This is a Q&A session with Charles Burton, senior fellow at Sinopsis.cz and former diplomat at Canada’s embassy in Beijing. It’s podacst with a transcript available at the linked site.
-
China is using economic coercion to pressure Canada on trade policy: Burton says Beijing has imposed arbitrary tariffs on Canadian canola exports—a $12 billion annual industry—in retaliation for Canada’s 100 percent tariff on Chinese EVs (electric vehicles).
-
Chinese EVs pose potential national security risks beyond just economic competition: These vehicles could serve as surveillance tools and contain software that could be remotely disabled during conflicts, similar to concerns raised about Huawei telecommunications equipment.
-
Any trade concessions to China will likely require sacrifices: Beijing expects Canada to “set aside differences” on issues like espionage investigations, a promised foreign agent registry, and support for Taiwan in exchange for market access.
-
China views Canada primarily as a raw materials supplier within its global strategy: Beijing’s approach aligns with Xi Jinping’s vision of remaking the world order, with China as the dominant civilizational force by 2050.
-
In the case of Canola, clearly Canada put too many, too much of our Canola into one market: Canada should be trying to diversify so that when China engages in arbitrary tariff measures to leverage on other issues, the country would be able take the hit more readily.
-
Xi Jinping now faces irregular internal challenges from China’s military leadership: Nine top military officials have been removed this month, suggesting potential concerns about China’s economic decline under Xi’s policies.
…
Charles Burton: … [Imposing tariffs on Canadian canola is a significant] move by China to leverage us by using economic coercion because there are 40,000 prairie farmers involved in the production of canola seeds. And it’s a $12 billion a year business. And last year, before China imposed these punitive tariffs, we sold over 4 billion to China. So it’s a big, big market. The Chinese did this in retaliation for our imposing 100% tariff on electric vehicles. The reason that we did that was that China heavily subsidizes these things, and so they would devastate our own market if they came into Canada. It’s a superior product, better battery technology, much cheaper. But the other concern which I expressed in Parliament is the potential for espionage by these machines. They’re similar to Huawei Telecoms.
…
China won’t let the Teslas go anywhere near sensitive sites. I mean, they gather terrific amount of information of where they go and on the people who are driving them. And there’s also like the neptech technology that we decided not to use for scanners in Canadian embassies and consulates around the world, they have software updates which come from the manufacturer. So if there was conflict between Canada and China, it’s possible that, conceivable under current conditions, that China could cripple them. So we’d really have to address those serious issues before it would be a good idea to bring them in
…
If we do get them to take off the tariffs on the canola, it doesn’t solve the problem, because next time China wants to leverage us to prevent us from, say, expelling agents of espionage or other concerns over Taiwan or the South China Sea or, you know, any number of things that, that we have going on with China, they can simply engage in this economic coercion on something else. They could declare our pulp and paper products are dumped, for example. So when you have a country that doesn’t respect the agreements and, and falsifies some reasons for barring Canadian products from the Chinese market, it’s sort of like whack a mole. You saw one, it’s quite likely that they would use another.
…
And what they want back [in exchange for reducing tariffs on canola] is what they refer to as some seek common ground while setting aside differences. So they don’t want us to pursue Chinese espionage, you know, the transfer of dual use military technologies to the Chinese state. They definitely don’t want us to enact the Foreign Influence Registry that came into law in Canada in June 2024 with Bill C70.
…
China I think would like us to be a supplier of raw materials for China. They’d like access to our northern resources Their, you know, their idea of China being a near Arctic state and more and more present in the Northwest Passage, I think is a concern to us overall.
…
China is an integrated party state, industrial military complex … it’s all dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, which some people say is like God invisible, but everywhere present. And so, you know, when we look at how China relates with Africa, countries that they’ve been investing in in the Belt and Road and supporting enabling dictators with surveillance technologies and so on, are typically countries that have favorable port facilities that China could use for future blue water, navy and submarines.
…
Within Canada, you see a similar process of China gradually attempting to achieve a comprehensive influence in our country.
Not just the elections, but, you know, the attempts to subvert policymakers and to have investment in Canada that they can then leverage for their geostrategic purposes. You know, would we continue to deny China access to mining resources in the north if they would respond by punishing us economically? So I think the key here is that we shouldn’t be too dependent on the Chinese export market. So in the case of Canola, clearly we put too many, too much of our Canola into one market. And we should be trying to diversify so that when China engages in arbitrary tariff measures to leverage on other issues, that we can take the hit more readily.
