Hi everybody, I'm Steve Pacin and we welcome you to this historic hall, St. Lawrence Hall in downtown Toronto for another edition of TVO Today Live. Our subject tonight, should Canada pivot to China? We've got a full house here and it's all possible thanks to the generosity of the Wilson Foundation. Red Wilson, thank you for your efforts and continuing to support what we're doing here on TVO. with us now to explore the future of Canada's relationship with China. Let's welcome Constantine Curionopoulos, longtime board member with the Canada China Business Council, who's a critical minerals expert and businessman, founder and now retired CEO of the rare earth company NEO. Vina Najibula, vice president research and strategy at the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada. Mary Ing, former member of parliament for Markhamm Thornne Hill, who is Canada's longest serving minister of international trade, having served from 2019 to earlier this year. And Lynette, distinguished professor of Chinese politics at the University of Toronto and director of the China Governance Lab at the Monk School at uft. Let's welcome to St. Lawrence Hall tonight, shall we?

Constantine Curionopoulos, longtime board member with the Canada China Business Council, who's a critical minerals expert and businessman, founder and now retired CEO of the rare earth company NEO. Vina Najibula, vice president research and strategy at the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada. Mary Ing, former member of parliament for Markhamm Thornne Hill, who is Canada's longest serving minister of international trade, having served from 2019 to earlier this year. And Lynette, distinguished professor of Chinese politics at the University of Toronto and director of the China Governance Lab at the Monk School at uft. Let's welcome to St. Lawrence Hall tonight, shall we?

Our plan for tonight uh invited guests is pretty simple. We are going to ask where are we at with China? What are the risks and opportunities of dealing more with China? How should Canada approach engaging with China? And ultimately the big question, should we, as they say in foreign affairs, pivot to China? So that's on our itinerary tonight.

Before we do all of that though, I want to survey this audience and get a sense of where everybody's at. I'm going to ask you two separate questions. So, let's see a show of hands on these questions. In light of our deteriorating relationship with the United States, Canada should actively re-engage with the People's Republic of China. Hands up and hands down.

We don't share the same values. They're an authoritarian dictatorship. We should not attempt to pivot to China. Hands up. Interesting. Hands down. Okay. A lot more yeses for the first question than there were for the second. Good to know what this audience thinks because at the end of the evening, I may just survey you again and see if anybody's minds have been changed by what transpired.

Meanwhile, let's get a few facts on the table here to figure out where we stand. In 2024, Canada exported $30 billion of products to China, but we imported $87 billion worth. That said, there are big tariffs going both ways. We have imposed 100% tariffs on EVs and 25% on steel. China has put 100% tariffs on our canola and 25% on pork and seafood. So with all of that in place, let's get the former minister to work. First of all, as a trading partner, how important is China to Canada right now?

Mary Ng: Well, China has been Canada's second largest trading partner and I think in the most recent numbers, they're now third after Europe. So we have United States, we have uh what was China, and then Europe, and now it's uh it's inversed. So it's a it's a significant economy in the world and China buys from Canada. We sell uh to China and uh and as you know as as a trade minister and as you know looking at it for Canadian businesses as a market to access I think it's important to consider that that there are jobs that are tied to that very trading relationship.

Steve Paikin: This was a big part of your responsibilities when you were the minister.

Mary Ng: Right. But having said that, Canadians have often said to me and to the government that we trade with values that are really important to Canada as well. Values like the rule of law, values like um like our position on um you know on fair wages or on the environment or on on issues of uh of of of you know a range of issues that are really important to Canadians around human rights. Those values have to intersect with an economic relationship

Steve Paikin: and we shall come back and consider those of course during the course of our evening. Constantine, how would you answer the question about as a trading partner the importance of China to us right now?

Constantine Curionopoulos: There's no question that China is an important trading partner in view of your earlier question to the audience, especially now when it seems that our primary trading relationship with um our friends south of the border is deteriorating.

Canada is a trading state. Um, multilateralism has always helped Canada and I think in view of what's been going on uh with regards to uh to the United States, I think we have no choice but to look for expanding our trade with practically everybody else including China, including Europe, including India, the Asia Pacific and ultimately we need to go to where the markets are, where the opportunities are. Um so yes the uh I guess China is an important partner and I think invariably it will have to become a much bigger partner because the deterioration of our trading relationship with the the United States presents an existential issue for the country and we need to balance that risk u by trading with folks that you know we traded with in the past and perhaps we can do more.

Steve Paikin: What say you Vita? Well, first of all,

Vina Najibulla: Well, first of all, it's wonderful to be on this panel. Thank you so much for the invitation and uh re really look forward to the questions from the audience. Uh I think when we say can China is our second largest trading partner, we have to recognize that the gap between number one and number two is about 70 points. So it almost means very little from 76% to less than 4% in terms of our exports. We trade with European Union more and we trade with the CPTP countries, the comprehensive progressive trans-pacific partnership agreement uh countries more. So yes, China is an important trading partner, but we have to rightsize the understanding of that and we also have to recognize that when we do trade with China, there are also risks involved and especially when we're overdependent on China for certain trade like in the sector like canola, we're opening ourselves to potential retaliation when there are disagreements with China on diplomatic or political issues.

And while it is obviously tempting to say given that the US has become so disruptive, we need to pivot and look back at to China, I think we have to be cautious. Yes, there are sectors in which we can do with China more with China and China of course is the second largest economy in the world. So we will have to but we have to be cautious. We have to be cleareyed and we have to derisk at the same time as we deepen trade in some ways with China. So do less in sectors where we're overdependent and vulnerable. do less in critical sectors which can open up national security concerns and look at other parts of Asia. Asia is not just China. There are many other countries. We have to diversify and we have to reduce over reliance on both the US and China. However disruptive the US, let's not forget that China started the disruption that has led to the kind of crisis that we're in.

Steve Paikin: Lynette, your view on this? You know, I

Lynette: I think China is becoming more more important, but I think in answer to your earlier question about should we pivot towards China, I think the answer is not binary. I don't see that as an eitheror. I think you know in the age of uncertainty especially with what is going on in with the US administration right now. We should think about diversifying risk. Um I would suggest that you know for a long time if we take a longer view of things right I think Canada has been living in the margins of great power. We have been a beneficiary of economic prosperity and political stability in the United States.

Steve Paikin: So we have been complacent in that sense

Lynette: right and you know six months ago we were jolted out of our complacency

Lynette: and now we are thinking about the question of whether or not we should pivot towards China. I think the question to to ask is is that in the age of uncertainty how do we actually diversify economic partnership and political partnership I think with political partnership we shouldn't be looking towards China we should be looking towards a with uh Europe and other democratic countries as the prime the prime minister has signed a deal with with uh Europe with respect to military um spending recently but economic partnership. I think China is an option and is a very important option and as other panelists have alluded to earlier, China, we shouldn't stop at China, but we should start with China because it is the second largest market. But aside from China, we should also be thinking about Indopacific countries such as Japan, such as Southeast Asia, such as India, so on and so forth. So I would say China is a good place to start but it is it shouldn't be the place to end.

