Canadian Navy Sails in South China Sea, Tariffs on Beijing Get Bipartisan Support
Canadian frigate joins freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, Conservative opposition competes to impose tariffs on Chinese imports, and more.
This week's edition of IPD's Canada-China Brief covers the Royal Canadian Navy’s joint exercises in the South China Sea with the U.S., Australia, and the Philippines as well as the growing volume of bipartisan support for multiplying tariffs on Chinese goods beyond electric vehicles.
From Our Experts
On increasing Canadian participation in South China Sea exercises:
I find it difficult to understand the benefit Canada believes it brings to the Asia-Pacific by increasing its participation in Western-led military exercises and operations. The Royal Canadian Navy is well aware that it lacks the material means to influence regional developments in any meaningful way. Canada simply does not have the military power to shift the regional balance, which raises the question of why it feels compelled to engage.
To put this into perspective, Canada can maintain about three warships in the Pacific, while China has around 370 surface ships and submarines dedicated to the Asian theater. Nothing Canada does will have the slightest impact on the region’s most pressing security issues — whether in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea — other than perhaps adding to existing tensions.
From this standpoint, we should understand Canada's announcement as strategic messaging. This is Ottawa’s attempt to shape a narrative: for the Canadian public, it amounts to virtue signaling by demonstrating Canada's commitment to the global order and international law; for Asian states, it signals Canada’s strategic commitment to the region, regardless of how it might be perceived; and for the US and other Western-aligned states, it’s Ottawa’s effort to demonstrate its value as a security partner at a time when its partners are deeply skeptical about its defense spending.
Washington values Canada's involvement in the Asia-Pacific primarily as part of the regional ‘coalition of the willing.’ Canadian participation in South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) helps the US mitigate growing regional criticism, particularly from maritime Southeast Asian states. A recent Pew poll found that Malaysia and Singapore have more faith in Chinese than American leadership on matters related to Asian security. Polling from Indonesia shows a similar decline in support for US involvement in the region. From the US perspective, the more states willing to share the diplomatic burden of its security role, the better.
That said, it’s a curious time for Canada to lean into its security relations in Asia. After watching Minister Joly’s recent trip to China, it seemed that calmer heads had prevailed in Ottawa regarding its approach to the Indo-Pacific. We can anticipate that the decision to become more involved in the Asia-Pacific’s security affairs may undermine any gains the Minister made during her trip.
– Jeffrey Reeves, Senior Washington Fellow, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy
The deployment of Canadian naval ships to the South China sea, while modest and perhaps even more symbolic than substantive in terms of actual military impact, is nonetheless significant from several perspectives. It demonstrates Canadian commitment of its limited resources to this theatre in partnership with allies and friendly nations, provides additional credibility to multinational efforts to maintain open sea lanes and enhances the experience and capabilities of Canada's naval personnel. The RCN is a small but very professional force that is challenged to maintain a three ocean presence. Despite these limitations, commitment of resources to the Indo-Pacific theatre, as well as formal cooperation discussions with Australia are an important signal of willingness to participate in burden sharing. Of course Canada's naval presence will not make a material difference when compared with the Chinese PLAN, but active participation in joint exercises, along with UN sanctions operations regarding North Korea, not only enhances the interoperability capacities of the RCN but are a physical demonstration that Canada is prepared to commit part of its limited resources to important freedom of navigation operations. It is hard to see how not participating in such exercises improves Canada's credibility or, for that matter, contributes to stability in the region. Far from lacking the proximity, historical ties or cultural links necessary to be a credible partner in Asia, Canada has all of these attributes although it has not used them to good advantage. Hopefully, that is now changing.
– Hugh Stephens, Advisor, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy
Canada's recent pledge to enhance military cooperation with Australia, a nation undeniably entrenched in the Indo-Pacific, is a curious spectacle. While Australia is a legitimate middle power with a long-standing strategic interest and substantial capabilities in the region, Canada remains a distant and largely irrelevant actor. This newfound enthusiasm for the Indo-Pacific, therefore, rings hollow and raises serious questions about the efficacy of such a partnership.
