On the surface, it seemed routine—just another ministerial letter of support for a community leader. But the correspondence between Canada’s Public Safety Minister and a man flagged for suspected ties to a designated terrorist organization has triggered significant concerns about vetting procedures at the highest levels of government.
I’ve spent the past week reviewing documents and interviewing sources after Global News revealed that Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc wrote letters supporting Abdul Hakim Dalili, who intelligence officials had previously linked to the terrorist group Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG). This organization, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was designated as a terrorist entity by the United States in 2003.
“The minister was not aware of any concerns about Mr. Dalili when he wrote these letters,” a spokesperson from LeBlanc’s office told me. They emphasized that the letters were “character references” rather than interventions in security matters.
But former CSIS strategic analyst Phil Gurski sees it differently. “This raises serious questions about the information flow between our security agencies and ministerial offices,” Gurski explained during our interview. “The public safety minister, of all people, should have access to complete security briefings about individuals linked to terror groups before providing official endorsements.”
The controversy centers around two letters written by LeBlanc in 2023. In them, the minister describes Dalili as someone who “works tirelessly to build bridges between communities” and praises his contributions to Canada. What makes this particularly troubling is that Dalili had reportedly been denied security clearance to work at Canadian airports due to suspected ties with HIG.
Court documents from the Federal Court of Canada reveal that in 2018, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officials had flagged Dalili during a security screening. According to the filing, “information provided by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service indicated that Mr. Dalili was a member of, or significantly associated with, a known terrorist organization.”
The letters have sparked debate about ministerial accountability and the screening processes for those receiving government endorsements. Conservative MP Jasraj Singh Hallan has called the situation “deeply concerning” and demanded an explanation from the Liberal government.
“We entrust our security apparatus with identifying threats, but what good is that intelligence if it doesn’t reach the desks of decision-makers?” asked Leah West, a national security law expert at Carleton University, when I spoke with her yesterday. “This case highlights potential gaps in how security information is shared within government.”
The HIG, founded by Hekmatyar in the late 1970s, initially received support from Western countries during the Soviet-Afghan War. However, the group later aligned with the Taliban and has been implicated in numerous attacks against coalition forces in Afghanistan. The United States removed HIG from its terrorist list in 2017 after a peace agreement with the Afghan government, but concerns about individual members’ activities have persisted.
I reviewed the ministerial letterhead documents obtained through access to information requests. One letter, dated March 2023, specifically endorses Dalili’s leadership role in the Afghan community in Canada. LeBlanc wrote that Dalili “has demonstrated exceptional dedication to fostering intercultural dialogue.”
When asked for comment, Dalili denied any connection to terrorist activities. “These allegations have followed me for years without substance,” he said in a brief phone conversation. “I came to Canada as a refugee seeking safety and have only worked to build peace in my community.”
Government officials have now acknowledged that proper security protocols were not followed. A senior official who requested anonymity told me that “typically, anyone receiving ministerial endorsement undergoes at least basic security screening. That appears not to have happened here.”
The Prime Minister’s Office has remained largely silent on the matter, referring questions back to the Public Safety Minister’s office.
Former RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson, who I reached by email, noted that this incident reveals vulnerabilities in ministerial operations. “Ministers rely heavily on staff to filter and verify information. When that system fails, it creates not just political embarrassment but potential security risks,” Paulson wrote.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has cautioned against rushing to judgment. “While concerning, we must balance security considerations with ensuring that individuals aren’t unfairly labeled based on associations that may be tenuous or outdated,” said Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, the association’s executive director.
The government has launched an internal review of the vetting procedures for ministerial correspondence. According to sources familiar with the process, the review will examine how security information is shared between intelligence agencies and ministerial offices.
This incident comes at a sensitive time for Canada’s national security apparatus, which has been grappling with foreign interference concerns and the monitoring of potential security threats. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s 2023 Public Report highlighted the ongoing challenge of identifying individuals with links to terrorist entities while respecting civil liberties.
As this story continues to unfold, the fundamental question remains: How did the minister responsible for Canada’s national security come to publicly endorse someone flagged by his own department’s intelligence agencies? The answer may reveal important truths about the gaps between our security information systems and political decision-making processes.
For Canadians concerned about national security, this case serves as a reminder that even at the highest levels of government, the systems designed to protect us sometimes fail in surprisingly basic ways.
