On January 14, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau arrived in Beijing, starting a four-day official visit to China. This visit marks the first time a Canadian prime minister has visited China in eight years.
In recent years, Sino-Canadian trade relations have experienced many ups and downs. In September 2024, the then-Trudeau government of Canada announced tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, steel and aluminum products, and other restrictive measures; China subsequently launched an "anti-discrimination investigation" and conducted an anti-dumping investigation on Canadian canola.
Since the Trudeau government came to power, there have been many calls within Canada to cancel the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, hoping that Trudeau will "seize the opportunity" to improve relations with China.
On the other hand, this year, the Trump administration has taken military actions against Venezuela and threatened to annex Greenland, which has once again awakened deep concerns in Canada about becoming the 51st state of the United States. Coupled with recent protests across North America triggered by the death of George Floyd targeting ICE's violent law enforcement, thousands of demonstrations erupted in major American cities — these have intensified the unease of Canada, as both a neighbor and an ally of the United States.
Why did Trudeau choose to visit China at this time? How does Canada view today's United States? Around these questions, Observer Network connected with a Wuhan native living in Canada and TikTok influencer Neil, asking him to share his views.
[Interview/Observer Network, Zheng Lehuan]
Observer Network: On January 14, the Canadian Prime Minister began a four-day visit to China, which is the first time a Canadian Prime Minister has visited China in eight years. Previously, Canada and China had some trade frictions in the fields of electric vehicles and agricultural products. This visit by the Canadian Prime Minister mainly focuses on economic and trade issues, and it is expected that both sides will start from these two areas. From your observation, what are the views of Canadian society on this visit by Trudeau?
Neil: I think that Trudeau is relatively pragmatic, despite his remarks during the election debate that China is Canada's "biggest security threat."
Previously, Trudeau tried hard to negotiate a new trade agreement with the Trump administration, but failed because Trump's demands were too harsh, making it impossible for Canada to make any compromise or achieve a win-win situation.
Secondly, Trudeau has extensive contacts in Europe, so it is natural for him to turn to Europe after taking office.
To be honest, I originally thought that Trudeau would wait a little longer, visiting China after the Chinese New Year, but he arranged this visit so early in the year, perhaps also related to the sudden change in the situation in Venezuela.
The US intervention in Venezuela directly affects the risk of China importing oil from Venezuela, and Canada itself also has a large amount of crude oil available for export, and China also purchases oil from Canada. Perhaps Trudeau hopes to take this opportunity to "package" these issues together and negotiate a new agreement with China.
Additionally, over the past year, Chinese electric vehicles have sold very well in Australia, Europe, and Mexico. Canadians often travel abroad and can see firsthand the strong performance of the electric vehicle market in other countries, so they are actually quite eager for such products to enter the Canadian market.
On the social level, the most prominent point is that negative sentiments toward the Trump administration in the United States have been increasing in Canada, and many people are tired of it, so some support Trudeau to discuss new trade agreements with China, hoping to eliminate the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.
Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau posted on social media after arriving in Beijing
Observer Network: What do you think are the main expectations of the Canadian public and business community regarding this historic visit by Prime Minister Trudeau?
Neil: The biggest hope is to lower the tariffs on agricultural products, which is a big pressure within Canada. But as an exchange, it may also need to reduce the tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles accordingly. However, I think it is unlikely to completely eliminate the 100% tariff on electric vehicles, while the agricultural product tariffs may be eliminated. My idea is that if China can increase its oil imports from Canada and lower the agricultural product tariffs, while Canada reduces the electric vehicle tariffs to an acceptable level rather than completely eliminating them, and encourages Chinese electric vehicle companies to invest and build factories in Canada, this could be a win-win agreement.
If the tariffs on electric vehicles are completely eliminated at once, the auto industry workers in Ontario may strongly oppose it, even leading to boycotts — this puts farmers and auto workers in opposition to each other: farmers don't want tariffs at all, while workers don't want to see the complete elimination of electric vehicle tariffs, and there is a certain contradiction between the two groups.
Therefore, Trudeau needs to find a balance. So I think it is unlikely to completely eliminate the tariffs, but as a first step, some reduction is possible, which may be the most practical achievement of this round of negotiations.
