The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - Will Canada Reset Relations with India and China?

Episode Date: May 14, 2025

Prime Minister Mark Carney went to Washington to try and reset relations with Donald Trump. Should he do the same with China and India? Ties with them have been strained in recent years, so can the new PM find a way to work with the world's two most populous countries? Host Steve Paikin asks: Rohinton Medhora, Professor of Practice at McGill University, and a Distinguished Fellow at CIGI, the Centre for International Governance Innovation; Vina Nadjibulla, Vice-President of Research & Strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada; And Jeff Mahon, Director of Geopolitical & International Business Advisory at StrategyCorp and Executive in Residence at the Canada West Foundation. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

He was like a father figure to me. Unfortunately, found myself in a very vulnerable position. This is a story about a psychiatrist in Toronto accused of abusing two of his patients, which he denies. It's also a story about a system that is supposed to protect patients. From TVO Podcasts, I'm Krisha Collier, and this is The Oath. Subscribe today wherever you listen. Prime Minister Mark Carney went to Washington

to try and reset relations with Donald Trump should he do the same with China and India. Ties with them have been strained in recent years, so can the new PM find a way to work with the world's two most populous countries? Let's find out as we ask. Rohinton Madhora, professor of practice at McGill University and a distinguished fellow at CIGI, the Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Jeff Mahon, director of geopolitical and international business advisory at Strategy Corp. He's also an executive in residence at the Canada West Foundation. And Veena Najibullah, vice president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. And we are delighted to have you three around our table here today at TVO for a very timely discussion about, well, you're all on the payroll now for the prime minister. You've got to give him some advice on what he's going to do with the two biggest populist countries in the world. Let's do a little background first.

Rohintan, Canada's relationship with India has really gone south over the past few years. How come? So, it has never been very warm, but the immediate story is that in about, in mid-June of 2023, a Canadian of Indian origin by the name of Hardeep Singh Nijar was gunned down outside the Sikh temple. In the ensuing investigation... In where? In Surrey, BC.

There we go. In the ensuing investigation, it emerged that the Canadian side said that there was evidence of Indian official involvement in the assassination. Prime Minister Trudeau stood up in parliament in September of that year to make that claim. And that's have led to a blow up in which subsequent waves of diplomatic expulsions, the ending of on and off trade talks were off again, has led to a climate in which the Canadian side feels that they have evidence that the Indian side is not respecting. The Indians feel that the evidence is not as strong as we feel.

The evidence, by the way, comes from Five Eyes and other sources which we cannot hold to court. There are four suspects in custody. That trial's been adjourned on and off, which we cannot hold to court. There are four suspects in custody. That trial's been adjourned on and off, and we will know when that proceeds just what the evidence is and what the real political fallout will be. So that's the story leading up to Mark Carney's taking over as prime minister. The Indian prime minister, Mr. Modi, put this on X after Mr. Carney took over.

Congratulations, Mark Jay Carney, on your election as the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Liberal Party on their victory. India and Canada are bound by shared democratic values, a steadfast commitment to the rule of law and vibrant people-to-people ties. I look forward to working with you to strengthen our partnership and unlock greater opportunities for our people. Okay, Vena, that sounds pretty good. What did you infer from it? to strengthen our partnership and unlock greater opportunities for our people. Okay, Vena, that sounds pretty good. What did you infer from it? Well, it is an extremely warm congratulatory message and one that would be hard to imagine

if Prime Minister Trudeau had won the election. I think it does show that India is signaling that it's interested in a potential reset in the relationship, that it sees this as an opening, but one shouldn't over-interpret a message, however warm that is, because there are serious issues that need to be addressed in the relationship. And the road to rebuilding the relationship is going to be a long one, and will take a lot of political leadership on both sides,

and a lot of confidence building measures on both sides. How do you interpret that tweet? Yeah, I think the reality is that when a relationship is rock bottom, you have only one way to go. But what I see this is is a soft signal from the Indian side. Now, Prime Minister Modi regularly congratulates new leaders. And as Vena said, it would have been hard to imagine under Trudeau.

