Host: Prime Minister Mark Carney recently headed to India for a trip. Both countries are calling a reset. This visit, remember, comes at the invitation of Prime Minister Modi and is being seen as a key step in resetting those ties. India Canada ties after a period and a long period might one add of diplomatic strain?

Host: Diplomatic strain is one way to put it in 2023, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly alleged that Indian agents had been involved in the murder of a sick activist in B.C. in 2024. The RCMP said it had evidence linking the Indian government to violence here in Canada. Ottawa expelled Indian diplomats. India pushed back. But now, thanks to shifting global alliances and an unreliable partner south of the border, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been pursuing stronger ties. And now we have talk of a new free trade deal, something called a Comprehensive Economic partnership agreement being signed by December. We look at what his recent visit accomplished and where the relationship goes from here. Then we talk about the latest developments in Iran and Canada's response. This is The Rundown. Canada and India have been effectively estranged for years now. Prime Minister Mark Carney seems to be looking for a reset. Let's break down what happened during his recent visit and the possible risks and benefits of renewed ties. Vina Nadjibulla is the vice president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, and she joins me to talk about the latest. Vina, great to have you here.

Vina Nadjibulla: Thank you so much for the invitation.

Host: All right. Let's talk. Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Carney have agreed to fast track negotiations towards a Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. Fancy word for essentially a free trade agreement. Help us understand. What would this entail?

Vina Nadjibulla: Yeah. So this is a really significant development. It's one of the critical outcomes of Prime Minister Carney's visit. And it says that Canada and India will negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement before the end of the year. So that will essentially unlock about 30 billion additional dollars in trade. That is the goal that the two prime ministers have agreed on, doubling our current trade in before 2030. Of course, it would also create a more predictable environment for our businesses. It will reduce tariffs for certain exporters. So it is a big deal. We'll see whether they succeed, because it's quite an ambitious timeline to try to negotiate this within one year.

Host: Help us understand in the scope of things, would this be the first comprehensive trade deal between the two countries?

Vina Nadjibulla: Yes. And of course, a lot of your viewers would know that we've been trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with India for more than a decade, and the discussions had started and slowed and paused. And so it's never been an easy process. There have been some sectoral agreements, including on this visit. There have been a number of MoU agreed on critical minerals. In particular, there's been a strategic partnership on energy. Agreed. And we can talk a little bit more about that. But in terms of the CPA, this comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, I think what's important to note is that we are in a new moment, India, just in the last two years, finalized free trade agreements with the European Union, with the UK, with New Zealand. So they are now approaching this differently because they have to diversify their trading partnerships just like Canada. So even though we have a history here, we have to see this as a new opportunity because of the Trump effect, so to speak. The Trump accelerator is making both India and Canada approach this agreement with a lot more urgency than in the past.

Host: Well, let's talk about energy. As you mentioned, a Canadian company signed a long term deal based in Saskatchewan. The Premier, Saskatchewan's premier, was there as well. This is to supply uranium to India. How significant is this deal?

Vina Nadjibulla: Very significant. So this is a ten year supply agreement for about 2.6 billion. And it's the anchor piece of a broader strategic partnership on energy that the two sides agreed, which would also cover critical minerals LNG, LPG as well as hydrogen. So India of course is growing rapidly. It is the fastest growing major economy. And they are very energy thirsty. In fact, about a third of all of new energy demands by 2040 will be coming from India. And India's energy demand will be basically the same as China and Southeast Asia combined. So there's a lot of opportunity for Canada, which is also trying to diversify our energy exports away from just being reliant on the US and into Asia. So this deal in some ways is kind of the the proof point, the fact that there can be these deals. It's ten years. So it's meant to build trust and open up other opportunities in the energy sector.

Host: Just to clarify, as you mentioned, when we say LNG, we're talking about liquefied natural gas, LPG, petroleum gas. All right. Let's talk education. There are obviously a large number of Indian students studying here in Canada. Did education come up in talks?

Vina Nadjibulla: It did. So education has been a big part of our relationship with India. In fact, about two thirds of our trade with India is in services, and majority of that is because of the international students that have been studying here in Canada, but 400,000 of them, which is very large number. But I think what's notable about this particular visit and 13 MoUs that were agreed between Canadian universities and various Indian institutions, is the fact that they're now looking beyond just international students. India's interested in opening international campuses in India. They're interested in joint research projects in talent development. So I think the focus now moving forward will be around joint talent strategy, especially in AI, in STEM. So science, technology sectors, and I think that is a really new development. We had 21 university presidents from Canada visiting India just in the beginning of February. And as part of that, obviously they made a number of agreements, and those agreements were what the Prime Minister was able to witness in Mumbai as part of this new talent strategy that was launched and agreements from UBC, University of British Columbia, McGill and others. And I think it's notable that the focus is very much on kind of the economy of the future, on technology and innovation and AI.

