Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, board director at the China Strategic Risk Institute and former senior Canadian government official, discusses Prime Minister Carney's upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the APEC Summit. She examines the risks of Canada pursuing closer trade ties with China, while warning that such moves could undermine Canada and invite Chinese leverage over Canadian policy on Taiwan, Uyghur human rights, and critical infrastructure.

She also addresses the striking shift in Canadian public opinion, with more Canadians now viewing the U.S. as an enemy than China, and critiques the lack of progress on addressing Chinese foreign interference in Canada.

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Let's not get too complicated here. Right now, China is the lesser of two evils and nobody has clean hands. We do what we must.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

In this case, the "lesser of 2 evils" still has a lot of blood on its hands.

Plus, there are a lot more than 2 options available to us. There is no need to go all-in with either China or the US.

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org -1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Like choosing between the plague and cholera?

No, the choice is not between just two countries. Canada must diversify its trade, particularly with democratic partners around the globe.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

The issue is that markets aren't spread evenly between consumer and producer countries.

Canola is a massive export from Canada to China, but that is because 1) only Canada can produce canola in the quantities consumed by China and 2) no other country currently demands that volume of canola.

So that is a relatively stable market, but Canada can't just shift on a dime and "go shopping" for a new canola buyer, it would take years to develop that kind of market diversity.

[–] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 3 points 4 months ago

Yes, it can't be done quickly, but there is no alternative to diversifying trade. Canada must sell its canola into other markets than China, and China's offer of lift canola tariffs if Canada lifts EV tariffs is a bad deal for Canada imo.

(That aside, China's tariffs on Canadian canola is not just hitting Canada. Very much as Trump is hurting U.S. citizens with his tariffs, Xi Jinping is hurting Chinese people with his tariffs on canola.. China's trade policy is bad for the Chinese economy, too.)

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Who says canada has to keep producing canola? Many other crops can be grown instead. Farmers could shift away from canola to a different crop that has more market demand or start planting more crops for domestic use.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

This is not a computer game. You can’t just stop producing a crop and go do something else. You can shift slowly over time, but not fast enough to prevent economic damage.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I never said we could just swap crops overnight, and there may be breif periods of economic damage but that may need to happen to shift to a more stable product/trading partner. As it is the global trade mix up is already causing economic damage, Canada can stick to its same recipe, or it can diversify in products and trading partners.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Contracts do? Crop production is by contract, there some commitment for the next few years for co-operatives and pools to carry out production forecasts.

Not to mention, farms can't just pivot from one crop type to the next year over year.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Farms absolutely can pivot from one crop to another and most should. Growing different crops in the field each year promotes long term soil health more than monoculture farming does.

[–] non_burglar@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Farms absolutely can pivot from one crop to another and most should.

Not really. The flip between something like corn and nitrogen-fixing legumes can't be done in one season. Equipment is crop-specific and the guy with a V double-rake who does the custom cutting and swathing of alfalfa isn't going to just drop $750k for a soybean machine.

There is a long production chain even for crops now, this isn't the 1800s or subsistence farming.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

That comparison is a bit of a stretch. If you have to reach like that then maybe your premise is incorrect. I agree with your second sentence though.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just like we sold it to the USA.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

MK Ultra being US experiments on us.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yea of course they’ll use this power shift to their advantage. Just like we’re being taken advantage of by our old partner. No one should expect different from the two largest economies and military powers.

But it is what must be done now. It’s better to even the reliance on them rather than concentrate on one. This is exactly what Brazil has done better than everyone else in the last decade and the result shows. Trump tried to escalate, but tariffs just aren’t hitting as hard and the country easily shifted their relationship. Canada integrated its economy to the US and now will need life threatening surgery to change course.