Canada’s premier intelligence agency has delivered a blunt warning. Khalistani extremists operating within the country continue to pose a serious national security threat. The latest annual report by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), tabled in Parliament, confirms that a section of Canada-based actors remains actively involved in extremist activities that endanger both Canadian interests and international stability.
The 2025 report draws a clear line. While no Khalistani-linked attacks took place on Canadian soil last year, the threat has not faded. It has simply adapted. Intelligence officials say a small but determined network continues to operate from within Canada, using it as a base for propaganda, fundraising and the planning of violence, primarily directed towards India.
How extremist networks operate inside Canada
The report highlights a troubling pattern. Certain individuals within these networks are deeply embedded in Canadian society. They maintain strong ties with citizens and exploit these relationships to advance their agenda. According to CSIS, some extremists leverage Canadian institutions to promote their cause and raise funds.
More concerning is how these funds are sourced. The agency notes that money is often collected from unsuspecting members of the community. These contributions are then diverted towards violent activities. The report underscores that this misuse of trust allows extremist elements to operate under the cover of legitimacy.
At the same time, CSIS makes an important distinction. It acknowledges that advocacy for Khalistan remains a lawful political activity in Canada. However, it stresses that only a small group crosses the line into extremism by promoting and supporting violence.
A past tragedy that still shapes present fears
To underline the gravity of the threat, the report recalls the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182. The attack killed 329 people and remains the deadliest terrorist incident in Canada’s history. Those responsible were linked to pro-Khalistan extremism.
Four decades on, the shadow of that tragedy still looms large. By invoking it, CSIS signals that the ideological roots behind such violence have not fully disappeared. The concern now is not just about past events but about preventing history from repeating itself.
India, diplomacy and a shifting tone
The report also reflects the complicated state of India–Canada relations. CSIS continues to list India among countries involved in foreign interference and espionage, alongside China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan. At the same time, it notes that India acts to counter perceived threats to its domestic stability, including Khalistan separatism.
However, the political tone in Canada appears to be changing. Under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, tensions with India had escalated sharply. Since Mark Carney took office, the rhetoric has softened.
Recent statements from Canadian officials suggest a recalibration. Authorities have indicated that they no longer suspect India of interfering in democratic processes or being involved in targeted violence. Law enforcement agencies have echoed this position. Investigations into transnational repression have not established any direct link to the Indian government.
India, for its part, has remained consistent. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasised that terrorism and extremism remain global threats that require coordinated action. He has also signalled that countries must act against elements using their territory to fuel instability elsewhere.
A warning that cannot be ignored
The CSIS report ultimately delivers a measured but firm message. It does not paint the entire movement with one brush. Instead, it isolates a specific extremist subset and identifies it as a continuing threat.
That distinction matters. It reinforces the legitimacy of peaceful political expression while exposing those who misuse it as a cover for violence. At the same time, it validates long-standing concerns about the use of foreign soil to sustain extremist networks.
Canada’s own intelligence assessment now leaves little room for ambiguity. The threat exists, it persists, and it operates from within.
