Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to this discussion on foreign interference.

I will break down the elements of the Indo-Canadian relations into three points. I will first discuss India's admission to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, its relative appreciation of Canada, diasporic specificity in Canada, and recommendations to limit foreign interference from India.

Originally created as the Shanghai Five, this Sino-centric organization was founded by China, Russia and the central Asian republics in 2001. Focusing on limited, unconventional security, the organization fights three “evils”: extremism, terrorism and separatism. This association of words is not accidental. This multilateral organization allows China to ensure the co‑operation of neighbouring and distant countries in the repatriation of people, be it Uyghurs, Tibetans or Han, posing challenges to national unity. India joined the organization in 2017, as did Pakistan, which is also struggling with separatist or secessionist movements. In the case of India, it has an endorsement to act with impunity when its unity is at stake.

The juxtaposition of the three evils links terrorism, separatism and extremism with a normative framework according to which any separatist impulse is extremist and terrorist. This substitution of rule of law to rule by law attempts to legitimize actions outside the normative framework of sovereignty. From guided missiles to selective assassinations, foreign interference is not new, but is intensifying. However, this association of terrorism with separatism is not found in the Canadian legal system, so the charges that can be laid in India cannot be applied to the Canadian case.

In terms of Canada-India relations, Professor Ryan M. Touhey points out that the first decades of Indo-Canadian relations were characterized by misunderstanding. Is this still the case? Despite the ambition of a Canadian Indo-Pacific policy, geopolitical issues, as Indian politicians point out, are hurting bilateral relations. These recurrent geopolitical problems, be it the nuclear bomb in 1974, Air India in 1985 or nuclear tests in 1998, do not erase the more structural issues, in particular the presence in Canada of movements that jeopardize Indian unity.

Since the imposition of a continuous voyage in 1908 preventing Indians from migrating to Canada, and thus to the British Empire, the Sikhs have initiated revolutionary movements to weaken the Empire, many of which are in the Vancouver area. The Komagata Maru incident in 1914, in which a boat of migrants from India was turned back by the Canadian authorities, increased Sikh activism. Since that time, the Sikh community in Canada has been the epicentre of Khalistan claims.

In terms of diasporic specificity in Canada, it will come as no surprise that Canada is home to the largest Sikh community outside India and makes up about half of the Indian diaspora in Canada. This specific reality in Canada breeds Sikh activism like nowhere else in the world. This party explains why India uses a strong discourse against Canada, as opposed to the co‑operative discourse with other partners, such as the United States or the United Kingdom. Moreover, the use of violence, sometimes even murder, is a tool of electoral repression in India. What is surprising is its export within the Indian diaspora in Canada.

Given Canada's specificity, we can expect moral support from Canada's partners without hoping for legal proceedings or sanctions against India. Among the 13 Indo-Pacific strategies identified, India is mentioned as a strategic partner several times, but for Canada it remains an uncertain ally.

To alleviate the problems associated with these political tensions and violence within the Indian diaspora, without pretending to say that this will eliminate foreign interference in Canada, my first recommendation is to move forward Bill C‑367, which amends the Criminal Code to prohibit hate speech at religious ceremonies, such as processions or festivals.

My second recommendation is that every prime minister of Canada since Jean Chrétien has visited Punjab on an official visit to India, which India perceives as a celebration of Sikh separatism.

This perception emerged under the Harper administration and was amplified under the Trudeau administration. It would be desirable for the upcoming visit of a Canadian prime minister to India to avoid a trip to Punjab as a goodwill gesture aimed at resolving geopolitical tensions between India and Canada.

Thank you.