these kinds of actions by foreign states pose here in Canada.

It is no secret that Canada, through the treaties it has made with first nations, has become for people a beacon of safety and so much more that their lives can represent when freed from the risk of violence and the risk and threat of death. What we are talking about today is something incredibly serious: the reality that Canadians are feeling scared and, in the worst cases, are being targeted by foreign governments like Prime Minister Modi's government.

In my community of Edmonton Griesbach, we have a great diaspora community of Muslims who built our province and built our city, and right now they are fearful. They are scared that action will not be taken. Will the member agree with the New Democratic Party's call that RCMP members, the police, should be involved in the protection and security of those who face great risk in our country?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to start by saying that I think Canadians and Quebeckers are in for a rude awakening. I think this stems in large part from the vision we have always had of ourselves. We see ourselves as rather friendly, open-minded people, people who seek dialogue and compromise and who seek to end conflicts on the world stage.

We must never forget that peacekeeping was a Canadian invention. We are doing far too little now, but it was still a Canadian invention. That is why the idea that foreign interference can happen here in Canada and Quebec is totally unexpected. People in Taiwan are much more accustomed to this kind of thing. They have even developed ways to protect themselves against foreign interference and disinformation.

This is all new to us, because we think everyone is nice and plays by the rules. We could not have imagined that this peaceful country seeking collaboration and compromise could be subjected to this kind of behaviour by foreign states. It is a rude awakening, to be sure, but we have to face the facts and take action to deal with this new reality.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to ask the same question that one of my Bloc colleagues asked earlier. In fact, it was the member who just spoke who asked the question, but no one was able to give him an answer. I would therefore like to know what he thinks about the fact that none of Canada's allies have taken a stand on this.

I find that to be a very interesting and important question given the context and the rather serious allegations. I would imagine that such allegations are not made on a mere suspicion. There must be reasons behind it.

Why have the rest of the international community or Canada's direct allies not spoken out? What does my colleague think about that?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Chair, I will be brief.

Obviously, I have not been in touch with the foreign capitals that are allied with Canada to see how they feel about the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday. However, one thing is certain. As my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the arbitrary detention of the two Michaels was a proven, indisputable fact.

In this case, although the allegation may be based on intelligence information, we are still talking about an allegation. As long as that allegation has not been proven, it is difficult for the foreign capitals to take a stand, even if the situation is extremely worrisome for all of the world's democracies.

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

Madam Chair, let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the eloquent member for Edmonton Strathcona.

I am somewhat saddened to take part in this debate today. As our leader, the member for Burnaby South, aptly said yesterday, we offer our condolences to the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The member for Burnaby South mentioned his conversations with Mr. Nijjar's son.

This situation concerns a Canadian citizen who was killed on Canadian soil, probably at the instigation of a foreign government, according ot the allegations. I think that all members of the House are united and aware that the Canadian public should never accept such an outrage. The fact that a foreign government decided to kill a Canadian on Canadian soil is something no Canadian government, or the Parliament of Canada, should ever accept.

This was the reason for our concerns starting last June, when Mr. Nijjar was killed just a few kilometres from my home in Greater Vancouver. Suspicions about interference by the Indian government had already surfaced. A few months later, the allegations seem increasingly credible. As we have heard many say, an exhaustive investigation is imperative to uncover all the facts.

That is why the NDP pushed so hard on this in the spring. We moved a motion in the House that was adopted by every member of the recognized parties and the independent members, except for the members of the Liberal Party. The motion called for a public inquiry into foreign interference, which included China, Russia, India, Iran and other states. The motion was adopted on May 31, as members will recall, with a crushing majority. We continued to apply pressure and we concluded an agreement with the recognized parties such that the inquiry is set to start now. Justice Hogue, who is highly respected, will start her work in the coming days. Obviously, India's interference needs to be examined just as much as that of China, Russia and Iran. It is important for Canada to have a strong response.

In my riding, in my community, there are gurdwaras that do incredible work: Shri Guru Ravidass Sabha, which is celebrating its 41st anniversary this very weekend; the Khalsa Diwan Society; the Gurdwara Shri Hargobind Sahib Sikh Society; and Guru Nanak's Free Kitchen. All of these organizations are doing incredibly important work in our community.

These Canadians who contribute, to such an enormous extent, to the life of our community and our region should not have to fear that something they say may be taken and interfered with by a foreign entity and a government like the Modi government.

It is vitally important that Canada take action to ensure that this does not happen again. That includes, as my colleagues have said, offering RCMP protection. It includes reviewing the status of all Indian diplomats in this country. We have expelled one. There are dozens of diplomats. We need to review their status. I know my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona will speak more in depth on that. We pushed and have succeeded in having the inclusion of India in the public inquiry into foreign interference.

Finally, the RSS, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a notorious extreme right organization that has been involved in violence not only in India but also in North America and in Europe, needs to be banned in Canada.

These are the responses of the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus to the horrendous allegations we have all heard this week.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech, which, as usual, was full of common sense and sensitivity.

According to him, what prompted the government to actively wait to call an independent inquiry when these revelations had already been piling up for some time?

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

Mr. Chair, I always appreciate my colleague's comments.

I can think of no explanation. The evidence has been out there for months. That is why the NDP moved a motion calling on the special rapporteur, David Johnston, to resign because he did not have the confidence of the House. The motion also called on the government to immediately launch a public inquiry into foreign interference.

