Carney Calls Chinese Premier, Trade Ministers Meet, G7 Coordinates on Beijing
See the data on how China has topped Canadian export growth as trade with the U.S. has plunged
This week’s Canada-China Brief offers exclusive insight:
Relations rebooted: A breakdown of Prime Minister Carney’s first direct engagement with China’s Premier and what it signals for bilateral relations
G7 coordination on China: How Canada’s G7 presidency is shaping a unified response to China’s economic practices amid Trump’s trade war
Data Dive: Key numbers, charts, and analysis revealing a sharp shift in Canadian exports post-tariffs — including a 31.3% jump in exports to China
Expert voices: Thoughtful commentary from both Ottawa and Beijing offers a rare dual-lens perspective missed in mainstream coverage
Subscribe for just $5/month or $50/year to access the full analysis, stay ahead of the curve on Canada-China relations, and support independent, policy-driven coverage that gives you the full picture — grounded data, strategic context, and insight beyond the headlines.
Data Dive
IPD highlights the numbers that matter. See more data analysis below the paywall cut by subscribing now for just $5 a month.
The takeaways:
Total Canadian exports dropped 10.8% in April, the strongest percentage decrease in five years
Post-April U.S. tariffs, exports to the United States have dropped 15.7%, a third consecutive monthly decline
April exports in markets beyond the U.S. increased 2.9% led by China — exports to which grew 31.3% since April 2024
From the Experts
On Canada’s G7 presidency and the group’s coordination on China:
John Kirton
Director, G7 Research Group and Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto
In Banff on May 20-22, G7 finance ministers and central bank governors used only indirect language on overcapacity and anti-competitive practices. By committing, at the initiative of U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, to monitor non-market policies and practices, assess their distortions to markets, and take “a broadly co-ordinated approach to address” their harm, they showed a promising shift to more G7 co-ordinated trade action on China. This reflects the common concern all members have with China’s overcapacity and dumping on each one, and the need for flexibility as the protectionist moves by China, the U.S. and other G7 members change every tweet and week. It signals that all focused their trade protection not on one another but on the most serious sinners outside.
Canada should thus intensify its three-pronged trade strategy of (1) creating a single pan- Canadian market, (2) convincing Americans how badly Trump’s tariffs are hurting them and his goals, and (3) strengthening freer trade partnerships with like-minded countries around the world, starting with the EU, UK, and leading Indo-Pacific democracies, while leaving China to the very last.
Carney should continue to prioritize removing Chinese tariffs on Canadian agricultural exports, starting with pulses and potash, not pork, as part of a long-term strategy to make Chinese citizens healthier, living amidst cleaner air and a climate for all.
On revisiting Canadian foreign policy beyond like-minded partners:
Jocelyn Coulon
Advisor, Institute for Peace & Diplomacy; Former Senior Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Avec la Chine, le moment est venu de parler franchement, mais d’éviter de dresser des murs, comme le laisse entendre cette étrange idée que le Canada ne devrait parler qu’aux pays qui pensent comme lui, en particulier en Asie. Anita Anand aura beaucoup de mal à trouver sur une carte de l’Asie des pays qui partagent nos « valeurs » et qui sont de véritables démocraties. Leur nombre se compte sur les doigts d’une seule main.
Et c’est pourtant de ce continent que viendront la richesse, les idées et le dynamisme d’une nouvelle prospérité mondiale, et non de cette Europe, certes libérale et démocratique, mais enfoncée dans les crises économiques et politiques.
Dans un monde en pleine recomposition, où de plus en plus de pays choisissent le multi-alignement afin de préserver leur indépendance et d’assurer leur développement économique, parler seulement à ceux qui pensent comme nous ne peut pas être le principe organisateur de la diplomatie canadienne. Sinon, cette posture risque de nous isoler dans un quant-à-soi aussi stérile qu’étranger aux principes mêmes du multilatéralisme si cher à la philosophie du gouvernement libéral.
