Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree emphasized the ongoing work required concerning India’s security matters, following a recent statement by a government official suggesting a shift in Ottawa’s stance on India’s involvement in foreign interference and transnational repression.
Anandasangaree addressed concerns about the safety and security of Canadians during an event near Parliament Hill, highlighting the need for continued engagement. The unnamed official, briefing reporters ahead of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s trade trip, indicated a belief that India has altered its behavior, stating confidence that any previous contentious activities had ceased.
Contrary to the official’s assertion, Anandasangaree hinted at the necessity for further actions and investigations, refraining from outright disagreement. The official’s remarks diverged significantly from Canada’s position approximately 18 months ago when six Indian diplomats were expelled by the Trudeau government after being labeled “persons of interest” by the RCMP.
In 2024, RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme disclosed compelling evidence implicating the top levels of the Indian government in orchestrating violent activities on Canadian soil. Additionally, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had previously pointed to evidence linking Indian operatives to the assassination of Canadian Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a claim vehemently denied by New Delhi.
Recent events, including a warning to Canadian Sikh activist Moninder Singh about credible threats on his life and the findings of a 202 report labeling India as the “second-most active country engaging in electoral foreign interference in Canada” after China, underscore lingering concerns despite official reassurances.
Amid efforts to improve relations with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Prime Minister Carney’s trade mission takes place against this backdrop of security challenges. Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal, representing the area where Nijjar was killed, expressed disagreement with the official’s stance, citing contradictory assessments from national security entities and calling for a review of the individual’s conduct and suitability for their role.
