44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2023 10:00AM
- Sep/19/23 6:45:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, the Prime Minister was transparent with the House and Canadians yesterday when he told us this news. I am grateful to him for that. However, it has created public concern, particularly in the Sikh community in Canada. There is a very large Sikh community here, and we are starting to hear from people. They are worried and more fearful for their safety, knowing this information. We can imagine that they have families and loved ones in India.
What is the government's message to reassure these people who are on Canadian soil right now?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:24:32 p.m.
- Watch
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?
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:48:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Rivière-du-Nord.
I too would like to offer my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and to the entire Canadian Sikh community, which is quite large. I believe my colleagues have already made it clear that our hearts and thoughts are with them. What happened last June is deeply disturbing. When I think of the loved ones and family members who did not get this information until months later, that is even more distressing, as it forces them to experience that grief and pain all over again. Our thoughts are with them.
I appreciate my colleagues' tone this evening. This is a rather non-partisan debate and a subject that should be non-partisan. Our role, as parliamentarians, is to reassure Quebeckers, Canadians, the Canadian Sikh community and everyone. The government may have failed to do that. I do not necessarily want to dole out criticism right away. Obviously, we applauded the Prime Minister's transparency in the statement he made yesterday. That was appreciated, but it raised concerns among the Canadian Sikh community, particularly among those who claim to have been victims of intimidation by the Indian government for many years, people who feel even less safe today. What message is the government sending those people to reassure them? Perhaps I did not really hear it.
It is important to say that this incident is quite simply a form of foreign interference. During the last parliamentary session, we talked a lot about all forms of foreign interference. Even some of our colleagues here in the House were being intimidated. However, the fact that a foreign state was allegedly involved in the murder of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is even more worrisome and raises a lot of questions. I think that it is good that we are having this debate this evening, but, unfortunately, we are not going to get answers to the questions being raised.
We are talking about some pretty serious accusations. Earlier, I heard a minister say that it was inappropriate to make accusations while an investigation is under way, so I was not quite sure what the government's position was. Such serious allegations must not be based on mere suspicions. The evidence must support them. It feels as though only some of the information has been shared with us. Canadians have the right to know the information. We completely understand that an investigation is under way, but as I said, it does raise some questions.
We are running out of time, but, essentially, I would like to come back to the all-important questions that my colleagues raised earlier, especially about the fact that we have not yet seen any of Canada's allies or other states in the international community speak to these serious allegations. We were told that the Prime Minister may have informed certain states before even informing the House and Canadians.
We have to wonder why. Is it because some states do not necessarily agree, or are they afraid of this confrontation or of a strained diplomatic relationship with India? We are obviously headed toward a very tense diplomatic relationship now, if that is not already the case. It must be said that Canada is standing up to the great state of India and there have been some hiccups in the past, particularly when Canada refused to extradite Canadians of Indian origin.
We are told that the government knew about foreign interference by India for several months, even years. We are talking about foreign interference and ways to prevent it. How are we talking about this only now when the government may have been aware?
This raises several questions.
639 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:55:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, obviously, when it comes to an issue as important as foreign interference, we need to address it seriously. We have been calling for this much-discussed independent inquiry for quite some time. It took a long time for the government to embark on this and get involved. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for this to happen for a long time.
At the time, we were talking a lot about foreign interference by China. Today, given what we know, it is undeniable that we need to broaden our scope when we talk about foreign interference. If Ms. Hogue addresses the issue of India, it will be very interesting for us to have the information about this particular foreign interference. We are open to the judge proposing solutions and things the government can do to protect Canada from any form of foreign interference.
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:57:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, that is an excellent question. I do not necessarily know the answer, but I think the first step is simply to talk about it.
I greatly enjoyed listening to my colleague's thoughts just now, when she asked what we are here for if not to speak out against things happening in certain countries, like injustice against religious minorities, various other minorities and vulnerable people, for example. I consider it our duty as parliamentarians to speak out against these things and then discuss them.
Then we can come up with solutions together, but we need to talk more about what is going on here, at home. God knows injustice exists here like anywhere else. This is part of our role in a world of international relations among nations. These conversations may not be easy, but we certainly need to have them.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:59:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I always act in good faith. I give people the benefit of the doubt even though a person tends to lose confidence after repeated failures. However, I also trust in law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. I know that they are able to do the necessary work. I have therefore decided to act in good faith in this case, but obviously the government should send a strong message about its response to foreign interference, regardless of what form it takes, particularly in this case.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
