Public Safety Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

We can get very quick answers from each of you, if you wish.

[Moninder Singh]

I don't think it breaches trust; it just breaches expectations. It's disappointing that we can't have those conversations in relative safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their testimony. I think it's very important to hear what they have to say.

Earlier, Mr. Singh, you talked about the duty to warn.

The RCMP Commissioner also addressed this issue when he appeared before the committee last Tuesday. He told us that these situations were becoming increasingly frequent, particularly over the past year. There have been situations where people have been intimidated, where there have been homicides, harassment, and the RCMP has had to exercise its duty to warn.

When he explained what this meant, I was quite surprised to hear that it was just the duty to warn.

It was not a duty to protect.

That's also what you mentioned in a Global News article in June 2023. You said that members of the RCMP came to inform you that death threats had been made against you. When you asked what kind of protection was available to you, you were told in a way that there wasn't any and that you were on your own.

That's what you said in the article, and that's what you've repeated today.

Does it surprise you that a police service goes part of the way, that this information can be obtained and shared with you, but that you're then sort of left to your own devices? You mentioned that you had to change your daily routine somewhat to protect yourself.

Do you think police services should do more in circumstances like this?

[Moninder Singh]

I definitely think that if any person in this country was facing this type of imminent threat of assassination.... Being shown a simple piece of paper that is taken back from you and then being left to your own devices feels like a shift of liability. When we were sitting in that space, it felt like the duty to warn was like, “We've told you, and now if something happens to you, we can wash our hands of it.” It's a horrible feeling for anyone living in this country. I hope no one in this room ever has to experience it. I have had multiple experiences with it over the last two years.

I definitely think there needs to be more. There was a similar question earlier on. I won't go too far into it, but I do believe there are things that we can do for the long game to ensure that Canadians don't have to go through this. We can protect our borders. We can protect this country, and we can protect the Sikh community in this country. The one thing we shouldn't be looking at is silencing communities and saying that if they just went quiet on this issue, they would be left alone.

It's not just an issue of the Sikh community anymore. This is an issue of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of this country. That has to be more apparent. This is not a fight just between Sikhs and India anymore. It is now a fight, as we can see with the expulsion of diplomats, between Canada and India.

In the long term, I think we have to get to the root of the problem, but in the short term, as I mentioned before, there's not a lot that even we think can happen, but what's happening right now is very limited, for sure.

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

Thank you.

You say that you can change a lot of things in your daily life to try to protect yourself, but one thing you won't do is remain silent. I think it takes an enormous amount of courage to do that.

Do you feel safe coming and testifying here today, and talking to us openly about what you're experiencing?

[Moninder Singh]

I think the idea of safety is gone now. It doesn't really exist when these threats persist, so you do the best to protect yourself and those around you the best way you can. I don't walk down the street with anyone. I don't do a lot of things, but coming here to testify was a no-brainer. Living in this country, being born and raised here, watching the things that happened around me, looking at indigenous rights.... People being allowed to have a voice in this country and to have disagreements is the underlying fabric of what Canada is supposed to be.

Coming here and testifying, I think, for me.... Whether it was safe or not, I would have come into this building to testify. I don't know about leaving this building with an imminent threat of assassination and what that means, but that's the reality of it. When I said that we wouldn't be silenced, that's what comes with it. You take on the danger that the law enforcement agencies have told you about, but we're not going to let India come into our backyards and silence us here. We may have disagreements on the issues that we're advocating for, but we have a right to advocate for them.

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

Thank you.

How did you and your community react on October 14, when government agencies, namely the RCMP and the intelligence agency, held a press conference to reveal certain details of the ongoing investigation into foreign interference by India? We were told that it was highly unusual to do this and that the details of investigations are usually protected to protect their integrity. The RCMP has said that it wants to make sure that as many people as possible are aware, so that they can also provide information.

Has that reassured your community? How did the fact that this inquiry became public overnight change things for you?

Do you think it would have been more of the same had the RCMP not held a press conference?

[Moninder Singh]

I think if the RCMP hadn't done the press conference, there would still be a lot of questions. Every time Canada has come out to challenge India and to make revelations about India, India has just gone into denial mode. It helps Canadians, and it helps the Sikh community in Canada know that they're being validated for their concerns.

The RCMP press conference, I think, was instrumental for our community to understand how deeply India is operating within Canada. It's everyone. Those of us who are supporters of Sikh sovereignty in Khalistan, those who are somewhere in the middle and those who are just business owners who are being extorted, I think all of them felt a sense of relief when those revelations were made and that Canada is trying to move in the right direction. Our law enforcement agencies and our intelligence agencies are taking this threat seriously.

The further expectation is that what we're doing here right now is a big part of that as well. People are watching in our community. They see that we have a study happening on India and on these issues. I think those are all very important for the public to realize that their elected officials, the law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies are working in their interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We will go to Mr. MacGregor now for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank both of you for coming to this important study. This committee came together unanimously through the call for an emergency meeting, and we unanimously supported this study. The revelations that were made on October 14, like you said, are things that the Sikh community in Canada has known about for the past number of decades. Finally, the rest of Canada is waking up to the reality of the threat. I hope there's some validation there now. I think the trick is to see that we can continue our efforts to meet this threat with the seriousness that it deserves.

Earlier this week, we had both the RCMP commissioner and the director of CSIS here. I want to touch on the issue of security clearances for federal party leaders, because when I asked the new director of CSIS, Mr. Daniel Rogers, about his perspective on federal party leaders getting security clearances, he said that it would basically allow federal leaders to be more aware and that they could take appropriate actions within their own parties.

Maybe I'll start with you, Mr. Moninder Singh. I don't think this is really about gagging federal party leaders. I think this is about equipping them with the ability to take action so that Canadians can have confidence in the next election that no one running under a party banner might be compromised.

When the CSIS director talked about actions that a properly briefed federal party leader can take, do you have some suggestions on what that could be? I think we're just trying to get this on the record because we ultimately want to make sure that our electoral processes are secure no matter what party you belong to.

[Moninder Singh]

I think we definitely have thoughts when we're seeing all these things unfold, one of them being that India watches and manipulates this type of information all the time. When our elected leadership in the country is not on the same page on an issue of national security, I think it sends a very wrong message internationally.

India is able to utilize this. They have utilized it, if we can be very frank and clear. A party leader not getting security clearance has been just blown out of proportion within Indian media—basically, that this party, the Conservative Party, and Mr. Poilievre are standing up for the truth, which is Indian truth, and everyone else is a Khalistani extremist supporter. That's a horrible way of painting this entire country and all of its government and elected officials and its people, including the Sikh community, but that's what India is doing with it.

My reservation in the whole situation is that if we don't understand, as average people living in this country, why a security clearance is not being taken, I think there's a huge gap along the way as to what's happening, because we are watching others who are speaking very openly about this issue and they have that security clearance. That's where I think the confusing part comes in for average people like us. We're not understanding what's happening and why that wouldn't happen. The automatic linkage is, then, is somebody trying to protect the interests of India in this country? Whether that's the case or not, that's the perception.

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

Yes.

[Moninder Singh]

I think perception is 90% of the problem here. We need to understand this better, as average people, and I don't think we have enough information yet.

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

I think most people watching this would agree that it's time to put the interests of Canada ahead of political parties' partisan interests and have a united front on this.

I'll just add that this was the current CSIS director. His comments were echoed by previous CSIS directors, previous CSIS executives and previous national security advisers. I mean, these are all veterans with many years of experience in our national intelligence and security agencies, who are in lockstep saying that all federal party leaders should get that clearance.

Mr. Balpreet Singh, maybe I'll turn the floor over to you. Would you like to add anything from your perspective on the same question?

[Balpreet Singh]

I think from day one our community has said that this issue shouldn't be politicized. We should all be united against foreign interference. Right now, we're dealing with a hostile foreign country—India—that is killing Canadian citizens, running criminal gangs, extorting, doing arson and all of it. I mean, it's unprecedented, as far as I'm concerned. No other country has even come close.

India is using this issue as a wedge, trying to find friends, as it were, among Canadian politicians who might be seen as soft on the India issue, and maybe things can go back to the way they were just a few years ago, or even just a couple of years ago.

I think all of our political leaders should have the security clearance. Not having that clearance at this point, I would go so far as to say, is willful blindness.

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

Thank you.

I have a final question for you, Mr. Moninder Singh. The NSICOP report that came out, the redacted version, referred to Canada as being a “low-risk, high reward” environment for our foreign adversaries to operate in. Very quickly, how do you think we flip those terms so that it becomes a high-risk, low-reward environment for our foreign adversaries?

