Front Burner - In Asia, Canada hopes to fill a Trump-sized void

Episode Date: October 29, 2025

As Donald Trump ends trade talks with Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Asia this week, meeting with leaders, and pitching Canada as a reliable partner in a moment of geopolitical realignment. On the trip, Carney has talked about Canada’s search for new reliable partners “who honour their commitments, who are there in tough times, and who engage collaboratively to fix something that isn’t working.” So, with Carney in Asia in search of new partners, where does this leave Canada? Our guest is Vina Nadjibulla, Vice-President of Research and Strategy with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.We'd love to hear from you! Complete our listener survey here.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

It's sneaky, underhanded. They don't want us to talk about it. But in Canada, beer tax increases are automatic. They go up automatically, yes. Even though at 46%, Canada already imposes the highest beer taxes of any country in the G7. Don't they realize automatic is not democratic? To help stop it, go to hereforbear.ca. And ask yourself, why does the best beer nation have the worst beer taxation?

This is a CBC podcast. Hey everybody, I'm Jamie Prosser. As the difficulty of trade talks with Donald Trump continues, Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Asia this week, meeting with leaders on the continent. He's slated to take part in a series of events and summits and meet leaders of nations like Malaysia, India, Vietnam, Singapore, and China.

And really, Carney appears to be in Asia as a kind of salesman, selling the possibility of Canada to the world. We value a rules-based system. We respect trade agreements in the rule of law. We value the free exchange of goods, capital, and ideas. We're a natural partner. In what reads to me as a not-so-settled nod to Trump, Carney told leaders in Malaysia's capital that...

We're at an uncertain time in the world. There's a shift. We don't know the new system that's going to a... emerge. It underscores the importance of reliable partners who honor their commitments, who are there in tough times. And when things are not working, who work collaboratively to fix them, colleagues, I would like to just underscore that Canada can be and is such a partner. So, with Carney and Asia in search of new partners, where does this moment of geopolitical realignment leave Canada? Vina Najabula is the vice president of

research and strategy with the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada. And she joins us today for a discussion about Mark Carney's new strategy in Asia and where Canada stands in a world order no longer organized around American unipolarity. Vina, hi, thank you so much for making the time today. Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the invitation. So Prime Minister Mark Carney is in Asia right now where he has been for several days now. his first series of visits to the continents as becoming Prime Minister.

He's currently attending a summit called APEC, where Trump is actually in attendance. And what would you say are some of the primary goals of his trip to Asia? Yes. So this is his first trip to the region as Prime Minister. He's going to try to position Canada as a reliable, serious partner that's interested in doing business with Asian partners and that values inclusive. trade as well as sustainable development, and it's committed to rules-based trade, which puts Canada in a different category than the big powers like U.S. and China. So the big job is to really show that Canada has something to offer the region and is committed to being

a serious partner that is also reliable. Of course, as everyone will know, the never-ending trade saga with Trump has taken another turn. U.S. President Donald Trump has canceled trade talks with Canada over an anti-tariff advert released by the Ontario government featuring former Republican President Ronald Reagan. When someone says, let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumer. A Trump official recently said this wasn't just about the ad.

And the Canadians are, quote, very dim. difficult to negotiate with. Ronald Reagan love tariffs. He used them sparingly, and they totally change that to say that he didn't, because they're catering to the Supreme Court, because Canada's been ripping us off for a long time, and they're not going to rip us off anymore. How much of this trip to Asia is essentially about Canada broadcasting its desire to distance itself from the United States on the world stage, you think?

I mean, I think we have to recognize that the trip was planned long in a advance of the latest downturn in discussions with the U.S. to attend both the ASEAN summit and the APEC summit, which have been on the calendar for the Prime Minister for the last few months. But of course, our need and urgency for diversification is very much connected to the fact that the United States, our single most important partner, is no longer reliable. We've been talking about diversification for 30 years, but I think now it's not just kind of a nice to have, but it's a must have if Canada is to continue to be a prosperous, secure country. So I think there is an urgency to the trip that is connected to President Trump and the trade war, but the necessity for