I'd say actually be impossible to imagine. Wouldn't happen. Yeah, the way the prime minister stood up in the parliament, that was a real big affront to imagine. Wouldn't happen. Yeah. The way the prime minister stood up in the parliament, that was a real big affront to India. They saw that as a loss of face. India is standing up in a new Asia and saw that as very disrespectful. And I don't think that there was any room for this relationship to improve under Trudeau.

But there are many Canadians of Indian origin living in Canada. We're a natural partner and I think the Indian side would like to see some steady movement towards progress. So the ball or the puck is now on Prime Minister Carney's stick. That is a very timely reference you made there given we're in the midst of the hockey playoffs. In which case let's get some ideas out there. Again I'm putting you all on the payroll. Give the new prime minister, and in fact just today, the new foreign affairs minister, Anita Anand, some advice on how she can reset this relationship.

Great. So, I think there are a few things that can be done right away to signal political readiness on our side. The G7 is coming up. Canada has the presidency. We are in charge of who gets to be invited in addition to the actual G7 members. I think sending an invitation to Prime Minister Modi, who has been attending all of G7 meetings since 2019, would be a clear messaging from our side. This is in Alberta in June. Exactly. In addition to

that, obviously there are a few things coming up in June, notably the 40th anniversary of Air India bombing, a very significant event that in some ways is sort of at the heart of what has gone wrong in the relationship and some political messaging around that, again, both from the new foreign minister as well as from the prime prime minister would be critical. In addition, I think we need to see the reinstatement of our high commissioners. This is a relationship which for the last few months has not had our diplomats on the ground and it's really difficult to move the relationship forward without the high commissioners. This is a relationship which for the last few months has not had our diplomats on the ground. And it's really difficult to move the relationship forward without the high commissioners.

And Rohinton spoke to how that all came about. So bringing those back. In addition, we need to set up some kind of a process and a mechanism to deal with the issue of Najjar. There is a precedent set by the US case, which was, in the case, India actually set up a special mechanism to look into it, somebody was brought to justice and so on. So we need something like that.

We need to basically figure out some kind of an off-ramp, a way by which we will handle this. There will be justice, accountability. And in the meantime, we need to continue with a number of what I call confidence building measures. So having delegations from our CEOs restart conversations around trade. You recall one of the casualties of this diplomatic crisis has been the pausing of a free trade agreement negotiation. Now more than ever, we need to do that, obviously, to diversify

relations from the US. And then finally, there's a lot of opportunities on the people to people side of the university. So there is a lot that can be built on the opportunities are endless, but we need to start with some political signaling. And that's where I think Prime Minister Carney and the new foreign minister can be really helpful. Gentlemen, she took them all. I don't think she left you anything. Or maybe. I don't know. Rohinton, is there anything on that list, first of all, you disagree with? I wouldn't disagree with any of those. I'd say yes to all of them. I'd add to that that it's not just a short run. We have to think long. I think part of the problem has been is that the countries have been thinking short. And

so I'd add to the list the G20 summit that's upcoming in South Africa where a larger group of countries discusses a larger set of issues on which Canada and India might find alignment. For example, the future of the WTO. For example, how do we govern new technologies? These are things in which part of the problem is we don't recognize how much India has come forward. Fifth largest economy, a major technological power, soon to be third largest.

We have to treat and see India in that light. And so I'd end with the thought that it's not just all the things we in a said, and they're not minor, but to rethink Canada's place in the world and in the process, deal in countries like India and indeed China, which we'll come to. Anything new, Dad? Absolutely. I think I agree with everything I've just heard.

But the one thing is political signaling is easy. We had a prime minister in the last government that made lots of press releases, but a little bit light on the following up in the substance. So we need to see concrete action, not just the political signaling when it comes to dealing with India. And there's a couple of ways that can happen. First, I would say the low hanging fruit is going to be when it comes to the economic affairs.

So Canada pulled out of the EPDOT, which is the Early Progress Trade Agreement. Canada and India have been, as you said, on and off trade negotiations for almost a decade or more, actually more than a decade. And one of the things we dealt with was instead of doing this big comprehensive deal, let's focus on an early progress trade a deal, get some nice sectoral wins that can immediately deliver for each country. But Canada pulled back from that. It's in Canada's court now to come in and restart those negotiations.

