When [Canadian] Prime Minister Mark Carney stood in Beijing in January and said Canada’s new “strategic partnership” with China set both countries up for a “new world order,” it marked a striking reversal. Less than a year earlier, on the election campaign trail, Carney had named China as Canada’s biggest security threat. And a year before the trip, the Hogue Commission’s report on foreign interference concluded that China is the most persistent and sophisticated foreign interference threat to Canada’s democratic institutions and elections.
The deal cut China’s tariff on Canadian canola seed to about 15 percent from 75.8 percent and eased duties on peas, and seafood. In return, Ottawa agreed to let in 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) a year at a 6.1 percent tariff, down from 100 percent. The partnership also covers clean energy, multilateral co-operation, people-to-people ties, and public security, including an agreement between the RCMP and China’s Ministry of Public Security, the police apparatus Beijing has used to monitor and intimidate its diaspora abroad.
The pivot comes as Carney rallies middle powers to band together against U.S. tariffs while moving closer to the world’s other superpower. Taiwan, which Beijing refuses to recognize as an independent country, and actively seeks to reunify Taiwan as part of China even by military force, shows how aggressive China can be. And as Chiense coast guard incursions into Taiwan-controlled waters have spiked in 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has called a stalled $14-billion arms package for the island “a very good negotiating chip” with Beijing, recently adding he isn’t looking to fight a war thousands of miles away.
...
Few Western journalists have watched China’s security apparatus as closely as Jürgen Kremb. A former Der Spiegel bureau chief in Beijing, Singapore, and Vienna who was expelled from China in 1998, he now teaches and conducts research at Soochow University in Taipei as a visiting scholar.
...
The Hub spoke with Kremb about what Canada should learn from Taiwan as it grows its ties to China.
...
Question: ... Ottawa has now signed a strategic partnership with Beijing that includes a confidential RCMP agreement with China’s Ministry of Public Security. From where you sit in Taiwan, which has lived with this pressure far longer, does closer engagement with Beijing typically restrain its interference activities abroad, or does it give them more cover and access and embolden them?
Jürgen Kremb: It’s police and domestic security, and they work like the FBI. There are also members of their staff who work as agents, suppressing dissidents and different opinions. This ministry has about 2 million staff in China … and they open police stations in foreign countries, including Canada. The same in Europe and Australia [and other countries]. Of course that’s against the law of other countries, just as the U.S. or Canada cannot open a police station in Beijing.
...
China now is the biggest threat to the security of a lot of countries, because they steal intellectual property, they intimidate their dissidents abroad, they intimidate people who are speaking out against China, they operate a lot of media. So we really have to take the threat seriously… And of course the primary target is Taiwan.
...
Taiwan is the testing ground, [but it’s also being] executed against other democratic societies, the so-called West, but the so-called West also includes South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, etc.
Xi Jinping wants to rule the world–Western politicians simply cannot comprehend this. He wants to destroy the liberal concept of Western democracies because their very existence poses a threat to his dictatorship.
...
Chinese cars are basically spies on four wheels. In Israel, in Sweden or Norway, and in Japan, Chinese cars are not allowed anymore into military installations because where there are cameras, they are actively spying on the surroundings and sending this data back to China.
...
What happens if you work too closely with China? First, you seem to have access to a big, big market and make a lot of money. But one day it’s over, and your whole industry base collapses. So if Canada decides to go that way with closer relations to China, look twice and be very careful, and you could lose more than you gain.
...
If you’re getting very close to China, in the end you might not be in the driver’s seat of your own country or of your key industry, because the Chinese sooner or later will overtake your products and influence your domestic policy.
...
Professional workers are still proletarian, same with those that are educated. A tiny minority of the CPC are capitalists, or "oligarch class," and these are prevented from the top levels of the CPC. Further, the entirety of the working class does not need to be members of the CPC for the CPC to be dominated by the working class. You aren't responding to my actual point here, you're inventing a new one based off of butchering Marxism.
As for how the commanding heights of the economy are meaningfully publicly owned, this is easily verified on Wikipedia. The CPC also has "Golden shares," meaning that even private companies are under their control and direction to an influential degree.
As for the "timeline" of socialist construction, they are in the primary stage of socialism. The transition to the next stage of socialism is projected to occur in 2049, but as we get closer it may shift up or back a few years. The idea that capitalists will take control of the CPC "because of human nature" is a ridiculous pseudoscientific claim. Make an argument based on materialism, not vibes, please.
As for science and dialectical materialism, you cannot have a truly scientific approach without a materialist stance and a dialectical outlook. Metaphysics makes errors like rejecting biology, and idealism turns us to the realm of the supernatural, like your previous claims of "human nature" making it inevitable that the CPC will be overrun by capitalists. For someone that allegedly studied science in university, you seem to enjoy idealism and metaphysics.
The Hukou system is not the cause of rising wages, nor is the weaker social safety net than imperialist European countries. These are factors of underdevelopment, not a bad system. European, developed imperialist countries enjoy better safety nets because they are higher developed countries and pilfer the global south of their surplus value. This rejection of economics as a science on your part causes you to make all sorts of ridiculous comparisons, and really calls into question your supposed scientific background. Any scientist would know that comparing developed with developing countries must be contextualized.
As for the lack of independent unions, this does not mean workers have no bargaining power. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions is the largest federation of trade unions in the world. The reason they do not allow independence from this is because they do not want to give capitalists levers to manipulate against the socialist system and promote disunity. You seem to have this ridiculous idea that capitalists will inevitably overtake the CPC, yet you're also disappointed that the CPC is taking active measures against this!
As for "keeping wages down," again, this isn't actually happening. Wages for workers are skyrocketing in China year over year, and have been for decades. You straight up invented a point. Further, they are pivoting from an export-driven model to increased domestic consumption , your information is either outdated or deliberately wrong.
I'm not blind to contradictions within China, I'm fully aware of them. There's a contradiction between underdeveloped productive forces in the private sector and a need to socialize all production as it develops. This is a critically important contradiction that the CPC is navigating. Tian'anmen Square is a famous site and isn't censored, what is censored is the western, debunked narrative about 10,000 people being murdered on the square, rather than the actual historical events where ~300 people died in clashes between rioters and the PLA as they advanced to the square.
I think you need to revisit your Marx. For someone that claims that starting with Marx is a good idea, you seem to have utterly butchered any understanding of Marx you could have, such as inventing brand new classes like "educated elites" and "professionals." You also don't explain just how economists have "advanced" since Marx, but since you didn't mention anyone I'll add Lenin, Walter Rodney, and Cheng Enfu as good examples of economists post-Marx that have carried his analysis to the modern day.
Marx wouldn't be "sick" at me or China, he'd laugh at you pretending to know anything about his work.