The China-Canada relationship is warming again. But at what human cost?

Open this photo in gallery:

Preston Lim is an assistant professor at the Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and was previously a policy adviser to former MP Erin O’Toole.

Sino-Canadian relations have entered a period of deep thaw. Prime Minister Mark Carney recently met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea, and the two leaders agreed that the meeting “marked a turning point in the bilateral relationship” and directed “officials to move quickly to resolve outstanding trade issues and irritants.” Mr. Carney also accepted Mr. Xi’s invitation to visit China, and the purpose of an official visit is clear: Given the downturn in the U.S.-Canada relationship, economic normalization with China is a vital piece of the Prime Minister’s broader strategy to diversify Canadian trade relations.

In pursuing a reset, however, Mr. Carney would do well to remember that it is impossible to divorce trade from human-rights issues. An insistence on pursuing access to the Chinese market without an appreciation of the sharp edge of Chinese power will result in the long-term failure of Ottawa’s efforts – and will mean trading short-term gain for long-term pain.

Doug Saunders: Carney wants a China ‘reset.’ May he avoid the mistakes of the previous four

The electric-vehicles issue is a prime example of the deep relationship between trade and human rights. In co-ordination with the Biden administration, Ottawa imposed a 100-per-cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024; China retaliated with tariffs on Canadian canola, pork and seafood. A range of politicians and observers have recently called for Ottawa to lift its restrictions, in the expectation that China would reciprocate by lifting its retaliatory measures. Advocates for tariff removal have predominantly advanced economic arguments, rightly contending that such a move will benefit hard-hit Canadian producers.

But the matter is not merely an economic one. A range of non-governmental organizations have credibly accused Chinese electric-vehicle companies of incorporating inputs produced with the help of Uyghur forced labour. The Chinese government, in co-ordination with state-owned enterprises and private companies, has reportedly integrated Uyghur forced labour into domestic and global supply chains, with Uyghurs working against their will in facilities across the country, producing the aluminum and mining the lithium that go into electric vehicles.

Back in 2021, the House of Commons voted to declare China’s treatment of the Uyghur peoples a genocide. Dropping the EV ban without any human-rights assurances would mark a policy volte-face of stunning proportions. Beijing would henceforth understand that Ottawa views human rights as a luxury good: as something to purchase only when there’s enough money in the budget.

China lashes out at Canada for raising concerns over Uyghur rights violations

China has proven time and time again that it will impose economic pain when countries advance human-rights priorities with which the Communist regime disagrees. After a Norwegian committee awarded Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo a Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, China sharply curtailed imports of Norwegian salmon. In 2020, when the Australian government called for an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19, Beijing countered by tariffing Australian barley. The Chinese government itself has made explicit that trade is inextricable from human rights, by regularly weaponizing trade to shut down foreign criticism of its record.

What price, then, is Ottawa willing to pay for improved commercial ties? Mr. Carney may be willing to ignore the Uyghurs’ plight in exchange for more harmonious trade relations now, but is he willing to shelve all discussion of human rights for the remainder of his premiership? Is he willing to keep quiet on the degradation of civil liberties in Hong Kong, or on the continued repression of Tibet? Is he willing to keep quiet on other “controversial” issues, such as China’s aggressive campaign of foreign interference in this country? What Ottawa must realize is that deepening economic relations with China is far from a risk-free proposition. Increased market access comes with increased dependence, as well as limitations on Ottawa’s foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.

If the U.S. President were anyone other than Donald Trump, it is likely that Canadians would not be debating the EV measure right now. As tense as the U.S.-Canadian relationship is, however, it would be foolish to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. To solve its trade woes, Ottawa can re-engage China, but must do so cautiously. On EVs, Ottawa should only reduce tariffs in exchange for meaningful concessions – for example, allowing only for the importation of EVs from companies that can prove that they do not use inputs tainted by Uyghur forced labour.

Canada’s human-rights priorities must be non-negotiable in relation to Beijing. But if Ottawa drops all talk of human rights this round – as it appears set to do – it will be building a bilateral relationship out of sand.