Public Safety Committee on April 16th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If I may, I'm going to bring this meeting to order. This is the 103rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We have as our guest this morning Daniel Jean, national security and intelligence adviser.

Prior to calling on Mr. Jean, I'm going to ask that all of the camerapeople remove themselves.

Second, there has been some conversation among the members of the committee, and we will observe a moment's silence in light of the tragedy in Humboldt. If you would rise with me, we will be silent for a moment.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you.

As I said, our guest this morning is Daniel Jean, national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Jean, you certainly seem to be able to attract a crowd, but you're welcome to the committee regardless. I understand that you have an opening statement. Thereafter, you know the order of questions. With that, I'll call on you for your opening statement.

[Daniel Jean, National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister, Privy Council Office]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your time.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the facts surrounding the controversy associated with the invitation of Mr. Atwal to a reception hosted by the Canadian High Commission in Delhi during the recent visit of the Prime Minister to India, as well as the background briefing I offered to representatives of Canadian media on February 22 and 23.

I wish to stress that the information that I am providing you today, like the information I shared with the media during the background briefings, is unclassified. While I have access to classified intelligence that can inform unclassified briefings, I always exercise caution on what I share in an unclassified context.

The first notification I received that Mr. Atwal was on the guest list for the Delhi High Commission reception planned in the context of the Prime Minister's visit to India came through the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. CSIS received this information on February 21, 2018, at around 8 a.m. from a source, suggesting that Mr. Atwal's presence at the reception would be embarrassing to the Canadian government.

After the CSIS director informed me of the situation just before 10 a.m., I immediately asked our Privy Council Office Security and Intelligence team to contact the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to validate the information. Soon thereafter, we informed relevant officials at PCO, the Prime Minister's Office and PCO officials accompanying the Prime Minister in Delhi.

The RCMP confirmed that afternoon the past conviction for attempted murder on a visiting Minister of State from India in 1986. As Mr. Atwal is no longer considered a security threat by our security agencies, the issue was the controversy that his presence at the event could have generated given the nature of his past conviction. Around the same time, pictures of Mr. Atwal with members of the Prime Minister's delegation taken the day before at a reception in Mumbai and a picture of his invitation to the upcoming Delhi reception started to circulate in the Indian media. At 7:46 p.m., the CBC published a story with these pictures. That was the first article about this in Canada.

Mr. Atwal's invitation was rescinded by the High Commission in India later that night. By mid-morning on February 22, we had assessed what we knew so far about the incident drawing on both the sequence of events, unclassified information available at that stage, and classified information: Mr. Atwal had attended the Mumbai reception and pictures of him with members of the Prime Minister's entourage had surfaced in the media; Mr. Atwal was invited to the Canadian High Commission reception in New Delhi; the Prime Minister had publicly declared that the invitation should not have been extended, and a Canadian member of Parliament, Mr. Randeep Sarai had assumed responsibility for the invitation; in parallel, we had seen inaccurate information in the media and a number of false allegations that suggested that federal institutions had been informed before the trip that Mr. Atwal had received an invitation, had informed staff from the PMO, and that no action to reconsider the invitation had been taken.

At that time, I made the decision to offer a background briefing to Canadian media on what we knew in order to clarify facts, to answer a number of pressing questions from the media, and to alert them to the inaccurate information being circulated. In keeping with my usual practice, I discussed beforehand my proposal to offer a background briefing and the key messages I intended to deliver with both PCO colleagues and PMO officials.

The PMO communications department suggested a list of journalists I could contact in Ottawa that afternoon and evening in addition to the Canadian media accompanying the Prime Minister in India, who would be briefed the next day.

In the background briefings, I confirmed that I was giving an unclassified briefing on background—c'est-à-dire, no attribution by name—and I covered the following points. With regard to the invitation, I indicated that the Prime Minister had acknowledged that this invitation should not have been extended and that the member of Parliament, Mr. Sarai, had taken responsibility for the invitation. I said that the Prime Minister and Mr. Sarai were on the record on these facts and that I would not comment further on that aspect.