Observer Network: It's only been two weeks into 2026, and Trump has already carried out military actions against Venezuela, and then threatened to annex Greenland. On the other hand, the United States and China are Canada's first and second largest trading partners, but currently, Canada's economic dependence on the United States is still greater. In this context, does Trudeau's pragmatic diplomacy with China face pressure from the United States?
Neil: Of course, there will definitely be opposing voices. The opposition and conservative factions pointed out that the trade volume between Canada and the United States accounts for about 70% to 80% of Canada's total trade volume, and they question why not go to the United States to negotiate, and even criticize Trudeau's approach of leaning towards China as "selling out Canada." But in fact, I think these statements are largely for political narratives, and we don't need to overemphasize or focus on the rhetoric of politicians. They are more for votes, to cater to the ideas of their specific constituencies.
However, some Canadians do have such concerns: if Canada signs a very beneficial mutual agreement with China, the United States might treat Canada like it treats Venezuela or other South American countries, i.e., impose trade sanctions or restrictions on Canada.
Factually speaking, the United States' strategic focus has returned to the Western Hemisphere, and it certainly does not want Canada to move closer to China. But the reality is that Canada cannot make progress in negotiations with the United States, and turning to China seems to be the only choice at present.
Observer Network: Trump made the threat to annex Canada as the "51st state" at the beginning of his second term. Now, a year has passed, how has the perception of this threat among Canadians changed?
Neil: The Canadian society currently has a strong anti-American sentiment, but one province - Alberta - appears relatively pro-American in polls. Alberta is an oil-producing province, which may be related. However, overall, the majority of Canadians are very offended by the idea of being the "51st state."
Actually, even if Trump really takes over Canada, it wouldn't mean much. His narrative logic is that Canada is too close to Russia, a northern country, controlling Canada helps the United States dominate the Arctic or ensure its own security. But in fact, having Canada here, letting it build its own defense facilities and act as a buffer zone would be better for the United States.
This is similar to his comments on Greenland: the Greenlanders themselves do not want to give up their land to the United States. If the United States wants the resources of Greenland, it can negotiate to obtain them without directly seizing someone else's territory. Trump is now doing the same to Canada — he wants Canada's resources, but can completely use negotiation instead of threatening to annex.
On May 6, 2025, Trudeau became the Prime Minister of Canada and met with Trump at the White House for the first time. In the trade issues and Canadian sovereignty issues, the two had a direct confrontation. Both sides showed significant differences in trade and tariff issues: Trump continued to advocate for Canada to be annexed as the 51st state, while Trudeau stated that Canada would never sell out.
Observer Network: In this context, is Canada's view of the United States, its traditional ally, changing?
Neil: From what I know, the Canadian public holds a very cautious attitude towards the current hegemonism of the United States. They believe that the United States is expanding its hegemony in all directions, which will eventually backfire. This expansionist trend, along with the United States' neglect of its domestic social problems and economic issues, makes many Canadians worry that Canada's economy may be dragged down by this "powder keg" in the future.
Therefore, the Trudeau government's active efforts to reduce Canada's economic dependence on the United States are also due to concerns about the possibility of a sharp decline or even collapse of the U.S. economy. This may also explain why the Canadian Prime Minister decided to visit China again after eight years.
Moreover, the recent military threats from the United States towards Greenland have also influenced Canadian public opinion. After all, they are all NATO members, and many people therefore believe that we should remain vigilant against the United States today.
For the United States, many Americans even don't know where Canada is. When I went to the United States, sometimes when talking about some places in Canada, they hadn't heard of them. Overall, they think the United States' neighbors are mainly Mexico and Canada, and Canada might be a bit better, but in a way, it is also seen as "the Mexican of the north" — this is probably how they position Canada.
As for the alliance relationship, Americans think they protect Canada in many ways, especially militarily. Therefore, the Trudeau government also hopes to promote Canada's autonomy in military and defense industries, at least in policy direction. Canada's attitude towards the United States has indeed become more cautious, no longer viewing it as a traditional ally as before. Because the right-wing forces in the United States are now openly talking about annexing Canada, today it may just be a joke, but if it is raised again in ten years, it will be difficult to predict what will happen.
