Public Safety Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For almost a decade now, this government's soft-on-crime approach and loose border policies have contributed to the fact that organized crime elements in Canada have increased. We've seen the highest levels of violence in this country that we've ever seen: extortion, shootings, arsons.

Mr. Elcock, would you agree that the criminal environment here in Canada—it's much easier to get bail now, and lesser sentences—would contribute to or create a pathway to make it easier for Indian agents to use criminal activity to carry out that work here?

[Ward Elcock]

No, not particularly. I don't think those things are related.

As the previous witness said, a lot of what we see now in terms of Indian interference is a product of the current Modi government and its Hindu ultra-nationalism. That, I think, has driven much of what has come to light in the last year or so.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Elcock, I just wanted to address something.

Is it true that the CSIS Act allows the government to offer information to any Canadian on the specific risks of foreign interference, without forcing them into sworn secrecy or controlling what they say, and that information can be provided to any Canadian if necessary, if there's a risk to Canadians?

[Ward Elcock]

The issue of classified information always arises, but to the extent that the service can provide some information to individuals, that has happened in the past, including, I assume, recently.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

That information can be provided, which also includes—

[Ward Elcock]

The issue of classified information arises. There is a limit to what can be provided.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

You still have three minutes.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Uppal.

Ms. O'Connell, you have five minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

I'm sorry. Can you turn that over?

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

If it's okay with Ms. O'Connell, we will pass the time on to Mr. Motz.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

That's fine. Let's see what they have.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Briefly, thank you to both witnesses for being here.

This was already mentioned, Mr. Elcock: You talked about Indian interference. It's not a new issue. It's become a more pressing concern of late, as a number of countries have become more aggressive in recent years.

As a country, are we properly positioned with our national security framework to address the emerging and aggressive threat of foreign interference? What do we need to prioritize, if we're not?

Can both of you answer, please?

[Ward Elcock]

I can't speak to the level of intelligence the service has at this point. Obviously, I don't see that intelligence, so I can't comment on whether the service has enough coverage to respond to foreign interference.

My guess, however, would be that one challenge is resources. Foreign interference is a consuming task. Terrorism has not gone away, and espionage has increased substantially in the last few years as a number of countries have become even more aggressive in terms of conducting intelligence operations in various countries, including Canada. The challenge in terms of resources is always there.

There is a question, too, about whether, to some extent, in a world of review, the service has become more risk-averse in terms of what actions it might take. I can't speak to that. My assumption is that they are doing their job and doing it as well as they can. However, they do it within a framework that may not entirely always assist them. That takes you back, again, to resources.

Having said that, the authority the service has and its ability to operate do exist. It's a question of having the resources to do it. Years ago, somebody asked me whether, as an intelligence service, we had enough resources. The truth is that no intelligence service ever has enough resources. If you were the old East German Stasi, you had half the country watching the other half of the country, and that probably wasn't enough for you. That isn't true in Canada, obviously. The resources the service has are fewer than what the old East German Stasi had, but I'm sure they are a challenge when dealing with these issues.

Foreign interference is a complicated and difficult area to work in. As both of us have said, the Indians and the Chinese have been much more aggressive in the last few years, so it's more demanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

[Prabjot Singh]

Do I have time to answer the question, as well? It was put to both of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Yes.

[Prabjot Singh]

I'll be quick.

I would strongly suggest, as my response and concern, that foreign interference is not a security problem per se. The institutional vulnerabilities and gaps Canada has are policy issues. It's primarily that the foreign affairs ministry has almost all the tools it needs to combat foreign interference. What that leads to is this lopsided approach whereby foreign policy priorities are consistently prioritized over the security, domestic and charter-related concerns, vulnerabilities and attacks Canadians are facing.

As long as foreign policy priorities or partisan interests dictate our response to foreign interference, we're not going to be able to respond effectively.

[The Chair, Liberal, Iqwinder Gaheer]

Thank you.

Ms. O'Connell, go ahead for five minutes.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both of our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Singh, I'm going to start with you, if you don't mind.

I'm curious. As a lawyer and as a representative of the Sikh Federation, how do you feel watching your Canadian Parliament, time after time, and in particular the official opposition leader, ask questions about a car being stolen, or someone receiving bail or parole—things about crime? We heard that here today. It's about our borders. However, asking a single question about a member of your Sikh community being murdered.... The RCMP, in quite an extraordinary way, outlined very serious criminal allegations and an investigation that is still ongoing. They mentioned homicides.

There are a lot of questions about cars being stolen, but not a single question about a Canadian community member and member of the Sikh faith being murdered.

[Prabjot Singh]

What I would say to that, as I just answered, is that as long as the response to foreign interference is dictated or driven by foreign policy interests or partisan interests, communities like ours will continue to be marginalized and vulnerable and targeted.

Foreign interference, obviously, is not a partisan issue, and on this issue, particularly, we lost a loved member of our community who was a father, who was a brother, who was a friend, who was a leader. I would suggest, and I would like to emphasize, on all sides across the aisle, that for anybody to try to turn any element of this issue into a partisan issue is incredibly problematic, and it continues to promote this feeling among the community that we're being used as bargaining chips by political parties domestically, and internationally, in terms of geopolitics, we're being used back and forth between Canada and India.

Our political aspirations, our safety, our security and our dignity are paramount, and they should be the primary focus of everybody around the table, rather than trying to take partisan cheap shots against each other on both sides.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Following up on Mr. Singh's comments about naming, I want to ask Mr. Elcock this question.

The questions around foreign interference, as both witnesses have said, have long existed. Perhaps, Mr. Elcock, you can speak to the challenge, which Mr. Singh raised in his opening statement too, around the naming of information, or naming and shaming, as some countries do when it comes to some of these activities. What is that process like? In your experience, obviously, you may not have access to the intelligence currently, but in that debate around the naming of countries, what goes into that process and what are some of the risks?

[Ward Elcock]

On the issue of actions that are taken to deal with foreign interference, there are a range of actions that can be taken. Some of them are within the control of the service. Some of them are within the control of the police, depending on the nature of foreign interference actions. To some extent, as the previous witness said, as my companion said, there are sometimes decisions taken on the issues of foreign policy, and those decisions are decisions that the government is responsible for and is accountable for. I can't speak to whatever decisions were taken in more recent times, obviously, but generally speaking, in the past, when action has needed to be taken, there has not been a serious issue.