Steve Paikin: Mary, it's been fascinating to watch the Canadian Chinese relationship over the last let's say 60 years. Some of us can remember when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau opened to China before the United States did and our relationship had its ups and downs over the years. It got pretty good under Jean Kretchan with the team Canada trips. It got pretty bad under Justin Trudeau for a while and then we heard Mark Carney say a couple of different things during the leaders debate when he was running for he was the prime minister running to keep his job he said China was the biggest you know the biggest problem he envisaged for Canada's future now he talks about strategic partnership a turning point and he's going to visit shei what do we make of all of that

Mary Ng: so um I would agree with um you know with what Vina was saying a little earlier about um about needing to enter into this relationship in a way that really does balance the interests for Canada as a rules-based democracy and to the economic interests and opportunities that are there. To your question about uh you know about the pivot, I I I also agree it is not a it's not an eitheror. I think that given the geopolitical headwinds that exist today, I think what you're seeing in Prime Minister Carney do is take a pragmatic approach around the economic opportunity while at the same time I don't think he has uh I don't think that the position he took in that debate has also changed. We do have to consider the issues today. Uh when you think about trade, it isn't just let's it's a new market or an expanded market. We're looking to do more services. we're looking to do more goods. It is not like that. I mean, today when you're talking about trade, you're also talking about trade in data and AI

Steve Paikin: and critical infrastructure,

Mary Ng: not just manufactured goods and and and critical minerals. So, you are talking about trade that is broad, but at the same time, you're also talking about tourism, you're talking about education, you're talking about agra foods and all the great things that Canada has uh has to offer. So those are the puts and takes that we have to consider in Canada as you think about this relationship. I think that there are that there are additives to the relationship and I think that there are there are uh there there is a eyes wide open approach to how you step through it. But to the point of diversification, I think that Canada as a middle power country with partners in the CPTP, as Vina said, CPTP includes countries like Japan, like Singapore, like Australia, like New Zealand, like Vietnam, like Malaysia that are in a rules-based structure. The United Kingdom has seeded to it when I was the minister. Costa Rica is going through that right now. they are, you know, countries like Indonesia, which uh that was the last agreement I negotiated with with Indonesia. Um these are economies where under a rules-based system, under a CPTP partnership, there are rules for how we trade. So there's a disputes uh resolution system when there is a dispute to be had among the trading partners and there are rules to which you govern how you do your trade. How do you deal with data governance in digital trade for example among the partners? Those are the very issues that that uh that Canadians need to think about and uh and that certainly government when they're making policy trade polic

Steve Paikin: are you clear in your mind where the prime current prime minister of Canada stands in as much as he said one thing during the leaders debate but he's saying different things now

Mary Ng: I think both things can be true at the same time. So, China does represent a threat to our national security and to our economic security interests as well. And we can unpack that. At the same time, obviously, we do need to re-engage with China at the highest level diplomatically to be able to manage that relationship. So, what Prime Minister Carney is saying is that we need to talk to all countries including those with whom we have serious disagreements. But the disagreements have not gone away. Just because President Trump is being really mean hasn't made China any better, right? Right? So like I mean we have to be able to hold multiple things in our heads. And so with respect to China, what he's proposing is that we can do more on certain things where interests align. Right? So he has this frame framework of variable geometry of engagement, right? That that will apply also to kind of coalitions of uh interests that we will build. But also with certain countries, we'll have more relationships because values and interests align. With certain countries like China, we may have certain interests that align, but we have to be cleareyed that our values do not, our political systems do not, and all the disagreements that we had before the liberation day tariffs are still there with China.

Now the challenge becomes because even with selective engagement even saying we want to do more with China on climate change we want to sell them more of our energy exports uh from TMX or from LG Canada we have to recognize that we may wish to compartmentalize but China doesn't do that the Chinese Communist Party does not generally compartmentalize if they have an issue with you like they do now with Japan over what the prime minister said in response to a question from an opposition member of parliament they then target you by limiting travel of tourists. They travel you by by they put a ban on sale of certain uh exports. So in other words, China does connect issues and does weaponize dependence in trade. So even on issues like energy, we have to be cleareyed that we shouldn't become overdependent. I guess that's the final sort of lesson that we've learned from the current experience is overdependence on any trading partner even one that used to be reliable like the US is a bad idea in the current environment.

Steve Paikin: Let me get a sense from you because I think you were part of those days when Prime Minister Cretchan would take a bunch of business people and premers and so on. You were part of the team Canada trips, right? 25 and 30 years ago. Yes.

Constantine Curionopoulos: So, how does business h how do you run a

Steve Paikin: given that one day we can be friends and our prime minister goes and visits and brings huge delegations and the next day things are pretty much cut off? Well,

Constantine Curionopoulos: the team Canada missions um were one of the best thing that could happen to a small company like ours because it really opened doors and it brought us legitimacy uh in front both of our counterpart parties as well as the government.

Steve Paikin: What kind of business were you trying to do over there?

Constantine Curionopoulos: We started by uh buying controlling interest in two rare earth production plants in China. So we expanded that business and two years ago when I retired we had 10 plants around the world including one in Peterbor Ontario. Our headquarters was in Ontario here in Canada in Toronto. Uh we had plants in Thailand uh Korea uh Estonia and uh Germany. So we we established a global company but we started in China with those two plans and our participation in those team Canada missions made a massive difference to to how we developed.

Steve Paikin: So those were the good old days. What what would you call what's going on today?

Constantine Curionopoulos: Um it's it's we're recovering from the bad days although we've seen ups and downs. I mean the the relationship with China has not been smooth all the way. Um during the creten years it was a period of growth. Um then during the initial part of the Harper years things slowed down and uh I remember things picked up again when Minister Baird started going to China and started mending that relationship. Um and then of course during the uh the Trudeau years there was obviously the the two Michaels but we behaved as a country in ways that I I you know among friends I call it we scored in our own net. Um, and I think now with with Prime Minister Carney, um, I think there's a bit more of a mature approach to international relations. And listen, I mean, I in my view, I even though I'm not a huge fan of him, I I go by what Henry Kissinger said that states have interests that don't have friends. So, we need to decide what's in the national interest. And if we come across issues that are not in the interest uh of Canada, then we have to be wideeyed um cognizant of what's going on and absolutely vigilant. And I haven't heard anybody advocate that we should go all in on the Chinese relationship expanding with no barriers, with no critical thinking. I think what we're what is being advocated correctly that we need to go in with our eyes wide open. I think that applies to every relationship with every state in the world and by the way I don't want to monopolize the time. Um the other thing that um Henry Kissinger said that again I you know it's engraved in the back of my head for especially since the latest uh Trump uh incarnation uh is that to be a friend of the United States to be an enemy of the United States is very risky. to be a friend is lethal and that's what we're finding ourselves unfortunately.

So I'll say one more thing uh before I stop. As a public company CEO um I always had our company had to disclose um any dependency with any customer where your revenues were more than 10% of uh your total revenues. So in in the business world public companywise uh a 10% dependency on any single customer is a risk that you have to discuss how you're going to address it or what you're doing about it to protect the interest of your shareholders.

Steve Paikin: I don't know what the number is when it comes to countries. I'm sure it's not 75%.

Mary Ng: I think he's just made the case for diversification and doing more diversification so that we are not going to be dependent to anyone and that Canada is in a position of being able to create both sovereignty, strength and determination for our future because of that. And we need to absolutely do our hardest to reinstitute multilateralism because in the process some of the global institutions that served our interests very well over the last few decades created by our American friends are have been destroyed. I mean when was the last time anything happened to WTO

Steve Paikin: World Trade Organization World I don't

Vina Najibulla: think WTO is the answer and I think even our prime minister recognize one of the many things that need to come together

Mary Ng: we have to work through plurilateral groups not multi because this I mean we have to be realistic right says that he uses the word plurilateral

Vina Najibulla: in fact in his economist oped which hasn't gotten a lot of uh visibility here in Canada

Steve Paikin: should give a little love here

Vina Najibulla: I think I got

Steve Paikin: you have a quote from him go for it

Vina Najibulla: it's called the variable of geometry Yeah, it's a variable. It's a coalitions, interest based coalitions, and he says, "In the twilight of multilateralism, we have to turn to plural pulled radalism or something like that."

