Usually, when I write an opinion piece, it is because I actually have an opinion. This time, not so much. This article is more about a conundrum.
Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney was in Saudi Arabia, where he entered into a billion-dollar investment agreement. He was asked in a scrum whether this was appropriate given the serious human rights issues in that country.
Mark Carney’s reply was “Engagement is not endorsement.”
Did he duck the question, or did he acknowledge the reality of a changing world with new circumstances that require new strategies?
Canada is knee-deep in a trade war with the United States. Our relationship with that country, even if things eventually improve, has irrevocably changed. While trade between our two countries will inevitably continue at some level, it can no longer be a certain relationship that assures comfort to Canada’s economy.
The stark reality of that has led, and will continue to lead, the Canadian government to seek improved relationships and new economic partnerships with countries whose approach to human rights differs markedly from Canada’s.
My question about this reality is, where do you draw the line?
Is it morally acceptable to trade with countries whose values we would otherwise reject? Would refusing to trade with them be effective or merely symbolic? Can Canada afford to choose its trading partners based to a large degree on shared values? Has the world changed in a manner that forces Canada to rethink its foreign policy when it comes to free trade? Have we reached a new benchmark for global relationships?
Canada, of course, already trades with countries like China, whose human rights record is very different from those held as sacrosanct by most Canadians. But until now, those relationships have been limited, and the majority of our trading partnerships have been with countries whose values are similar to ours.
Now, there is movement to change that balance, arguably out of necessity, but nevertheless a potential shift in how Canada deals with humanitarian issues outside its borders.
If Canada is serious about reducing its dependence on the United States, we cannot replace much of our trade with them with only countries like the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand.
The fastest-growing global economies today include, but are not limited to, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, the Gulf States, and Indonesia. Many of these countries have a poor record on civil liberties, religious freedom, the treatment of women, and political dissent. To say that most Canadians would find this troubling would be an understatement.
Can Canada afford to improve relationships or forge new trade partnerships with countries like these, given the new realities it faces?
How can this be resolved? Can Canada speak with both sides of its mouth, aggressively defending humanitarian rights while also doing business with those who defy them?
Should Canada refuse to trade with countries that deny equal rights to women, imprison or sanction journalists, control the media, limit free speech, execute political opponents and use forced labour? Many Canadians would think not.
The practical problem, however, is that, insisting on trading primarily, only with those countries that meet our standards of human rights and democracy, our potential trading partners become quite small and our economy is threatened.
Alternatively, if we ignore or downplay these serious humanitarian issues when choosing new trading partners and increasing our relationship with others we currently deal with, such as China, does Canada risk becoming just another country willing to overlook significant global abuses whenever enough economic benefit is involved?
Some will argue that Canada can do both: trade substantially with countries whose humanitarian practices we reject and, at the same time, call them out for the manner in which they carry out their internal affairs.
I am not so sure about that, certainly not to the extent we have been previously able to. To do so in a substantive manner would put any trading relationship with those countries at risk.
Even if Canada could manage this double-speak, their important status as a defender of human rights on the world stage would be greatly diminished.
Mark Carney may be right that engagement is not endorsement. Nations have often traded with countries they did not admire for various reasons. But if engagement becomes the new benchmark, Canadians deserve to know where the moral boundaries lie. If every partnership can be justified as an economic necessity, then what principles remain non-negotiable?
The challenge for Canada is not deciding whether to deal with imperfect nations. Every country is imperfect, including Canada. The challenge is deciding which imperfections we can live with and which we cannot. That is what will define us as a nation.
In a world that is changing faster than it has in decades, that challenge may become the defining question of our generation, both domestically and globally.
We need to determine where to draw the line, and at the moment, that remains unclear to me.
Therein lies my conundrum.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District of Muskoka and as chief of staff to the former Premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has also served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox six times per week!
Click here to support local news
Hugh raises an important question, but I don’t think the choice is between trading only with democracies or abandoning our principles. Canada has always traded with countries whose values differ from our own. That reality isn’t new. The difference today isn’t the dilemma. It’s the urgency.
The real debate isn’t whether to trade with imperfect countries. It’s how to do so without sacrificing the principles that define Canada.
What’s changed isn’t Canada’s values. What’s changed is the reliability of our largest trading partner. If Canada is serious about reducing its dependence on the United States, diversification is no longer simply an economic strategy. It’s a necessity.
I think Prime Minister Carney’s comment that “engagement is not endorsement” reflects that reality. Trade doesn’t guarantee influence, but it does keep the conversation open. Isolation rarely changes minds on its own. If refusing to trade consistently led to better human rights outcomes, the argument would be much easier. History suggests it often doesn’t.
Where I would draw the line is not at having relationships, but at becoming complicit. Canada should continue to speak openly about human rights, oppose forced labour, enforce strong import standards, and avoid becoming strategically dependent on any country that could use trade as political leverage. Diversification should mean having many partners, not becoming dependent on any one of them.
We won’t always find perfect trading partners because there aren’t any. Canada won’t be defined by whether we trade with imperfect countries. It will be defined by whether prosperity convinces us to stop speaking up for the principles we claim to value.
My opinion anyway. You can accept it or not.
Hugh, we’ve traded, lived with and abided by the United States throughout all their human rights abuses. We looked the other way when they collaborated with Israel and all the human atrocities that results still to this day. We accepted Cuba’s crisis and the embargo, the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo, the killing in Iraq due to “weapons of mass destruction”. The US isn’t exactly the pristine country to be trading with either. Geography has afforded us and them the advantage of trade.
It is unclear to me, too; however, most of the human rights issues you’ve mentioned about countries that don’t share our values include the US. If we decide not to do business with China, Saudi Arabia, etc., we must stop all trade with the US, until they, too, meet our standards. I agree with the PM, and if we are to remain a sovereign nation, we should do business with any country we need. At this time, the end does justify the means. Perhaps we might have a small, positive, impact on them. Perhaps.
Once Canadian economic and political stability are attained, maybe we’ll have the luxury to apply our values to our global relationships. Maybe.
It is a conundrum,. Do the values we currently see in the US even align with ours?
It truly is a conundrum! Our trading partner to the south is certainly not one we would want to emulate either in light of the way many citizens are being treated!