When Canada Chases China While Living Off the U.S.
Canadians are being asked to accept a strange new story: that China deserves prime political attention, while our relationship with the United States can be treated like a guaranteed paycheck that will keep clearing no matter how we behave.
That story doesn’t match the numbers.
On the goods trade ledger, Canada’s relationship with the United States is in a different universe than Canada’s relationship with China.
With the U.S., Canada sells far more than we buy. That’s a trade surplus—meaning the U.S. is a net customer of Canadian output.
With China, Canada buys far more than we sell. That’s a trade deficit—meaning China is the net seller into Canada.
So the question isn’t partisan. It’s practical:
If we’re running a large deficit with China, who is benefiting most from that relationship—and why is it receiving so much political attention?
Surplus vs Deficit: It’s Not Just a Spreadsheet
A surplus doesn’t mean everything is perfect. A deficit doesn’t mean “no one in Canada benefits.” But these balances do tell you something important:
A surplus generally means your country is producing and exporting at scale—supporting domestic jobs, investment, and tax revenue.
A deficit generally means your country is consuming more than it produces in that trading relationship—sending more dollars out than it brings in through exports.
So when the U.S. relationship produces a net inflow and the China relationship produces a net outflow, it’s fair for citizens to ask:
Why are we acting like the smaller, deficit relationship is the strategic priority?
Who Wins From Canada–China Trade?
If Canada runs a deficit with China, the most obvious winners are:
1) Chinese exporters.
They sell into Canada more than they buy from Canada. That’s what a deficit means.
2) Canadian import-side middlemen.
Importers, distributors, and retailers can profit handsomely selling lower-cost goods into Canadian markets. Consumers may pay less on many manufactured items. Those are real benefits—but they’re not the same as building Canadian productive capacity.
3) Specific Canadian exporters—especially commodities.
Canada does sell major commodities to China: agriculture (like canola and meal), resources, and some industrial goods. These exporters benefit. But in aggregate, those exports are still far smaller than what Canada imports from China.
This is where honesty matters: a deficit relationship often concentrates Canadian “wins” in consumption and retail margins, while the exporting country concentrates wins in production, industry, and scale.
Who Wins From Canada–U.S. Trade?
The U.S. relationship is different in three ways.
1) Scale.
The U.S. market is Canada’s economic gravity well. It’s not close.
2) Integration.
Canada–U.S. trade isn’t just “we sell them X.” It’s deeply integrated supply chains—energy, manufacturing, auto parts, machinery, services. That integration supports Canadian production in a way commodity-only trade often doesn’t.
3) Enforceability.
Canada and the U.S. operate under a formal trade framework with dispute mechanisms. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a rules-based environment where Canada has tools.
That doesn’t mean the U.S. can’t be difficult. It can. But when Canadians hear talk that “we’re pivoting” away from the U.S., they’re right to ask: pivot to what, exactly?
The Political Optics Problem
Here’s what the public sees:
A Prime Minister “globetrotting,” pursuing photo ops and pronouncements.
A lot of “strategic partnership” language.
Not enough concrete, measurable wins that show up in Canadians’ lives: affordability, productivity, real wages, housing supply, energy security, reduced crime, reduced deficits.
And when China—where Canada runs a deficit and faces clear market access and security concerns—gets prominent diplomatic attention, it can look like Canada is chasing the wrong leverage point.
Because leverage isn’t about who you visit.
Leverage is about who needs you—and who can replace you.
A Simple Canada-First Test for Every “China” Headline
If the government wants Canadians to trust its China policy, here’s the standard it should meet—every time:
1) Reciprocity:
Are Canadian companies getting real access, or are we just reopening the door to more imports?
2) Net benefit:
Will this policy increase Canadian value-added production—or just increase consumption of imported goods?
3) Risk control:
What are the safeguards against technology diversion, IP theft, interference, and regulatory retaliation?
4) Transparency:
Are Canadians getting clear disclosure on grants, contracts, research partnerships, and public funds—who received what, when, and for what deliverables?
5) Parliamentary accountability:
Is Parliament actually driving this, debating it, approving it—or is it being run as a centralized executive project?
If government can’t answer those questions plainly, it has not earned public trust.
What Canadians Should Demand From the PM—Non-Partisan, Concrete
If the Prime Minister wants to prove he’s serving Canadians—not acting as a traveling brand ambassador—here’s what “substance” looks like:
Publish a clear Canada–China economic strategy with measurable goals and red lines.
Table a full public accounting of federal funding flows connected to China: grants, contributions, contracts, and research partnerships—categorized clearly so people can see what’s direct, what’s indirect, and what has deliverables.
Demonstrate tangible wins that strengthen Canadian productivity: investment that builds Canadian capacity, not just trade volumes.
Reaffirm Canada–U.S. economic priorities with seriousness, not snubs—because our standard of living is still anchored to the North American market.
Stop treating citizens like spectators. Canadians are not here to clap. They’re here to consent—and that requires facts.
The Core Point
Canada can trade with China. Canada can talk with China. Canada can pursue exports wherever it can.
But Canadians are right to be suspicious when:
China receives outsized political attention,
Canada remains in a deficit position,
and citizens can’t see clear, enforceable benefits flowing back to the country.
A Prime Minister is not a king. He’s an employee—temporarily trusted with power. The job is not to be seen. The job is to deliver measurable outcomes for the nation, under Parliament, accountable to the people.
If this government wants trust, it should stop asking Canadians to “feel good” about diplomacy and start showing Canadians the receipts—and the results.
Comments
Post a Comment
Pending moderation, your comment will be published. Thank You