…
I don’t really have a horse in this race, but if you look at it neutrally, Canada’s 100% surtax on EV imports at the US’ behest is about as arbitrary as China’s canola import tax. They’re diplomatic maneuvers.
Both major powers are using their influence to try to push us around. Let’s be smart about it, we can’t overlook China’s abusive treatment of minorities, but we can set appropriate standards on our side, and have a measured amount of new Chinese EV production on our shores, just enough to offset whatever amount Stellantis and GM are giving up and moving to the US.
As if American cars weren’t already surveilling you. And who cares if Chinese vehicles are subsidized or not. (As if American car companies weren’t heavily subsidized. I’m old enough to remember how they were bailed out during the 2008 financial crisis). All this is just pretext. The reality is that Chinese EVs are cheaper and far better, and yes, they would be very successful because of you know, competition. I can’t wait to get my hands on a Chinese EV.
To provide one example among many:
[In Brazil], in the same month that Chinese BYD’s car carrier arrived in the country, Brazilian prosecutors announced plans to sue BYD and two of its contractors for ‘slave like conditions’ at a factory site. A task force led by Brazilian prosecutors said it rescued 163 Chinese nationals working in “slavery-like” conditions at a construction site […] where Chinese electric vehicle company BYD is building a factory.
The [Brazilian] Labor Prosecutor’s Office released videos of the dorms where the [Chinese] construction workers were staying, which showed beds with no mattresses and rooms without any places for the workers to store their personal belongings.
Officials said [BYD contractor] Jinjiang […] had confiscated the workers’ passports and held 60% of their wages. Those who quit would be forced to pay the company for their airfare from China, and for their return ticket, the statement said.
Prosecutors said the sanitary situation at BYD’s site in Camaçari was especially critical, with only one toilet for every 31 workers, forcing them to wake up at 4 a.m. to line up and get ready to leave for work at 5:30 a.m.
Then let BYD get prosecuted.
They should do business and then face trial if they go against the law.
Another heavily bias right wing source from OP.
For example:

But no amount of hurried missions across the Pacific or the Atlantic will fill a hole the size of America. Like it or not, the U.S. remains our dominant market and indispensable customer.
That is why Canada needs multiple lines of engagement—federal, provincial, and even personal. Only then do we have any leverage. Only then do we have the luxury of choice.
And this is where Smith enters the picture. Whatever one thinks of her politics, she has carved out a distinctive role in U.S. relations, more visible than most premiers and even some federal leaders.
That same soft power was on display months earlier at Mar-a-Lago, when Smith posed for photos with Trump during a fundraising event.
One of the founders.

Also gold mines of the dude as usual:
Also this whole China is a thread and bad. No shit, much of the entire western hemisphere on the same page for this before Trump made himself and America an arguably larger threat.
The stuff posted by OP recently and his takes has been wild. From Kovrig Natpo op-ed then his wife’s op-ed. Yesterday it was a guy saying we have so much leverage in Canola we could probably get China to build some BYD’s here.
That was a talking point in 2024 without Canola tariffs being involved. We’ve somehow regressed an entire year back in time on the topic.
It looks like the posts are coming from a mass search for China in Ground News or something and anything that looks critical is posted to any community where it could fit. “China bad + Canada” > post to /c/Canada. There’s little connection to the current Canadian context, e.g. in regards to the threat the US poses and what they’re doing to our economy, and as you mention, how that is now a bigger, imminent threat to us. Which is why these posts can really look tone-deaf in this community. Worse, because the China-critical sources tend to be right wing, the collection of posts end up looking like right-wing propaganda which is posted in a left-leaning community.
It probably not even “China bad”, the person posted a article that was straight up China getting more oil from us since the American trade war as some type of economical manipulation. It’s pretty much Canada + China then they add it some super low effort comment.
I prefer to read more then post and I don’t even mind the bias. But this stuff isn’t even good rage bait. There’s 2 accounts from the same instance that started posting that stuff recently.
There’s a third on sdf.org that presents the same pattern but spams /c/Canada less than the other two.
There’s 2 accounts from the same instance that started posting that stuff recently.
Yeah, but there are not just two? I mean, on lemmygrad and hexbear you’ll find more than two from the same instance posting the same stuff, and they have been doing it not just recently. No?
Oof.
arbitrary tariffs on Canada in retaliation for Canada putting arbitrary tariffs on China
Seems like we dug our own grave here


