Senator Yuen Pau Woo

Peter Mazereeuw speaks with Senator Yuen Pau Woo, a former head of the Asia Pacific Foundation, about Prime Minister Mark Carney's move to rebuild ties with China.

TRANSCRIPT

(edited slightly for clarity)

Peter Mazereeuw: Hello and welcome to the Hill Times Hot Room. I'm your host, Peter Mazereeuw, and for our first podcast of 2026, I'm diving into Prime Minister Mark Carney's move to bring Canada closer to China.

Carney led a delegation of Canadian officials to China this past week and met with President Xi Jinping and some of the country's other senior-most officials. They signed agreements to cooperate more in different areas and to lower tariffs on electric vehicles, canola, and seafood.

My guest this week is Senator Yuen Pau Woo. Before he joined the Senate, Woo led the Asia-Pacific Foundation, and he has been a vocal supporter of greater alignment between Canada and China, including in an op-ed published recently in the Hill Times.

Getting closer with China doesn't come without its risks, though. Canada's intelligence agencies and those of its allies have warned repeatedly that China's government is behind organized campaigns to spy, steal intellectual property, intimidate critics, launch cyber attacks, and try to interfere in democratic processes in Western countries, including Canada.

I'm going to talk to Senator Woo about all of that, and why he thinks Canada and Canadians could benefit from getting closer with China.

Senator, it's been almost five years since you came on the podcast. Welcome back.

Senator Woo: Good to be back.

Peter Mazereeuw: So, I invited you on the podcast to talk about Prime Minister Carney's trip to China and the risks and rewards for Canada of getting closer to China. 

You penned an opinion piece for the Hill Times recently that focused very much on the latter, so let's start with the Carney trip, which just wrapped up.

It was the first by a Canadian Prime Minister since 2017, and since relations between the two countries took a nosedive for a handful of reasons, chief among them Canada's decision to arrest Chinese businesswoman Meng Wanzhou at the request of the United States, and China's retaliatory imprisonment of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. 

Carney wrapped up his visit, having made deals to cooperate more closely with China on agriculture, energy, security, and a number of other fronts. And China agreed to steeply reduce its tariffs on Canada's seafood and canola in exchange for Canada agreeing to allow 49,000 Chinese-made electric vehicles into our market with a minimal tariff. And there seems to be a plan of some kind for China to invest in electric vehicle manufacturing here.

So, would you consider this a successful outcome for the Prime Minister?

Senator Woo: Yes, I think so.

Some of the major irritants in the relationship have been settled in a preliminary way with a path forward for further advancement of cooperation, for example, in the energy sector, both fossil fuels and clean energy, as well as further advancement in cooperation on EVs. There's a strong hint of Chinese investment in Canada sometime in the future that would be further progress on that file. 

But perhaps the most important indicator of success is the optics around the visit. The tone was very positive, the words were friendly, the vibe was very positive. I think both sides are probably feeling quite good about it.

Peter Mazereeuw: So, why should Canada try to build closer ties to China? How does this benefit Canadians?

Senator Woo: Well, the previous 10 years was the anomaly. That was when we were excluding China from our range of foreign policy and international initiatives. At the very time when not only were we under pressure from the United States, but also at a time when China was demonstrating its capacity technologically, economically, and on international issues. So, for us to recalibrate — to use the phrase of the Prime Minister — to a more normal relationship, is the obvious thing to do.

The question really is whether we can do more than just go back to the status quo ante. In the 10 years that we've had this chilly relationship, China's importance in the world economy has only increased, and the threats to Canada's economic future, not to mention sovereignty, have also increased.

Peter Mazereeuw: You're referring to the United States?

Senator Woo: Yes.

Peter Mazereeuw: So the idea is, this is, I mean, I imagine this is why Carney's going, right? We can't rely on the United States to be predictable anymore. We need alternatives.

Senator Woo: Well, yes. I mean, that is the proximate reason. But even in the absence of American coercion, Canada was under-indexing its relationship with China because of our bilateral problems — some of the ones that you mentioned. 

And we would do well to look at China not just as a large export market, which is still kind of the prevailing thinking around why we engage with China, but China as a world leader on so many technology fronts.

China is part of the solution to many of the problems that we have here, whether it's the energy transition, affordable housing, productivity, advanced manufacturing, and so on.

We have effectively said that China should not be part of any of the solutions to Canadian economic challenges over the last 10 years. And that's just crazy because China has tools, it has possibilities that we can tap into to help us address the issues that we need to address for our own benefit.

Peter Mazereeuw: Now, why is China interested in getting closer to Canada?

Senator Woo: China wants good trade relations with all countries. China wants access to some of the raw materials and other goods and services that we have to offer. China wants access to markets for its companies, investment that benefits those companies, but also investment that benefits the host countries, in this case, Canada. China also wants to demonstrate that it's a reliable trading and diplomatic partner. 

There is, of course, a geopolitical contest between China and the United States.
 
You know, China doesn't have to do anything extraordinary to highlight the contrast between American adventurism and belligerence and China as a boring but trustworthy trading partner.

I'm sure those thoughts are crossing the minds of Chinese leaders, and they are happy for other countries to validate that reality of China's place in the world.

Peter Mazereeuw: Okay, so on the boring and trustworthy, we've seen recently Canada's Foreign Interference Commission, our national intelligence and cyber intelligence agencies report that China's government is attacking and interfering in Canada in a number of ways: intimidating members of the Chinese diaspora living in Canada if they criticize China, launching cyber attacks against Canadian institutions, attempting to steal intellectual property, attempting to shape the outcomes of democratic processes, and so on. 

CSIS has called China the greatest counterintelligence threat to Canada. 

So my question is, why should we try to get closer to a country that is attacking us in this way?

Senator Woo: Yeah, those characterizations are some of the most important reasons why we've had a chill in bilateral relations the last 10 years. 

You know, what I would say is, tell me what you mean by these foreign interference threats. Give me examples of what you consider to be these infringements on Canadian national security. 

What I can say to you, based on my very close following of the Foreign Interference Inquiry, is that the most prominent and often repeated examples of Chinese foreign interference, for example, in the electoral process, all of them have been debunked or rejected outright. And the ones that may remain are highly dubious. And if you're interested, I'm happy to go through them. 

But you know, it's one thing to offer a general statement of the China intelligence threat as grave and persistent and pervasive. These are all words that our intelligence agencies might use. But it's helpful for us to focus on what exactly they mean by it, because intelligence agencies have their own biases. They have their own influences on them, shall we say, from foreign partners. And we have to strike a pose that is in Canada's interest and which looks at real security risks rather than manufactured ones.

Peter Mazereeuw: Okay, but it's not just Canada's security agencies that have said this. I mean I did a quick search you can find similar reports and statements being made by government institutions from Australia, the UK, the United States, New Zealand, France, they're all saying and they're pointing to specific entities within the Chinese government that are set up for this purpose. And they're all saying that these are—

Senator Woo: Tell me what they are, Peter. Tell me what specific cases of Chinese foreign interference in our democracy, for example, or in the electoral process, that concern you.

Peter Mazereeuw: Okay, well, I'm reading a CBC story right now from May about a critic of China in Canada who was doxed and attacked online, phone calls, all these kinds of things.

Senator Woo: Yeah, that's called transnational repression. That's different from interference in our democracy. That's unacceptable. It would be unacceptable regardless of the source of doxing. And we know that there's a lot of it on social media and other platforms. 

I have good news for you. We passed a new law in 2024 to give our law enforcement agencies greater powers to deal with this kind of transnational repression. But it's not easy to deal with all the same, because much of the intimidation, alleged intimidation that takes place, occurs outside of Canada. We obviously don't have the ability to, you know, prosecute and to investigate outside of Canadian jurisdiction.

But there is no excuse for transnational repression. We already have laws to deal with threats and extortions and bullying and, of course, different kinds of physical harm. We should implement and enforce those laws to the full extent of the law's ability.

But I want to get back to the question of interference in democracy, and the broader idea that there is a pervasive network of Chinese spies in this country.

The Han Dong case, for example, has been discredited both by the Commissioner herself and also through his lawsuit.
 
The Chinese police station story has collapsed. The RCMP made a wild allegation, never laid charges, investigated for nearly three years, and then quietly said the investigation's over with no charges laid. And yet, so much of the media is still talking about Chinese police stations in Canada. Well, show me where they are, and show me what it is that they've done that is contrary to Canadian law. 

So let me be clear. We have to be vigilant against foreign interference. We have to counter cyber espionage. We have to counter transnational repression. But the threat of Chinese foreign interference is exaggerated, and it is used as a reason and as an excuse by many to not pursue at least normal relations with China. And that, I think, is going to be one of the big challenges for Mr. Carney when he returns and he tries to implement some of the ambitions that he has in this new so-called strategic partnership with China.

Peter Mazereeuw: So I think what I get stuck on is, all of the intelligence reports, institutional reports from governments about, for example, the United Front Work Department, about entities, programs set up by China's government to influence other countries.

I don’t think, maybe I’m being naïve, I don’t think Canada does that in the same way in China. I don't think we have a government department set up to sway domestic outcomes in China, and the people of China, towards our objectives. 

So when you have these institutions that exist in China, how can you then say, well, I'll set those aside because I want more trade.

Senator Woo: Well, what is the influence that they're trying to pedal in this country? And who are these individuals who are peddling that influence? 

You know, the intelligence agencies would have us believe that Chinese clan associations, Chinese benevolent associations, Chinese cultural institutions, Chinese people in Canada, especially those who are from the mainland, are all part of this shadowy United Front Work Department. 

There is such a thing as the United Front Work Department, and by the way, it predates the Communist Party. And you may know, the UFWD was originally an alliance between the communists and the nationalists against foreign forces. 

But for us to classify such a wide swath of China-connected organizations or individuals as spies, as foreign agents, simply because they hold a view that may be aligned with China, is wrong. It's a violation of charter rights and freedoms, a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of association. And the intelligence agencies, frankly, are being irresponsible in propagating this view.

Look, I'll give you a direct example. During the foreign interference inquiry, Michael Chong, no less, talked about how there was an Asian person on a webinar during his campaign, speaking with a Mandarin accent, asking him questions that were uncomfortable, and Mr. Chong insinuated that this person must be a member of the United Front Work Department, or some sort of a foreign agent. You think that's fair? And he can do that because our intelligence agencies have given him the license to do so.

Peter Mazereeuw: To me, I see this as almost two overlapping circles.

On the one hand, you have all of these cross-cultural institutions, which the Chinese Communist Party is inevitably going to be involved with because it's involved with almost everything in some respect.

Senator Woo: That's right.

Peter Mazereeuw: On the other hand, again, these reports that there are deliberate programs set up by the Chinese government to launch cyber attacks, steal intellectual property, intimidate critics, and so on and so forth. 

So, are you suggesting that these deliberate programs don't apply here? Or that they are beside the point?

Senator Woo: Well, first of all, stealing intellectual property is wrong. Intimidating individuals is wrong. Cyber hacking and all of that is wrong. Whatever source it comes from, wherever it comes from. So there should be no question about that. And our intelligence agencies, the communication security establishment, of course, law enforcement, they have to be vigilant. And they have to implement the law to the full extent of the law. 

If you're going to focus on the Chinese state use of these acts, then let's talk about specific examples. And to my mind, many of the examples that have been cited in the Foreign Interference Inquiry, don't meet the test of malign foreign interference. So when you say, for example, that Chinese cultural organizations have been, I don't know what term you use, but have been instructed or have been encouraged to influence Canada, what is it they're trying to influence?

Now, I've heard a lot of Chinese organizations say the Canadian government should reduce the tariff on Chinese EVs. Is that a problem? We've done it now. 

But I tell you, there are lots of Canadian politicians and commentators and media and so on, who would, before what Carney did yesterday, who would say that Chinese organizations and individuals who are advocating for Canadian tariffs on EVs to be lowered must be part of the United Front Work Department. Why is that a problem? Why is what they're advocating a problem? I don't get it. 

I go to a lot of these events, you know — cultural association, business association events, and it's almost standard fare to hear from folks in those organizations that they really wish Canada-China relations would improve. They're so disheartened at the state of the bad relationship. This is the case the last seven, eight years. And they always would advocate for Canada to take a more positive stance towards China and to find better trade opportunities and so on. 

You know what? This is the Chinese line. This is Beijing's line. Is there a problem with agreeing with that line? Does it mean they are part of the United Front Work Department? Does it mean they're spies? Of course not.

Let me say one last thing. If there is a problem, point to the problem.

Don't point to the association. Don't point to the fact that they're connected to China because they're Chinese or because they have ties with a cultural association in China. If they've broken the law, tell me which law they've broken.

Peter Mazereeuw: I mean, I guess I would go back again to the harassment of human rights activists in Canada.

Senator Woo: No disagreement there. And we have laws to stop that, or at least to counter that.

Peter Mazereeuw: Tell me, I mean, these people that you speak with in these cultural organizations, why is it that they want closer ties between the two countries?

Senator Woo: I'm not sure how to answer the question. I mean, it's good for Canada, number one . . . .

Peter Mazereeuw: I guess I'm trying to get a sense of, what are the benefits? What are these people looking at and saying things would be better in these ways?

Senator Woo: This line of questioning is so bizarre, you know, because if I was from Germany, and I was saying something to you about how I wish we could see stronger ties between Canada and Germany, I don't think you would blink or you would challenge me on why people want to see better ties between Canada and Germany?