Canada's engagement with Asia has been recognized for a long time because quite apart from the U.S., the region, the Indo-Pacific region or kind of Southeast Asia plus Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia. That's where a lot of the economic growth is going to be happening. It is already happening and will continue to be happening in the next few decades. And for Canada to continue to be a prosperous country, we need to participate in that opportunity. I wonder if you could tell me a little more about what Canada is kind of practically trying to achieve here. So the trip cover stops in Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and then engagements with China. and Korea? And what signal is Canada sending by choosing those stops? What do they stand to tell us about

what they're trying to accomplish concretely? So Malaysia is an opportunity for Prime Minister Carney to participate in the ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Summit. So it's a chance to meet with all the leaders of the Southeast Asian countries in one place, as well as to have discussions with other leaders that are at the summit. And Southeast Asia is sort of the part of the Indo-Pacific that Canada believes has the most opportunity for us because of complementarities of our economies, because that's a region that has demand for energy, for food, as it's growing, and they have tremendous need for the kinds of resources that Canada is really blessed with. So deepening our strategic partnerships in Southeast Asia with countries

like Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia is critical. And being at the summit allows Canada also to kind of put forward a few messages about Canada's foreign policy, certainly under this new government. So a shift from kind of a more values-based, if you will, principle forward foreign policy to one of pragmatic engagement, of really focusing on commercial and economic relations, as well as kind of messages around rules-based trade, free trade, integration of economies at a time when so many countries, especially the big ones like U.S. and China,

are becoming more protectionists and are turning away from rules-based trade. So I think it's a chance for Prime Minister Carney to set kind of the vision for how Canada wants to engage with this region, now that things are changing under President Trump in particular. and then also kind of signal some key areas. So, for instance, energy is a big thing that the Prime Minister is pushing. We're an energy superpower, unabashedly energy superpower. We have the third largest reserves of oil.

We have the fourth largest reserves of LNG. So he specifically signed a deal with Malaysia on exploring additional investments in LNG. Now, your listeners would remember that Petronas, which is a Malaysian company, is already invested in LNG Canada, that's now shipping for the very first time Canadian LNG to Asia. So energy is a big centerpiece. Similarly, kind of this idea of Canada as a leader in technology, in AI, in quantum, and cyber. So technologies of the future, that's another area. And then finally, kind of investment.

I think prime minister recognizes that in order for us to be able to diversify our trade, we need to build trade-enabling infrastructure here at home. And that's going to require an investment. One of the lessons we take from the big change in the world that's happened over the course of the last few years, intensified in the last year, is that we need to build at home and we need to build at scale at home. And the orders of magnitude are, you know, in the half a trillion up of investment domestically in Canada. Well, we need some of that money to come from Asia. And that's why he's in Singapore.

Yeah. Of all the projects that you hear people talk about here, which ones, like, are most relevant to the discussion about doing business with Asia? Obviously, the LNG terminal, but just if you could have... Yeah. So it's also, obviously, anything to do with ports in Singapore, the Prime Minister met with their port authority. And, of course, Singapore is already involved in ports in Halifax and BC. So really upgrading Canada's port infrastructure is going to be critical because if you look at some of the kind of the numbers on port efficiency, unfortunately, Canadian ports don't score very well.

In fact, Port of Vancouver is, I think, only fourth from the bottom globally. So we need a lot more investment and upgrades to how our port facilities function. Obviously, we also need investment in a critical mineral sector. So we have noted that Canada has enormous deposits of critical minerals and we have the mining know-how, but we do need actual capital to be able to get those minerals out of the ground and then into market. So investment in the critical mineral sector would be another any kind of partnerships around nuclear, particularly SMRs. So we just saw that the government, federal government invested a billion into a project in Ontario. around SMRs. So many countries in Southeast Asia would be very interested in partnerships around that

because obviously conventional nuclear technology takes a longer time and it's harder for them. But there's a ton of interest in SMRs. Similarly, I think a couple of other sectors to note that there's interest in the region for is aerospace as well as AI and cyber. So and those are the areas where Canada wants to invest more through our defense expenditures. As you know, the prime minister is saying that we will be quadrupling our defense budget. Much of that will go into these kind of sectors which are dual use, so which can be used both for civilian economy as well as for our defense needs. Well, in order for us to build those industries here at home, they need additional customers.

