When I last spoke with China's envoy to Vancouver, Liu Fei, she complained politicians in Ottawa and Toronto are so focused on Europe and the United States that they too often ignore China. She had her own agenda, of course: China is not in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal being negotiated between Canada, the United States, Japan and other Pacific nations. But she still had a point.
I recalled her comments while watching Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau settle into a foreign policy debate on Monday that included no discussion whatsoever of China – its rising influence, its world-shaking economy, its human rights record or Canada's approach to the bilateral relationship. The debate was still likely the best we've seen so far, to be fair, but the word "China" was only mentioned once – in French and in the context of the TPP – and came up only as an aside in the section on climate change. It was a foreign policy debate that could only have happened in eastern Canada, which often simply gazes south or across the Atlantic.
In some ways this makes sense: the United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and we are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But for someone watching the debate, it was hard to tell the global balance of power is shifting toward Asia. Watching from Vancouver, where Asia-bound freighters anchor just offshore, the conversation seemed utterly disconnected from Canada's increasingly Asian future – a direction that deserves a robust debate.
Instead, the discussion was dominated by global events over which Canada has almost no influence: Russia's aggression in eastern Ukraine, the fight against the Islamic State and the tragic European refugee crisis. The leaders did, justifiably, joust over anti-terrorism legislation and the relationship with the United States, in a relatively civilized manner. But where was the vision outlining the contours of an Asia strategy? Not even one question?
The debate consequently had a stale Cold War vibe, an outdated East versus West binary in which the East – in a blast from the past – meant Russia again; as if Chinese cyberattacks had not yet been invented. And listening to the endless questions on terrorism, it sometimes felt as though the hordes of the Islamic State were amassing at our borders, sharpening their knives.
Oddly enough, the debate also managed to avoid the foreign policy topic perhaps most relevant to ordinary Canadians: The country's declining global influence and deteriorating reputation – from honest broker to flailing belligerent. There was no discussion of a report leaked from foreign affairs a day earlier in which officials warned Canada's international influence has "declined or is under threat." I received an e-mail passing the article along from an economic observer in Tokyo, with the subject heading: "Tell us something we don't know!"
In the alternate universe of the debate, which dragged into the present Canada's long-gone status as a respected middle power, Mr. Trudeau was asked how he would handle Vladimir Putin, as if Canada had anything at stake other than domestic votes. Mr. Harper was asked about the Keystone XL pipeline, rather than his relentless and largely pointless rhetorical support of Israel. And Mr. Mulcair was asked when he would use Canada's military to strike abroad, as if Canada's contribution to conflicts in the Middle East might help allies strike, once and for all, a decisive blow against the forces of darkness.
Yet, in real life, China is our second-biggest trading partner. Its economy is beginning to change in ways that will have a huge impact on Canada, while its jailing of dissidents menaces the largest population on Earth. And though we can and should take in more refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, Canada's top three source countries for immigrants remain China, the Philippines and India.
My colleague Nathan VanderKlippe reports an advisory panel to the organizing Munk Debates deliberately eschewed China as a subject: There seemed to be no real disagreement between the parties that would make for a debate question. But as convenient as that reason is, it simply shows the poverty of the mainstream intellectual debate on Canada's foreign policy toward Asia. How can all three parties be in total agreement on the subject of Canada's approach to China, let alone all of Asia? To reduce the complexity of Asia to trade – at a time of rising tensions in region – is blinkered at best, and at worst explains Canada's evaporation from the world stage.
As British chancellor George Osborne showed recently on a shameless and widely-criticized trade mission – where he apparently returned to belatedly kowtow after Lord Macartney refused to do in the 1790s – one stumbles blindly toward China at their own peril. Mr. Osborne is now facing outrage as he tries to justify allowing China to invest billions – and potentially even own – nuclear reactors in Britain. Amid howls of outrage over the ethical dilemmas of purely commercial statecraft, the broader complaint is crystal clear: Where was the debate on how Britain should shape its approach to China?
It is true, several debate topics got short shrift. The dismantling of the Canadian International Development Agency wasn't discussed, though that has been among the most obvious policies to erase Canada's presence in populous developing countries. Africa didn't come up, either, except in one of Mr. Trudeau's references to his father letting in Ugandan Ismaili refugees in 1972. Human rights were barely mentioned, except in reference to Russia and – of all possible places – Honduras.
But though Canadians care deeply about these subjects, none are likely to shape their lives and future as much as developments in Asia will. Entire industries will rise or fall based on events across the Pacific. But as Canadian voters head to the polls, they have no idea how their government would handle them.