As the member knows, the vast majority of parliamentarians from all parties, except the Liberal Party, voted in favour of the motion, and the government did listen to reason. The important thing is that the public inquiry has been set up, and the work will begin in the coming days. This is extremely important to reassuring all Canadians that there will be no possibility of foreign interference in the next election.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, this is an incredibly serious issue we are discussing tonight in the House of Commons. My colleague has brought forward some very compelling arguments and some very compelling facts.

One of the things I find interesting is that the official opposition is not participating in the debate today. I have to ask why that is the case. I wonder whether it is because Stephen Harper in fact called Modi a great leader and a good friend. I am wondering whether the member could talk about why he thinks the official opposition is not in fact participating adequately in this debate.

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

Mr. Chair, the member for Edmonton Strathcona has hit a very important point. Over 100 members of Parliament from the Conservative Party are here in the House of Commons normally. That would mean the normal rotation for questions would be every third question. They have risen only once since this debate started over an hour ago. They only made one comment, and that was a speaking place they could not give up.

I am questioning, and I think Canadians should question, why the official opposition is absent from asking those questions and raising these concerns. There is no doubt the Modi government has been cited numerous times for human rights violations, concerns raised by human rights organizations. There is no doubt these concerns and these allegations are serious. One would think it would be more than the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals speaking on these issues. I do not understand why the official opposition is absent tonight.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Chair, much like the member opposite for New Westminster—Burnaby, I have numerous religious institutions in my riding. My friend and colleague from Brampton East spoke about the Highway to Heaven, which he had an opportunity to visit with me. It is a five-kilometre stretch with over 20 different religious institutions located right beside one another and living in harmony. Many people are troubled by what they are hearing and the news we have learned recently.

I want to speak about some findings we heard about from multiple witnesses during a recent committee study on foreign interference, where witnesses revealed that under the Harper government, a number of MOUs were entered into directly with the RCMP, allowing 25 China policing agents to repatriate criminals from Canada. Does the member think this practice set a precedent to allow foreign policing or intimidation of diaspora communities on our Canadian soil?

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

Mr. Chair, my colleague has raised a number of different issues, but I want to say this quite simply. Like the “Highway to Heaven”, the region of Richmond where all faiths are together, it is a hallmark of Canadian society that all faiths work together, that there are interfaith conferences and that we respect each other's religions. This profound, despicable act that took place in June, the killing of Mr. Nijjar, is something that cannot be tolerated by any Canadian, accepted by any Canadian, and we must all give voice to our unity at this time.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Chair, as this is the first time I am speaking in the House of Commons since this session started, I want to take a moment to say that it is always a great honour to stand up and represent the smart, caring and kind people of Edmonton Strathcona.

I also want to take a moment to express my deepest sympathy to the family of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

It is incredible to have to have a debate like this in the House today. It is beyond the pale that we have to stand in the House of Commons and talk about the fact that a Canadian citizen was murdered on Canadian soil by a foreign government, and there is credible evidence to the fact that this has occurred. It breaks my heart.

Not only did this horrific crime happen, but the reason it happened is to sow fear in the hearts of every member of the Sikh community. This hurt our Muslim brothers and sisters. This hurt our community of diaspora across this country.

I met with folks today and have met with folks time and time again who have told me about how afraid they are. They have told me about how angry they are about how little has been done to protect them in this country. They came to this country to be able to be safe and raise their families. One woman I spoke to today told me that she would have second thoughts about going to a political rally right now because she would be worried about her safety in Canada. The fact is that this is what we are dealing with right now, and I do not think we can let go.

It is important to recognize that the same thing happened when we were talking in this place about Chinese interference. The diaspora community at that time said “We have been telling you for decades that this is a problem.” Again, we are hearing this from our diaspora communities, and we need to listen to them. We need to hear their experience and their voices. We need to make sure that they feel safe in their communities.

It does not matter if we are Sikh, Jewish, Muslim or Christian: We must be able to practise our faith in this country without fear. We must be able to live in our community without fear. However, we know that right now, for so many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, that is not the case.

I have raised this issue in the House, and the New Democratic Party has raised this issue in the House many times. I have raised this in committee. The fact is that the Modi government is committing human rights abuses in India. The role we have to play in terms of protecting Canadians is an important role that has to be addressed. We have to find ways to protect Canadians better. We have to make sure that the RCMP is protecting people. We have to make sure that the RSS has been banned from Canada.

There are many things we can do, but let us not forget that Canada, as a democracy, as a country that believes in the international rule of law, has an ethical and moral obligation to talk about human rights when they are being abused around the world. It is not enough that we talk about it in Canada; we have to talk about what that looks like around the world. We have to be able to name that the Modi government has attacked people within the country of India, and that women, members of the LGBTQ2+ community, Dalits, Sikhs and Muslims have all been targeted by that government. In a country like Canada, with a feminist foreign policy and a strong belief in multilateralism and the international rule of law, if we do not stand up, if we do not say that this is not all right, if we do not call out that government for this behaviour, if we do not call out Modi for the attacks he is making on vulnerable people in India, it hurts us. It hurts who we are a country.

Going forward, we need to do everything we can to make sure that what happened does not happen again in Canada. We need to hold those responsible to account. We need to find justice for those who have been impacted by Indian interference in our country.