Canada should be wary of China’s impact on our economy,
Free trade with China has been the focal point of the prime minister’s recent trip there, generating most of the debate and media coverage. But we urgently need to look past the possibility of a future bilateral agreement to the impact that China’s direct investment in our country is already having on our economy, our workers and our future.
Trade is essential to Canada. That’s why we are now back at the bargaining table fighting for the future North American free trade and the investment and jobs that come with it.
Even without a free trade agreement, China’s encroachment on Canada’s economy is accelerating. Total investment from China now exceeds that of the U.S. and the strategic nature of those investments is disturbing.
Most recently, CCCI, a construction company owned by the Chinese government, has made a $1.45-billion bid for one of Canada’s largest infrastructure employers, Aecon Construction.
CCCI has a troubling history when it comes to upholding the labour standards and their enforcement for which our unions have fought for generations. Even as the global economy has changed, the principles of safety, fairness and respect can never be compromised.
China’s egregious record on workers’ rights speaks for itself. As a state-owned enterprise, CCCI is an agent of that blatant disregard. From its high number of workplace fatalities in China, to the installation of asbestos in an Australian children’s hospital to the unjust termination of HIV positive workers in Uganda, CCCI has fallen short in protecting its employees and their rights.
Not only that, but the timing of the Aecon takeover ensures the Chinese government will directly benefit from the $125 billion to be spent on revitalizing the roads, bridges and public structures that will shape our country for years to come. It also means muting the significant economic multiplier effect of infrastructure investment that leads to rises in good jobs, real wages and a higher standard of living.
The Infrastructure Bank’s formal mandate is to “contribute to our long-term economic growth and support the creation of good, well-paying jobs for the middle class. These investments will also help us achieve our goals of lowering GHG emissions and building communities that are socially inclusive.” Yet, CCCI has a record of proven corruption so egregious that it was sanctioned by the World Bank for a bid-rigging scheme in the Philippines.
This is just the most recent evidence of the need for an informed, national conversation about matching our social and economic priorities with our actions and the messages we send to other countries.
Earlier this year, in the face of widespread criticism that included the U.S., Hytera won approval to acquire Norsat, a satellite equipment company and mili- tary supplier. The approval, granted without a full national security review under the Investment Canada Act, was a setback for the domestic innovation agenda.
The Liberal government also revisited and approved O-Net Communications’ takeover of another homegrown innovator, ITF Technologies of Montreal. Although the previous Conservative government rejected the same transaction in 2015, approval was granted despite O-Net being 25-per-cent owned by a Chinese state-owned enterprise.
Anbang Insurance’s takeover of Retirement Concepts, which operates retirement homes in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec, was also quickly approved as a “net benefit” to Canada. Anbang has faced questions in the U.S. relating to its ownership structure and ties to the government of China.
Where do we draw the line as a nation and a civil society?
These recent deals represent a pattern of accommodation with the Chinese government that borders on appeasement at any cost. They are part of a broader narrative about a country that needs to decide whether it is confident and secure enough to forge its own path, based on its own standards of fairness and social justice. Or is it a country that casts those values aside every time it finds itself across the table from a bigger — but not necessarily better — “partner” whose interests and values have very little in common with our own?
Recent deals represent a pattern of accommodation with the Chinese government that borders on appeasement at any cost