Australia is a cornerstone of regional security. The country has consistently demonstrated its commitment to regional security through its active participation in multinational exercises, peacekeeping operations, and disaster relief efforts. Australia's leadership in regional forums such as ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum is further testament to its status as a responsible and influential member of the international community.
In stark contrast, Canada's Indo-Pacific policy appears to be driven more by a desire to appear relevant than by a genuine strategic imperative. Geographically isolated from the region, Canada lacks the proximity, historical ties, and cultural understanding necessary to be a credible partner. Moreover, its military capabilities are dwarfed by those of other regional powers, making any contribution to collective security marginal at best. While Canada may have ambitions to play a larger role in the Indo-Pacific, its limited resources and capacity suggest that these aspirations are likely to remain unfulfilled.
The proposed enhanced military cooperation between Canada and Australia is therefore a mismatch. While Australia seeks to strengthen its partnerships with like-minded democracies to counter emerging challenges, Canada appears to be seeking a free ride on Australia's coattails. Such a partnership is unlikely to yield significant dividends for either country. Instead, it risks diluting Australia's focus on its core regional priorities and undermining its credibility as a security provider.
Canada would be better served by concentrating its efforts on its core competencies and regional interests. The Arctic, for example, presents a significant strategic challenge and opportunity for Canada. Canada's decision to deepen its military ties with Australia is a misguided attempt to project an image of global leadership. While Australia is a respected and influential player in the Indo-Pacific, Canada remains a peripheral actor with limited capacity and relevance in the region. Rather than pursuing ambitious but unrealistic goals, Canada should focus on its core competencies and regional priorities — especially the Arctic. Only then can Canada hope to make a meaningful contribution to international peace and security.
– Andrew Latham, Senior Washington Fellow, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy
Canada is already participating in America’s excessively high tempo of freedom of navigation operations and other exercises in areas close to the Chinese coast. U.S. and NATO forbearance in the Ukraine conflict has graphically demonstrated the paramount need to avoid direct armed conflict between nuclear-armed peer adversaries, given the risk of escalation to nuclear war. Committing to greater military operability with Australia risks greater Canadian involvement in a destabilizing China containment strategy at the very time when progressive American strategists are urging the Biden Administration to move to “an active denial” defensive posture that will effectively deter potential Chinese aggression while limiting risks of rapid and nuclear escalation.
– Peggy Mason, Advisor, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy
Top Stories
Canadian Frigate Joins South China Sea FONOP as Ottawa Vows Greater Footprint
The HMCS Montreal sailed the South China Sea in a freedom of navigation operation with the U.S., Australia, and the Philippines last week that saw China dispatch its own ships. The move comes as Canadian and Australian defence ministers met in Vancouver and pledged to elevate Indo-Pacific military cooperation.
‘Upholding the rules-based order’ — In a ‘Multilateral Maritime Cooperative Activity Joint Statement’, Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff Jennie Carignan explained:
“Australia, Canada, the Philippines, and the United States uphold the right to freedom of navigation and overflight, other lawful uses of the sea and international airspace, as well as respect for maritime rights under international law.”
Carignan, her Australian and Filipino counterparts, and U.S. INDOPACOM’s Navy Commander Samuel Paparo stated that the “Multilateral Maritime Cooperative Activity within the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone” was an effort in “enhancing cooperation and interoperability between our armed forces.”
“We stand together to address common maritime challenges and underscore our shared dedication to upholding international law and the rules-based order. Our four nations reaffirm the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal Award as a final and legally binding decision on the parties to the dispute.”
The Armed Forces of the Philippines said the exercise saw ships of the four countries operate in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone to “enhance interoperability” through several drills including an "anti-submarine warfare exercise.”
China on standby — The People’s Liberation Army acknowledged it dispatched forces that same day to Scarborough Shoal as the joint U.S. exercise was underway:
The PLA’s Southern Theatre Command announced that it “conducted a joint combat patrol in the sea and airspace near Huangyan Island” and that “all military activities that disrupt the South China Sea, create hotspots, and undermine regional peace and stability are all being controlled to the best extent.”