Steve Paikin: Well, okay, here's what he had to say. This was

Vina Najibulla: back in November in The Economist. You know what's the prime minister's approach to these issues? He says,

Steve Paikin: You know what's the prime minister's approach to these issues? He says, "Nostalgia is not a strategy."

Vina Najibulla: Is not a strategy. Exactly. We should not pine to go back to the world that was. We should focus on building something better. The twilight of multilateralism will be followed by the rise of pluril. Plurilateralism.

Steve Paikin: Plurilateralism.

Vina Najibulla: I had it almost correct.

Steve Paikin: You got it right. No. States that embrace variable geometry. You use that expression. Weaving new networks and constructing pragmatic alliances will be best placed to thrive in this new age.

Lynette: So I think Steve that is actually the very definition of a middle power

Steve Paikin: right?

Lynette: We are a middle power because we are prize taker. We cannot set we cannot set rules. So when we deal with power either with the United States which is very hostile or undignificable like China Canada as a middle power we typically have to lean on multilateral institutions because rules are stable. But now that multilateral institutions such as United Nations WTO or UN are not that um reliable

Steve Paikin: what do we do?

Lynette: We need to rely on these what Marani the prime minister call ad hoc coalition of the willing. But I think what has happened you know to give you some examples of the coalition of the willing such as against arbitrary detention against China's monopoly of critical minerals. These are very um post um exposed measures. When things happen then we think about putting the coalition together. But I think we should be preemptively thinking is bring together coalition such as those that have actually suffered trade coercion against from China such as South Korea, Japan, uh Australia, so on and so forth and exchange notes about how do we deal with these problems when we uh face these issues. So I think you know everyone has touched on the issue of diversification of market. I would argue that as a business person, it's actually easier said than done because economies like the idea of economies of scale. We want to scale it up because we can lower the cost.

Steve Paikin: Yeah.

Lynette: But it's actually very difficult to diversify. So if we could do some preemptive approach such as gathering together some coalitions to better deal with China when problems come, I think we'll be let

Steve Paikin: you can see we have a lot of views on this panel.

Vina Najibulla: Um, one thing that I found interesting in that oped, Steve, is that while the prime minister talks about these interest-based coalitions, the examples that he gives are all Europe focused. So he talks about the coalition of the willing visav Ukraine. He talks about safe Europe in terms of procurement that Canada has now joined. Uh he even talks about docking the CPTP trading block uh that Mary spoke about with the EU so that together they can create scale that actually matches US and China. So at a time when both US and China have become protectionists, don't follow rules, smaller countries have to come together and the two biggest blocks would be EU and CPTP. So and then one place where he mentions China in that entire op-ed is to do with climate and he says that we can have a coalition around climate that sort of uses Chinese and Indian technology and European rules and Brazilian sort of approach or something, right? But that's kind of like a wish list. It doesn't exist and nobody's really talking about it. So the interesting thing is that even in that conversation, it's less about China. It's more about diversifying and building deeper relationship with other non- major powers. Basically with neither the US nor China to be able to create rules-based trading where we actually as a middlesized country have a voice and we can exercise our interest in a kind of in a way that's more protective.

So, and then a final thing that I'll mention is yes, it's true that 75% of our trade is with the US and we have to diversify that, but with China, we have overdependencies already. So, and it would be easy for us to just say, you know, we need to deal with the agricultural tariffs. We have to continue to sell canola to them. Well, we've had disruptions to canola trade multiple times already. We have to learn the lesson. It's like fool me once, right? So we cannot continue to sell 63% of our canola seed to that market. So we have to diversify, move up the value chain. Same thing in terms of some of our seafood products. 97% going to China market. I get it. It's an easier market, but we have to do the hard work now. And we have to be cognizant that China will retaliate if we disagree with them on other issues. Taiwan, Ukraine, all linked.

Steve Paikin: It's all linked. Mary.

Mary Ng: So, um, the work of diversification, I absolutely agree for businesses. They would much rather go into one single market. It's way easier to do, but I would say I have never had a mandate in my entire time as trade minister that did not have diversification in it. So, in 2018, the mandate the prime minister gave to me was increase your non- US exports by 50% by 2025. That was sort of in the order of about $291 billion. We've done it. We've negotiated agreements. If you think about the CPTPP, that covers a gigantic swath of Asian markets that does not include the United States, nor does it include China. We are at the negotiating table with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. By the way, all of them added up is 700 million people. Uh CPTPP 500 million people. So you're talking in there sort of you're heading towards about a billion a billion people and that's without China and without uh and without the United States. So and and and to the plural laterals that is essentially the work that we have been building on right I mean creating trading blocks on a foundation of rules that allow market access but that allow for things like how do you how do you treat your workers within your economy so that there is actually fair trade because in Canada when you have a over you know an a dumping of let's say a product right I mean it depresses the prices and it you know and and and it makes our companies less competitive. Those issues are actually dealt with at the trade negotiating table whereas trading partners you negotiate those rules and you decide these are these are this is what we're going to this is how we're going to engage with one another and then you've got dispute resolution mechanisms that you are then bound by as well.

So I would say that Canada is in a great place. Why? Because at present with our existing trade agreements, we already have access to 65% of the world's economy in Europe through the CEDA block CPTP Indonesia which is the fourth most populous country in the world that's now done. Uh India is going to you know is is is going to get worked on. Uh and Azyen as a block is going to you know is and and and those negotiations by the way the AEAN started in 2016. ASEAN meaning the Southeast Asian nations,

Steve Paikin: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and many of the countries that are in ASEAN are already we already have agreements with through CPTP like Vietnam, like Malaysia, like Singapore.

Mary Ng: Let me go to Lynette on this though.

Lynette: The polarateral my point is

Mary Ng: absolutely and we're doing that through trade architecture. We need to keep doing that.

Steve Paikin: Okay, let I'm going to remind everybody the numbers I said earlier. In 2024, Canada exported 30 billion to China, imported 87 billion. So, Lynette, my question is, do they actually want to buy stuff from us or just sell stuff to us?

Lynette: I think both.

Steve Paikin: It doesn't sound like it.

Lynette: Well, you know, China is a much larger country compared to in Canada, right? And I would actually suggest that the straw poll that you took at the beginning of the audience, the results are actually not reflective of the Canadian public.

Steve Paikin: That's right.

Lynette: Right. I think the audience, if I could use that word, is a self is a self-selected one. Those people who come who come to this event, they actually more pro-China than your average Canadians. So I think the issue of framing so you say that Mark Carney say different thing when he was a political candidate and he's now a prime minister decision maker is very different but his status has actually changed. But I think what what is also important in I think selling China that we should engage China with a lot of nuances is how we actually frame that debate and this would be my suggestions and I think you know public opinion with respect to China has changed drastically in the last six months. There are now more people unfavorable towards Washington DC than towards Beijing. That's in China's favor. And the other thing is that I think we should think about uh China as a very nuance as a very nuance uh position. I think with the shifting of the sand um we should not I would say not keep talking about values. So a UBC law professor say that we should frame the debate in terms of maximizing Canadians interest including treaty obligations obligations to human rights treaty which I would absolutely agree because then countries like China cannot say that we stand on uh moral high grounds and criticize them because we are just maximizing our interest. I I think I I if I'm the prime minister, which I am not, I'm also not in a position of advising him. But if I have the privilege, I would say to him that think about how you actually sell the question of engagement with China. The framing is critical.

