44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2023 10:00AM
- Sep/19/23 6:59:47 p.m.
- Watch
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?
223 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:02:22 p.m.
- Watch
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.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:03:18 p.m.
- Watch
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.
158 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 7:04:20 p.m.
- Watch
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—
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:06:24 p.m.
- Watch
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?
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/23 8:07:34 p.m.
- Watch
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.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