In a differing account, Armed Forces of the Philippines spokesman Xerxes Trinidad stated that they had “not monitored any purported exercise or combat patrols” near the Scarborough Shoal but confirmed that three PLA Navy vessels “tailed the ongoing AUS-CAN-PH-US Multilateral Maritime Cooperative Activity.”
He noted that three Chinese PLAN corvettes were detected, adding that “the safety of our personnel and the overall conduct of the MMCA remains an utmost priority” as Manila would continue to monitor the situation.
A correspondent from U.S. Naval Institute News aboard a Canadian Cyclone helicopter corroborated the Chinese deployment, noting that the PLAN corvettes “boxed the coalition ships as they sought to complete a joint sail in a diamond formation,” adding that China had also launched its own helicopter.
Talking Taiwan and AUKUS in Vancouver — Ottawa and Canberra’s top defence leaders met on the West Coast for talks to upgrade military interoperability in Asia:
Underlining the Five Eyes partnership, National Defence Minister Bill Blair and Australia’s Richard Marles committed to “enhancing the interoperability of our armed forces” and” underscored the need for all countries to manage strategic competition responsibly and work to reduce the risks of conflict.“
“We continue to enhance our interoperability through participation in multilateral exercises, including in the South China Sea” and to “deepen our operational cooperation, including by exploring opportunities to conduct joint sails, cooperative deployments, and multilateral exercises and training.“
The two also noted the “importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and our opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo,” with Australia welcoming “Canada’s interest in collaborating on advanced capability projects under AUKUS Pillar II.”
Welcoming NATO in Asia — Both ministers repeatedly warmed to the idea of linking transatlantic and Indo-Pacific defence issues:
In a separate press conference, Blair stated that “China is pursuing the most ambitious military build‑up of any nation since the Second World War and it's looking to reshape the international system to advance its own interests” and criticized its “attempts to undercut and reshape the system of international rules.”
Blair also defended Canada’s transits of the Taiwan Strait, saying “our intent there is not to provoke, our intent there is to assert principle, and it's a principle of the freedom of that navigation… It is the rules that have really been the forefront of defence of all free nations in the world.”
Addressing the media in Vancouver, Marles stated that “the moment China and Russia entered into a no limits agreement on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, suddenly a conflict in Eastern Europe became deeply relevant to us in the Indo‑Pacific, to Australia.”
In a separate readout, Ottawa “welcomed the increasing ties between NATO and its four Indo-Pacific partners – recognising that security challenges in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific are interrelated… Canada will remain a strong advocate within NATO for building even closer relations with trusted partners like Australia.”
What commentators think — Experts have observed a pathway for greater external engagement in Southeast Asia’s maritime affairs:
Collin Koh, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, noted a “progression from just bilateral to trilateral, and now quadrilateral maritime cooperative activity formats,” saying that “I suspect this isn’t going to be the last — it’s possible to envisage future different combinations” of participating forces.”
Ian Chong, Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore, said “the risks come down to what exact type of activity and where exactly the activity takes place… If the four states do very minimal activity on the edge of a contested area, it could force the PRC to either accept this behavior or overreact.
Ding Duo, Deputy Director of the Institute of Maritime Law and Policy at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, argued that Manila was "inviting wolves into the house" and damaging ASEAN centrality in regional security affairs, suggesting the U.S. was pushing a minilateral and bloc confrontation approach.
Bunn Nagara, Honorary Fellow at the Perak Academy, stated that “too much attention has been placed on military action and not enough on an understanding of regional history, formal legal commitments and ASEAN policies…. nobody wants the Philippines to become another Ukraine.”
Liz Buchanan, Senior Fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, observed that the South China Sea exercise appears to demonstrate that "there has been some anxiety in Canada, with Ottawa feeling somewhat left behind in the Indo-Pacific great game.”
Tories Compete with Liberals to Expand, Double Down on Chinese Tariffs
As Ottawa weighs increasing tariffs on China after consultations to study the decision, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called for widening protectionist measures beyond Chinese EVs into steel, minerals, and more, echoing a growing chorus among Canadian business leaders and industry representatives.