On how and when we were informed and the rationale for rescinding the invitation, I said, based on the information I had at that time, that the first notification we received that Mr. Atwal was on the guest list for the Delhi reception came from a source who informed CSIS in the early morning of February 21. I confirmed that we rapidly consulted the RCMP, the agency responsible for handling criminal matters, and notified PCO and PMO officials in Ottawa and Delhi. I confirmed that Mr. Atwal was no longer considered to be a security threat by our security agencies and that the invitation had been rescinded because of the controversy that could erupt given the nature of his past conviction.

I answered a number of questions around security screening for guests at receptions, and questions also around no-fly lists.

I then told media representatives that inaccurate information around the invitation of Mr. Atwal was being circulated. I referred them to the title of an Indian Express story published on February 22, which suggested that a Canadian citizen entered India after a 38-year ban as part of the Prime Minister's delegation. I indicated that this was misleading as the individual was not on the official delegation for the visit.

I noted that while the Government of Canada is glad when a Canadian citizen can resolve travel restrictions, the government had not intervened with the Indian government to remove any member of the official delegation from an interdiction to travel to India. I said that questions related to interdictions to travel to India should be directed to the Government of India.

With regard to Mr. Atwal, I said that we understood that after having difficulties travelling to India for several years, he was removed by the Indian government from the so-called blacklist in 2017 and allowed to travel there last summer as someone who is presumably no longer considered a threat, and no longer espouses the cause of an independent Khalistan. Mr. Atwal now meets with Indian diplomats in Canada and Indian officials, which is the normal process for people who go through the blacklist process. Articles subsequently published in The Indian Express and The Times of India confirm that information.

On February 24, The Times of India confirmed that Jaspal Atwal was reformed, was off the blacklist, and had been engaging with the government for three years. When you read the articles, it explains the number of officials you would normally meet through that process. In the second article—from March 9, the day after Mr. Atwal gave his press conference—the official spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs did confirm that Mr. Atwal had been removed from the blacklist in 2017 as part of a conscious effort by the Indian government of outreach with diaspora who were reformed.

I also described at that time two unfounded allegations made to the media suggesting that the PMO had been informed, days before the trip, of Mr. Atwal's presence on the guest list but that no action had been taken to rescind the invitation. It was indeed reported that CSIS had been alerted days before, and I had informed the Prime Minister's Office. CSIS has no record or recollection of such an earlier alert. CSIS confirmed that the first notification they got came on February 21 around 8 a.m.

An allegation was also made that the RCMP, Surrey detachment, had been alerted several weeks before the trip that Mr. Atwal was on the guest list and had alerted the PMO. Upon hearing the allegation, the PCO contacted senior officials at RCMP headquarters, who in turn contacted both RCMP Surrey and the Prime Minister's protective detail, who then confirmed that no such alert had been received.

With regard to attribution, as reported by journalists who received the briefing, including Tonda MacCharles and Alex Ballingall of the Toronto Star, and John Ivison of the National Post, what I said was that we had concerns that this seemed to be coordinated misinformation by actors, possibly to exacerbate the faux pas—the fact that an invitation that should not have been made had been made—in order to reinforce the notion that Canada is complacent on the risk of extremism, a perception that has been brought, at times, by Indian intelligence services, and one that we do not share.

Let's look at what the people who were briefed actually said. In the Toronto Star:

When the Star had asked those same questions last week of a senior Canadian official who spoke on condition of anonymity, the answer was: “I want to be very clear: I am not saying that the government of India set us up." However, the official did suggest that there are “people in India” who would benefit from fuelling the controversy over whether the Trudeau government is “complacent on terrorism”—an allegation the Liberal government flatly denies.

In the National Post, John Ivison wrote:

I received a briefing from a senior security source last week.... He did not allege the Indian government engineered Atwal's invitations to the events in Mumbai and New Delhi. In fact, he said Sarai was the source of the invitation and either ignored Atwal's conviction because it was 30 years old, or was unaware of his nefarious past. But he did suggest Atwal was removed from the blacklist by the Indian government—a fact also reported by the Times of India and other Indian media, which claimed it happened in July 2017.

He also alluded to the Canadian Press...upon return, Mr. Atwal had consulted his passport and confirmed that he had travelled. He had stamps in India in January and August 2017.

After I had completed the background briefings by phone with the Canadian media in Delhi on the morning of February 23, the PCO and the PMO communications brought to my attention a story published that morning, which suggested that a Surrey Punjabi media outlet had sent an anonymous tip to the Canadian high commission that Mr. Atwal was going to attend the Mumbai reception and that if the tip had immediately been acted upon, the whole controversy could have been avoided. We immediately queried the high commission. We confirmed that the tip was actually received after Mumbai, before Delhi, and it would not have made any difference.