It can just be Canadian needs. So they need other customers in Southeast Asia and Asia in general. could offer that customer base. I was hoping now that we could dig into China specifically. So Carney is reportedly meeting with Xi Jinping. I don't think he has yet. You and I are speaking on Tuesday. And we're not so far removed from a Canadian foreign minister

referring to China as a, quote, disruptive global power. It seeks to shape the global environment into one that is more permissive for interests and values that increasingly depart from ours. That was just a few years ago. Even more recently, I remember that Kearney was referring to the country as, quote, the biggest security threat facing Canada during an election debate. That was in April of this year. And today, the tone and the tenor and the language is,

really shifted. Canadian officials are now referring to China as a strategic partner in an increasingly complicated world. And just what do you make of that shift in tone? Yeah. So things are changing with respect to our China strategy really quickly. I think it's still not quite clear where the Carney government wants to take our relationship with China. So they began by talking about recalibration. This is the start of a process of recalibrating the relationship with China, it's very important that we reopen dialogue with Chinese authorities. Now, of course, Minister Anan, after her trip to Beijing, sort of brought back the conversation around strategic partnership.

When we think about India and China and other relationships, we have to remember that it is necessary to raise issues of concern to the Canadian population. At the same time, we need to be pragmatic about our economic needs. Right. Now, you'll have to remember that we signed a strategic partnership with China exactly 20 years ago, and things looked very different 20 years ago. And, of course, strategic partnership is something that we think of when we think of Japan or South Korea, countries with whom we are aligned.

Japan is a G7 country. So I think strategic partner is probably not the frame that easily or best describes the relationship that we have with China. We have a complex relationship and it is true that it needs to be recalibrated because what we had said three years ago in our Indo-Pacific strategy may not be fit for purpose given all the changes over the last year to the entire global order and the US becoming now a much more disruptive power as well. So I think it is right that we need to recalibrate the relationship. But what that relationship could look like, I think, there are still more questions than answers.

And Prime Minister Carney, in his most recent interview, said that he wants to kind of get a sense for the expectations around the relationship. So he's now saying that the meeting with Xi Jinping will allow him to better understand the full parameters, the scope of what is possible with China now. We're in the process of a resetting of expectations of where the relationship can go and where it won't go. We have a lot of areas on which we can build. And look, this is our second largest trading partner. This is the second largest economy in the world.

This is one of the most influential actors in terms of the global system, such as it is. What he means there, I think, is that from Canada's perspective, we would like to have more trade and to be able to deepen commercial ties with China, but in a way that doesn't undermine our national security. and in a way also that doesn't undermine our negotiations with the U.S., which remains our most important partner, right? So that triangulation is a really difficult one. And China is not an easy partner to negotiate with on a good day from a position of strength. So to negotiate with China now, when China feels emboldened and confident, because from its

perspective, it's winning the trade war with the U.S., and Canada is in a very difficult situation because of our own predicament with the U.S. and the state of our economy. So we are coming arguably into this conversation in a weaker position at a time when China feels emboldened. So to be able to kind of demand a relationship that serves our interests, but at the same time sort of protects us from all the things that we know China does that is in contradiction to our national security and our values, I think that's a hard task. I mean, I'm sorry if this is a very convoluted answer, but I'm trying to kind of be as analytical about this as possible and note that the desire to have a better relationship with China is understandable. But the reality of the regime in Beijing is

such that it's going to be very difficult for us to do all the things that the prime minister wants and to protect all the things that matter. Yeah, I just want to try and pull it apart a little bit more with you now. So of course, as you know well, we went through years with China after we at the best of the United States arrested at a leading electronics executive. Canadian officials arrested Huawei executive Meng Huangzhou earlier this month at the request of the Americans. Days later, the Chinese detained former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and entrepreneur Michael Spavore. Beijing says both men pose a risk to state security. This dispute comes amid trade tensions between the U.S. and China, and as Ottawa is conducting a national