[Moninder Singh]

I think for a country like India...which, basically, for me, is an enemy state right now for what they're doing in Canada. I don't know what else could be more defined as an enemy state than somebody who's coming here and killing Canadians on Canadian soil. For me, it would be actually about understanding them. If it's low risk to them, that means they know they can come here. They can kill people. They can extort people. They can meddle in our governmental affairs and our elections. They can manipulate everything from our media to other spaces as well. They've been doing it without any type of retribution or fear of any type of retribution.

My thinking is that I'd go back to the inquiry to understand how they've been operating and to understand them much more deeply. I think there's no other way to do it. To find out why successive governments have allowed them to get to this point, I think, is key in this. This didn't happen just overnight. This is a decades-long process that has brought us to this point right now.

If people are being killed in this country because India wants them dead for their activism, when they're not violating any Canadian law and are just exercising their charter rights, then I think, as Balpreet Singh said, we cannot politicize that issue. It has to be a firm issue of solidarity among all Canadians and amongst all Canadian political parties to stand up to India. I think it starts by understanding them, their motives and where our gaps and failures have been. That's only done through an inquiry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We'll start our second round of questions with Mr. Shipley.

Mr. Shipley, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. After listening to your opening remarks, I thank you for your bravery and what you're still doing.

My first question is for both of you gentlemen. We know that Canada is seeing a drastic rise in extortion attempts, in particular targeting the South Asian community in Ontario, B.C., and Alberta. Can you explain to the committee the nature of these extortion attempts? Can you provide some examples of how these attempts play out and the tactics that are used to intimidate individuals in your communities?

[Moninder Singh]

To start, they're primarily targeting the Sikh and the Punjabi communities versus the South Asian community at large. I would like to point that out.

The second part of that is how it actually plays out. What we saw in multiple reports that have come out is that India is using this nexus of gangs, individuals who might even have been in prison in India, who are given a free-for-all to go out and extort people out here. That extortion happens when people enter this country and start criminal activity, or they come here with the intention of conducting criminal activity, and those people then organize. They're coordinated through Indian proxies and middle persons who are within the communities in the areas that you set out, and they're being coordinated through both the Indian consulate offices in Canada and their gang nexus as well.

When they go to somebody, a business person, they say, “Give us $300,000 or we're going to get you and we're going to kill you.” They burn down a townhouse complex, their building, a house they're building as business people; they shoot up their home when they have their family and their kids at home. People have been known to give extraordinary amounts of money, in the millions of dollars, to try to protect themselves. They're afraid of going to law enforcement because they've been told not to, and I think that speaks to the fact that they don't think they're safe.

That's a very brief way of putting it, to your question as to how the whole thing operates, but it's a very elaborate way for India: Their Indian consulates, their diplomats who have been expelled, the nexus of gangs and individuals they brought over here do their dirty work for them.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Balpreet Singh, do you have anything to add to that?

[Balpreet Singh]

Yes, I have a couple of things. The extortion comes in two different forms. One is at a smaller level. It's not about money but about behaviour, so it's getting documents signed by individuals saying that they believe in the unity and integrity of India, and then threatening them by saying they would make that or other statements that they've signed public—that's one way of forcing people—or saying that they won't get a visa or threatening their family. All of this is a smaller level of extortion.

However, the game plan for the multimillion-dollar type of extortion is to paint Canada as an unsafe country to further a narrative. In that situation, we see businesses being asked for amounts that they simply can't pay, and the real purpose is to strike terror. As I said, in June 2022 I pointed out that this gang war narrative might be used to target Sikhs, because that's what happens. The Indian media and state put out these narratives, and then they create the events on the ground to support those narratives. That's what we're seeing here. They say, “Canada is unsafe. It's overrun by Khalistani extremists and Punjabi gangs”, and then they make that a reality.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you for those answers.

Obviously, we're hearing about a situation where there has to be great fear in your community about these situations and these extortion attempts. Not all are just attempts: Some of them are successful, unfortunately.

A while ago, our Conservative colleague Tim Uppal brought forward a private member's bill to try to help address this issue and the dramatic rise in extortion offences. In this private member's bill, there were going to be parts to establish mandatory minimum penalties for the offence of extortion, to capture all instances of extortion “committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization”. It was also to restore the mandatory minimum penalty of four years for the offence of extortion with a non-restricted firearm, and also to establish arson—earlier you mentioned there was definitely some arson in these events—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Mr. Shipley, can you wrap it up quickly?