Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement on Sept. 18 that, “Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the Government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, (Sikh separatist leader) Hardeep Singh Nijjar,” has blown up Canada’s relationship with India.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Diane Francis: Trudeau's diplomatic blunder raises questions about who's really running the show Back to video

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.

Play Video

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government described the allegation as “absurd.” That may or may not be the case. But to date, the diplomatic fallout of this unsubstantiated accusation has been severe. Each country has booted out diplomats and India has stopped issuing visas to Canadians. Now the relationship between the two countries is in tatters, and future trade and tourism is left in the lurch. Why would Trudeau do this?

One answer, as put forward by some in both the Canadian and Indian press, is that Trudeau’s political survival rests with NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, a practising Sikh who has been highly critical of the Indian government. In 2013, Singh (who was born in Canada) was denied a visa to India, reportedly due to comments he made about the government’s handling of anti-Sikh riots in 1984.

After Trudeau’s denunciation of India, Singh wrote: “In my experience, as a Sikh-Canadian, there have always been suspicions that India was interfering in the democratic rights of Canadians. Yesterday’s announcement by the prime minister confirms these suspicions are valid.”

But the fact is that Trudeau’s pronouncement doesn’t confirm suspicions, but promotes them based on shadowy intel. A Canadian official told the Associated Press that the intelligence, provided from an ally, was gleaned from the surveillance of Indian diplomats.

Yet India says Ottawa has not been forthcoming. “No specific information has been shared by Canada on this case, either then or before or after,” Arindam Bagchi, a spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, said on Sept. 21.

Smearing India in front of a global audience was a questionable, if not reckless, move by Trudeau. At a recent conference in Banff, Alta., the former high commissioner of India in Canada, Vikas Swarup, questioned Ottawa’s handling of the affair. “I reject the allegations that have been made. Let the truth come out in a public environment,” he said. “You’re innocent until proven guilty.”

But this will never happen. When opposition parties demanded transparency about allegations that China meddled in Canada’s electoral process, Trudeau appointed a friend, David Johnston, to probe the issue. He said that there could be no public inquiry because investigators would need to access classified documents, and that such documents cannot be divulged in public because they are classified.

Using that catch-22 logic, the intelligence about alleged wrongdoing by India won’t be divulged because it is classified and cannot be made public. This means that the public will never know on what basis the prime minister made his allegation about India.

For Canadians, the question is why Trudeau did this and whether Singh is the real prime minister of Canada. Their partnership has damaged Canadians economically — and now, it appears, diplomatically, as well.

Financial Post