Steve Paikin: Constantine, you want to come in on that on the issue of whether they actually want to buy stuff from us or only sell stuff to us?

Constantine Curionopoulos: Well, my experience is that China in within China among the Chinese consumers, Canada is a great brand. They want to buy food stuff. They want to buy the reason there's a reason why we export so much fish because the Chinese consumer wants Canadian fish. They want Canadian products. Um, Arcterics is a huge brand. It's no longer Canadian, but it's a huge brand. There is an affinity for things Canadian in China that, you know, we need to continue to work on, and that's why, you know, Canadian food exports in in in China are what they are. Um the

Constantine Curionopoulos: China is is a massive manufacturing uh workshop. Okay. However, the advances being made in China are really scary. I think we need to one of the reasons we need to trade more is to continue to engage so we can see what's coming down the pike because

Steve Paikin: what do you mean scary?

Constantine Curionopoulos: I um I was in Beijing about a month ago after one of my meetings. I walked into uh an EV dealership by um Xiaomi. I was blown away what you can buy in China for $50,000.

Steve Paikin: And this is I guess what the 100% tariffs on Chinese EVs are designed to protect us from

Constantine Curionopoulos: assuming that there was any thinking going into those tariffs as opposed to some reflexive uh reaction to what the Americans did when they imposed 100% tariffs. And that actually is is is a bit of a sore point for me because the Europeans had imposed tariffs after two years of study between 17% and 42% on Chinese EVs into Europe and they went through all the producers of EVs and they had a different tariff rate for each producer.

Constantine Curionopoulos: We you know the moment uh the US imposed 100% tariffs we jumped right in without any thinking without any I don't I I assume there was any thinking because it was almost reflexive uh however we could have taken an approach that much that was much more analytical and by the way Chinese government respects data and you know the the European system would data not that it helped much but still we have a number of choices so when we impose tariffs of 100% % on Chinese EVs, which by the way, we don't make any in Canada yet. Uh what did we expect to happen? I mean, what would have happened if we imposed tariffs on American or German producers? Uh would they have not retaliated with tariffs on our products? I mean, that's the way it works. So, do the Chinese want to buy stuff? Yes, of course. But you see, they want to buy stuff that helps their own industry. So we need to figure out what are the materials and the products that we can sell to them that you know fit both the Canadian interest and the Chinese interest.

Steve Paikin: Okay, we're about halfway through here. So this is the point where I do what's called a rrackcking. We remind everybody what we're doing here. We are here in downtown Toronto in the historic St. Lawrence Hall. You know what? Sir John A. Macdonald spoke in this hall. George Brown spoke in this hall. Thomas Darcy McGee spoke in this hall. No, I did not cover any of those speeches despite what what you might think. But I do remember the last time I was in this hall was 41 years ago

when there was a new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada named Brian Maloney who came here to give a speech and I covered that speech in this hall and it's magnificent. The history here is just everywhere. Anyway, we are talking something very different tonight. We're talking China, Canada's relationship with China going forward. And I want to remind everybody who our guests are. Can Constantine Karionopoulos, board member at the Canada China Business Council, Vina Najibula, Vice President, Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada, Mary, former Minister of International Trade for Canada, and Professor Lynette, University of Toronto and the Monk School. Vina, I'm going to pick up the conversation here, which is to say there was a school of thought for a very long time that if we open to China, if we trade with China, if we try to make things more normal with China, they will liberalize. Goodness knows, they might even become more democratic.

Vina Najibulla: Yes.

Steve Paikin: Is there anybody who believes any of that anymore?

Vina Najibulla: Uh, I haven't met them recently, so there might be still some people who believe that, but I think most

Steve Paikin: So, is it worth doing then? Most would agree that that was probably naive even at the time. And if anything, I mean, if you look now, we're becoming more like China in that we're all resorting back to industrial strategy and industrial policy. We're all becoming more protectionists and more mercantalists in some ways. So whether or not the experiment worked in the other way is I think more interesting question right now. So no, I don't think the economic uh integration and engagement with China led to any democratic development. Certainly not in the last 10 years. I mean we can we can unpack what happened and did not happen. That's a bigger question. But

Steve Paikin: but it did bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in China.

Vina Najibulla: Absolutely. And I think a lot of that is due to the hard work of the Chinese people rather than necessarily the policies of the Chinese Communist Party or even the engagement with the world. So I mean I think all of that is true but we have to go back to the question that you asked. Does China want to buy anything from Canada? I think that is an important question in that the Chinese growth model very much is exportd driven. So more than $1 trillion of surplus in trade and it's growing. In fact, even though the US market is now closing to China, they're selling more to Europe. They're selling more to Southeast Asia. They're selling more to Africa, Latin America, and they would like to sell us more of their stuff, too, including EVs. Constantine is absolutely right. But we have to start thinking about what kind of economy do we want to have in Canada 10, 20, 30 years from now. How do we maintain our status of living? How do we stay a prosperous developed country? We have to continue to industrialize. We have to to continue to invest in technologies of tomorrow, not just sell the raw materials with which we've been blessed. So yes, China wants to buy our stuff in the same way that they want to buy oil from Russia as well, in the same way way that they want to buy raw materials from us. But do we want to just continue to sell those products or do we actually want to become a proper industrialized country? And if that is the question, then deeper engagement with China leads to problems. Problems that we're now seeing elsewhere in Europe as well as in Southeast Asia. Right? They're also worried about can they have a chance of developing their own manufacturing and domestic economy if China continues to subsidize, continues to manipulate the market, manipulate its currency and do everything that it has done very effectively to get to where it is.

Lynette: Well, you know, I think trade is a reflection of comparative advantage. there are reason why we are not selling manufactured goods to China because they are much lower cheaper labor costs right I think that's a rule of economics um I'm I am not sure whether I I buy Trump's argument of you know every country should become industrialized should have more factories than China I think I think there are reasons why countries trade with each other our comparative advantage lies with the agricultural sector and services and that's those are the things that we sell we sell China and they sell manufactured goods to us. um you know I'm not sure you know industrialization is the way to go for every countries um because of way economics and comparative advantage and labor cost cause works in theory that's in theory the case Lynette I completely agree with you that in ideal world once you sort of move to a certain level the wages have to go up and standard of living have to go up and your currency has to appreciate as well but when a state actually controls all those elements I mean you know as much as I know that in China right Now the consumers are less empowered. They can spend more. Wages are suppressed.

Vina Najibulla: Sure. Sure. Right. So there is manipulation happening at a big scale by the

Lynette: I think that argument would apply to countries like Indonesia, Viet, Vietnam that has similar cost structure to

Vina Najibulla: That's right. And they are suffering right now

Lynette: that China is subsidizing its labor versus other countries. But for countries like Canada, do we actually want to build more factories to get more of our young young people employed in factories rather than services?

Steve Paikin: Depends what kind of factories. I think we'd love to make more cars that high paying jobs. You know,

Vina Najibulla: I think we also we want high paid and high value jobs. So industries are not necessarily the way to go.

Steve Paikin: Yeah. Mary, let me ask you this. I I wonder if to a certain extent if we consider this issue of whether to pivot to China, do they have us over a barrel in some respects in as much as you know everybody's watching how much trouble we're having right now trying to renegotiate

Steve Paikin: whatever we're calling it it kusma or you smack or whatever it is you know

Steve Paikin: you smack us they're smacking us all right

Steve Paikin: so in some respects they're seeing what's happening between us and the United States right now and presumably the Chinese are thinking well they're having trouble over there. So, we should take advantage of that. Isn't that the case?