And this would be great because, know given our agricultural exports the investments and the need to be able to tap into that growing market so that's one thing and part of that it means this notion of compartmentalizing as Venus said there's these very sensitive issues particularly around this court case that's going to be continuing to unfold over the next little while and it's going to trickle out lots of information. So we're going to need to be able to make sure that we can safeguard and parameterize the good aspects and not allow them to get drowned out by some of these more sensitive issues. And in helping to do that means taking India's national security concerns

seriously. We don't now? I don't believe so. From the perspective of India, we certainly don't. Let me follow up on that with you, Vina. The issue of Sikh independence, the issue of Khalistan, these are problematic for every prime minister, particularly a liberal prime minister, which relies so much on the base of liberal party support from that community. How should this new prime minister navigate all that? It's a complicated issue. And again, it underscores the importance of political leadership.

Jeff said, you know, political signaling is only start, but we will really need political leadership and I wouldn't underestimate how important it is the next few things that Prime Minister Carney or the new foreign minister say about India. So that is critical, especially on this issue. Because we have traditionally sort of taken the approach that this is a freedom of speech issue, this is a charter rights issue, and that is of course the case.

But it's also a sensitive political issue for which something doesn't have to be illegal for us politically to say that's unacceptable or that's not in line with Canadian values. Now you don't have to outlaw something to show that you don't agree with it. And there are certainly things that have happened in various parades or flotillas and such that glorify violence. And that is certainly un-Canadian.

That doesn't go with our values. And for our political leaders to have the courage to say so would actually go a long way. And then I'll remind you that Canada is not alone in having to deal with this issue. This is also an issue that plagues India's relations with Australia, with the UK, with the US, with New Zealand, essentially other Five Eyes countries that have managed to deal with that issue as liberal democracies, but also build strategic partnerships and close law enforcement cooperation with India.

Now it's taken time. It's not easy, which is why I agree with Rohintan that it's going to be a long journey, but it begins with a political decision that says the relationship with India is more important than just domestic politics and that with a country that's going to be the third largest economy that is already a major global power, we should not be reducing the relationship to this single issue. Do you think the current Canadian government understands that that's what's required? I believe they do. I do believe that the relationship between the two Prime Ministers previously, Modi and Trudeau, had reached the level where nothing else could get in the way, not even the good news. The cabinet,

whose composition we now know, I believe gets that bigger picture. I'd certainly recommend that we situate our relations with countries like India in terms of that and think of the technology, think of the other opportunities in the next 50 years rather than what's happened in the past 50 years. But India and Pakistan over Kashmir is something that, I mean, we do not want to be kind of a drive-by accident as a result of that conflict. How do we avoid the added complications of all of that in terms of our agenda going forward?

We should also be realistic. Canada by itself has zero leverage in the current dispute over Kashmir. Our relations with India are ice cold and with Pakistan maybe slightly warmer. This is a region, let's reckon, and this comes back to my point about Casper Lacey and the world. Who can make a difference in that conflict? Certainly the US, China, Turkey, Iran, the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia. The only way Canada can make a difference is perhaps through a G7 or some kind of EU Plus initiative. So we should know when to stay away from something

or not make statements that help no one. And Canada did speak as the leader of G7 again. We were a little late to the party, but about three days after the violence really escalated, Canada did issue a G7 again. We were a little late to the party, but about three days after the violence really escalated, Canada did issue a G7 statement. And I think that would be the way for us to move forward. But also another element in all of this, Steve, is that we need to up our Asia competence and our India competence, right?

There will be these kinds of complications in the relationship. We need to understand how both Pakistan and India view this issue. For instance, India is not interested in internationalizing the Kashmir issue, right? So whatever statements we make, we have to be really clear in terms of what we're trying to achieve. And sometimes it better to say out than to try to get in and make things more complicated for ourselves. We jumped pretty quick from the calisthenic extremism to the Kashmir terrorism that happened. And I want to bring it back to the calisthenic

extremism, because this is the that happened. And I want to bring it back to the Palestinian extremism, because this is the fundamental issue getting in the way of Canada-India relations from really meeting their potential. One of the challenges that we have is that it's a political problem, as Vena mentioned, and then there's that charter of rights and freedom of speech. But there's clearly things that are being said that are at the bounds. They're definitely against the spirit of the law. And we need to determine if we're actually against the letter of the law.

Give an example. Well, for example, recently there was a parade and there was this Punjabi voice. By voice I mean language being spoken in the background that could be heard saying something along the lines. I may not get the exact verbatim right here, that they should deport the 800,000 Hindus living in Canada. Now, to me, that sounds like we're at the precipice of hate speech.

And sometimes when I speak with folks in government, they say, well, it's awful, but lawful. And I think we actually need to test the case and start moving to some of these instances where they're advocating political violence. They're celebrating an extreme terrorist attack that we're going to have the 40th anniversary coming up.

Or India. Yeah. And because of the situation with the calisthenic extremism, first it was anti-India, then it became more government. And now they're actually now starting to focus on Hindus themselves. And this is where we're getting into a really mushy area. And the last I checked is a charge

doesn't mean you're convicted. A court interprets the law and the actions that make the determination. And it's about time we start showing that Canada has limits of free speech. I'm jumping in here because I know we could do more on India. But China awaits. Vina, recap the main events that have led to the souring of our relationship with China over the past few years. In 60 seconds or less.

Well, that would be nice, but do it, Vina. I will try. So Canada was actually quite slow to coming to realization that China under Xi Jinping had really changed. Australia, Japan, US, other allies got there much faster, recognizing the China threat to national security, economic security. For us, our wake-up call came in 2018, when we detained the CFO of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, and China retaliated by essentially taking two of our citizens hostage. That episode lasted for about a thousand days and really represented the low

point in our diplomatic relations. Since then, of course, we've had COVID and China's wolf warrior diplomacy when they sort of aggressively went and engaged with their stakeholders, both in the region and outside. We've also had obviously the current crisis, the trade war, economic sanctions and retaliation, and then the whole chapter on foreign interference, which also went on for multiple years and months and basically demonstrated that the relationship with China was not just about economic opportunity, which was what really we were doing for about 20 years or so. It was all about deepening economic engagement and that there was a lot more to that relationship. It was much more strategically competitive in nature that China actually also represented serious threats to our democracy, to obviously people who are living here who have roots in China. So transnational repression is a serious issue. And of course now we're yet in a new moment where we can just continue with how we were seeing

China because China was named as a disruptive power, but of course President Trump has now become a disrupter in chief so we can't really and in comparison China's trying to present itself as a much more reliable partner. So I think we're at a moment where we need a new conversation, a public discussion about what would a made-in-Canada China strategy look like. As we shall get to, here is what a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs had to say about Mark Carney's win as prime minister and in the ensuing election. Quote, China's position on its relations with Canada is consistent and clear. China stands ready to grow its relations with Canada on the basis of mutual

respect, equality and mutual benefit. Rohinton, that's a bit of a different tone from what we heard from Prime Minister Modi of India. Wouldn't you say? It is, and it is partly because as colleagues have noted, the relationship between Trudeau and Modi was just so bad that this kind of signaling warmth made sense in the Indian case. In the case of China, China has many fish to fry internationally. Although India is a rising power, and we all respect that,

China is already risen. It is part of the G2, and that's what is driving the world. So China is signaling that China does not need Canada as much as Canada perhaps needs China. That shows in the trade figures. It shows in many facets. And the Chinese foreign ministry has never been known for its warmth. Well, I was going to say, there's no congratulations on your victories mentioned there.

It's just, okay, we're here. We're ready to talk when you're interested and available. But it wasn't warm, was it? It wasn't warm, but it signals business-like. And Carney, I think, has more business that he's transacted in China, perhaps, than India. And so there's a sense that we know you, we're ready to work with you, but there will not be smiles all around.

