Public Safety Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

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

Mr. Morrison, could you comment? Did you provide that information?

[David Morrison, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Sure. The journalist called me and asked me if it was that person. I confirmed it was that person.

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

You confirmed.

[David Morrison]

This is a journalist who's written extensively on this topic, a journalist who has various sources.

He asked me if that was one of the people, and I confirmed that it was.

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

Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

That day, you can confirm, both Ms. Drouin and Mr. Morrison, that the Prime Minister did not release this information to the Canadian public, but it was released in The Washington Post.

Is that correct?

[David Morrison]

It was released in The Washington Post, yes. I'm just racking my memory for exactly what the Prime Minister said.

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

Ms. Drouin, you advise the Prime Minister on issues of national security and intelligence. You're the top adviser in Canada.

Is that correct?

[Nathalie Drouin]

That's correct.

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

Did you advise him not to release that information publicly in Canada?

[Nathalie Drouin]

We worked with the Prime Minister and the different ministers in terms of their public statements. I think this is what I can say. We advised and we reviewed what were going to be the Q and As and the public statement by the Prime Minister and the different ministers.

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

I'm trying to understand why it is that The Washington Post received information when the commissioner, the Prime Minister, the public safety minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not provide that information to Canada. In fact, Canadians wouldn't know unless they were able to read The Washington Post. I just find it quite unfair to the Canadian public that details were released in advance to The Washington Post and confirmed, according to Mr. Morrison, to The Washington Post, but not provided to Canada. Don't you find that odd?

[Nathalie Drouin]

As I said in my opening remarks, the reason that we offered a background interview to The Washington Post was, really, to make sure that our side of the story was clearly and widely spread, especially at the international level. That was the strategy behind the background interview we gave.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Dancho.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

It was a short while ago that the RCMP announced they had evidence that agents of the Government of India are actively involved, here in Canada, in a network of criminal activity that includes homicide, extortion, organized crime and interference in our democratic process. It's a network of crime that could potentially mean the involvement of some of India's highest-ranking diplomats and politicians.

First of all, I deeply thank the law enforcement agencies for your work, for uncovering this and for taking the action to protect Canadians. As I say this, I have a deep recognition that.... I don't know whether you folks know quite what you've done. For many Canadians of Sikh heritage, your words confirm what they already knew and felt. For decades, in gurdwaras, in homes and behind closed doors, Sikhs knew that they were being watched, monitored and targeted. What you've done is legitimize their concerns with the evidence and investigation that you engaged in.

Every time there's new information that comes out or an announcement that happens, I'm asked by my colleagues, my family and members of the community, “How are you? How is the overall community doing?” There's always a deep sigh of relief that their plight is not being ignored and, in fact, is being heard and acted upon. I think all Canadians can appreciate that the potential link of the murder of a Sikh, and other crimes in Canada, to the Indian state strikes at the very heart of the security that a lot of Sikhs and members of other communities come to Canada to find. This is why I think your work is so critical, and I deeply thank you for that work.

Ms. Drouin, my first question is for you. A criminal who is jailed in a foreign jail, in India, who acts at the behest of the Indian government for basic immunity to carry out his operations, is, quite literally, the plot of several Bollywood movies that I watched while I was growing up, and it's funny to see that the Indian government takes its hints from Bollywood. This is an individual who's being kept in an Indian jail, and there's potential involvement of Indian ministers and diplomats. How far does our jurisdiction reach? What action can be taken against a Lawrence Bishnoi type of figure if the evidence actually shows that there is a connection all the way through?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Your question is a very interesting one in terms of the jurisdiction we may have when it comes to law enforcement elsewhere in the world. This is why, as I presented in my opening remarks, the co-operation mechanism, and for India to take accountability and to direct Bishnoi to stop his illegal criminal activities in Canada.... These things are essential. This is also why we want to use all the tools available to us, including diplomatic tools.

Maybe, Commissioner, you want to add to that.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I could probably add something to that. I just want to mention that we still have significant ongoing files right now.

To your question, if the evidence supports the involvement of an individual overseas, there's always the possibility of laying charges on Canadian soil. Then you get into the extradition process and whatnot. If the individual is locked up for the next...I don't know how long he's locked up, that could be challenging, but it doesn't mean we have to recuse ourselves from laying any criminal charges against the individual.

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

Maybe I can finish the plot line for that movie that the Indian government seems to want to make. When that eventual connection is made between government officials who are using criminals to carry out their targeted hits and their actions that they want to carry out, they usually paint that individual as a rogue agent, and so I assume, eventually, that is the information that's going to come up when this investigation comes out.

My other question is this. We know that the Conservative Party leader engaged in wilful blindness and that the Conservative Party said their leader could be briefed via a TRM, a threat reduction measure. Are you considering briefing him in that way, and can you explain the limitations of a TRM compared to the amount of information he could receive if he were to receive top secret security clearance?

