For almost a year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau climbed atop the highest towers and shouted that the Indian government was linked to the murder of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. On Wednesday, Trudeau backflipped and admitted there was no hard evidence, just intel, when the charge was first made. Behind Canada’s woes might be its age-old intelligence-to-evidence problem, dating back to when Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, was the PM.
At the root of the problem is that the federal police service of Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), doesn’t have access to much-needed intelligence. The intelligence-gathering task was assigned to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) after the RCMP’s excesses were revealed in the 80s, when Pierre Trudeau was the Prime Minister.
Nothing explains the gap in intelligence sharing between the CSIS and the RCMP, popularly known as the Mounties, than an example in the preliminary report of the Hogue Commission. The commission is probing allegations of foreign interference in Canada and the report was made public in May.
A now-deleted paragraph described CSIS information that “an Indian proxy claims to have repeatedly transferred funds from India to politicians at all levels of government in return for political favours, including raising issues in Parliament at the proxy’s request”.
This vital intelligence input wasn’t shared with the RCMP by the CSIS, the report notes.
Canadian broadcaster CBC, in a report on the well-recognised problem, said that there was even an “industry acronym” for it.
“We all call it the intelligence-to-evidence (I2E) problem,” Stephanie Carvin, a former CSIS analyst, told the CBC.
India Slams Canadian Government
In a late night post by the Ministry of External Affairs, India affirmed its stand on the massive diplomatic row with Canada. Putting the responsibility of the disastrous diplomatic fallout squarely on Justin Trudeau, the foreign ministry reiterated that “Canada has presented us with no evidence whatsoever”.
In its terse-but-sharp response to Mr Trudeau’s deposition at the Commission of Inquiry, the foreign ministry wrote in its post-midnight statement that “What we have heard today only confirms what we have been saying consistently all along – Canada has presented us (India) no evidence whatsoever in support of the serious allegations that it has chosen to level against India and Indian diplomats”
Putting the onus of the grave diplomatic situation entirely on the incumbent Prime Minister of Canada’s conduct, the statement noted that “The responsibility for the damage that this cavalier behaviour has caused to India-Canada relations lies with Prime Minister Trudeau alone.”
Our response to media queries regarding PM of Canada’s deposition at the Commission of Inquiry.
India has repeatedly said that the main issue between the two countries is that of Canada, especially Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, giving space and shelter to pro-Khalistan separatists and extremists operating from Canadian soil with impunity.
Mr Trudeau has also been seen openly supporting radicals by attending separatist rallies and even sharing space with declared terrorists. Mr Trudeau has attempted to justify such actions by calling it “Canadian freedom of speech and expression”.
India has stated that the reason behind Mr Trudeau’s words and actions are “his vote bank” – extremists and radicals who are crucial for his electoral gains.
