COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Getting our heads around EVs, trade and China

Journalist Brian Lilley posted last week that Canadians are saying we need to pivot from the U.S. because they have become “authoritarian, bad trading partners and a threat to our sovereignty”. The obvious follow-up question is this: if not the U.S., then who, China?

Recent history with China suggests that question deserves careful scrutiny.

Canada’s experience with China raises serious and unresolved concerns. We have opposed human rights abuses in re-education camps and advocated for the rights of the Uyghur and Falun Gong communities. We remember Nortel— Canadian corporate success story undermined by industrial espionage. We still lack clarity about the Winnipeg lab and the Chinese researchers who were escorted out of the country under the guise of national security. Canadians have not forgotten about the Chinese police stations that were positioned across Canada, nor the extensive and alarming revelations about foreign interference in our democratic institutions.

During the last election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney was asked what he believed was the biggest threat to Canada. His answer was unequivocal: China. In fact, this assessment was echoed repeatedly by expert witnesses and national security officials before House of Commons committees, where China was described as antagonistic and dangerous.

Likewise, the Liberal government’s own 2022 Indo-Pacific strategy concurs, labeling China as an “increasingly disruptive global power” and warning “China is looking to shape the international order into a more permissive environment for interests and values that increasingly depart from ours.”

Canadians also remember the detention of the two Michaels, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. They were held by China for nearly three years, which was widely viewed as a political retaliation following the Canadian arrest of Huawei’s CFO. Last weekend, Kovrig described the PM’s recent visit to China as “worrisome” and even noting its “Orwellian overtones”.

Perhaps the most telling detail of that visit was logistical rather than rhetorical. As soon as the Prime Minister’s plane entered Chinese airspace, delegation members including staff, were required to power down and secure all electronic devices. Burner phones were issued for the duration of the trip. Notably similar precautions were not required during recent visits to Qatar or Switzerland. Conservative MP, Pierre Paul-Hus made a pointed concern on French CBC. He stated that we are paying billions of dollars on defence to protect ourselves from China while allowing the sale of 49,000 vehicles with the potential of espionage capabilities. Automakers are questioning what this means for Canadian jobs, while the domestic auto sector is asking whether it has a future at all. Kovrig has also warned that any trade gains with China must be weighed against the escalating costs of defence, intelligence, and national security.

The PM’s relationship with China did not begin with his current role. As Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre highlighted, Brookfield Asset Management, under Mr. Carney’s leadership secured a 15-year loan worth $276 million (U.S.) from the Bank of China, a state-owned financial institution, just before he became prime minister. Against that backdrop, Mr. Carney’s comments about being “heartened by the leadership of Beijing” and his enthusiasm for our quickly evolving relationship with China, should not be surprising to Canadians.

Nor should his slow and deliberate remarks about positioning Canada for “the new world order.” When pressed by a Bloomberg News reporter on what he meant, he gave a word salad framed in questions with no clarity. But the words “new world order” deserve our attention. History shows that once language is introduced by those in power, repetition often turns it into accepted belief. As former Liberal minister Catherine McKenna once candidly observed, repetition makes people believe.

Had Prime Minister Carney met even one of his self-imposed deadlines for securing a new trade agreement with the United States, China might not occupy today’s spotlight. Instead, Canada’s closest ally remains sidelined while Beijing takes centre stage.

To be clear, this is not an argument for cutting off all trade with China. China is Canada’s second largest trading partner. But as history demonstrates, experience and precedent demand vigilance. Trade decisions are not merely economic, they are strategic. And getting them wrong can be far higher than the benefits promise