On the bright side, Justin Trudeau got one promise right: Canada is back on the world stage.
Sadly, it鈥檚 for all the wrong reasons after the prime minister accused the government of the world鈥檚 fifth largest economy of dispatching assassins to kill a Sikh separatist leader in broad daylight outside a Surrey, B.C. temple.
The world took notice, but didn鈥檛 exactly rush to Canada鈥檚 side despite having advance warning the bombshell would soon be dropped into the public domain.
The Americans allowed they are 鈥渄eeply concerned鈥� and urged India to co-operate while the stoic Brits vowed to remain in 鈥渃lose touch鈥� about the 鈥渟erious allegations.鈥� Australia opted to say nothing at all.
In other words, nobody鈥檚 jumping aboard Canada鈥檚 boat-rocking lest it put their interests in conflict with India鈥檚 growing importance democratically, militarily and economically.
The strongest reaction came from India, not surprisingly, which dismissed the allegation as 鈥渁bsurd鈥� and ejected a Canadian diplomat to avenge a similar ouster by Canada.
Trudeau, in classic why-did-he-say-that fashion, insisted Tuesday that his accusations were not intended to 鈥減rovoke or escalate鈥� tensions with India.
Pray tell what could possibly be more provocative than accusing a government of premeditated murder on foreign soil while it鈥檚 hosting their biggest political bash of the decade?
With about $5 billion in trade flowing almost equally in each direction between Canada and India now disconnected from a trade pact within months of its scheduled signing, going public with such an incendiary allegation is a massive gamble.
But let us pause to give Trudeau credit where due.
His government followed a carefully ramped-up process before, during and after he raised the allegation with India鈥檚 prime minister. That can鈥檛 have been an easy conversation.
And through it all, Trudeau had to appear friendly enough to pass as a grateful guest of the G20 host while ensuring the optics wouldn鈥檛 look too cozy in hindsight after the allegations went public.
Trudeau faced plenty of criticism of dropping the ball (again) on India relations after failing to secure a bilateral meeting with the prime minister and shaking loose from Narendra Modi鈥檚 prolonged grip. But it all makes sense now, particularly when his brief chat with Modi was summarized as being about 鈥渞ule of law, democratic principles and national sovereignty.鈥� For once, the official PMO summation accurately reflected the conversation.
Still, with the unknowns far outnumbering the known facts in connecting a Canadian鈥檚 violent death to a government directive issued 11,000 kilometres away, nagging doubts linger.
After all, the prime minister鈥檚 allegation is based on "credible intelligence鈥� about "a potential link" between the Modi government and the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
What if the intelligence turns out to be less than credible and the link potentially shaky?
The public was cautioned repeatedly during the Chinese interference controversy that our security intelligence-gathering isn鈥檛 perfect. Even when it gathers solid intelligence, it has botched communications with the prime minister and appropriate ministers.
To connect a B.C. parking lot murder to a Modi government desk will be a particularly difficult ongoing investigation and, judging by the response, will likely face an unco-operative wall of silent fury from India.
But this cannot stand as an unprovable allegation. The stakes are just too high. Canada needs to produce evidence that鈥檚 compelling enough to make rock-solid charges stick or our relations with the world鈥檚 fastest-growing economic superpower will enter a new ice age.
Until the evidence comes out, charges are laid and justice is done, Canada is indeed back on the world stage 鈥� but mostly alone and facing a very angry tiger.
That鈥檚 the bottom line鈥�
