Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Daniel Rogers]

It is a very good question.

Obviously, you heard earlier from the commissioner about some of the most egregious examples of criminality the RCMP has uncovered that have links to the Government of India. From a CSIS perspective, we could add some of the things we have been saying to the public recently, which is that the Government of India seeks to advance pro-India narratives and align Canada's position with the position of India.

This is particularly true when it comes to individuals whom India perceives as supporting a pro-Khalistan independence movement, which is a particular sore point for India. We see India using proxy agents here in Canada to try to advance those goals, and we see different types of foreign interference attempts, ranging from disinformation to criminal activities, which the RCMP mentioned, to achieve those goals.

Obviously, this is a concern for the service. As Madame Drouin said earlier, this is something we've been tackling for a number of years. We do investigations to try to uncover information. We use the information uncovered to work with our partners across the Government of Canada and with our allies. In an effort to protect public safety, if we see information that could be harmful to an individual in Canada, we work very closely with the police of jurisdiction and the RCMP, sharing that information through a robust framework. Where necessary, we can do things like use threat reduction measures.

The last thing I will say on that point is that we have, especially recently, engaged in a lot of stakeholder and community outreach to make sure we build resilience across various communities that could be threatened through foreign interference by India and others. Bill C-70 has helped us do that, with a new ability to do resilience disclosures with Canadians.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you.

This question is for Commissioner Duheme.

In a recent CTV News article, you are quoted as saying, “There has been a significant reduction in [public safety] threats” since the six Indian diplomats were expelled from the country.

What are some of the specific indicators that led to the assessment that there has been a significant reduction in public safety threats?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I mentioned earlier that, throughout a period of a year or a year and a half, it ebbed and flowed from significant to imminent. That's when we did the “duty to warn”. However, the actions taken on October 14, our press release and Global Affairs Canada's position on the six diplomats.... We know through current investigations we have in place that we've had a significant impact on the threat to public safety among those communities.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

How is the RCMP engaging with the communities to address concerns about the threats that India poses to particular communities?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

We encourage people to.... We do have an engagement strategy. We have individuals who will reach out to the community. Sometimes we will also work with the police of jurisdiction and the liaison people in these communities. It's to build that trust and those relationships, so people feel comfortable coming forward, explaining what they went through or what they have witnessed.

It was also part of the reason for going public. It's to get that trust from the community, to show that we're there and that we're putting actions in place to increase public safety. However, if they see anything, we ask them to come forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Ms. Michaud for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Duheme, you said earlier that the investigation allowed you to discover, to some extent, India's modus operandi. As a result of that information, were you able to more effectively predict what was going to happen?

Let me explain. Sometimes, there is no collaboration. In this case, that's obviously what happened. Canada does not have the co-operation of the Government of India.

Does that kind of information allow you to move the investigation forward, even without the Government of India's co-operation?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I'd like to clarify two points. What we saw here, in Canada, is nothing new. For example, the United States filed charges against two individuals, an official representative of the Government of India and a person with ties to organized crime. The situation is similar to what we saw here in Canada. An American citizen was given a contract to murder another person. It shows how the Government of India operates. Undoubtedly, we have a better understanding of how information and orders flow from the Government of India to here.

The fact that we were able to gather enough evidence to convince the Canadian government to expel six Indian diplomats says a lot about the work we accomplished.

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

Ms. Drouin said that, initially, one of the options was to waive the diplomatic immunity of those individuals before expelling them. Obviously neither you nor I can do that. It's actually the country that those diplomats represent which has the power to decide whether to waive diplomatic immunity.

Did the fact that you were not able to proceed with those arrests hinder you? Is it simply preferable to expel such individuals? In your opinion, which is the better option?

Ms. Drouin, do you wish to comment?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Thank you.

Diplomats obviously enjoy immunity, and that makes the work of the investigative team so much harder. That's why the first option was to ask India to waive the immunity of those diplomats so that they could be subject to Canadian law.

Quite honestly, we didn't expect India to agree to that. That's why we chose to include the accountability option so that India would stop orchestrating violent crimes in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We'll now go to Mr. MacGregor, please, for two and a half minutes.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

For my next series of questions, I'll turn to you, Mr. Morrison, and maybe to you, Mr. Rogers, as a follow-up.

With all of the revelations that have been made over the past year or so concerning the Government of India's interference.... We heard earlier what India's strategic objectives are in Canada. I guess it's to have a more pro-India stance in Canada. In the short term, that seems to have backfired spectacularly, given the negative news that is now cycling through Canada.

Mr. Morrison, is the department satisfied with the response to this by Canada's allies? Do we feel that we're getting sufficient backup and confirmation of our concerns from some of our closest allies about these very strong allegations?

We are basically accusing the Indian government of working hand in hand with serious criminal organizations involved in everything from murder to extortion and coercion.

Are you satisfied that our allies are in lockstep with us on this approach to the Government of India?

[David Morrison]

I am absolutely satisfied that our allies are advocating on our behalf. You have seen the public statements. We know for a fact that they have been advocating privately with our counterparts in India.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Rogers, I will turn to you, because Canada belongs to an exclusive club, the Five Eyes, and there are some fantastic relations and great intelligence sharing.

Have your counterparts in the other four countries been able to confirm an increase in India's activities in their respective countries? Is this a concern shared by your four counterparts, to whatever degree, in their home countries?

[Daniel Rogers]

Obviously, I can't speak to the specifics of what other countries have seen from an intelligence perspective. I can say, similar to what Mr. Morrison said, that we enjoy extremely strong relationships with our Five Eyes partners and more broadly across the world. We speak about this issue of foreign interference increasingly, including around India, within our service and within others like the CSE and other government partners.

Foreign interference as a topic on the whole, by India and others, forms more a part of those conversations, and I expect that to continue, especially in light of these revelations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We go back now to Ms. Dancho. You have five minutes.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, in February 2024 you created this multidisciplinary team. You said it brought people together to work on this issue. Are they folks at this table?

Who outside the RCMP was engaged in this at that time?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

You would have some of the normal partners that we have, including CSIS, the CSE, the CBSA, FINTRAC, the IRCC, the RCMP—multiple sections within the RCMP—and, obviously, the police of jurisdiction when we look at the extortion cases in Alberta, Toronto and B.C.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Is Global Affairs included in that?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I don't think so. This was more on a.... I have others at the DOJ and GAC, but most of them are all the practitioners, I'd say, when it comes to law enforcement or security mandates.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Okay.

It's my understanding from this testimony and other testimony that about eight weeks before this announcement on October 14, the RCMP came together with the other officials at this table. Is that correct?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

No. In the sense of what Mr. Morrison said, it was about eight weeks from when we started planning on the diplomatic side, but there have been regular briefings to inform the speed and flow of the investigation.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Ms. Drouin mentioned that there was diplomatic outreach to India in November 2023. That was the first event of its kind. Is that correct, Ms. Drouin? Can you correct me? You said it in your opening statement.

[Nathalie Drouin]

It is important to remember that back then, in August 2023, we were talking about the Nijjar murder, while what we have talked about since Thanksgiving is broader cases of violence in Canada.

Regarding the Nijjar murder, we started our diplomatic outreach with India in August 2023. That was prior to the Prime Minister's statement. As I testified, we had many other meetings with them.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Did you have other conversations with the Prime Minister following his statement in the House of Commons on September 18 and in the few weeks leading up to October 14 this year?