Beyond Trudeau’s shadow: How Mark Carney charts an India-Canada reset

Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, figured among the world leaders, such as the prime minister of Great Britain, the president of the EU Commission, the president of the EU Council, the president of France, the president of Brazil, and the president of Finland, who visited India in the past five months. Carney’s visit (February 27-March 2) has already been judged as a notable success in starting a reset in the bilateral relationship, thus closing a dark chapter of the recent past.

His discussions in Mumbai and Delhi produced a forward-looking roadmap that envisages the conclusion of negotiations for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement by the end of 2026 and includes a uranium deal valued at CAD 2.6 billion, the launch of a defence dialogue as well as a dialogue between the finance ministers, and the operationalisation of a multi-layered dialogue mechanism to address an array of security cooperation issues.

However, the multilateral aspects of this visit merit closer scrutiny, as they suggest that the India-Canada partnership is guided not only by bilateral considerations but also by a largely shared approach to regional and global issues and challenges. To pinpoint the convergences and divergences in this sphere is to evaluate the potential of this relationship in the long term.

Two middle powers?

Many Western scholars love to portray India as a middle power, with some Indian scholars joining hands. This group discounts India’s size, population, economy, military power, and soft power stemming from its rich civilisational heritage. Prime Minister Carney does not agree with them. He has described India as a country whose global ambitions go beyond those of a middle power, indicating his government’s recognition of New Delhi’s status as the capital of an emerging great power. During a TV interview in Mumbai on March 1, he said, “I won’t call India a middle power – happy for Canada to take that label. India’s trajectory and ambition are totally different.”

Elsewhere, Carney depicted India and Canada as “natural partners”. The joint statement, signed by the two leaders, explains its rationale. It identifies four key factors that shape this relationship: shared democratic values, deep people-to-people connections, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a joint commitment to the rule of law.

It is interesting to note that the global turbulence and tensions triggered by Trump 2.0 have created enormous pressure on both Canada and India to rediscover their mutual importance and embark on a path to revitalise their relations. Thus, Carney chose to rise above the narrow domestic political considerations that had led his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, to damage the relationship. PM Carney noted that his visit “marks the end of a challenging period, and more importantly, the beginning of a new, more ambitious partnership between the two confident and complementary nations”. Perhaps some of the previous constraints persist, but the present leadership appears determined to overcome them.

Through an Indo-Pacific Lens

The vast geographic distance between Canada and India can be bridged through a realistic political re-imagination, with the two nations viewed as part of the larger Indo-Pacific region. This notion gained popularity in the first decade of the 21st century. As the second decade began, even Canada discovered its potential as an Indo-Pacific player. The war in Ukraine diverted global attention from the Indo-Pacific vision, but Canada is now drawn to it again.

Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy was announced in November 2022. It stressed that, as a Pacific country, Canada shares 25,000 kilometres of Pacific coastline, robust trading relationships with economies across the region, deep people-to-people ties, and a rich history of cultural heritage. The strategy outlined five interconnected strategic objectives: (1) promote peace, resilience, and security; (2) expand trade, investment, and supply chain resilience; (3) invest in and connect people; (4) build a sustainable and green future; and (5) position Canada as an active and engaged partner to the Indo-Pacific. The Canadian government’s official paper stressed: “The rising influence of the Indo-Pacific region is a once-in-a-generation global shift that requires a generational Canadian response.”

Carney Visit’s Outcomes

The Indo-Pacific strategy is clearly guiding the Canadian foreign policy. Following his visit to China in January 2026, he undertook a three-nation tour covering India, Australia, and Japan. The clubbing of the three members of the Quad has its own implications. Observers may justifiably wonder if this heralds Canada’s interest in joining the forum.

Among the visit’s specific outcomes on the multilateral side, the following four may be noted.

First, both Canada and India reaffirmed the strategic and economic importance of the region and expressed their commitment to “a free, open, inclusive and resilient Indo-Pacific”. They spelt out the areas where “practical cooperation” will benefit them and the region as a whole.

Second, they noted the growing convergence between India’s vision for the Indian Ocean region and Canada’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Accordingly, New Delhi has decided to support Canada’s bid to join the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) as a dialogue partner.

Third, the two prime ministers welcomed progress under the Australia-Canada-India Technology and Innovation (ACITI) Partnership and agreed to sign a trilateral MOU to facilitate future work in this domain.

Fourth, Canada’s decision to pursue membership in the International Solar Alliance and to join the Global Biofuels Alliance as a full member will deepen multilateral cooperation on clean energy and further strengthen the strategic energy partnership between India and Canada.

Differences on West Asia

Complementarities should not close our eyes to the differences.

Canada and India are not on the same page on the US-Israel war against Iran. Canada approaches this issue as ‘a reluctant alliance partner’, which is located far away from the scene of hostilities. On the other hand, India is already facing the heat of the conflict in multiple ways.

Hence, it is not surprising that New Delhi, walking the diplomatic tightrope, has been calling for a quick cessation of hostilities and resolution of disputes through dialogue and diplomacy. Notably, Canada places the blame on Iran, with PM Carney stating that Canada cannot rule out military participation in the escalating conflict. While in Australia, he observed, “We will stand by our allies when it makes sense.” But he disassociated his government from actions by the US and Israel, where Ottawa was not consulted.

Conclusion

From bilateral and multilateral angles, the Canadian PM’s visit to India achieved most of the policy planners’ goals on both sides. Yet they are acutely conscious of the dark shadows of the recent past that bedevilled the relationship. The pressing need, therefore, is to maintain vigilance and avoid complacency.

(Rajiv Bhatia is a Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House, Mumbai, and a former High Commissioner to Kenya and South Africa, and Ambassador to Myanmar and Mexico. He also served as the Consul General in Toronto. He is the author of three books on Indian foreign policy, and is a regular columnist on geopolitical affairs. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)