It may not be warm, but this is China's version of a charm offensive. And if you actually combine that with all the statements that we're now hearing from the ambassador of China to Canada, there are signaling that they're interested in taking advantage of this moment and the bad relationship that Canada now has with the Trump administration to try to create a wedge between liberal democracies, certainly Europe as well as Australia, Japan and other

allies that the U.S. has. China sees this as a huge moment of opportunity. Basically this is the greatest gift that President Trump could give them is to actually start a fight with all of its allies around the world. And China of course, wants to capitalize on that. And they feel like they have all the leverage, so they don't need to be too warm because we will need them anyways. What does a reset Canadian-China relationship look like in your view?

That's a, that's a great question. And I, I think before I jumped to reset, I want to get to one point Vina just made. So China does see an opportunity to engage with Canada and certainly the Trump administration's challenges to the rules-based international order, as we like to say, provides an opening. But the reality is that China has actually been trying to engage with Canada long before this instance. to engage with Canada long before this instance. Indeed, once the 3M situation, that crisis from 2018

that Vena outlined at the opening here came to an end. Two Michaels and Meng Wanzhou. When that crisis came to an end, China was still in the middle of its pretty aggressive COVID policy. Several months later, that came to an end. And China then started to go globally again, and they made a trip to Canada, and they were trying to find a way to restart the relationship. Who was the they?

The they, the Chinese government. So they sent... Wasn't it the president? No, it was the vice minister of commerce who came to, and again, a signal on that economic aspect. Well, that's what I'm wondering. Is that a high enough ranking official to send the kind of signal that we would want sent? Well, from China's view, this was a ministerial rank. It was a top trade official. But I think the main thing to focus on is not so much the levels, but that there is some intention to be dealing with things. But Canadian public situation was nowhere in a space to have that conversation.

Okay. Rohinton, reset the relationship. How do we start? We have to start by finding ways to be supportive of the Western alliance, of standing up to some of China's practices, which are questionable, but at the same time not being completely part and parcel of them. As Vena said, Trump has given China a great gift to make China great again by having everyone allied against it. We might want to pick our spots.

I think investment, technological exchange might be too. Security certainly would be. But above all, I think we have to recognize that it's Canadian consumers that pay the price when we enter into Trump's policies against China and that if we're not driving really good Chinese electric vehicles that are well priced, it isn't because of something China is doing or Canada is doing, but because of these geopolitics that are now overwhelming everyone. And I would also add it's of these geopolitics that are now overwhelming everyone.

And I would also add it's not just Canadian consumers that are paying the price. I'm from Western Canada. I'm from a small town. I know a lot of farmers, and the farmers are being hit because the way that Canada rolled out its EV tariffs and steel and aluminum, it wasn't just following the US approach in terms of the tariffs. There was this inflammatory retort that showed a lack of critical thinking on the government side, because they accused China of intentionally trying to undermine Canadian jobs.

This was a no-no and the government should have known better from diplomatic speak to not be going into that realm. That made it very difficult to be able to have discussions on how to resolve this crisis. Fortunately, the Chinese government has sent a signal to Canada, and here's where that reset opportunity opens up. As part of their investigation into restrictive measures against Chinese companies, they outlined several avenues in which we could have discussions with. Most of them are political non-starters, but one of them is to

enter into consultations to find a new consensus. So to restart this relationship, Prime Minister Carnity needs to enter into discussions with China. Hey, we may not find that new consensus, but we need to have the conversation. Should he go there? Let me actually take a step back. And I think my colleagues are right that we do need to start high conversation. Should he go there? Let me actually take a step back.

And I think my colleagues are right that we do need to start high-level discussions with China. But the question has to be on what terms and to what end. And we can't reduce the relationship with China strictly to economic concerns. In fact, that is what China would like us to do. It would like to say, you know what, our economy is a complementary, which is true. We sell a lot of the things that China wants, but there's a lot more to this relationship, including China's positioning on issues that we care about.

Ukraine comes to mind right away in terms of China being a decisive enabler of Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. Taiwan comes to mind, everything that China is doing in South China Sea comes to mind. Right? So the relationship cannot be reduced just to the commercial element of it. It's important, but we're not in the same position that other allies are like Australia, Japan, who depend on China for 30% of their trade, right? So they're in a much harder position.

