Interview/ Ward Elcock, former director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
THERE IS CONCERN among the highest security circles in Canada about ties with India worsening as trials pursuant to the charges laid against Indians are expected to begin soon. In an exclusive interview with THE WEEK, Ward Elcock, former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), says there are a number of countries that have been identified as sources of foreign interference or have carried out interference operations in Canada over the years. China is generally seen as the major offender, but India has also been an offender. Given this, Elcock believes that there are no short-term steps to improve the relationship. Excerpts:
Q/ What short-term steps can be taken to bring the India-Canada relationship back on track?
A/ Clearly, the relationship is at an all-time low and, to be frank, it is hard to see a resolution of the issues that would allow a rebuilding of the relationship any time in the near future. Indeed, it is likely that the situation will worsen, as trials springing from the charges that have been laid begin to take place. Given that the RCMP investigations have already identified Indian diplomats as ‘persons of interest’, it seems likely that evidence will be produced in those trials, which will hardly improve the relationship. The position adopted by India since the meeting between Canadian and Indian officials in Singapore would suggest that there are no short-term steps that could be taken to improve the relationship.
Q/ Don’t you think the RCMP statements linking Indian agents to the Lawrence Bishnoi gang were avoidable?
A/ The action taken by the RCMP was unusual in a normal criminal investigation. In the context in which it was taken, however, it appears to have been unavoidable. In recent months, the RCMP have warned a number of individuals in Canada about threats to their security. Given that the RCMP investigation appears to have produced evidence of the involvement of Indian diplomats as an integral, if not the directing, element of those threats, public identification of that element appears to have been seen as a way to reduce or eliminate those threats.
Q/ How big is Canada’s concern about Indian interference? Several reports have shown China as the biggest threat as far as foreign interference is concerned.
A/ There are a number of countries that have been identified as sources of foreign interference or have carried out interference operations in Canada over the years. To some extent, that is a consequence of the fact that we are largely a country of immigrants, coupled with the fact that some countries see their former citizens as either a threat or an opportunity. While this is not a new issue, it has become a more pressing concern as a number of countries have become more aggressive in recent years. China is generally seen as the major offender, but India has also been an offender. The latest charges are, however, a very serious escalation including, apparently, accusations of involvement in more than one homicide, or attempted homicide, among other crimes.
Q/ International protocol demands that if a country provides information on wanted criminals, the host country acts on that. Lawrence Bishnoi’s brother Anmol and his associates like Goldy Brar are in Canada. Shouldn’t they be questioned?
A/ I am not in a position to comment on who the RCMP may, or may not, have interviewed in the course of their investigation. Nor am I aware of the names of those who have been charged beyond the four individuals who are accused in the murder of Mr. Nijjar, as they have been publicly identified and are now in jail awaiting trial. I understand that charges are either pending or have been laid in a number of other cases (perhaps as many as 20 or more, although in some cases there may be multiple charges against one individual), but I am not aware of the identities of the individuals. I think it is fair to say, however, that the RCMP have, up to this point, conducted a fairly successful and widespread investigation in a relatively shorter period of time than I would have expected in such a case.
Q/ Isn’t there a need for law enforcement agencies in India and Canada to share information on transnational criminal networks?
A/ Of course, they should cooperate and share information wherever possible. In that context, I understand, from published reports, that India has made a number of extradition requests to Canada. While I do not have any access to information related to those requests, beyond those reports, I would note that the public safety minister has said on a number of occasions that the extradition requests that India has made did not meet the test of Canadian law. I have no access to information on those requests but I would make the comment that, in dealing with similar issues, when I was the CSIS director, it was not unusual for information provided by some Indian agencies to be insufficient for the purpose for which it was offered. Under Canadian law, vocal, even enthusiastic support, for an independent Khalistan is not an offence, as is the same with respect to such support for Quebec independence. While I support neither concept, absent sufficient evidence of participation in terrorist activities, or other crimes, support for those concepts is not a crime.
Q/ Has Canada seen any case where senior diplomats have come under the scanner? Why do you think there was a need to withdraw, as India claims, the high commissioner?
A/ There have been cases where Canadian diplomats have been expelled, but that expulsion has usually been in response to some action Canada has taken. As to the second part, the RCMP press conference made it fairly clear that the high commissioner was one of the six diplomats who had been identified as a ‘person of interest’ in the course of the RCMP investigation as a consequence of their association with criminal activities. I have seen no reports that suggest that the high commissioner was expelled simply because he was, by virtue of his office, the senior official in the high commission.
Q/ Do you think national security laws in Canada need to define terrorism?
A/ This is a bit of a ‘red herring’, to be frank. There is no definition of terrorism in the CSIS Act, but the CSIS is perfectly able to target terrorist organisations and activities. Similarly, the Criminal Code does contain provisions that more than adequately deal with terrorism.