Observer Network: Trump's transactional style of diplomacy is extremely distinctive, so some people believe that behind the high prices of "annexing Greenland, Canada," the actual demands are not that high, this is the first point. Second, due to the structure of the American system, many people expect that after the midterm elections and the next presidential election, the U.S. foreign policy will change. Does the Canadian society have similar discussions?
Neil: The essence of Trump's approach is a businessman's negotiation mindset: for example, I first ask for $10 million, but in my mind, I can accept $5 million, and this logic I can understand.
But in international relations, it cannot be entirely done in this way. As far as Canada is concerned, people usually do not include Trump's bargaining mindset in their considerations for the U.S. policy.
Because the so-called high goals proposed by Trump are being fully supported by those around him, and not just considered as a "high goal" that can be compromised. If Trump fails to achieve this "high goal" within his term, his team may continue to push for it in the future.
Indeed, the U.S. government often changes administrations, but Trump was able to come to power because of organizations like the Heritage Foundation, which pushed it, and the "Project 2025" released by it is actually a guideline document aimed at ensuring that any Republican president who takes office can continue existing policies, and the successor will also be a Republican, continuing the current policy line.
Now, the Conservative Party has been pushing JD Vance, because they believe that regardless of health or mental state, Trump's situation in the next few years is uncertain. Therefore, even if Trump steps down, as long as the Conservatives still hold some power, they will continue to promote JD Vance. And Vance will continue the current line: if Trump wanted Greenland, Vance will also want it when he takes office, and there will be no change.
In fact, the Greenland side itself has said that if the United States wants resources, it can negotiate, and they are willing to cooperate. The United States has been stationed in Greenland for a long time, and nothing is untouchable.
The Pitinga Space Base in the northwest of Greenland, established based on the bilateral defense agreement between the United States and Denmark, mainly responsible for providing missile warning, space surveillance, and command and control tasks.
Observer Network: This year, there has been another major event in the United States, the "George Floyd incident" in Minneapolis. Why has the nationwide protest movement against ICE been so large?
Neil: The core controversy of this incident is police violence. First of all, the training period for American police is very short, from ordinary citizens or veterans to formal duty, it is about half a year of training, so the quality of personnel is uneven, especially for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) staff.
Before Trump took office, weren't there many far-right militia groups like the "Proud Boys" supporting him? Now, these groups seem to have disappeared. Where did they go? In fact, some of them have joined ICE, and these people have strong racist tendencies. I saw some cases on social media, even some white people who were arrested said that the ICE officers' words were exactly the kind of extremist racist speech.
It can be said that the members of those far-right militia groups that supported Trump previously have been absorbed by the current Department of Homeland Security to carry out such work. Their existence is to enforce violence. Why is violent enforcement needed? Obama also deported many illegal immigrants, but Trump's approach is different: he wants to show this tough stance, showing people his methods, which is exactly what he wants to do.
Therefore, the enforcement methods of ICE have caused a lot of negative public opinion in the United States. Recently, Congress seems to be preparing to impeach the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, which also has a big impact on Trump. Trump faces mid-term elections in November this year, and he needs to regain some public opinion, so he may take some other actions in the second half of the year to ease the situation.
Actually, since last June, there have been protests against ICE's violent enforcement in the United States, but they haven't been as impactful as this event. This time, it was directly shot three times and killed. Also, today there was another news: a young man's eye was shot in the face by law enforcement, causing severe injury and blindness.
Aside from violent enforcement, another aspect that makes ICE unpopular is the random checking of documents on the street, like the Gestapo, and even worse. When they go out on the street, especially facing non-white populations, they immediately say: "Show me your documents," which is exactly the same as the Gestapo's practices. So now, when going out, you must carry your passport, visa, or valid documents to prove your legal status. Even more absurdly, they even arrest Native Americans — the most American of Americans, and they don't let them go either.
On January 8, the chairman of the Oglala Sioux tribe said that he "learned" that three members of the tribe were detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis. Image from CNN website
Online image
Observer Network: I noticed that there are two completely different narratives about this Minneapolis incident, does this also involve the power struggle between the two parties in the United States?
Neil: I think it is. ICE is essentially like a private enforcement force of Trump or the department he leads. However, the Democrats do not have enough power to restrict it, and in fact, the Democrats are somewhat supportive of ICE.