Host: Before we sort of move on to, you know, the impacts here in Canada from this from this recent trip. I want to get a better understanding education aside energy aside, anything else from this trip that stood out to you?

Vina Nadjibulla: Yeah. So one other element is that the Prime Minister really wanted to say that this is not just a reset in the diplomatic relation, but an expansion and elevation of the relationship, and that he wants to have a full spectrum partnership, one that covers the economy and of course, within that energy and education, but also looking at the defence sector. Minister of defence was on this trip with him because there is an interest now as part of our defence industrial strategy, to do more with India, because India is also spending a lot more on its defence. There's also an interest to look at sectors like space aerospace, which we haven't traditionally done anything with India. So I think the Prime Minister believes that the economic opportunity and the partnership opportunity are enormous. He's saying that India is going to be kind of the next big power. It's the fourth largest economy now. It will be the third largest economy within the decade. So from his perspective, if you use the hockey analogy, it's like skating to where the puck will be. He sort of feels like the next big economic opportunities in India. And Canada has to be at the table because all of our other partners the European Union, Australia, Japan, the US, they all now have preferential trade agreements with India. So Canada is a little bit late to the game.

Host: I'm going to use another analogy. When we talk about reset. Reset has been used to sort of talk about these conversations. In your view, has that button pressed the reset button? Do you look at this trip as success as a successful one?

Vina Nadjibulla: Well, I mean, I think if you listen to what the Prime Minister was saying in Mumbai and in New Delhi, you would certainly come away with that conclusion that not only do we have a reset, but we really do have a new moment. In fact, the Prime Minister said that his trip marks the end of the challenging period in the relationship and the beginning of a new partnership between two confident and complementary economies. Now, all of that sounds good, but of course, you and I have been here in Canada the last three days, and the headlines here have been very much dominated by the same challenging issue of foreign interference and transnational repression. So it doesn't feel like we've turned the page here in Canada. But if you were in Delhi and Mumbai and I've been in touch with all my colleagues and I'm flying there tonight, it does feel like it's a new moment. So I think there is that tension. And the government and the Prime Minister will have to manage that tension.

Host: Well, let's talk foreign interference. Obviously, Canada has accused India of foreign interference in the past. Yet Mr. Carney's government now says there's no evidence of any foreign interference by India. To what do you attribute this change to?

Vina Nadjibulla: Well, I think in fairness to the government, both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have noted that foreign interference is on is an ongoing concern, and that they're raising this issue with India. In the joint statement that came out issued by the two prime ministers, there is a sentence that addresses this issue. So I think it's not that the issue of foreign interference has gone away. But you're absolutely right. There is a change in focus to not just talk about foreign interference, but also to talk about this economic opportunity and potential. So the government wants to deal with this on kind of two separate tracks, one on law enforcement and security, one on the totality of the relationship with an emphasis on the economy. But again, there is a tension, and we haven't yet heard directly from the Prime Minister on this. He hasn't taken questions from journalists. So I think there's still a lot of communicating that the government has to do to explain this.

Host: In terms of the talks that had have happened outside of that sentence, did any of this come up in the talks at all?

Vina Nadjibulla: Well, so we don't know what happened in the actual meetings because there were obviously behind closed doors. But in the various speeches and public messages. So the the Mumbai speech that the Prime Minister gave to the big business audience, as well as in the statement that he gave in the presence of Prime Minister Modi, the issue really did not come up. It was focused much more on kind of the partnership, including on defence and security. So there was a mention that there is now this security mechanism that would allow the two countries to address issues of mutual concern. So one would imagine that's where foreign interference fits in. But it wasn't a big focus of the public messaging on the trip.

Host: Vina, given everything we've seen over the past few days, what do you expect the road for India-Canada relations to look like going forward?

Vina Nadjibulla: Well, Prime Minister Carney has certainly set up an ambitious agenda for the road ahead, including with this Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations. He's also invited Prime Minister Modi to come to Canada. He wants to see a lot more progress on the energy side. So I think there is an ambitious agenda, but a lot will depend on the progress on the security and law enforcement side as well. We, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, together with the Angus Reid Institute, did a survey of Canadian public opinion, which the report came out just this week. And what we noted was that while Canadians understand the pragmatic reason for this economic reset, they are still very cautious about approaching India and the favorability rate of India. Sort of the level of trust in India is still very low because of all of the foreign interference coverage. So I think the road ahead will involve quite a bit of trust building and communicating and making sure that the political reset and the momentum and the economic opportunity is met with the change in the public perception, so that there isn't this big gap in how Canadians, a lot of Canadians understand what's happening. And I think the vision that the Prime Minister has rightly said around the economic re-engagement with India.

Host: Vina, we are going to leave it there. Really appreciate your insights on this. Thank you so much.

