Got it.
Foreign affairs minister Joe Clark had admitted at the time that the key negotiating issue behind the treaty was the Indian desire to extradite Sikh “extremists”. What makes this treaty particularly problematic and surprising is that Canada has ratified and is party to the UN convention against torture as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which prohibit removal to the danger of torture.
India hasn't ratified the convention against torture, and has long neglected its obligations and reporting duties under the ICCPR. India is not bound by the convention against torture's prohibitions against torture and is not subject to monitoring and review by the UN Committee against Torture. As a result, according to the Asian Human Rights Commission, “Torture is practiced as a routine and accepted as a means for investigation. Most police officers and other law enforcement officers consider torture as an essential investigative tool”.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that torture is routine and very common in India. It is common knowledge among Sikhs that Sikh political activists taken into custody in India are brutally tortured as a matter of routine.
Given the context within which the India-Canada treaty was negotiated, specifically with a desire to target members of the Sikh community, and the fact that during almost every bilateral meeting between Canada and India for well over a decade Indian officials have made unsubstantiated allegations of extremist activity in the Canadian Sikh community, there is a real fear that Sikhs in Canada may be extradited to India and face false charges and torture. On several occasions over the past few years, India has in fact presented Canada with lists of Sikhs in Canada it wants to have extradited.
What India deems as extremism is in fact Sikh advocacy on various issues India finds objectionable. All are protected under Canada's right to freedom of speech, but India has nevertheless repeatedly demanded that Canada crack down on Sikh activists in the country.
Specifically now, in light of the Indo-Pacific strategy launched by Canada, the India high commissioner has said that, in order to improve ties, Canada must crack down on “segments of the Sikh community in Canada [that] are offering support and money to secessionists who want to separate Punjab from India”. There is no evidence to substantiate that allegation, but we are afraid that Canada may be pressured by India to extradite Sikh activists in return for closer ties with the country.
It wouldn't be the first time that Canada buckled to Indian political pressure. In the past, where visas to members of Indian security forces have been denied due to suspected involvement in human rights violations, Indian protests have in fact resulted in those visas being issued. It's also felt that, in the aftermath of the Prime Minister's 2018 trip to India, the term “Sikh (Khalistani) extremism” was added to the public safety report on terror at the insistence of the Indian government.
It's our firm position that if extradition is a political consideration that does not have human rights as a central consideration, that's not right. Diplomatic assurances are also not a solution, because they're unenforceable. Where in fact there is a violation, both countries have very little incentive to bring that breach to light.
We submit that Canada should not have an extradition treaty with a country that has human rights abuses or that has failed to ratify human rights treaties. As such, the India-Canada extradition treaty does not meet the necessary standards.
That is my submission.