‘Bring home our jobs’ — Flanked by steel workers in an Ontario press conference, Polievre demanded greater protectionism against Chinese imports:
The Tory leader argued before a ‘bring home our jobs’ sign that Chinese subsidies meant that Canada was at the receiving end of “artificially cheap steel, aluminum and EVs,” adding that China was “doing this with the goal of crushing our steel, our aluminum, and our automotive production, and taking our jobs away.”
In an official readout on the Conservatives’ website, the party accused the Liberal government of “putting hundreds of thousands of steel, aluminum, mining and auto manufacturing jobs at risk by allowing Beijing to flood our markets with artificially cheap Chinese-produced electric vehicles.”
Poilievre proposed his party’s solution of enacting a “100% tariff on made-in-China EVs entering Canada,” a 50% tariff on semiconductors and solar cells, and a 25% tariff on steel and aluminum products, EV batteries, critical minerals, and port cranes, in addition to ensuring zero rebates for Chinese EVs.
Tariff decision imminent — The Liberal government has promised to bring more to the table soon as it has introduced new consultations for protecting additional sectors:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke to the media, dodging questions on tariffs on China and calling Poilievre’s rhetoric on Liberal inaction and Conservative support for the domestic EV industry “baloney,” but said his cabinet will “continue to make sure that we’re using all necessary tools to drive a cleaner and greener economy.”
Katherine Cuplinskas, spokesperson for Deputy PM and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, responded that Poilievre was attempting to “repackage the government’s position that action is necessary to protect Canadian auto workers from unfair Chinese trade practices in electric vehicles and claim it as his own.”
She separately said that “all options – including restricting transactions and investment from Chinese sources in the Canadian EV supply chain – are on the table to ensure Canadian workers and EV supply chains are protected from unfair competition from China’s intentional, state-directed policy of overcapacity.”
Last week, International Trade Minister Mary Ng launched 45-day consultations on “potential new measures to advance and defend Canada’s economic security interests” that would help assess “the best tools to promote economic prosperity and resilience.”
Ng stated that she seeks to “ensure that our economy remains strong and secure in the face of policies and practices that can undermine our competitiveness and prosperity” and find “ways in which we can improve our economic security toolkit to advance Canada’s growth and defend its economic interests.”
Growing momentum — Manufacturing leaders across the country have increasingly voiced support for government tariff action on Chinese competition:
Canadian Steel Producers Association President Catherine Cobden told the press that “we can't be the only CUSMA country that is not taking this serious action for many reasons, but not the least of which is that we'll become the dumping ground for this excess steel capacity… doing nothing is not an option.”
“We have seen a doubling of Chinese steel in our market over the last several years. That's a proof point that the trade remedy system alone is insufficient to deal with the moment of what we're facing in terms of Chinese overcapacity. The problem will continue to be the erosion of the Canadian steel industry.”
Jean Simard, President of the Aluminum Association of Canada, echoed that “the fencing-out of Chinese excess capacity by Mexico and the U.S. leaves us, Canada, the sole tariff-free point of entry in the CUSMA trading space. We cannot and will not let this happen. It's not in our industry's interest and not in Canada's interest.”
Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association President Brian Kingston argued that tariff alignment with the U.S. would better position Canada and that "now is the time. Let's put these policies in place, show the American people we are going to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in this approach to China."
What They’re Saying
The path Canada is currently on seems dictated by a fear of being offside the U.S. While both Canada and the U.S. have legitimate concerns, we’re going about it in a dangerous way. The challenge is how to chart a course between a Chinese Scylla and an American Charybdis that balances our interests – both economic and security – without getting shipwrecked. But like Odysseus, Canada can’t seem to find its way. Canada used to treat trade policy as a technocratic domain shielded from political rhetoric; however, the EV announcement is full of politically-charged language. This may temporarily placate American protectionist instincts, but at the cost of undermining our already limited autonomy while also limiting economic development opportunities.
– Jeff Mahon, Executive in Residence, Canada West Foundation
If you enjoy our work, please consider contributing:
Image credit: Armed Forces of the Philippines | Pierre Poilievre