You know, trade, warmer relations, tourism, people-to-people exchanges, university partnerships. . . .

Do I really need to defend the benefits of these kinds of relations when it comes to China, but not when it comes to, let's call it what it is, white Western country?

Peter Mazereeuw: Well, what I'm trying to get is to, you know, when we hear the Prime Minister talk about this, who obviously shares your point of view to a certain extent, because he's gone to China, he's dropped the tariffs and so on and so forth. It's always about, well, we want more investment, we want markets for our goods. Okay, great. So, if you're the owner of a business that does these things, then okay, good for you. You get more investment, you make more money. But I'm trying to bring this down to the level of like the average Canadian person doesn't export oil as their day-to-day job, doesn't import electric vehicles.

What does this greater collaboration, how does it stand to benefit the country?

Senator Woo: Well, cheaper EVs would mean lower cost vehicles for Canadians, the ability to purchase emission-free or low emission vehicles. I note in the agreement that there is a plan or commitment to bring in vehicles that are less than a certain price level — that benefits Canadians.

Visa-free travel to China gives Canadians an option for overseas trips when they are avoiding the United States and a chance to see a new country.

Needless to say, the removal of the canola tariffs and seafood and pork will benefit hundreds of thousands of Canadians and their families and the supply chains and so on.

Again, it's kind of a funny question as to why I have to explain to you that there are benefits that go well beyond the business community.

I think what this is telling me is that a lot of Canadians see China as an option that we have, obviously a big option, that we can take up if we don't have other options or if we want a side hustle, if I can put it that way. 

What I don't think most Canadians understand is that China is at the leading edge of most of the cutting-edge technologies in the world today.

Nature just put out a ranking of the greatest number of publications in applied sciences ranked by university. The top 30, all 30, were Chinese universities.

So, I think Canadians have this impression somehow that China is still stealing our technology, stealing IP. I have no doubt some of that could have happened. It happens from all jurisdictions. But we have this impression that we don't really need China except when we want them to buy our stuff, particularly our raw materials. But that they can't really be helpful to us in any other way.

And if we do have relationships with them, trade and investment relationships, we are more likely to lose out than they are, because they are coming from an inferior position where they need to steal from us and they need to inveigle their way into our system so that they can get an advantage. 

That's very old-fashioned thinking. And the more we are trapped in that way of thinking, the more difficult it will be for us to overcome the problems that we face today.

Peter Mazereeuw: So, let's close by talking about next steps.

You know, we went through some of the things the Prime Minister and President Xi Jinping agreed to on this trip.

There was not a total reset of relations. We didn't drop all the mutual tariffs and so on and so forth.

What will you be looking for next between these two countries?

Senator Woo: Well, first of all, we use the term reset or I think recalibration.

The Chinese actually have a better term. I think it's actually more accurate, a more accurate description even of how we characterize it. They call it 新起点, which means a new starting point. So it's not like going back to a previous position. And I think what that says is that from a Chinese perspective and to some extent a Canadian perspective as well — because Minister Anand talks about how this is a new government, a new prime minister — I think both sides are willing to set aside the past and look afresh at all the opportunities that present to both countries and to evaluate if there are opportunities to do things together.

And that's how I would assess the steps forward.

Of course, we have to implement the commitments on oil and gas and clean energy and battery technology.

Of course, we have to implement the tariff reductions.

Those things are relatively easy and are the low-hanging fruit. But the challenge is this: are we willing in Canada to have this new starting point where we look at all of the issues that affect Canada, all of the problems that we face, and ask ourselves: “Can China be part of that solution?”

Right now, the instinct is that China cannot be part of any solution except insofar as we need to sell them stuff.

There are many pundits, bureaucrats and politicians who basically want to restrict the scope of this reset as narrowly as possible — to sell stuff to China, but to still call China an enemy — rather than to think about China as an opportunity for us to expand our options, to find solutions to the many challenges that we face — from productivity growth, to infrastructure building, to critical minerals, to housing affordability, and even to the question of salvaging what's left of the multilateral system.

And I note, by the way, that the Prime Minister referred to working with China on multilateral issues.

Peter Mazereeuw: All right. Well, we'll leave it there. Senator Woo, thanks for coming on the podcast.

Senator Woo: Thanks, Peter.

Peter Mazereeuw: Okay, that's it for our show this week. Thanks to Senator Woo for coming on the podcast.

Listeners, remember to like, subscribe, and share this podcast if you can.

Until next time, I'm Peter Mazereeuw, and you've been listening to the Hot Room.


Originally published by The Hill Times