Mary Ng: I wouldn't look at it quite that way. Um, they may very well, but I think for Canadians, Canadians have to ask ourselves the question, where do we want to be? What do we need to do to have the economy we want in the future?

Steve Paikin: This is something you and Vina agree on.

Mary Ng: Yes. I mean, what what can we do within the country to remove interprovincial trade barriers so that we are more competitive ourselves as a country? Turns out the answer is not that much.

Steve Paikin: Well, at least we haven't done too much so far.

Mary Ng: We Well, we need to do more. And uh and and how do we look at the kind of value chains that we want and supply chains that we want and with whom do we want that with today? So given the issues that we are facing with the United States, you have to then make a choice. Who else in the world do you want to be doing this with? Right? I mean so if you think about critical minerals critical minerals um we have an abundance we want to also do value add processing in addition to the sustainable extraction we want to be able to partner with whom in those investments for the extraction and then the deployment of those you know of the of of of what comes out of the critical minerals to aerospace to clean technology to the range of sectors in industry industries that are out there and who do you want to do that with? China is a choice but should it be the only choice?

Steve Paikin: Nobody I don't think anybody's saying it is.

Mary Ng: No. Or well and well I would I would say that that today it's a it today is a perfect time where we ought to be looking at the trading partners that we want to pursue and who want to pursue us. You were talking about those trade missions that are very effective. In my time as trade minister, I have taken trade missions into every single CPTP and ASEAN country. Every single one. And as a minister, it's one thing for me to say I would like to take a trade mission. It only happens when businesses themselves think that there's a market that there are investors that they can go there and that they want to use the value of their federal government to open that door and get them there. And guess what? They want to go to CPTP. They want to go into Azen. They want to go to Europe elsewhere but but but as a choice that I think is the choice.

Constantine Curionopoulos: There's been talk about we talk about critical minerals but we haven't done much. We have abandoned industrial strategy to the hands of the Chinese.

Vina Najibulla: Yes. We're importing strategy.

Constantine Curionopoulos: China did what China had to do for its own interest. We're coming back to Henry Kissinger and states having interests. What are we doing about our own citizens interest? Let me give you an example, Stephen. According to the Glob and Mail a year ago, the Canadian government has committed to subsidies worth about 55 billion dollars over the next 15 years to the the automotive industry for EVs. Y

Steve Paikin: some of it is real cash, some of it is tax points, etc.

Constantine Curionopoulos: How much of that madame minister went into critical mineral development?

Steve Paikin: What's the answer? Zero.

Constantine Curionopoulos: Zero.

Steve Paikin: And let me ask you the other question which I asked

Mary Ng: that's actually not true.

Vina Najibulla: But the critical mineral strategy has money.

Mary Ng: So it's not so it's not called industrial like sort of developing but there is a whole critical minerals source strategy and a pot of money that actually went specifically to that. So

Constantine Curionopoulos: well not in relation to the 55 billion that was spent on automotive industry different and who is the what industry is the largest consumer of critical minerals today and the fastest growing industry

Steve Paikin: EVs

Constantine Curionopoulos: fact of life batteries lithium and batteries and rare earth's for earth magnets driving the electric motors how many plants do we have in Canada that can take raw materials from the ground and transform them into the materials I need to go into the batteries and the motors.

Steve Paikin: Zero.

Constantine Curionopoulos: Zero. But if today,

Mary Ng: but there've been lots of announcements about building some, right?

Constantine Curionopoulos: That's right. Over the years,

Mary Ng: through the major projects as well. Through the major projects.

Constantine Curionopoulos: I can tell you that there's only two plants in the world that produce rare earths in commercial large scale quantities outside of China. One in Malaysia owned by an Australian company and one in Europe in Estonia owned by my former company. But but currently the Ford are making announcements all the time about new factories being built here.

Constantine Curionopoulos: We have to wait. However, here's the the fallacy with just talking about critical minerals and continuing to approach the world like we continue to be hers of wood and drawers of water. We can dig holes in the ground until the cows come home. But today the only market for the output of these holes in the ground lithium and rare earths. Perhaps copper is a bit more global uh the situation. But if we dug raris and lithium out of the ground, the only place we could ship it would be China because that's where the conversion and the value the value refining capacity. Unless we could have taken one of those 55 billion and said we will build or we will facilitate the creation

Steve Paikin: taking you know

Constantine Curionopoulos: you know I understand you and you represent the business council the the business corporation. I've gone a little bit

Lynette: but but you know but I think if we think about

Constantine Curionopoulos: I pay you a lot of taxes in Canada.

Lynette: I understand that. I understand that. I understand that. I think if we think about the interest of the countries as a whole is divided into producers and consumers.

Steve Paikin: Producers have the power political power to organize lobby group and get business council to represent them. Consumers no and and and consumers do not.

Lynette: So if we think about Chinese EVs right now we don't have any EV plants. So if we allow cheap EVs to come in, it might hurt our EV producers in the future, but our consumers would benefit tremendously. And that's a welfare gain that we don't read about in the Globe and Mail in the Star all because

Steve Paikin: consumers are the silent majority that don't have political voices. I hear you. Let's not forget that. I don't want the clock to get I don't want the clock. Hang on a second. Time out. Time out. cuz I the clock is going to get away from us and we're not going to get a chance to talk about the other thing that we have to mention here which are the risks. We've talked about a lot of the opportunities we've talked about. Okay, we got to get into the risks here and I'm going to give you a bit of a list here and then I'm going to go to you and see what concerns you.

Steve Paikin: There are a long list of reasons to be concerned about increased engagement with China, intimidation of expats and diaspora communities. Espionage, welldocumented election interference in this country, China's support of Russia's war machine against Ukraine, long-standing threat to Taiwan, human rights violations, persecution of religious minorities, some labor practices which do not stand up to light very well. Vina that list or maybe something else. What's the biggest risk to Canada if we re-engage with China?

Vina Najibulla: Well, the good news, Steve, is that we have been speaking about being cautious and considering those risks, including economic risk, which I think we were trying to get at in terms of the kind of industries we want to have. So, we're we're deep into that part of the conversation is the kind of risks and how do we manage those risks because again, the answer is not this binary choice of do we engage with China or do we not. I think everybody on this panel says yes, we have to up our game in terms of engagement with China.

Steve Paikin: Yes, but

Vina Najibulla: yes, but exactly. Or yes and

Steve Paikin: or yes and

Vina Najibulla: yes. So yes, we do need to engage more and have more dialogue, more understanding of China at all levels, business, academia, government and we have to be cognizant that there are many many risks which need to be managed. So I did a piece for policy magazine recently where I sort of laid out kind of six elements that have to be in place for us to do more with China right so and it begins with guard rails around the areas which we want to protect so be that sensitive technologies be that research so whatever that list is

Steve Paikin: democracy

Vina Najibulla: sure foreign interference our yes there's a long list right so there's the guardrail piece then there is the area where we have to be clear on the stuff that we want to do more of what are the specific sectors we have to get granular right? Like it's no longer just about let's sell more or let's buy more. We have to get more specific, right? Then we have to have the actual tools to be able to to protect ourselves. So all of the things that we haven't yet mentioned, we've mentioned some of the kind of the positive things around subsidies or critical mineral strategy or whatever, but we also need to have screening mechanisms, investment screening mechanisms.

Steve Paikin: Do we have that yet?