In regard to the relationship with India, I want to stress that we take the relationship with India very seriously. Beyond sustained efforts to broaden the foreign policy relationship and grow bilateral trade, we also strive to be good security partners. Canada was not spared from violent extremism actions. We remain vigilant to any potential threat and work closely with our Indian partners within the Canadian legislative framework, including the charter.

Over the last year, our security and intelligence agencies have worked constructively to enhance co-operation with their Indian counterparts. Prior to the Prime Minister's visit to India, senior officials from the RCMP and CSIS travelled to Delhi. I met with my NSA counterpart the week before, and he told me how pleased he was with the co-operation of the RCMP and CSIS.

With regard to the invitation to Mr. Atwal, I wish to stress that throughout the incident, on the 21st and 22nd, I made several attempts to connect with my Indian counterpart by phone, and I emailed him to thank him for the good exchanges we had the week before, as well as to express our regrets over the controversy resulting from the invitation and explain that it had been rescinded.

In conclusion, I have now had the chance to share with you all relevant unclassified information that I'm privy to with regard to this issue. As you can see, the background briefing that I offered included both a faithful description of the sequence of events and answered a number of pressing questions from the media. I felt it was important to alert the Canadian media to the misinformation being circulated, notably the unfounded allegations that public institutions—first, CSIS; secondly, the RCMP; and third, our diplomatic mission in Delhi—had been informed ahead of the Mumbai reception that Mr. Atwal was on the guest list and that these institutions had relayed the information to the PMO in time to prevent the controversy. The paper trail will show that all these allegations are false.

Finally, I want to thank officials in the international security and intelligence community, who, as you can see from the sequence of events, did not spare any effort during an intense 48 hours.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Jean. I'm sorry to have run you through that gamut in 10 minutes, but we do try to keep to the time limits here.

Madam Damoff, you have seven minutes, please.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Monsieur Jean, for being with us today and also for sending a letter to the chair asking to appear before our committee. As our chair indicated, you have attracted quite a crowd here today.

You went through a lot of information very quickly for us. I wonder if you can elaborate a bit on why you thought it was important to do the briefing that you did. I know that you spoke about a lot of facts as you went through, but why did you feel it was important to have that briefing with the media to counter the misinformation that was out there?

[Daniel Jean]

There were three main objectives to the briefing. The first was—as when you are in a crisis—trying to describe to the media the facts and the sequence of events as best as we knew them at that time. The second was to answer a lot of their questions, and when you look at all the articles that these journalists wrote after that, you can see that I answered a lot of questions on security screening, vetting of lists, and no-fly lists.

The third objective—and it was an important one—was that we could see you had inaccurate information, but you also had what really looked like coordinated efforts to try to create a narrative that was actually using, in an inappropriate way, three respected public institutions, CSIS, the RCMP, and our diplomatic mission in Delhi—at the time of the background briefing, we knew about CSIS and the RCMP, while the third one came later—and suggesting that they had been alerted that Mr. Atwal was on the guest list, they had said to the Prime Minister's Office that this was the case, and that somehow the invitation was not rescinded.

From a public policy standpoint and from a Canadian interest standpoint, it's absolutely correct that the media and Canadians should ask tough questions of the government and the member of Parliament as to how this invitation was extended. It was a faux pas. It should not have happened. I answered a lot of these questions that night, as you can see from the reports from the people who received the background briefing.

In the same way, if you have actors who are trying to fabricate a narrative that is totally untrue and using three of our most respected public institutions to do that, I think there has to be someone who is neutral who can come in and alert the media to that. That's why I did it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

You've mentioned coordinated efforts and have said that there were actors out there who were doing this. You obviously felt that these weren't random tips being given to the media, but that it was a coordinated effort on behalf of certain actors to get this misinformation out there. Is that right?

[Daniel Jean]

When you look at the sequence of events, we were first alerted in Ottawa, and then in Ottawa we discovered the tip the Vancouver Sun reported on on the 23rd. We had not seen that paper before, because when we called them to talk about Mr. Atwal, they were aware and they thought we were talking about the same thing. But, in essence, when you look at it, we were tipped. Within a matter of hours, pictures of Mr. Atwal with the entourage of the Prime Minister and a picture of his invitation were in the media, and inaccurate information was being rooted at the same time. Then you had what certainly to us in the community looked like coordinated efforts, because it was the same narrative in three different tips that were sent to the media.