[Nathalie Drouin]

Thank you. I'll start, and then I will go to the director to complete the answer.

In terms of sharing information with different parties, the easiest way, for sure, is to be able to have a top secret conversation with leaders. That can help us manage the caucus if needed, and it is the simplest way. A threat reduction measure is a mechanism by which some information can be revealed—the essential and necessary information—in order to manage the threat.

I will let the director continue, but the TRM is not equivalent to disclosing TS information to a cleared individual.

[Daniel Rogers, Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Thank you, Madame.

I can confirm what Nathalie said. Certainly, a TRM requires specific legal thresholds and allows us to provide a subset of information, and we will evaluate whether that's something we can do as we move ahead.

Without security clearance, at this point, CSIS can't provide a more fulsome brief on a broader set of topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. Gaheer.

Ms. Michaud for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being with us.

I have here in my hand the French version of the RCMP statement dated October 14, 2024. It starts by stating that an extraordinary situation is compelling the RCMP to disclose information about the investigation. It also mentions that it is not their normal process to disclose information about ongoing investigations to preserve their integrity.

I wonder why the RCMP decided to publicly disclose information in connection with the investigation. What did they discover by doing so?

I know that it's far too early to draw conclusions, but what is the difference between a confidential investigation and this one, where some details have been made public?

To some extent, you wanted to warn some Canadians that they might be in danger. Was the goal truly to protect those individuals or was it to try to gather more intelligence? Why decide to publicly disclose some information?

I'll ask Mr. Duheme to respond first.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Mr. Chair, the priority of any police force is to ensure public safety.

You are correct, Ms. Michaud, in saying that it's an extraordinary situation. I've never seen a case like this before.

Let's look at the chronology of events following the announcement in June of Hardeep Singh Nijjar's murder. We held a press conference following the arrest of several individuals. We said we wanted to proceed with a separate and distinct investigation into the homicide of Mr. Nijjar. That investigation was looking into criminal activities in which the Government of India played a role.

Over the past year, we've seen a number of situations where people have been intimidated, murdered or harassed. On occasion, we've also had to issue duty to warn notices when we have information of threats deemed credible and imminent against an individual. We also have the obligation to meet that individual and warn them that their life is in danger.

There's been an escalation of events in connection with the investigation. Over the past week, it has become increasingly clear that diplomats and consular officials played a role in this matter. During its investigation, the RCMP took a rather unusual position to uphold public safety in light of what it portends for the future.

I want to come back to Ms. Drouin's opening remarks. We had proposed options. The RCMP looked for ways to reduce the public safety risk prior to the investigation.

Going to the media can sometimes create situations during the investigation. In this case, Deputy Commissioner Flynn tried to meet his Indian counterparts. He was denied a visa. Plan B was to go meet his counterpart at the Consulate of India in Washington in October. That request was also denied.

Consequently, we decided that Deputy Commissioner Flynn would join Ms. Drouin and Mr. Morrison in Singapore. During that meeting, Deputy Commissioner Flynn explained what evidence we had collected and the actions undertaken by the Government of India. In her opening remarks, Ms. Drouin mentioned that the desired outcome had not been achieved and that there was a leak in the Indian press following that meeting, which was not supposed to happen. We understood that there seemed to be no appetite for co-operating with Canada and the RCMP, hence the importance for us in moving forward.

I know that many people questioned why we chose October 14. That was a long weekend for me as well, but we deemed it essential to make that information public immediately. Ms. Drouin had to make a call on Monday, October 14 around 9:30 or 10:30 a.m., but it did not happen. We wanted to avoid misinformation, and that's why we decided to make two pieces of information public. First, we wanted to send the message that we are focused on public safety. We also wanted to advise community members that, if they wanted to meet with us, we would listen to what they had to say.

That's more or less the reasoning behind the decision to make some details public.

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

Thank you.

I don't want to presume anything, but, clearly, all Canadian security agencies collaborated. It was not the RCMP alone; there was also collaboration, clearly, with the government.

Was there any pressure from the government to make a public statement, given how unusual it is for you to do so?

Without wanting to make this political, we know that the foreign interference scandal in Canada may not have restored Canada's image in this regard. The opposition parties had to push for an independent public inquiry on foreign interference.

I wonder, then, whether there wasn't pressure from the government to demonstrate that Canada and its security agencies are united and proactive and that they're working on that.

Is that true?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

There was no pressure. What's interesting here is that it was the RCMP that took it to the government, meaning that we sent the file to the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We were in a position where the chances of laying charges against diplomats are often slim. We examined the alternatives to try to stop, so to speak, the threat and really focus on public safety. Ms. Drouin mentioned that earlier. Two months ago, we said we needed to put a plan in place.

The challenge was to find ways to put a stop to it. It was perhaps not advisable to use policing tools. There were other means available, such as expelling the six diplomats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Thank you, Mr. Duheme.

Mr. MacGregor, you have six minutes, please.