Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I'd like to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room as well as through the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members and witnesses.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone.

I remind you that all comments should be made through the chair. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our best to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Today we have our briefing on diplomatic relations between India and Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee will proceed to the briefing on diplomatic relations between these two countries, an issue that is obviously of great concern to very many Canadians.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses for today. From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we are grateful to have two senior officials. We have Mr. Weldon Epp, who is assistant deputy minister for the Indo-Pacific region. We also have Ms. Marie-Louise Hannan, who is the director general for the South Asia bureau.

Welcome very much. We're grateful that you made the time to appear before us.

Please do bear in mind that when you only have 20 or 30 seconds remaining, whether it's in your opening remarks or when you're responding to questions by the members, I will hold this up. That means to please wrap it up as soon as possible.

With all that explained, we will start with Mr. Epp.

Mr. Epp, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. Thank you.

[Weldon Epp, Assistant Deputy Minister, Indo-Pacific, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Good afternoon.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I want to thank you for the opportunity this afternoon to discuss Canada-India relations with the committee. We do so today against the backdrop of undeniably significant challenges, but also in the context of our ongoing shared interests in this very important relationship.

As with any diplomatic relationship, it's important to view all of this with some historical context. Over the last 75 years, Canada and India have had both times of agreement and close co-operation, as well as times of distance and disagreement. Throughout, however, our ties have persisted, and our core co-operation continued to the benefit of both of our countries.

In recent years, the importance of this relationship has grown. Put simply, India is one of the world’s largest economies, its largest democracy and a key player in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. Our people-to-people ties are unique, have a long history and are very expansive.

India is a crucial stakeholder to some of the most pressing global problems, whether climate change or global health and beyond. It's in this context that Canada is managing its bilateral relationship with India following the credible allegations relating to Mr. Hardeep Singh Nijjar's murder.

Allow me to underscore that the investigation into Mr. Nijjar’s murder is ongoing, and it's therefore important to remember that the concerns Canada has raised with India are allegations. The police have not yet released evidence. That said, the nature of the allegations—if proven by evidence in a court of law—are sufficiently concerning, and by definition, such a grievous breach of Canadian sovereignty that they warranted immediate diplomacy. Simply put, business as usual was not an option.

From the outset, Minister Joly provided clear direction that Canada’s approach to the allegations should be guided by three principles: seeking the truth and accountability, protecting Canadians and defending Canada’s sovereignty. This effort requires coordination among different Canadian government departments as well as respect for independent lines of work by Canadian law enforcement and intelligence services. Within this, Global Affairs Canada has two major roles.

First, we have engaged with the Government of India about the troubling allegations. In September, when the Prime Minister first addressed this issue, his public comments were based on credible information. Since then, an unsealed U.S. indictment has shed further light on Canada’s concerns. The Indian government has committed to examining the American claims, based on evidence in this indictment, through an independent high-level committee. This is a positive development. Moreover, it's reasonable to assume that, when the RCMP investigation reaches a comparable inflection point here in Canada, more information will be available for the Indian government and its high-level committee to consider.

GAC’s second role has been to manage our broader bilateral co-operation in areas of shared importance. That means supporting the movement of people between our countries, making sure that businesses can do business and working together on critical global issues at tables like the G20, a forum that Prime Minister Trudeau attended in person in September and virtually in November.

Canada and India also continue to co-operate on security and anti-terrorism issues. This is critical to both of our countries.

India has raised particular concerns around Canada-based Khalistani violent extremism. We have made our position clear: Canada supports the unity and territorial integrity of India. While Canadians are free to peacefully express their views, if crimes are committed in Canada, we expect law enforcement to act regardless of who the perpetrator is.

Finally, in parallel to all of this, there have been intense and ongoing efforts to deal with the unprecedented expulsion of 41 Canadian diplomats and their 41 family members from India, while still working to ensure services are provided to Canadians and Indians throughout our mission network in India.

In sum, since August, our diplomatic engagement with India in managing this issue has been active. As Minister Joly has said, we're at a moment in time in a relationship that spans decades. We’ve seen challenging times before. Ultimately, it is in all of our interests to get to the bottom of the allegations. By maintaining open dialogue and coordination with India, GAC will continue working towards an early resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.

We now go to Ms. Hannan.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks as well.

[Marie-Louise Hannan, Director General, South Asia Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, but my—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Oh, was that for both of you? You have my apologies. Thank you for that.

We first go to MP Epp.

You have five minutes, sir.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

Mr. Epp, it feels a bit weird for me to address you that way, but it is accurate and true.