The tip about CSIS was first sent to the CBC. It was going to be part of the Terry Milewski story. We were able to repeal that one. Unfortunately, for the Vancouver Sun, we didn't have a chance to get back to them on time. The one about the RCMP happened really late on the night of the 21st. Between midnight and two o'clock, we woke up the RCMP. They called their Surrey detachment. They called their PMPD, the protective detail, and they confirmed that information was false. I can tell you that the minute you see the paper trail on the actual anonymous tip, for the Vancouver Sun story on the 23rd, which was sent to the high commission, you will see right away that it happened after the Mumbai reception and before the Delhi reception, yet the Vancouver Sun was told by the anonymous tipster that it was before Mumbai and it could have prevented the faux pas.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

You also mentioned as late as February 23 that the Surrey media outlet was printing a story, and again that happened. Was this continuing that coordinated effort afterwards, or do you think it was...?

[Daniel Jean]

When I talked about inaccurate information, there was that story about that other Canadian that came out around the same time, which suggested that after 38 years of being banned, so being on the Indian blacklist, he had been able to come to India because he was in the Prime Minister's delegation. I can tell you that the paper will show that this gentleman was not in the Prime Minister's delegation.

In the same way, when the media in India talked about Mr. Atwal—and initially our media as well—he was being presented as what he was 30 years ago, but at the same time, when we understand India.... You understand that I have a huge experience in immigration and the foreign services that serve abroad. India is one of our main source countries. I understand the whole blacklist Indian interdiction process. The minute we saw that Mr. Atwal was in India, we said, well, if he is in India, that means that somehow they have pruned his name off the blacklist. We started to get some information suggesting that indeed he had travelled to India in August 2017. We have open source information showing that. Also, he actually had received a political decoration in India in August 2017, so we have to assume that somehow the Indian government had removed him.

As you probably know, their initial reaction was that they weren't sure. They checked it out. On the 24th, senior Indian officials, in the same kind of background briefing that I gave, told Indian newspapers that indeed he had been removed. In their process, people meet with diplomats and with intelligence officers and all that, and on March 9 they confirmed that on the record.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

It was the Indian government that spoke to the media to say he'd been removed from the blacklist. Is that what you just said?

[Daniel Jean]

Indeed, the first story was on February 23, and there was very little. On February 24, there was an extensive story that actually explained really well the process of being removed from the blacklist. Why did they do that? It is part of the Indian government trying to outreach to diaspora that they feel, at some time, were a challenge from their perspective but have reformed. On the ninth of March they confirmed that on the record.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Paul-Hus, go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jean, I first want to thank you for being here with us today, and for your service to the Canadian public service. I know that you will be retiring soon, and I hope that after so many years spent serving our country, you will not leave with a feeling of bitterness due to these unfortunate events.

I thank you for your statement. It has clarified certain points, but does not specifically answer our questions. Therefore, I will ask you mine.

Last February 27, the Prime Minister confirmed, throughout his trip through India, that rogue elements of the Indian government were responsible for Mr. Jaspal Atwal's presence at these private events. And yet, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who must certainly have been briefed about the situation, stated that Mr. Atwal's presence was an honest mistake. She apologized to the Indian government. Both those statements cannot be true.

In your opinion, which one of them is true?

[Daniel Jean]

Mr. Paul-Hus, my position is quite demanding, and honestly I don't have time to listen to all of the questions that are raised in the House of Commons. However, I did listen to some of the questions which were put to the Prime Minister on this topic. The Prime Minister acknowledged that this invitation should not have been made and that the member who made it had accepted responsibility. The Prime Minister also said that he agreed with the evaluation carried out by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the evaluation that I came here to speak to you about today. According to that evaluation, there seemed to have been coordinated misinformation efforts.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

In the beginning, on February 27, in response to a question put to him in the House by M. Andrew Scheer, the Prime Minister confirmed that rogue elements of the Indian government were responsible for Mr. Atwal's presence. The first version came from information we were told was classified. Afterwards, there were other versions, including that of the minister, who said that the invitation came from Canada.

