Since it's a bit of a topic in the news, as with Trudeau and Modi and the issue of India not being happy with Canada's perceived long-standing softness towards the Sikh separatists among the Indo-Canadian community.
There is a perception that diaspora politics are a thorn in the side of Canada's international relations.
You have articles with opinions like this:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...ticle38103174/
"
Even harder to banish will be our obsession with diaspora politics. No one is denying that we derive wonderful advantages from our multicultural society. But other multicultural countries, such as the United States, Australia and Britain, are far less inclined to view their international interests so completely through the prism of diaspora communities. We need to understand that Canada's interests in India are not entirely the same as those of influential portions of the Indo-Canadian community or of the Sikh-Canadian subset of that community. Worse, our continuing insistence on the political importance of diaspora groups makes it more likely that their countries of origin – and this is particularly true of China and India – will be inclined to interfere in Canadian affairs."
I think to claim that Canada's diasporic groups have disproportionate influence among Canadians more broadly is overly strong of a claim.
Sure, there are examples where Canadian diasporas residing domestically have some influence in complicating if not steering Canada's foreign policy.
For example, the large proportion of Ukrainian Canadians and Canada's foreign policy on the Ukraine-Russia conflict a while back (a few years back when Harper was in office), the Tamil protests that blocked traffic in Toronto at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war a while back too, or the influence of Chinese dissidents who emigrated to Canada on China-Canada relations.
But are they really that influential and/or problematic (depending on your perspective) for Canada?
I think these views as expressed in the article (and many others) are a bit exaggerated in saying that Canada is exceptional among multicultural nations in being swayed by diaspora politics, as if diasporas didn't have a long history of influence elsewhere, in protesting or lobbying for their own interests abroad and domestically.
After all, there are plenty of examples elsewhere, such as in the US. Bostonian Irish Americans being supporters of the IRA was also an issue for America's relations with the UK (eg. during the Reagan-Thatcher years in the 80s). Cuban Americans who were anti-communist exiles strongly disliked the US establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba. People talk about domestic diaspora politics influencing the US too, from Israel to Taiwan. Some scholars even argue that African Americans, after the civil rights movement, domestically played a really big role in US switchover from uneasy support, if not lack of condemnation, to boycotting and putting pressure on apartheid South Africa.