Senator Yuen Pau Woo

Commemorating the 55th Anniversary of China-Canada Diplomatic Relations and the 20th Anniversary of China-Canada Strategic Partnership

Thank you to Ambassador Wang Di and the Chinese Embassy for hosting today’s event. A symposium like this, with the level and caliber of turnout that is present, would not have been possible the last six years. Even so, there is a certain “Lonely Hearts Club” feeling to this meeting. While I am pleased to see more lonely hearts join our club in recent months, I think it is important to reflect on why there was a need for the club in the first place.

What caused the rupture 6 years ago and what subsequent developments allowed it to persist? Could we end up there again?

Even today, with early signs of a “reset” under way, the same tropes that sustained the chill of the last six years are being cited as reasons for Canada to be extremely cautious about resetting.

Everyone is using the phrase "eyes wide open" for how we should pursue a reset, but what does that mean anyway? Is there any bilateral relationship which we should not go into with eyes wide open?

For many, the phrase Is used to put a brake on any acceleration in Canada-China relations, drawing on the key themes that led to the rupture in 2019.

This meeting is an opportunity to begin a reappraisal of those themes. They include 

1. The 3Ms narrative, which has been framed on the one hand as “arbitrary detention” on the part of the Chinese actions against the two Michaels but seen as following the rule of law in terms of Madam Meng's arrest on behalf of the Americans. Is that the correct framing of what happened?
   
   
2. The foreign interference frenzy of the last 6 years, especially around the 2019 and 2021 elections, which produced a lot of smoke but very little light. Foreign Interference continues to be used by many as a touchstone for our relationship with China, and the reason for “eyes wide open”.
   
   
3. Our understanding of economic coercion by major powers and whether we should interpret some actions as bullying (the preferred explanation of certain “eyes wide open” advocates), or retaliation (which leads to very different policy options). These are live questions that are shaping important policy choices in the US (Entity list vs Chinese restrictions on critical minerals) and Canada (Chinese Canola/Seafood/Pork vs Canadian EV tariffs) 

As we begin a reset, we will undoubtedly identify many problems in the Canada-China relationship. We will have to work through those problems.  The more important task, however, is to identify the problematique, which I posed in my 2019 International Journal article as "What is the PRC to Canada?" We have yet to answer this question.

Some senior government leaders have described China as an “existential threat” to Canada. Is it possible to have any meaningful reset if that is how we see China? The UK is having a debate about whether China is an enemy. It seems to me that many senior officials, politicians and think tankers in Canada who grudgingly accept the need for a "reset" want to restore Canadian exports to China while reserving the right to call Beijing an enemy.

Are we applying a standard for judging China and engaging with Beijing that is different from how we judge other important economic relationships. Our Indo Pacific Strategy described China a "disruptive power". Would we use the same language in a public document to describe another superpower that is in fact causing the most disruption to Canada today? Are we raising concerns about violations of international law and abuses of human rights in the United States and other “allies” that we regularly raise with China?

Is aligning with US objectives on China (e.g. on EVs) not only contrary to our interests but will it end up making us look like suckers? While we are here in the Chinese Embassy meeting ever so cautiously to test the waters on improving Canada-China relations, there are elite and public discussions in the U.S. on how to manage a potential new influx of Chinese investment that may be brokered by Presidents Trump and Xi. A similar discussion in Canada would be branded as foreign interference and denounced by many of my colleagues on the Hill. Most parliamentarians are still stuck in a mindset about China from the early 2020s and those who know better are too afraid to say otherwise.

There will have to be many more meetings of this sort, across business, academia, and civil society, to break this taboo. It will be some time yet before we can dissolve the “Lonely Hearts Club”.

Thank you.