Vina Najibulla: Uh so we we have investment act, but it needs to actually be better applied. Right now it's very discretionary to the minister. It's unclear. So it makes the system less predictable. Um so there are a number of other thing and then we have to build coalitions because alone we will never have leverage visav China. So we still it's very hard because US used to lead all of this and we used to kind of follow as a western block. We have to now be used to a world in which US does not lead right. So and we have to show leadership and with other European uh Asian democracies to be able to together figure out how to manage risks. So again yes there are many many risks but the answer remains the same. We have to continue to talk to China engage with China and we have to build leverage domestically and we have to build competence domestically. So Lynette mentioned about the attitude in the general public. It is still fairly negative towards China but there's also very low level of understanding of China of Indonesia of Malaysia of all these other countries. Right? So I mean I live in Vancouver where we do feel like a Pacific nation but when you come east as much as we talk about being a Pacific nation it's a very euroentric Euroatlantic kind of place and in order to be able to engage you have to know the other side right and we have to invest in that.

Steve Paikin: Constantine does it give you any pause that if we do dive in deeper with China we are potentially inviting the Chinese Communist Party to have a bigger role in Canada?

Constantine Curionopoulos: Yes.

Steve Paikin: Pause. Yeah. And listen, I mean there are there are countries that we trade with that we have to be absolutely careful about what we do and how we do it. And that's pretty well everybody. However,

Constantine Curionopoulos: there's no question we have to continue to be vigilant.

Steve Paikin: Okay? We need to protect the national interest. Now, we also need to learn from successful examples from others. I I look at the Australians. Who was the beneficiary of Canadian canola oil not going to China? Australia and Brazil. Do we have a problem with the way the Australians run their uh their country or their businesses with the Chinese? I mean, they they had trade frictions. They're part of the five eyes. They're buying nuclear subs. And guess where those subs are going to be patrolling? They're not. It's not going to be the Arctic or the Pacific. It's probably the South China Sea. But and yet their trading relation their trade relation with China continues to increase. Wine is going back into China. Uh ironor has never stopped going into China from Australia. So I think we need to look at what others are doing and how successful they are. And every once in a while the Australians when Chinese investment is trying to control sensitive parts of their industry, they say no. So they they're cognizant and they're very vigilant and I think you can do we can probably um thread the needle perhaps a bit more carefully than we have done so in the past.

Steve Paikin: Let me give a heads up to this audience. You see the microphone placed in the middle of the room. So I'm going to ask one more question here and then we're going to start to take questions from you folks. So let me throw this phrase that Mark Carney used in his November piece in the Economist variable geometry. as a plausible approach to engaging China. Mary, what what do you interpret that to mean and should we do it?

Mary Ng: I think we uh talked about that a little bit earlier. The variable geometry that leads to pluralateralism. Pluralateralism is just simply creating different partnerships with others who who you could create some um uh common ground with um a set of interests. So getting away from values but from interest that you have shared interests with and to do that together in a way that uh in a way that actually will help you have the kind of leverage and the influence that you will need beyond yourself. So that

Steve Paikin: are we well poised to do it?

Mary Ng: I think we absolutely are. I think we are as a middle country. I think that there's a lot of work that has to be done to do that. But do are we poised as Canada? Yes. We we know how to do this. We have partners around the world that we could do it with and uh and and we need to get on and do it. That list that you talked about, it's not just Canada that has that that that has that list. It's many other countries. So, you're going to have other middle powers. you're going to have other people in that variable geometry set that you can work with to identify interests that uh that allow us to then engage and have those conversations with China where it's more than just Canada. It's an entire group of you know of of of countries of allies where those very interests perhaps those are the interests and you actually have those conversations um you have that engagement. It's not conversation. You have an engagement that could try to get you into uh a more meaningful.

Lynette: So when Mark Honey talks about variable of geometry, what appears in my mind is a van diagram with multiple concentric circle that overlap with each other. Right? One could represent arbitrary detention. The other one could represent monopoly of critical mineral supply. And we could have a multiple circles to cope with the re the is the issue of China such as electoral interference, trade coercion, uh so on and so forth which we haven't done and I think the thing about guardrail preemptive guardrail that we should put in place as we proceed with our relationship with China be it engagement or or deeper relationship these are the concentric circles that I think we should be thinking about pre preempt ly before problems actually emerge.

Vina Najibulla: Yeah. So I think this is the one place where uh Mary and I have a slightly different view. Can it be done? Yes. Are we currently ready to do that? I I'm not sure because as as Lynette is saying, we have been so reactive to what China does, right? Rather than proactively have a really clear understanding of what it is that we want from China and what it is that we are not going to do. And I think we have to also recognize that China is not just any other actor. So Constantine constantly says with everybody does that. Well, China is m CCP is communist Chinese party. It's it's much much more powerful than any other country. It's now a peer state to the US. So it's not just another middle power that we have to kind of manage relations with. We have to recognize their economies 40 times the size of ours. There have been at this game of essentially creating asymmetric dependencies for 15 20 years. They're ahead of us on so many things when it comes to industrial strategy. So we have to be realistic of who we are dealing with and the fact that we haven't done our homework. We have been complacent. And so yes, can we have selective engagement with China? Yes. Do we have the tools right now? No. Can we develop them if we actually put our minds to it? Yes. But we have to have the kind of conversations that you're initiating in this room to be able to do that. Because in a democracy, it's not just our political leaders, but people who also need to participate. why we're here. I think we're already doing some of that.

Mary Ng: Yes. And and precisely

Vina Najibulla: a working group.

Mary Ng: So precisely the Asia-Pacific Foundation and the work that you're doing and in the region in particular as part of Canada's Indopacific strategy is intended to do that kind of work to build those coalitions to actually do the preparatory work. So I I I I think we're actually saying the same thing. I absolutely think we can do it, but those consent circles have to be have to be drawn. We have to, you know, bring Canadians along and educate Canadians. We've got to be able to bring allies along and educate and and collaborate.

Steve Paikin: I'm jumping in because this line's getting long. Yeah. Because they want in. Okay. If you wouldn't mind, uh, give us your first name, perhaps where you're from, and fire away with your question.

JM: Oh, yeah. Um, my name is JM. Uh, I'm a international student at the University of Toronto. And I love to talk about ru democracy in Canada. And my sense is uh there's something wrongs with the racial hierarchy with the Chinese because when we look at the track record of Chinese in Canada, you have the the uh BC construction workers, you have the yellow peril, you have the Chinese hair tax, Asian minority and the hatred during the co. So if Canada is being a quite a dictatorship to the Chinese Canadians in this country like who is Chinese who is Canadian government to call Chinese government a dictatorship to them because the freedom for Chinese is pretty much the the dictatorship is pretty much the same in these two countries

Steve Paikin: do you know well okay that's your view that's your view but we don't have Chinese lawmakers in the parliament lawyers journalists and all I should also say apparently when our when our political leaders go over to China and and Bob Ray and I talked about this just the other day, our former ambassador to the United Nations, as soon as he brings up human rights, the Chinese say

Steve Paikin: your record on indigenous issues is pretty terrible, too. And therefore, you're in no position to lecture us. So,

Lynette: where does that get us?

Vina Najibulla: And therefore, we should talk about maximizing interest instead of values. But it's good to see one of our U of students here.

JM: Yeah. But there is no opportunities for extra Chinese liberals to seek opportunities in Canada.