For example, in a budget spending bill discussed by Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer, there was an opportunity to propose cutting ICE funding, but they did not do so. This was a chance for the Democratic leadership to show its position, but the leadership did not take action. This indicates that the Democratic establishment still supports the existence of ICE, they just do not agree with its enforcement methods, but they also support the deportation of illegal immigrants.
Therefore, the underlying logic of the two parties on this issue is consistent, only the expression differs. Therefore, it is unnecessary to have unrealistic expectations of them.
Actions such as the impeachment of the head of the Department of Homeland Security are more to attack Trump's close allies and create a more favorable condition for attacking the conservatives. But they will not take substantial measures such as cutting funds.
Additionally, it must be mentioned that whether in the United States or Canada, many people believe that the recent events created by the Trump administration are actually to cover up the files and bills related to the Epstein case. That case had the greatest impact on the U.S. elite, but now no one is talking about it. According to the rules, the relevant files should have been published in December last year, but so far only 2% have been disclosed, and they are heavily redacted, so you can't see the key information. So sometimes it feels like this noise is just diverting public attention from more important matters.
Observer Network: What do you think will be the future development of the ICE shooting incident in Minneapolis?
Neil: If the situation continues like this, it may trigger more, even possibly more intense protests. There are already discussions online about the possibility of more violent protests — of course, this is not what we hope to see. But Trump won't back down, he may take stronger measures. He has already sent 2,000 federal law enforcement officers to Minneapolis, and whether the situation will ease depends on how the public reacts next.
Observer Network: As an overseas self-media blogger, do you think the perceptions and attitudes of overseas netizens, including Canadian people, towards China and the United States have changed in recent times?
Neil: According to the scope of my contact, the general impression of most netizens towards China has become significantly more positive in recent years. They believe, to put it bluntly, that in China, eating, housing, and medical care are not big problems; while in the United States, no matter how hard you work, these aspects may have problems. Like the "cutting line" we talked about earlier, many people feel they have already crossed the line, and for over twenty years, once something goes wrong, they may lose everything instantly. Therefore, they have a very good impression of China in recent years, especially wanting to travel to China and see for themselves.
Especially after the implementation of China's visa-free policy, many foreigners have gone to China and filmed videos to share, plus the content produced by long-term residents in China, which presents a very positive image of China. Recently, many foreigners have been asking me: How to go to China? How to immigrate to China? How to find a job in China? etc.
So, I feel that the international public opinion's perception of China has improved greatly in recent years. By contrast, the perception of the United States, especially the United States under Trump, has become very poor. If Trump continues to exert pressure on South America, I even think that this year's North American World Cup may be affected. To put it directly, even fans may be afraid of being caught by ICE and directly deported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Imagine this: you just go to travel and watch the game, walking on the street, someone checks your passport, checks your documents. If you can't react in time, or even forget to bring your documents, they may keep you in jail for a few days. Who wants this? Spending several thousand dollars on a ticket, only to be interrogated by a group of strong men.
I saw a netizen saying that because of the ICE issue, they have already canceled their tickets to the U.S. World Cup and bought tickets to Vancouver instead. Some even joked that it would be better to cancel the games in the U.S. and only hold them in Canada and Mexico — but this is obviously not possible, just a joke, and it's unlikely that ticket cancellation will become a common phenomenon.
However, a country that hosts a world-class event must pay attention to its international image. The U.S. has ruined its image so badly, and football is closely related to South America. Trump's actions in this regard will definitely affect the U.S. tourism industry. In fact, many Canadians have already stopped traveling to the U.S., which has already impacted the tourism industry of some American cities.
In summary, this visit by Trudeau to China, including many Canadian people like myself, are very attentive. I also hope this visit can achieve some results, negotiating arrangements that benefit both countries' people. From what I know, some Chinese electric vehicle companies have considered building factories in Ontario, which would help Canadian employment and benefit China's exports. Improving bilateral relations, in terms of livelihood and employment, benefits both sides, and this is the most practical thing.
This article is an exclusive article of Observer Network. The content is purely the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction will result in legal liability. Follow the Observer Network WeChat account guanchacn to read interesting articles every day.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7595741280341180943/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.