With China, the time has come to speak frankly, but to avoid building walls, as suggested by the strange idea that Canada should only speak to countries that think like it—particularly in Asia. Anita Anand will have a hard time finding on a map of Asia countries that share our “values” and are true democracies. Their number can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
And yet it is from this continent that wealth, ideas, and the dynamism of a new global prosperity will come — not from Europe, which, though liberal and democratic, is mired in economic and political crises.
In a world undergoing profound reordering, where more and more countries are choosing multi-alignment to preserve their independence and ensure their economic development, speaking only to those who think like us cannot be the organizing principle of Canadian diplomacy. Otherwise, this stance risks isolating us in a self-righteousness as sterile as it is contrary to the very principles of multilateralism that are so dear to the philosophy of the Liberal government.
Lisez le commentaire complet de Jocelyn Coulon ici :
The Word in China
IPD brings what scholars and opinion leaders in China have to say on Canada and the challenges both countries face. See more translated commentary below the paywall cut by subscribing now for just $5 a month.
Wang Zhen
Deputy Director, Institute of International Studies, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences | READ
There is a mismatch between Trump’s perception of international affairs and the current trend of today’s real world. The United Nations, founded after World War II, has long stipulated in its charter that “all member states are equal in sovereignty” and that the territorial or political independence of any member state must not be violated by threat or force.
Trump repeatedly said that Canada should become the 51st state of the United States and even disparaged the former Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, as a “governor.” At the same time, Trump has made no secret of his ambition that the Panama Canal and Greenland should be absorbed by the United States.
Such blatant proposed violations of the sovereignty and territory of other UN member states is not only inconsistent with the purposes of the UN Charter but are also a far cry from the traditional colonialist practices that the United States has opposed since World War II. At a time when the world has long since entered the era of post-colonialism, these unthinkable words are manifestations of the hegemonic arrogance of the United States, and they highlight the serious misalignment between Trump’s perception of international affairs and actual development trends.
Zhu Feng
Executive Dean and Professor, Institute of International Studies, Nanjing University | READ
The U.S. government's tariff war, an outright distortion of truth and confusion of right and wrong, has persisted to this day. Not only has it faced criticism and skepticism from most Americans, but it has also plunged global stability, peace, and development back into a turbulent process of conflict and upheaval. Particularly noteworthy are two grave concerns: first, whether this tariff war will completely terminate the equal, free, and open rules of international trade and the globalized order; second, Washington's attempt to overthrow the post-WWII liberal international order and global governance system, potentially dragging the world into another economic depression…
Washington's maneuvers will not dismantle the Western bloc in the short term. The fundamental imbalance in global power distribution, with the West still dominant over the East, is unlikely to undergo radical change in the near to medium term. The Canadian government under Prime Minister Trudeau previously issued strong criticism and countermeasures against U.S. tariff policies. In response, senior U.S. officials even openly threatened to expel Canada from the Five Eyes alliance. Should Canada be removed from the Five Eyes, it would mark a historic regression in the U.S.-led Western alliance system that has prevailed since World War II.
Top Story
Carney and Li Qiang Agree to Reboot Contact as G7 Readies Unity
‘Ready to restart’ — The PMO’s readout of the call between Mark Carney and his Chinese counterpart this week opened the door for further talks:
Both sides “agreed to regularize channels of communication” and noted that their trade ministers “agreed to convene the Joint Economic and Trade Commission (JETC) at an early date to address outstanding trade issues,” including tariffs on Canadian agriculture.
State media in China reported that the call came at Ottawa’s request as Premier Li stated that “unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise” and that “China is ready to work with Canada to jointly safeguard multilateralism and free trade, promote economic globalization and the multilateral trading system.”
China’s account also noted that Carney conveyed that “Canada is ready to restart its relationship with China,” is prepared for “resuming high-level exchanges and dialogue mechanisms,” and is willing to “jointly safeguard the international financial and trading system.”
The JETC, a Deputy Minister-level consultation body on trade, has been in suspended animation for almost a decade since last meeting in 2017 — a freeze which parliamentary briefing documents last year stated was based on Ottawa preconditioning resumption on market access progress in China.