Mary Ng: But let me just say this. I am a Chinese Canadian. I am one of 1.8 million. I'm a proud Chinese Canadian. I'm the first and only full Chinese minister of the crown representing Markham Thornhill writing but sitting around a cabinet table and the longest serving trade minister during co. We stood up. the prime minister stood up to call out the anti-Asian racism. And you're right, um, for me, it was not lost on me that on July the 1st, a couple of years ago, opening up the Chinese Canadian Museum in Vancouver to acknowledge an exclusion act where someone like me, a sitting member of Parliament, was complicit in creating a law that prohibited people like me from coming in the country. But it's about recognizing and acknowledging um those you know the faults of our past as we have with indigenous reconciliation and and and and the answer is absolutely there's there's a lot that we're not a proud that we're not proud of but what have we done about Bob Ray says Bob Ray says what will we continue to do and look what we are

Steve Paikin: look what we're doing and look what you're not doing and we don't silence those who point that out

Steve Paikin: right okay next person

Caroline: oh hi my name is Caroline I'm in finance secretary. I'm very happy uh the issue about China was brought up here and that's very informed. Uh as a Chinese Canadian uh China is very dear to me but in the meantime I came to Canada for freedom. When Mark Carney reopened the dialogue with China, I'm very concerned about, you know, if Canadian values will be compromised because China leverage the investment and trade to influence Canadian uh business and public opinion orchestra transnational repression uh and a state sponsor cyber attack. Uh so uh I I'd like to hear the answer from the gentleman about how we can uh Canada balance the relation between doing trade with China in the meantime uh not compro compromise Canadian values. Thank you

Constantine Curionopoulos: Thanks. I fail to see how Canadian values could be compromised by doing more business with others whether it's China, whether it's India. uh whether it's the United States. So I don't think Canadian values are that weak to be compromised because we sell more or we sell less. I think this is a characteristic of our country and mercifully we're we're fine with it and we continue to settle grievances and we continue to fix problems. We could be doing a better job. Of course you you're raising issues that are issues of law. So if there is coercion, if there is uh illegal activity in this country, we have the laws and the means to put an end to it. We need to try harder. There's no question about it. There's spies.

Steve Paikin: Let me give let me give Vina a chance to speak to this question, too. Do you think if we do more business with these countries, it threatens our values?

Vina Najibulla: Well, it can make us vulnerable to coercion and to compliance with lines of argument that are not in our consistent with our values. So I think it opens us to that risk but we have to manage that. So in other words when Constantine says he can't imagine that world I mean we have examples of what that looks like right so because if basically China says in order to have access to this market you have to stop criticizing situations of human rights or you have to stop talking about foreign interference all of those things if we were to comply that would be compromising our values. Now it opens it makes us more vulnerable if we give them leverage but it doesn't have to end up there. So there's a way for us to manage both

Steve Paikin: and there's different ways to comp to criticize. I mean you don't have to do it from the rooftops. You can do it behind closed doors. You can take the cretian approach or you can take the Trudeau approach.

Vina Najibulla: Karan was dealing with a very different China. So I don't think we can compare what was happening in the 90s and early 2000s with what's happening now. to my point that China is much more powerful now and demands a lot more compliance from smaller countries like Canada.

Steve Paikin: But at the same time, there were issues in China that Creten, at least as far as he talks about it, criticized the behind.

Vina Najibulla: China was more open to that kind of conversation then than it is now.

Steve Paikin: Let's get back to the audience here. Julia, you're up.

Julia Panella: Yes. Hi, I'm Julia Panella. I live in Cabam. Um kind of continuing on the theme of nostalgia as well as um labor practices. Um, I want to talk about how Canada has long portrayed itself as a peacekeeping nation, but I want to know, do you think that this facade has faded? We know in many of our supply chains, we have fast fashion like Shien, um, religious minorities that like the weaguers who are under forced labor practices and we're buying tomatoes from them. The EU has taken some action around this by taxing and and investigating these practices. And more recently, China is not the only country. Canada also sold armored vehicles to ISIS. So I want to know how can we as Canadians claim ethical leadership while trading with countries tied to human rights abuses?

Steve Paikin: Anybody in particular you want on this?

Steve Paikin: Anybody? Go for it.

Lynette: Lynette, go ahead.

Lynette: We'll start with the I don't think any country should stand on moral high ground and say that we only do fair trade because these things are very very murky. The lines are very murky. Right. the the examples that you have given you know like you have to really have to break down the ingredients of a shirt of a blouse to see to say that where these ingredients are actually source sourced from it is very very difficult but on the questions of vulnerability as as you have mentioned and we discussed earlier I think Canada by definition because of the size of the Chinese diaspora which I'm one of them I'm also a Chinese Canadian is vulnerable to Chinese political interference whether or not we trade with China. I mean these are two separate questions. Why are we inflating them? Why are we conflating them? Right? And if we do not trade with China, there's another question that we have not asked. How about our economic prosperity?

Lynette: Are we trading off certain things for not trading with with China? Right? I think we tend to conflate values with interest and then economic interest and political interest. Maybe we should think about, you know, separate them.

Steve Paikin: Constantine.

Constantine Curionopoulos: Yeah, I I couldn't agree with that point more. That was a excellent point of conflating things that don't really come together. Uh, and you know, bad stuff could happen regardless of whether we're trading with anybody or not. Um, but you know, when it comes to trading with uh countries that share our values, I'll plagiarize and I'll quote uh John Edmonson in the Globe who said if we only traded with company with countries that saw the world the way we see it would be left with maybe Holland and maybe Denmark and that's it. We wouldn't trade with anybody.

Steve Paikin: And how boring?

Constantine Curionopoulos: It wouldn't be terribly profitable. But so I think there need I think we need to compartmentalize trading and protecting uh the country and the national interest and and the rule of law. So um trading as as the prime minister said um the old way of doing things is dead. I mean we need to do things differently and in order to do things differently we need to take many different approaches and start trading with a

Vina Najibulla: nobody's saying that we shouldn't trade with China again it depends on what kind of trade and it's not just about trade it's also about investment it's about deeper economic relations trade right now is not just about trade there are links to national security and economic security and Lynette is right that our vulnerability v foreign interference and diaspora is of course baked in given the composition of Canadian society But we also have other potential vulnerabilities if we become strategically dependent on China in certain sectors. So you can still become more vulnerable. Just because a certain level of vulnerability is baked in doesn't mean that oh well then in that case it doesn't matter what else we do. So I think again multiple things can be true at the same time. Yes, we have to do some trade with China. China is an important consequential economic power. We cannot ignore and we have to be cleareyed about the kind of strategic dependencies, the kind of risks that come with greater engagement given that trade now is intrinsically linked to national security and economic security. We're not living in a world where politics, trade, diplomacy are separate lanes.

Steve Paikin: Let's go back to the audience. Yes sir.

Nicholas: Hello. Um my name is Nicholas uh former University of Waterl student. Um my question is to the entire panel which is uh given that the Chinese and American relationship will likely be the defining relationship of the 21st century. What um particular policies or countries can we look at that are that could serve us as a template on navigating this relationship? For example, Singapore under Lie Kuanu.

Mary Ng: Mary, you want to take that on? Yeah, I mean um I think that uh that what the world is experiencing right now in the great power competition is something that that we have not experienced or seen. I don't know necessarily that there is any country that uh that has figured this out. I think we're all in this boat together and I think I go back to what is it that we need to do as Canada as a country? What is in our interest? What kind of economy do we want uh down the road? What stands in the way of our economy getting there? Who should we be partnering with? How do we deepen those relationships in such a way that actually is inherently good for Canadian resiliency, for our economy in the future, for jobs for our workers, for us to be able to innovate, for us to compete, uh, and with whom? I mean, so I think that th those are the questions that that we as Canadians should be very cleareyed and very very focused on and getting ourselves on a path of accomplishing that over the next, you know, over the next number of years and decades so that Canada continues to have the standard of living that we want that continues to attract the people that we do that has the freedoms and the democra and and and and and living within, you know, within the democratic system that we have enjoyed.