security review of telecom giant Wallway. I know that you were very involved with the efforts to get them both released. We've also seen this steady stream of reporting over the last few years about China's many attempts to meddle in Canadian elections. Canada's election watchdog normally keeps her work confidential, but a rare move went public, saying she's reviewing complaints Beijing meddled in the past two federal elections. It comes after the Globe and Mail and Global News reported serious allegations based on leaked intelligence. Those reports detailed sophisticated efforts by China in 2019 and 2021. Of course, there are the human rights concerns as well. There's China's treatment of the Uyghurs in 2021. Parliament passed a motion referring to China's treatment

of the Uyghurs as a genocide, though the Trudeau and his cabinet ministers did not participate in that vote. And are we just like putting that all aside now? I mean, I don't think we can. I mean, I think we now recognize who we're dealing with in the Chinese Communist Party. And I think we'll need to be able to hold all of that in our minds while we also try to have kind of a more pragmatic, more constructive dialogue on the issues that we also care about, notably trade and commercial relations as well as maybe some discussions around the climate agenda or global health agenda. So, I mean, it's not an easy thing for Canada in particular because historically Canada has approached foreign policy from a perspective of we have friends in the world and we have

actors that are disruptive and that we don't deal with as much. So China, Russia, a few others. And I think in the current global environment, that simply is not something that we're able to do anymore. So we don't have that luxury anymore. We have to be able to engage pragmatically in some areas while also recognizing that there will be limits to that engagement. There are red lines, and we have to be able to do multiple things at once. We have to continue to develop instruments that protect us when it comes to things like foreign interference, when it comes to investments in critical infrastructure. So we need to have investment screening mechanisms in place. We need to have foreign registry in place. We need to be able to continue to educate our population,

especially diaspora community, about the threats they're emanating from China and at the same time have a conversation with their leadership on trade and areas of economic cooperation where the interests of both countries might align. But it's a very different approach than just sort of saying that we will try to mend fences and pretend like the last five years didn't happen. I know on areas of economic cooperation, I've heard to several people talk recently about EVs, right? Which we currently have a 100% tax on. We did this with the United States several years ago, China responded by imposing tariffs on canola and then I think on seafood too, right?

That's right. And just, you know, let's say there were some concessions around the EV stuff. Just speaking to your earlier point, that it's a tricky line to walk with the United States, right? Could that result in another fracture with the United States and another set of consequences here at home for us? Yes. So we absolutely need to be very mindful of our discussions with the U.S. and our discussions with China in the implications of them. So kind of the triangulation. And if you look at what the U.S. just signed with Malaysia, and with Cambodia, they've signed trade agreements with those two countries that have very strong economic security language that basically says that those countries agree to align with

the U.S. on U.S. export controls, U.S. tariffs, and other measures taken in the name of economic security. So that's a direction of travel that the U.S. is now engaged in. So it would be very hard for me to imagine that when and if things get renegotiated with Kuzma, that similar language will not be in those agreements as well, meaning we can only sort of move in some areas with China, like EVs, if we have given up on those areas with the US. And that might be where we'll end up with the auto sector here in Canada, but I don't think that conversation has yet finished. So therefore, we have to move carefully and sequence decisions in a way that allows maximum option and agency for Canada. So we have to really do everything possible to protect

our industries today, but also to create the foundations that allow us to have the kind of industry that we want also five, ten years from now, right? Because it's not just about market access with respect to China. We also have to think about economic competitiveness in our overall industrial strategy. So it's not just about DVs, it's about the kind of industrial economy we want to have, right, around clean technologies, around technologies of the future in general. And when China enters a market, we have seen this time and time again, they destroyed domestic manufacturing. So from an economic security perspective and from kind of economic competitiveness perspective,

we need to approach this not just from like EVs versus canola, but we need to have a broader picture in mind about what kind of economic relationship we want to have with China that serves us today in terms of some of our export sectors, but also is in line with the vision of Canadian economy that we have 10, 20 years down the line. Of the seven great nations that make up the G7, it is Canada that imposes the highest taxes on beer. 46% of what Canadians pay for beer is government taxation.

When the G7 leaders get together, I bet Canada doesn't brag about that. Enough is enough. Help stop automatic beer tax hikes. Go to hereforbeer.ca and ask yourself, why does the best beer nation have the worst beer taxation? Why BDC for my business? The timing's right.