We trade with China. It's our second trading partner, but only at 7.6%, meaning that there's a massive gap between what we do with the U S and what we do with China and other trading partners in the region through the CPTPP, the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, they are becoming more important to us. So Southeast Asia, Japan, Australia, others. So I think we need to know that we're coming into this from a position of strength. We're not there on China's terms.

And Chinese terms basically means when they say that we need to have the right cognition, it means that we have to accept China's narrative about China's behavior, about China's objectives, and that anything that challenges that behavior is out of bounds. Obviously, that can be the terms. But yes, we do need to engage in dialogue. I think the debate is over on whether or not we should have high-level discussions. We do need to have them, and we need to make sure that we're able to advance our interests and protect our values. Okay, but in which case, Rohinton?

China, India. Which is the tougher nut for us to crack at the moment? They're both tough and in real life we don't have those simple either or choices. I think Canada is going to have to study, think of where it stands in this new world of geopolitics and geopolitics in which China and India both matter. I'd say the opportunities are bigger in China than in India just because China, despite all the rhetoric about using India as a bulwark against China, India's not there in terms of replacing China and global supply chains and so on.

I also don't think that there's a risk with what Mark Carney said in a throwaway line in the leadership, in the debates. He thought China was the number one risk to Canada. I haven't heard anyone take him up on that. And that might explain the lack of warmth in the Chinese ministry statement as well. But if you know that this is both a competitor as well as a potential ally, then we're going into this in the right way. China or India, the tougher assignments?

They're both incredibly difficult, but I think the path to dealing with India is going to be much easier, but it's going to require spending some domestic capital. When it comes to China, I completely agree with Vena. This is a hugely complex issue. There's many different faucets and it's not just reduced to economics, but here's the cold hard reality. The fight we're currently having with China does have its basis in broader geopolitical competition that is inextricably linked to the economic sphere.

So when even that crisis was precipitated with the three M's, that came down to technology and economy and Huawei, the company in there. The fight we're having right now is about EVs and steel and aluminum. But when you zoom out and look from the bigger picture, you see what's actually going on here is we've got one of the world's largest economies and It's has a very very different system of organizing and it's dealing not just with Canada But the liberal market democracies in general who also have a very different system. We absolutely need to find a way to manage our economic ties that is Different than how we're doing it now, because how it's

being done now is leading to tensions, including some of the tensions that Zvena has spoken to, but the status quo is not working. So we need to think outside the box and I don't believe Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are going to be able to find that, so I believe Canada should take up this opportunity and go after it. I think I want to come back to an important point Rohinton mentioned in terms of in this kind of disruptive world that we find ourselves in, where does Canada stand and with whom? And I think we have to continue to remember that we are a liberal democracy. Yes, it's a tough time to be a democracy right now.

We're having many challenges internally and externally, but we cannot find ourselves to be dependent on either the US, which is becoming more disruptive and unreliable, or China, which was their first. China is actually the one who started this. Can I ask you about that, though? I mean, Prime Minister Carney's first trip was to the United Kingdom. He then went to the Oval Office. When was it?

Last week? Last week he went to the Oval Office. If you're India or China and you are seeing the new Prime Minister of Canada make those two trips before Sort of giving us a little sugar. Yeah. Yeah. What are you inferring from that? Well, and first of all, we have to see India and China differently. Yes, we have issues with them, but they are fundamentally different India is a democracy a flawed one, but a democracy in China is a one-party Leninist state a techno-authoritarian state.

They are fundamentally different. I think this equating of India and China is really problematic, and we have to take a step back. Because with India, I think we have a chance of rebuilding that relationship. With China, the relationship will be competitive and at times adversarial for the foreseeable future. And that is because fundamentally what China wants in terms of the kind of world that China wants to live in, that's antithetical to our values and interests. Now that doesn't mean that there are no things that we can do with them. We can continue to sell things, we can continue to try to cooperate on the global agenda around climate. So find opportunities to engage in diplomacy. That's why we have

diplomacy. But the relationships are different. Now, back to your actual question on Prime Minister Carney, I think we do need to turn to Asia because the Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, India, they all matter to us in building this kind of coalition of middle powers who will resist the great power excesses both from the US and from China. This is a real out of left field question here. Our former foreign minister was Melanie Jolie.