The call comes on the heels of the PM’s summit with provinces where he said bilateral talks were “a top priority for us” — remarks echoed by western premiers including Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe and Manitoba’s Wab Kinew, with Moe saying that work must be done to “secure a more broad trading relationship with China.”
Trade ministers in Paris — On the sidelines of WTO meetings in France, International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu spoke with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao:
Sidhu stated that both stressed “the importance of a stable, rules-based trading relationship” and “committed to continuing conversations to resolve trade irritants, based on mutual respect for national security and the rule of law, with the aim of creating a stable and predictable trading framework.”
In China’s readout, Wang underlined the need to “resolve economic and trade differences and concerns through dialogue and consultation, deepen practical cooperation, and adopt a more open, pragmatic, and constructive approach to bring bilateral economic and trade relations back on track.”
China’s Ambassador to Canada Wang Di recently told the Globe & Mail that both sides should “find a solution quickly to remove these tariffs so that we can focus more on how we can strengthen our co-operation together,” alluding to potential auto manufacturing cooperation where "we have great complementarities.”
The joint statement of the First Ministers’ meeting in Saskatoon gave urgency to recent talks as it stressed how premiers “emphasized the critical importance of regular and ongoing engagement with China at the highest level to improve the overall trade relationship.”
G7 assemble on Chinese ‘overcapacity’ — Ahead of the G7 summit in Alberta this month, bloc ministers have been coordinating a joint economic response to China:
Convening in Banff two weeks ago, G7 finance ministers issued a joint communiqué that addressed China in all but name, criticizing how “non-market policies and practices aggravate imbalances, contribute to overcapacity, and impact the economic security of other countries.”
Stating that “we agree on the importance of a level playing field and taking a broadly coordinated approach to address the harm caused by those who do not abide by the same rules and lack transparency,” the G7 added they would tackle low-value imports that “overwhelm and take advantage of customs controls.”
Asked by the media about the group’s discussions on China and overcapacity amid internal G7 trade disputes, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne stated that “there will always be tension around tariffs, but there [are] also places where you find common ground and this is one of them.”
G7 unity comes as a U.S. Treasury spokesperson disclosed that Secretary Scott Bessent “will push the G7 to continue to focus on rebalancing the global economy and addressing unfair economic policies” as “the G7 must work together to protect our workers and firms from China's unfair practices."
The communiqué builds on the March joint statement of G7 foreign ministers in Charlevoix that explicitly “expressed concerns about China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity” and “reiterated that we are not trying to harm China or thwart its economic growth.”
What commentators are saying — Observers have underscored the U.S. role in coordinated G7 policy on Beijing:
In the Financial Times, Joe Biden’s ex-Treasury Undersecretary for International Affairs Jay Shambaugh assessed Trump’s approach and highlighted “continuity in terms of the goal of having other countries work with us in terms of what we see as a problem of the structure of China’s economy.”
Noting that “we spend a lot of time trying to get other countries to see that as an issue,” Shambaugh said that “you saw that coming out of G7 statements. I think we saw it, frankly, when the EU put in place tariffs on EVs — Canada mirrored a lot of U.S. tariffs. So I think there was a lot of work to have a common push.”
Charles St-Arnaud, Chief Economist of Alberta Central, observed that the G7 “want to keep it vague enough that they can still negotiate with China” and avoid friction, while Canada risks “choosing between the U.S. and the rest of the world as our trading partner because we’ll have to match what the U.S. is doing.”
Shen Yi, Director of the Center for BRICS Studies at Fudan University, suggested that there is “no unified stance among G7 members” on China as “the most fundamental rift between the U.S. and its G7 partners is no longer over which issues to prioritize, but about a fundamental divergence in worldview.”
If you enjoy our work, please consider contributing:
Join a free trial now for full access to Data Dive and The Word in China coverage below, including extended data analysis and translated expert commentary
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Canada-China Brief to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.