I appreciated your opening comments regarding the importance of the relationship with India. I don't want my questions to be construed as undervaluing that relationship with India.

I'm going to actually start with some foreign interference.

The CSIS briefing to the Minister of Democratic Institutions in a note on February 2023, which Global News published this February 2 basically said that Canada “must do more to protect” its democratic institutions regarding foreign interference.

Specifically, when did the Prime Minister become aware of this issue with India? Secondly, what safeguards have been put in place to deal with these allegations?

[Weldon Epp]

Thank you for the question. I'll answer the question in a couple of parts.

Briefly, Global Affairs Canada's role in this is the part that I'll speak to. Obviously, the matter of foreign interference cuts across a number of departments and agencies. It's mainly in the public safety portfolio, but we also have a role to play.

To the question of when the Prime Minister became aware, the information that's the basis for the credible allegations came to light in late summer. It therefore informed, as the Prime Minister himself has noted, discussions that he had in Delhi at the G20. There was always a risk—or a possibility, let's just say—that, for a variety of reasons, that information might become public. Until it was public, it was the priority of the Government of Canada to engage the Indian government, raise these concerns directly with them and, once it became public, respond to them jointly.

With respect to the question around democratic institutions, you'll be aware that Global Affairs Canada plays a partnership role with other departments in addressing dynamic concerns of increased foreign interference. That includes through the lead that we play, including within the G7, on the rapid response mechanism, or RRM.

Of course, Global Affairs Canada also plays a role, participating through deputy ministers, in the SITE task force, with respect to the monitoring of interference during elections themselves.

Thank you.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

I'm moving on to the shooting that you referenced.

India's high commissioner to Canada stated in a Globe and Mail article today that the office had not received a formal request to co-operate with the RCMP probe.

You mentioned the RCMP investigation in your opening comments. Why have they not received an invitation to co-operate?

[Weldon Epp]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm aware of the article and also of the position that the high commissioner articulated, because it's not actually a new position. It's been repeated in a number of interviews.

It is the case that there's an active RCMP investigation under way. I will refer more specific questions to the RCMP directly, but the Indian position has been that, until they receive evidence from a police investigation, they will reserve their right as to how they will respond. Therefore, it's not inaccurate to say that, while that investigation is still under way, the RCMP is not directly engaging the high commissioner.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

India has been critical of Canada's handling of the extradition treaty that we've had in place since 1987. What evidence did India present, specifically, in the extradition case of Mr. Nijjar?

Would that evidence not have met the proper level for criminal investigation in Canada? Is that why we did not respond to an extradition request prior to the shooting?

[Weldon Epp]

Mr. Chair, I will respond to that in general terms.

The general line of questioning is not inaccurate. There has been ongoing co-operation between Canada and India over many years on extradition-related requests. It is also the case that, historically, Canada has extradited individuals to India, so it's also possible that could happen again in the future.

The reality is that in many cases in the extradition requests that come forward—I'm briefed by my colleagues from Justice Canada regularly, and there's a body of ongoing requests right now that are being responded to—the evidentiary threshold in Canadian law is not met.

It's important to understand that the threshold is the same whether the extradition request comes from the United States or India or any other government.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much, Mr. Epp.

We'll now go to MP Chatel, for five minutes.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll continue along the same lines. I want to expand on my colleague's questions.

In addition to Mr. Nijjar's murder, there have been conspiracy allegations in the United States. There has been suspicious activity in the United Kingdom, including concerns about Mr. Kanda's death.

I would like to know how you compare Canada's response to this Indian interference with the responses of our major economic partners, such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

[Weldon Epp]

That's an important question. There has been a lot of commentary to that effect, including by our Indian colleagues.

It's important to note that there are some commonalities between the case that is under way in the United States and that of Mr. Nijjar. There are also some big differences. In the case in the United States, what is under investigation is a conspiracy to murder. In the case of Canada, there has been a murder.

Secondly, it is the case that the U.S legal system differs in a couple of key ways from our own. The possibility for an early narrative and the disclosure of evidence through an indictment in the U.S. differs quite significantly from the legal process in Canada.

The point at which there would be an inflection point in a Canadian investigation, such that detailed information supporting the investigation can be released to the public or a foreign government, comes at a later stage. There is a kind of sequencing disjuncture. However, what we do know from the U.S. case, due to the indictment, is that there is a clear link being described by the evidence provided to date.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

What about the situation in the United Kingdom?

[Weldon Epp]

I don't feel prepared to discuss the details of the allegations in the case of the U.K. Unlike the case in the United States, we don't have an active investigation under way that is in the public domain.