Now it's Anita Anand. Does that change help in terms of trying to make a greater rapprochement to a country like India? Minister Anand's background is East Africa. No, she's not. No, I understand that. But she looks different. Let's be honest. She looks different.

Yeah. It shows in many ways. Of course, she's an accomplished academic and scholar and politician. It shows the face of Canada that all of us have been talking about. This Canada that's a vibrant, multicultural, open society and that's what she will take. But she's also representing hard-headed interests. Canadian industrial interests, Canadian banking interests,

Canadian security interests. And so I don't think there's much room for that. In terms of the reputations of the two, it's early to say, but it strikes me that both Mr. Zholi and Anand were not the problem. They were respected on the global stage. There were other issues in place. Absolutely.

Okay. Let me circle back with you, Jeff, to that issue of Mark Carney has, you know, UK first, United States second, talking to the European Union. Does it look, if you're China or India, like they are being backburnered at the moment? You know, I don't think so. We're so early in. Like, heck, the government just came in today. So, you know, while we may have had the election,

but the caretaker convention was still in place. So, of course, Prime Minister Carney's, you know, first visit after winning the election had to be the United States. That's our closest partner. And even though we've been treated pretty poorly lately, the United States is destined, whether we like it or not, to be our number one security and economic partner.

But when it comes to dealing with China and India, and as Venus pointed out, yeah, China is, it's our second largest trading partner, but it's a sliver. So I don't think we're actually at risk of becoming dependent on China anytime soon. And no serious voice is calling for the elimination trading partner, but it's a sliver. So I don't think we're actually at risk of becoming dependent on China anytime soon and no, no, no serious voice is calling for the elimination of us ties and running into China's arms.

So what, what needs to happen is we need to move fairly quickly in trying to settle for these relationships and put it, put some paving stones down. Canada needs to take the first steps. I completely concur with Vena's recommendations on the G7 and also attending the 40th anniversary memorials for the Air India tragic bombing. But when it comes to China we need to also quickly take them up and engage those discussions. Let me give the last word here to Vena on what should the new foreign

ministers top priority be as it relates to India and China now that she's got the job? That's a big question. I think the G7 does provide us with an opportunity. So I think really getting behind that agenda and supporting the prime minister and having a successful event and building up towards it in the next few weeks by making phone calls to all her counterparts. So engaging with India, Minister Jolie had a really good relationship with her Indian counterpart, Jayashankar and even Wang Yi from China.

So I think establishing those personal contacts are going to be important. Beginning to speak about what Canada wants to see happen, particularly not just with Europe and the US. I think there is a danger for us to be seen to focus on the Euro-Atlantic relationships. We do need to now look at the Indo-Pacific and other parts of the world because they also matter. And just the final point on what Jeff was mentioning, we are not going to be over dependent on China writ large, but there is a risk of becoming over dependent and critical issues.

And when you sell 63% of your canola to China or over 90% of your seafood to China, you are vulnerable. And there will be pain when China exercises coercion like they've done now. So I think we need to be smart, we need to be strategic. This is going to be really tough few months for anyone in that job. And now we know it's Anita Anand.

And it begins by establishing relations and speaking very clearly from Canada's interests, from a position of strength, because we have a lot to offer ourselves and the world. And I think that's something that we have to remember. Often we sort of, this is a scary moment, right? Our relationship with the U.S. is crumbling or changing. So it's easy to sort of feel overwhelmed. But I think there's a lot that we can bring to the table when it comes to setting new norms around AI, when it comes to climate agenda, when it comes to even looking at what

new security architecture is going to be like for NATO or for the Indo-Pacific. So I think it's an exciting time as well as a challenging one. I'm sending a bill to the PMO for this excellent advice that you have all offered, particularly to our viewers and listeners here today on TVO. Jeff Mahan from Strategy Corp and the Canada West Foundation, Vena Najibullah, Asia Pacific Foundation, Rohinton Madhora, McGill University and CG.

Great of all of you to be on TVO with us tonight. Thank you. Thank you.