Vina Nadjibulla: My pleasure. Thank you.

Host: The US and Israel launched attacks across Iran on February 28th, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Maral Karimi is a faculty lecturer at Toronto Metropolitan University, and Jon Allen is a former Canadian ambassador to Israel and a senior fellow at the University of Toronto's Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History. They both join us in studio. Thank you so much for joining us.

Maral Karimi: Thanks for having us.

Host: We're going to talk with the US Secretary of Defence, Pete Buttigieg. He did a press conference this morning. Maral. Did anything stand out to you from that?

Maral Karimi: What Buttigieg was talking about was kind of the continuation of what Trump announced his press conference yesterday. There are two significant aspects. One, he was flip flopping on regime change. Whether or not the United States is going into actually change the regime, or whether they're going to leave it to people and how that's going. And I think that's quite significant because it points out the uncertainty that is perpetuating within the American administration. They don't know what they're doing yet. And at the same time, I think he was also both him, Hegseth and Trump were signaling to the American public that this is not going to be that quick, surgical, clean attack that they had promised. They're in it for the long haul. They're preparing their public for that.

Host: All right. Jon.

Jon Allen: Well, at the same time, he went out of his way to say that this is not going to be Iraq. This is not going to be a forever war, because, of course, Donald Trump came in saying there will be no more forever wars for America. So he's trying to play both sides. And at one point he actually said that we've affected regime change, even though I think what he was talking about is they've assassinated Khomeini and the defence minister and others. But clearly there has not been the kind of regime change that either Israel or the Americans are looking for.

Host: Very quickly, there are midterm elections coming up in the US. Does this play into any of that, John?

Jon Allen: Well, there are midterm elections coming up in the US, and there are national elections coming up in Israel for Bibi Netanyahu. This is a positive. There will be a rallying around the flag, and his numbers will probably go up if the war lasts, as you've suggested, then this could be a real problem for Donald Trump, both because his base is not keen on these foreign interventions. If there are American lives lost more than already. This could be a problem for Donald Trump.

Host: Maral, was it ever realistic to think that the US could pressure Iran into submission, using threats or limited strikes without triggering sort of a wider regional war?

Maral Karimi: I don't think it was. And which is why for throughout the different administrations from Bush, Obama, Biden and now Trump onward, they've been trying to kind of come up with some sort of a deal with Iran because they especially this is especially true post 2009 uprisings in Iran, the green movement there, where the IRGC kind of.

Host: IRGC for people who aren't the.

Maral Karimi: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the the actual target of Trump at the moment. So Iran has two of these, the IRGC. And then there's the national military. So the IRGC found a stronger foothold both in the economy. They decided ly and systematically went into the economy and also cultural productions, movies, concerts. etcetera, et cetera. To to perpetuate that nationalist and strengthen the nationalist ideology. And at the same time, they have this military might. So the Americans understand that to some extent, or at least did before Trump. And and so they were trying. That's why Obama came up with the JCPOA, the deal, the nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump cancelled. It was never going to be this easy. And many in the American, many Americans knew this.

Host: John.

Jon Allen: I agree the the idea that they were somehow going to force a very ideologically driven, anti-American, anti-Israel regime with a couple of quick shots to change overnight, to give up what they've been fighting for for 47 years was highly unlikely. And I think they were perhaps hoping that they could negotiate something. But the terms they were trying to negotiate the end of nuclear, the end of ballistics, the end of support for proxies, wasn't something that Iran was going to agree to either. They might have agreed on the margins, but they were never going to agree to give up all of their defenses. So I think this was kind of unrealistic from the beginning, and maybe the Americans knew it. I think the Israelis certainly knew it.

Host: Maral, can you talk to us about the contrasting emotions among Iranians right now?

Maral Karimi: Khamenei the supreme leader's death came on Saturday. There were so many videos and people dancing, and there was an outpouring of joy. But the next morning, as soon as the sun came up in Iran, we also saw so many thousands of people across the nation taking out to the streets in mourning. So what I would like your viewers to always remember, and this is something that is often missed in the media, is that Iran is not a monolith. So those people mourning for Khomeini are onions, the people part of the people and and the people who are supporting Reza Pahlavi and the monarchy are another. Some people support the MEK, the former the Mujahideen-e Khalq, or which are designated as a terrorist group. But they're well organised and well-armed. Or, you know, there are others that don't have as big of a voice, but they're the more democratic leaning Iranians.

Host: Jeyan, some say that the ayatollah's death could be the biggest threat Iran's Islamists regime has seen in its 50 years. But that doesn't mean that the theocracy is going to collapse overnight, does it?