However, it is true that there have been discussions, both between our partners and India but also between our partners—between us, the U.K. and the U.S.—because we are all dealing with some similar impacts of differences between our legal systems, let's just say, and that of India's, when it comes to how to deal with allegations of terrorism and extremism.

There is a common objective to make sure those kinds of activities don't take place in our countries, but it is not the case that our legal systems treat or define those activities the same as is the case in Delhi.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

Briefly, in your opinion, what role does India play in Canada's Indo‑Pacific strategy? How is Canada approaching diplomacy?

I would also like you to explain to Canadians the benefits of this strategy for Canadian companies.

[Weldon Epp]

Indeed, the Indo-Pacific strategy that the government launched a year ago is a 10-year strategy. To the question, while there are challenges at the moment, as I mentioned in my opening statement, in our bilateral relationship with India, I don't think anyone would disagree with the strategic importance of India, its economic growth and its global impact.

Over the course of a 10-year strategy, we fully anticipate leveraging the tools of that strategy, including our incredible history, our diaspora and our people-to-people ties, and developing further the partnership that both our countries see as being of interest. We hope to get to that curve, strategically, sooner rather than later, but of course our priority for now is to pursue the allegations and get to the bottom, as the Prime Minister has said, of Mr. Nijjar's murder.

Within the broader context, what does the IPS bring to Canadian stakeholders, businesses and universities?

The government has launched a very ambitious whole-of-government, whole-of-society agenda for a region that is driving global growth and driving global innovation. Canadians are reasonably well positioned, but, frankly, need to work together to have an impact in that region. In the first year, you will have seen some significant successes, including launching a strategic partnership with ASEAN and strengthening bilateral relations in northeast Asia. We hope to develop that further in the next year.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Bergeron. You have five minutes.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today and shedding light on the situation between India and Canada.

I'll refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister last September. In the hours that followed that statement, the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs told us that the Prime Minister saw fit to make the statement because the news was about to be released in a national media outlet.

I have two questions about this.

Does the minister's statement mean that, had the government not been concerned about a leak to the media, it would have kept this information secret?

Given the importance of India to Canada, why take the risk of souring relations with India, when the news was about to hit the papers the next day anyway?

[Weldon Epp]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to answer the question.

I think the first part of that two-part question is speculative in a way, because we knew the media was aware of this information. It had sought commentary, so we knew that a story was going to be coming into the public domain.

I think the first thing to do is just underscore the unprecedented nature of the story. This was sensational. It was the first time ever on Canadian soil.... The moment the government understood that the story was going to go public, as Minister Leblanc has previously described, there were concerns about ensuring that Canadians felt safe, felt secure and felt confident that the government was on top of and aware of the issue and doing what it could to manage the issue.

To answer your question, you can imagine it's rather implausible, knowing the media was about to release the sensational story, that the government would simply choose not to comment. The Prime Minister's decision, as it has been previously described by the Prime Minister and Minister Leblanc, was meant to address a concerned Canadian public and reassure them about what the government's approach would be in addressing this issue and how the government had already been actively involved, including the Prime Minister's raising it personally with Prime Minister Modi at the G20.

I think the Prime Minister has said on the record that the intention was never to provoke India. Certainly, if you look at Canada's engagement with India, including just in the last year in the lead-up to this, you'll see there was an intensification across the board in trying to build a strong relationship.

Thanks.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

One question remains unanswered. Would the government have chosen not to reveal this situation to Canadians if there hadn't been a threat of a leak? I don't suppose that you can answer that question.

You were right to point out that relations between Canada and India have had their ups and downs.

In your experience, have these relations ever hit a low point as serious as the current situation?

This reminds us of a bygone era, the Cold War, when Canadian diplomats were expelled en masse.

Can we compare the low points of relations between Canada and India with the current situation?

[Weldon Epp]

I think I understand that the premise is not.... There's no perfect comparison, but I get the spirit of the question.

It's important to remember that, as I said in my opening, we've had some very challenging periods in our relationship—Air India not the least. That was a tragedy for both Canada and Canadians, and India and Indians. There have been different views, as this committee will be aware, of the handling of investigations after that. That was a challenging period.

I think it's also the case that Canada-India relations recovered from the challenges of India's decision to, effectively, become a nuclear state. These are different situations from the one we're encountering now, both with respect to the allegations being unprecedented but also with respect, as the member of Parliament mentioned, to how the Indian response of kicking 41 diplomats out of Delhi was quite unprecedented.