The Canadian government needs to start being honest with itself and farmers. Talking a tougher game would be a great start.

China has hijacked the Canadian canola industry. Until someone proves to me otherwise I will continue to say that China’s cancellation of a major grain company’s export license  is political. Pretending that this is somehow a technical issue is intellectually dishonest. What’s more, yesterday we learned that it’s more than just one company’s license — the Canola Council of Canada has informed the industry that Chinese importers are “unwilling” to purchase Canadian canola seed at this time.

The “Richardson issue” has now become an industry issue and farmers are and should be growing very concerned.

Last week in Saskatoon, Trade diversification minister, Jim Carr was interviewed by RealAgriculture’s, Dale Leftwich.

“We see this as a science-based issue. The Chinese say that shipments of canola from Canada are not pure, and we say, ‘show us.'”

What Carr really means to say but won’t is that the Chinese are acting like gangsters. We have two Canadians unlawfully detained to prove it.

The Canadian government maintaining that this is a technical issue does not even follow the line of facts. This is Canada being stereotypically nice. What is the downside of calling this what it is — China is acting like a mobster?

Richardson’s themselves has said that this issue is political.

CFIA says that they have not detected anything wrong with the samples.

China is being quite unclear about the issue. China’s lack of transparency alone should make you skeptical.

I will grant you this. If this a technical issue, the path to resolution is much more clear and could lead to a quicker conclusion.

The path to resolution on the politics of this will not be easy. It involves extradition, Chinese executive royalty, and an American president that doesn’t seem to care about the situation he has put Canada in. I mean, this White House still has not lifted the section 232 tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum because he still believes Canadian steel is a national security threat. These tariffs are still in place even after the USMCA was negotiated in good faith.

Whether it’s Saudi Arabia, China or even the U.S., we have become an easy target and political fodder for governments looking to leverage domestic issues. This is extremely concerning.

Even though Canada has limited power moves with China, at least we could be talking a tougher game. If only Trudeau was willing to talk tough to China like he allegedly did with former cabinet ministers behind the scenes.

3 thoughts on “Canada needs to start talking tougher on global issues

  1. I don’t think anyone out there believes that this decision by the Chinese government is anything other than a political one. We are in the middle of a fight for global trade dominance by the United States and China and both are going to be asking who is on their side and who is not; with severe consequences for those who are not.

    Canada is just finding it frustrating that we have been thinking that we are a “player” in world trade when, in fact, we are just another one of the countries that gets “played”.

    Get ready, hold on tight, assume nothing, question all alliances. A deal or agreement made today can, and will, be meaningless tomorrow.

    We will be asked to decide, U.S. or China, and we better not waiver on our decision. Like the husband asked by his wife, your mother or me, there is a price for hesitancy and indecision.

    To not be ready would be more than naive, it would be foolhardy.

  2. With the ratification of the CUSMA next year western Canada will become economically separate from Canada. Political separation will follow.
    The trade agreements between the USA and China are political giants maneuvering for advantage and the canadian grains industry is collateral damage….unfortunate but largely unavoidable for the Canadian perseective.

    The markets agricultural products are sold in are free competitive markets. Net of farm returns are determined by costs and the USA has in place some 1800 different cost subsidies for agricultural production. The cash costs +- subsidies mean a very unlevel cost basis and NET returns to farms will exist after the agreement is ratified next year 2020. Personally I think it will result in the forcing producers out of business as costs accumulate.

    The government in China is a communist dictatorship and does not and will not function according to free market rules. Were into a new erra of post Wold Trade Organization trade rules. China will play according to whatever suits them best and change the rules as they go along to ensure raw materials supply reeliability and markets for their products. In the last couple decades Chinas economy has grown very rapidly and is projected to continue to grow rapidly.

    The next few decades economically will be radically different than the past.

Leave a Reply


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.