Everything's in motion. Economy's changing. It's all about automation. A.I. So I said to myself, take the plunge. Yes, I need a loan, but I also need a hand from a partner who's truly working with me, helping me, no matter what comes next. Not later. Now. Get ready for what's next. With BDC, you get financing and advice adapted to your projects. Discover how at BDC.ca.ca.ca slash financing. BDC, financing, advising, no-how. India, where Canada's diplomatic crisis is probably even more dramatic. We are just, what, two years removed from the day that the former Prime Minister got up in Parliament and accused the Indian government of having a hand in the killing of a Sikh activist on Canadian soil in Surrey,

BC. Over the past number of weeks, Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the government of India and the killing of a Canadian citizen, Hardip Singh, Nijar. The RCMP also accused India of covert activity on Canadian soil, espionage, interference, extortion, violence, and more. India suspended visas, diplomats were expelled. None of this has been resolved publicly, yet today Canada says that it is elevating its relationship with India.

And like, how do you interpret this pivot? Yeah, so that's a really good question. And I think the answer to that begins with the recognition that our challenges with India and China are very different. So with China, we're dealing with the Communist Party and with the regime that represents a kind of structural, a comprehensive challenge to Canada's interests, both economic and national security and our values. With India, we have a very specific issue that deals with foreign interference and transnational repression. to the issue of Sikh separatism and Kalistan. Now, that issue is serious. It's complicated.

It has a 40-year history. But the challenge from India is not kind of systemic. It doesn't come from the regime in Delhi because India, while imperfect, it still is a democracy. It's a parliamentary democracy where also it's a federated system where a lot of the states are governed by parties are not the same as the Bay JAP and Premonistramode's party. So my point is that we have to see India quite differently than we see China, and the threats and challenges from the two are very different. So I think the way that we approach reset with India then has to deal with specifically addressing foreign interference and getting accountability for what transpired

two years ago and ensuring that that doesn't happen in the future, that we basically are able to protect Canadians, and at the same time, be able to essentially move forward on the rest of the relationship, as we had imagined it three years ago in the Indo-Pacific strategy, naming India as a critical partner, recognizing that there's a lot of opportunity with Canada and India, both bilaterally, but also regionally in the Indo-Pacific and globally. So I guess what I'm saying is that with India, we now have a plan for a step-by-step recent. said in the relationship that is conditioned on progress in the security and law enforcement side, which from everything that we're hearing from our law enforcement officials and from

RCMP to CIS to the national security and intelligence advisor, there is now constructive discussion happening, that India is cooperating in a way that they weren't arguably even six months ago, right? So we're making some progress there. It's going to take time. And at the same time, we are resetting the relationship. But we have to understand that India is a strategic partner to European, Australian, Japan, other actors, right? So India's place in the kind of the overall map of relationships for Canada is a very different one, the that of China. Do you think there's danger, though, in kind of pursuing both paths at the same time, accountability and promises that the stuff won't happen again and then also signaling that we want to

move forward on this strategic relationship with them at the same time. Like, what kind of message does that sentence? Does it signal that political violence could be overlooked if a partner is economically valuable? No, I mean, I think the only way to get accountability is actually to have dialogue and conversation. And that's what we're seeing now, right? And I mean, and that was, approach that also was taken by the Biden administration two years ago when all of this happened, right? So, I mean, I think this is not about rewarding political violence. This is about figuring out how to best achieve Canada's interests and protect Canadian values. So we have an interest in making sure that this never happens again and that there is accountability and justice

for what transpired. And we have an interest in advancing a relationship with the most populous country in the world with one of the fastest growing economies, where Canada also has a stake in that engagement. So, I mean, I think, again, we have to be able to do multiple things at once. We are not living in a world of black and white. Unfortunately, the world is getting very gray, and we have to figure out how to execute a foreign policy that best protects our values and advances our interests. With India, we are on a path. It's not going to be easy, but if we approach it step by step and it makes sure that at every turn, we are doing multiple things.

We're moving on law enforcement and moving on kind of rebuilding trust and deepening economic partnerships. I think it's a more feasible relationship to repair than the one with China for all the things that I mentioned in terms of the difference of the regimes in Beijing and New Delhi. Vina, this is really interesting and helpful. Thank you so much for this. My pleasure. Thank you. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.