Mary Ng: uh and that we will continue to enjoy. I think that's up to us to figure out and and and I don't think anyone else has has has actually got a secret sauce.

Steve Paikin: Thanks for the question, Nicholas. Let's get the next person in line, please.

Elliot Chen: Hi, good evening. Uh my name is Elliot Chen. I'm a reporter with The Wire China. I think I've spoken to some of you before. It's it's nice to see you again.

Elliot Chen: Um my question is about the trade balance. Um as as as you know, you know, China spent the last decade spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to achieve self-sufficiency. uh particularly in high-tech sectors, you know, everything from semiconductors to EVs to even food. Um you know, there there's a world in which China would like to be self-sufficient in all these things and not be dependent on importing from the rest of the world. And so I guess my question is for the you know the members of the panel that are more supportive of of a pivot uh perhaps Mr. to carryonopoulos. Um, you know, how do you build a sustainable trading relationship when one country wants to sell, you know, everything from timu goods to chips to EVs and the other country is primarily offering canola and fish.

Constantine Curionopoulos: Um, yeah, it's not going to be easy, but we we talked a little bit earlier about um we mentioned rather an industrial strategy. Um I think part of one of the many reasons why North America and Europe developed the way they did in the postc world war period is the existence of industrial strategies um in in Canada at least in the last uh few decades around the automotive industry. Well perhaps not so much in Canada but in Ontario and Quebec. Um I think we need to rethink of what we need to do as a country and where we need to be in 5 10 20 years.

Constantine Curionopoulos: And um you know I'm not only saying that because that's what China does, but I've had a bit of a front row seat. I mean 2011 the 12 five-year plan China identified eight strategic emerging industries most around decarbonization and the energy transition that they were absolutely dead set on dominating using them to drive yes using them to drive their industrial expansion and at the same time perhaps with the 13 five-year plan they determined that needed to be self-sufficient in critical minerals and they set out to own critical mineral assets around the world. We need to think about what we need to do. When we were talking earlier about digging critical minerals out of the ground, I think we need to be thinking of adding value here in order to feed the EV industry that we've been so generously funding

Constantine Curionopoulos: because if we don't, the lithium is going to come from either China or Chile or Argentina. The magnets will come from China or Europe. the plant that perhaps I built in uh Estonia. But we need to keep looking at what we can do here. We have fantastic universities. I'm a I'm a chemical engineer from uft, so I'm I'm I'm biased. We have fantastic educational institutions, but we're not using them to the degree that we should be.

Steve Paikin: Let me jump in for a second here.

Vina Najibulla: We've come full circle and we actually agree, which is great.

Steve Paikin: There we go. There we go. Stand by one second. Uh let me just do a time check here. Hillary, how much how many more questions we got time for?

Steve Paikin: I think we're at time.

Steve Paikin: We got two questions more. That's all we got time because they're going to kick us out of the hall soon. So, you with the glasses and the person behind you. And forgive me, that's all the time we got.

Steve Paikin: Um, so go ahead, sir.

Nick: Yes. This question is for the panel. My name's Nick. I'm from Cork Town. um thinking about the 40 plus million citizens of this country that are you know from none of it to eastern Canada to western Canada the panel did highlight the need for high value jobs so what specific sectors should Canada prioritize to ensure variable geometry trade which you guys mentioned actually delivers those jobs rather than hollowing those jobs out

Steve Paikin: okay which sectors should we focus on who wants that Lynette you want to go for that

Lynette: I think we should focus on those sectors where our comparative comparative advantage wise um I am thinking about agricultural processing high end of of of agricultural processing and services sector um I would be wary about you know building factories um doing industrial policy in large scales in those sectors we clearly do not have an uh comparative advantages because um at the end of the day it is going to be very costly for the economy in with hidden costs that uh taxpayers will have to suffer and they don't and they don't get political voices uh to be heard.

Vina Najibulla: I think one thing that we can do is we can connect some of the excellence that we have in AI and robotics and quantum in aerospace with our industry. So really connect that research with industry where I think we can actually move forward and we can use the billions of dollars that are now being promised for defense spending for those kinds of dual use technologies around spy cyber around quantum around AI which I think could really position us well both for our economic needs as well as our defense needs and meet the various targets that we've put in place to be good ally. I would also add clean energy particularly around nuclear where we are an absolute powerhouse and we've got great technology and you add and you add AI into that and we actually um it's it's really a great

Steve Paikin: small modular reactors

Vina Najibulla: and the big ones too I can do I mean

Steve Paikin: we've been waiting all night long to get to your question

Steve Paikin: you are the last one go for it

Zach: Zach from University of Wateroo and my question is to the minister is do we think a pivot to China would be costfree because the US could easily retaliate and given the comparison even Mexico is retaliating on China and putting tariffs on them to please the US. So do we think it's worth the juice to try to pivot given the huge gaps?

Mary Ng: I don't think it's a pivot. I think it is what we all said what the variety of us said that we need to that we shouldn't ignore the second largest economy in the world and that there are interests for Canada to uh to expand and to do more in. So I think about tourism, I think about agra foods, I think about uh you know I right I mean energy right I mean like so I so there are this is where we do that and uh and I think we also then think about who else we do more trade with I mean around the world who are our partners or who should be better you know who should be deeper partners so I don't think I don't think it's a straight pivot I think it's I think you can walk and chew gum at the same time

Constantine Curionopoulos: the idea that the white house needs any rational reason to retaliate is a little bit stretched a fair.

Steve Paikin: That's a fair point. Should we do the vote one more time just for the heck of it and see if anybody's changed their mind here? How many people are, you know, in light of what's going on with the United States, we should do a pivot to China. Let's dive in deeper. Hands up, please.

Steve Paikin: And hands down. Absolutely not. We don't share their same values, yada yada yada. Hands up.

Vina Najibulla: Oh, I think the first group got bigger and I think the second group got smaller. It's about the same about the same.

Steve Paikin: I think that that's my impression here anyway. Anyway, okay, that is our time and we're going to do a few thank yous here before we leave this evening. First of all, I really want to thank all of you for coming out this evening. Um people uh outside this hall, people may or if you're watching on television may not know it's miserable in Toronto tonight.

Steve Paikin: uh outside this hall, people may or if you're watching on television may not know it's miserable in Toronto tonight. Now, I know people in North Bay and Sbury and Thunder Bay are thinking, "You're a bunch of whiners. It's always cold where we are." But it's miserable out there tonight, and you folks filled the hole. So, thank you for coming out. We're very grateful.

Steve Paikin: To our crew, as always, Mark Ford, Chad Castle, Sheldon Osman, we're grateful for the work you did to make this look as good as it did tonight. Uh to the folks who are with the St. Lawrence Hall, Alex Naylor, and his team, great working with you to make all of this happen. Hillary Clark, who produces TVO Today Live, you are the bomb, kiddo. Well done. And as always to the Wilson Foundation and its benefactor Red Wilson for enabling this to happen. Everybody's here tonight free of charge. Nobody paid anything to come in tonight because Red Wilson subsidizes this whole thing. So thanks a lot Red Wilson for your support of this.

Steve Paikin: For more from this series, you can go to tvO.orgtvive or our YouTube channel. Everybody's got a YouTube channel. youtube.comtvo today. And finally, I know not yet. Almost almost I know this audience wants to join me in thanking these four for a sublime discussion here tonight at St. Lawrence Hall. So that's great. Terrific. I'm Steve Pac.

Steve Paikin: Good night everybody from St. Lawrence Hall. We'll see you again next time.

Steve Paikin: TVO Today Live is made possible by the generous support of the Wilson Foundation.