India to seek extradition of alleged terrorists from Canada
India is expected to urge Canada to expedite the extradition of 26 alleged terrorists, who government officials in New Delhi have accused of using the country as their base, according to the Deccan Herald newspaper.
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to attend the G7 summit in Alberta from June 15 to 17, and is expected to address the matter in a bilateral meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Indian media outlets added. Modi is also likely to emphasize the importance of cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the countries.
New Delhi officials are hopeful that Ottawa will expedite the pending extradition requests and arrest alleged gangsters and terrorists who have escaped to Canada from India, a source told the Deccan Herald. A statement from the Canadian Prime Minister's Office revealed that the two leaders have agreed to "maintain ongoing law enforcement discussions and address mutual security concerns."
Certain members of Canada's Sikh community have been demanding the establishment of Khalistan, an independent ethnoreligious nation carved out of the Indian state of Punjab and surrounding areas. This movement has been central to rising tensions between New Delhi and Ottawa, especially following Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's allegations that India was involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a key figure in the movement.
India views Khalistan activists as a national threat and has banned their organizations. It has designated the leaders of the movement, including US-based Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, the founder of Sikhs for Justice, as terrorists. US prosecutors alleged last year that Indian officials were involved in a plot to assassinate Pannun, who is based in New York and holds both US and Canadian citizenship.
Tensions escalated in October 2024 when Canadian officials accused Indian diplomats of targeting Sikh activists in Canada, leading to mutual expulsions of diplomats. Trudeau at the time condemned India's actions as a "fundamental error," while New Delhi denied the allegations, claiming they were part of a broader strategy to undermine India for political gain.
Pro-Khalistan separatists have organized protests, chanted anti-India slogans, and targeted diplomatic missions and Hindu temples, with violent attacks in Canada, the US, UK and other countries which have significant Sikh populations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Barnard College settles suit brought by Jewish students, agreeing not to meet with anti-Israel group
NEW YORK (AP) — Barnard College has settled a lawsuit that accused the college of not doing enough to combat antisemitism on campus, agreeing to a litany of demands that include banning masks at protests and refusing to meet or negotiate with a coalition of pro-Palestinian student groups, according to a statement released Monday. The Manhattan college, an all-women's affiliate of Columbia University, will also establish a new Title VI coordinator to enforce against claims of discrimination. Beginning next semester, all students and staff will receive a message conveying a 'zero tolerance' policy for harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Barnard College settles suit brought by Jewish students, agreeing not to meet with anti-Israel group
NEW YORK (AP) — Barnard College has settled a lawsuit that accused the college of not doing enough to combat antisemitism on campus, agreeing to a litany of demands that include banning masks at protests and refusing to meet or negotiate with a coalition of pro-Palestinian student groups, according to a statement released Monday. The Manhattan college, an all-women's affiliate of Columbia University, will also establish a new Title VI coordinator to enforce against claims of discrimination. Beginning next semester, all students and staff will receive a message conveying a 'zero tolerance' policy for harassment of Jewish and Israeli students. The settlement was announced in a joint statement by Barnard and lawyers for two Jewish advocacy groups, Students Against Antisemitism and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, who brought the lawsuit last February on behalf of some Jewish and Israeli students. In the statement, Barnard's president, Laura Ann Rosenbury, said the agreement 'reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.' The terms of the deal also drew immediate pushback from some students and faculty, who accused the university of capitulating to a legal strategy aimed at stifling legitimate pro-Palestinian activism on campus. 'This settlement appears to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,' said Nara Milanich, a Barnard history professor who is Jewish. 'That is a problem for critical thought and academic freedom.' As part of the agreement, the college will adopt contentious federal guidance to 'consider' the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism and its examples, which include certain critiques of Israel. A newly-appointed Title VI coordinator will oversee compliance with the policy and produce an annual report on antisemitism for university leaders. Additionally, the university's leaders agreed not to recognize, meet or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the coalition behind last spring's student encampments. The group has called on both Columbia and Barnard to sever ties with companies that do business with Israel. As part of the deal, the university will also affirm that its endowment will not be used for expressing political positions, including 'taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.' The agreement follows a federal lawsuit brought last February that accused Barnard and Columbia of allowing Jewish and Israeli students to be 'bombarded' by antisemitism during protests that erupted against Israel's military campaign in Gaza. The litigation against Columbia remains ongoing — though the university has already agreed to revamp its policies around protests, among other concessions made under threat from the Trump administration. New York University and Harvard University have entered into their own legal settlements following lawsuits focused on antisemitism. Sundays Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba. In the lawsuit against Columbia and Barnard, Jewish and Israeli students said they were subject to unchecked harassment during protests by 'mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty.' Those who participated in the protests, including many Jewish students, have strongly disputed that characterization. The lawsuit also claimed that students who served in Israel's military were singled out, with some left 'overwhelmed and unable to concentrate in class' after encountering signs accusing Israel of committing genocide and social media posts from fellow students. Starting next semester, students will be reminded that they can be subject to discipline for off-campus conduct, including social media posts. Barnard will also restrict where, when and how students can protest. And the university will ban face masks at demonstration used to 'intimidate or interfere with the enforcement' of school policies. 'Barnard's commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students,' said Marc Kasowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs. 'I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard's lead.'
Canada Standard
3 hours ago
- Canada Standard
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.