Maral Karimi: No it doesn't. The Supreme leader was very old. He was not well, he was not going to last forever. And the fact that he's gone now doesn't mean that there is massive regime change at all. The vacuum is being filled as we speak. There's a transitional force that's in power that will choose the ultimate supreme leader, etc. and I don't see any significant changes as a result of of this assassination. Notwithstanding what Hegseth and Trump are suggesting.

Host: All right. Canada's response in support of the US Israeli strikes on Iran has received a fair bit of criticism. I want to read a quote. This is from Canada's foreign former foreign minister, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy. He writes, we invoke international law and the rules based international order when adversaries engage in unlawful actions, but abandon those same rules entirely when it's the Americans whose current government 60% of Canadians now see as a threat during the bombing. For a country that depends on law more than force for its own security, that is not realism. It is recklessness. Morale will come to you. Your thoughts on that? Agree? Disagree. Is Canada abandoning international law.

Jon Allen: On a moral and ethical stance? I absolutely do agree with them. But at the same time, I understand that Prime Minister Carney might he? He's walking a very fine line because we're still dealing on the on the trades file with the Americans. There is that and we know Donald Trump is not the most open person, let's shall we say, to criticism, especially from Mark Carney. And so I to some extent, I understand how why Carney would would phrase the way he phrased his his statement. But at the same time he also specifically I think this was somewhat smart because he said, we support the United States. The attack on the nuclear facilities. He left a lot out and he didn't. He left some room for himself to later on to come out and say, well, we don't support every other thing. And like some leeway for himself there.

Host: John.

Jon Allen: I was very surprised at how fast and how full throated his support for Donald Trump and the attack was. As the former foreign minister suggests. You know, when you attack another country, there are restrictions on that in the UN charter. You're either doing so because you've been attacked and you're responding, or because there's an imminent threat that you're going to be attacked and you're responding, or because you have a United Nations Security Council authorization. None of those conditions existed here. Neither Israel or the Americans were under imminent threat, and they had not been attacked, and they were not going to be attacked. Given the weaknesses of the Iranian regime at this point in time. And there was no Security Council resolution. So the Europeans were more nuanced. They didn't come out against it, but certainly Axworthy's right. I don't feel comfortable, particularly with Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu deciding who are the good guys and the bad guys in this world and who we can attack and who we can't attack. I would rather have some resort to international law.

Host: Maral, just this weekend, a boxing gym in Thornhill, Ontario, owned by a prominent Iranian Canadian activist was attacked. 17 bullets, I believe. At least count. Can you talk to us about the possibility of the Islamic regime targeting members of the Iranian diaspora here?

Maral Karimi: Well, the Iranian regime has a long history, almost of extraterritorial attacks on its opponents, a history almost as long as its life, as long as it existed. So there have been assassinations, particularly on the Kurdish diaspora, the Kurdish opposition in Europe and in other parts of the world. Just a few years ago, there was an assassination attempt on a on the life of a prominent activist in the United States that was intercepted by the FBI. The assassination attempt on Donald Trump. So it is a long history, but it's not just assassination and physical violence that is perpetrated by the Islamic regime in order to marginalise their their opponents, they systematically try to, by the opponents, displace them and, and kind of marginalise them in academia and in media, through their lobbies.

Host: Everything that we've discussed so far, I want to get a better understanding of what is the best case and worst case scenarios for Iran going forward. John.

Jon Allen: Well, the worst case scenario is the regime essentially stays in place. They're increasingly concerned about any kind of threat, violence and instability continue, and we have a prolonged war that causes instability in the region. The best case scenario is that this somehow causes divisions within Iran that various forces begin competing with each other, and as a result, there's a weakening of the regime and and some decay. And, and I guess the other best case scenario is that in the diaspora, Iranians come together, unify and present themselves with a unified position that could offer a transitional government going forward so that there is somebody that could actually take over if and when this regime begins to disintegrate.

Host: Maral, you got the last word.

Maral Karimi: I think if anything, this is going to be most probably a transformation from within the regime. The conditions for having a I understand, John, and I agree with it. I wish there could be a way for the diaspora to come together, but the conditions for that are, unlike in 1979, are not there. And many of these diaspora leaders don't have the necessary networks on the ground in Iran. Some have. Others have the necessary networks, such as the MEK. They don't have the popular support. Reza Pahlavi has some popular support, particularly in the diaspora. They don't have. And then there are I would say this. And as my last word, there are certain Democratic, Republican leaning groups that are coming out and and that have been working underground all these years. And they're, they're they're coming up and we'll wait and see what they would do and how they are going to organize.

Host: And that is what we will have to do. Well, John, I really appreciate your insights and your takes on this. Thank you so much for your time.

Jon Allen: Thanks for having us.

Host: I'm Jayan thanks for watching The Rundown. We want our show to reflect you and what you care about. What issues do you want us to cover? Let us know. Go to TVO.org/rundownfeedback or leave us a comment on YouTube. Until then, see you tomorrow.