Today, you are giving us unclassified information. The government even asked you to provide a classified briefing session to the leader of the official opposition, but now you are talking about coordinated efforts.

Could you give us some further explanations?

[Daniel Jean]

It's quite simple.

Mr. Paul-Hus, if I remember correctly, you are a former military man. I think you would not appreciate references to National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces being improperly used by people trying to create a false version of the facts for the purpose of making Canada look bad.

This has to be very clear, and I'm going to repeat what I said earlier. As a public servant and a soon-to-be ordinary citizen, I find it perfectly normal that Canadians and the media put difficult questions to the Prime Minister and to the members to try to find out why all of this happened. It's perfectly reasonable that Canadians and the media put difficult questions to officials, and I answered several of those questions that evening.

However, some people tried to create a false narrative by using CSIS, the RCMP or the High Commission. This whole fiasco and controversy could have been avoided. The documents we have will show that this narrative is false. Who better than an objective public servant to tell Canadians that that information is false?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay, but who coordinated that?

[Daniel Jean]

In the background briefings—without attribution—that I provided, I said clearly that we did not know who these people were. I don't know if they were from the private sector. I am telling you that now, and I have said it before several times, including during a briefing for journalists from the Toronto Star and the National Post. CTV also said the same thing in its first report on this topic. Individuals from the private sector did this, or, if they were associated with the Government of India, they certainly did this without its permission. The Government of India denies any involvement and I fully accept its explanation.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Fine.

According to the final version of the report, unknown external elements coordinated a message like this for the purpose of muddying up the relations between Canada and India.

Today, you are confirming that you trust the Indian government when it says that this did not originate with it, but you cannot tell us who coordinated that false information.

[Daniel Jean]

As I said to the media that evening, I am not in a position to confirm that.

The Government of India has stated that it had nothing to do with this. That is in fact what I said to the media at the information session. Three of the eleven first news reports say that, and many others do not mention it at all.

Mr. Paul-Hus, it's very important to use the correct narrative. I spoke to you about all of the journalists' reports, the ones who were present at the briefing that evening, and none of those reports talk about a diversion. In the reports that were published later, only one, Mr. John Ivison's article, alludes to a conspiracy, but that journalist never stated that there had been a conspiracy. In fact, I quoted this article earlier.

A narrative was developed by people who were not present at the briefing, who did not read the reports, and all of a sudden, there was a conspiracy theory out there. For my part, I don't put much stock in conspiracy theories.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Why are we here today? For almost two months, the committee refused two motions requesting that you come here to enlighten us. We want explanations. Canadians want to know what happened.

According to what I understand from what you said today, someone, somewhere provoked a problem. You don't know who did it, or you cannot tell us.

Why do you think the Prime Minister prevented you from testifying, or did not give us some clearer explanations? We had to wait two months to hear you.

[Daniel Jean]

Normally, I only appear when I am asked to do so. If I understand correctly, last March 1, the committee launched a process to ask me to appear, but the process did not yield results. To tell you the truth, I was not even aware of that. As you may know, I often do not have my electronic devices with me in the course of my work. That morning, I wasn't available. I was taking part in a three-hour session with several other people. When I came out, I noticed myself that the papers were talking about this issue. The government later adopted a very clear position which I can completely understand.

I will explain what happened. We indeed had what we needed to adopt a non-classified approach and considered that the media had the right to know that they were being fed false information. However, it's very useful to be aware of the classified information. Since Mr. Scheer is a member of the Privy Council and has a right to that information, my boss, the Clerk, especially when the filibusters were unfolding, stated that he thought we would provide a classified briefing. This was offered in a more formal way via correspondence. Once the Leader of the Opposition agreed to the idea of the classified briefing, I immediately sent a letter to Mr. McKay.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Dubé, you have seven minutes.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jean, thank you for being here with us today despite the weather.

I think we have to target our actions accurately. In my opinion, the committee should require accountability from the Prime Minister primarily, as well as the ministers concerned. This has less to do with public servants. That said, there are questions, nevertheless, regarding the process. How does someone come to provide such a briefing? There seems to be some inconsistency between what the government said and what you said during the briefing.

You spoke about the controversy which was stirred up. Was that individual identified because of public relations issues, or was this raised by CSIS for security reasons? I would like that aspect to be very clear.