Public Safety Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[Mehmet Tohti]

The bad actors will always develop and explore the means and ways to exploit this process, but what's most important is how we protect ourselves and how we prepare ourselves. This will at least strengthen that process and give us the tools to combat against the people who are just skipping this process or trying to make use of it for their own advantage.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Singh.

[Balpreet Singh]

Briefly, I can tell you that India uses foreign-based or Canada-based proxies. There are usually different layers. In practical terms, getting to where the orders are coming from is often a challenge. Do I have a solution? No, I don't, but you're quite right that there are different layers. Often it looks like there's a Canada-based individual who actually has different layers above, and finally you can trace that to India, but it's not straightforward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

We'll go now to Mr. Gaheer for six minutes, please.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

My questions are largely for Mr. Balpreet Singh. Look, as a Sikh, as a Canadian, I resonate with large segments of your opening testimony. I think when the Prime Minister stood up in Parliament last year and spoke on the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, that was quite a moment for the community. I know that for you and for me and for other members of the Sikh community, that moment really confirmed what Sikhs already knew and felt. Many deep-seated fears were realized.

I now find it very ironic that Mr. Genuis is showing concern for this issue, because I remember the moment when the leader the next day flip-flopped and said they needed more information to comment on this issue and did not stand with the Sikh community. When the debate happened in Parliament regarding that murder, the Conservatives did not show up.

So it's quite ironic that now—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, Chair, it is unparliamentary to refer to the presence or absence of members, for one thing, but I was sitting there for the entire debate, and—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Excuse me, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis, go ahead on your point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Gaheer is dead wrong about whether I've stood with the Sikh community. He should ask the witness whether I've stood up for the Sikh community, because I've said far more in defence of the Sikh community's concerns than he ever has.

I'd like him to withdraw his comments about the presence or absence of members in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

He's dead wrong. I was there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Wait, let me get that straight: You've stood more with the Sikh community than me, as a Sikh?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Gaheer—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

You're kidding me, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Let's not talk across each other.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Look up interventions in the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Gaheer, carry on with your questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Ask Balpreet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Genuis—please.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

In your opening testimony, Balpreet, you spoke about the security sharing that's taking place under this bill. From my review of the bill and the legislation, this bill, as far as I am aware, does not open up new avenues for security information sharing with foreign entities. It's largely for Canadian entities, whether it be government bodies or individual persons within Canada. Any sort of information sharing that's taking place is happening within frameworks that are already established.

You mentioned one of them, which is the co-operation agreement. I think that was established with India as well. As far as I'm aware, this bill does not open up new avenues for that kind of information sharing. Again, we are going to have CSIS appear before us, and the minister. I'd be happy to raise these concerns with him and with CSIS as well.

As for the information sharing, it's among government bodies. We've heard testimony that CSIS is reticent at times to share information. This bill will allow for more information sharing. Different government agencies may have different pieces of that pie, and only when you put those pieces together do you get the full picture and perhaps reach that bar whereby you can move to the next step.

I do want to say that from what I've heard from testimony and from witnesses and from conversations that I've had, we are generally a net recipient of information. I think that's a good thing in the international framework.

One thing about this legislation is that there's a requirement that Parliament review the CSIS Act every five years in order to ensure that CSIS's mandate and powers are consistent to address the threat landscape that they operate in. Does your organization support this review?

[Balpreet Singh]

Yes. I'll touch on a couple of the points you've raised.

First, we know that this channel is open between Canada and India. Now, India is notoriously bad when it comes to respecting human rights. We've seen the transnational repression that's taken place, including killings on Canadian soil. I appreciate that we can say that it's been largely data coming our way as opposed to the other way around, but having this channel available means that we can't control how it's used in the future. I mean, there will be other governments that come in. There will be other people who come in your place and in others'. Having this channel open is problematic. That's my first comment.

The review after five years is absolutely essential. There are so many things we're trying out for the first time, including the registry, that we'll need time to see how it works. Then, you're right, we'll need to have a review to see if we can improve things or change things if necessary. Yes, we're completely supportive of that.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have? I have two minutes. Okay, that's great.

Again, from what I've heard from testimony, when you look at the co-operation agreement, you see that large sections of it, actually.... Most of that information sharing is for immigration purposes. It's for the security background checks that happen. It's not necessarily the type of information that I think the Sikh community is worried about. I think it has largely been used for immigration purposes. Obviously, a large segment of the population in India wishes to emigrate from India, and large sections come to Canada, so that security framework is used for doing those background checks.

I also want to ask about the foreign interference that the Sikh community has faced over the last few years and over the last few decades. How has that changed, perhaps, under the current Government of India?

[Balpreet Singh]

Once again, touching back on your initial point about the intelligence sharing, the intelligence-sharing framework itself names a number of so-called extremist groups. It names two Sikh groups that are, as far as I can tell, completely defunct. I haven't seen any actions by them. However, when it was presented in the Indian media in 2018, it was presented as an intelligence framework co-operation agreement to clamp down on so-called Sikh extremism in Canada. That's how it was framed in India, and I believe that's how it's intended to be used by the Indians.

Now, I'm glad that, if what you're telling me is correct, that's not the way it's being used. However, once again, just having this open and the wording of the framework are problematic.

In terms of the transnational repression, under the Congress governments that we've seen in the past, the messaging has been very similar in terms of claims of so-called extremism, which is largely just—