Why Americans Value Honesty in Business Dealings

The Trudeau government has been slower to act on this issue than most of its Western counterparts. It came into office with lofty goals for the Canada-China relationship, including a full free trade agreement, but appeared to ignore accumulating evidence that Xi's China is neither a trusted economic partner nor a "responsible stakeholder.The mountain, however, grew too huge to be overlooked. The unjust detention of the two Michaels, as well as the Chinese government's persistent concealment concerning the origins and distribution of COVID-19 (which, by the way, should be a much bigger deal than it is), appear to have marked a watershed moment.In recent weeks, Ottawa has signaled a new direction. The Trudeau government has pledged, at least rhetorically, to abandon its own Sinophile impulses. The Industry Minister, François-Philippe Champagne, has spoken about the necessity for "decoupling." In a recent speech at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly described China as a "increasingly disruptive global force" and warned Canadian businesses about the "geopolitical risks linked to doing business with the country.Champagne's recent comments are particularly noteworthy since they represent the government's gradual but considerable shift. He was international trade minister in 2017 when the government was consulting on a Canada-China free trade agreement, and a ministerial message from him can still be found on the department's website about how "China is an important partner for Canada" and, despite growing trade volumes between the two countries, "there is room for us to do a lot more." Now, as industry minister, he has reversed himself: "What we want is certainly a decoupling: certainly from China, and I would say other regimes around the world that do not share the same values."

The last holdout could be the prime minister himsel

who, according to accounts, was warned of Chinese electoral influence several months ago but has done and said nothing about it. He also struggled to give a weak and ambiguous response to China's genocide of the Uyghurs at the ASEAN meetings on the eve of the G-20 summit.As a result, the Trudeau government continues to struggle with how to approach Canada's relationship with China. It's one step towards deliberate detachment, followed by one step back to empty involvement. We're caught in the self-created limbo of an ambiguous plan.The trouble, of course, is that the world does not wait for us to figure things out. As yesterday's important developments demonstrate, the West's relationship with China will define global security in the coming decades. It's time for Canada to decide what it thinks about it.Sean Speer is the Hub's Editor-at-Large. He is also a university lecturer at the University of Toronto and Carleton University, as well as a think-tank researcher and columnist. He formerly worked as a senior economic adviser for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.... In early 2020, the phrase went, "There are no libertarians in a pandemic."It has been a disappointing moment to be a libertarian. It is not true that there are no libertarian responses to public health crises such as the Covid-19 outbreak. However, even when they were practical, these reactions proved unpopular.

The political right, including many libertarians

has accepted the notion that Covid-19 is not a dangerous enough virus to require a significant reaction. The political left was unconcerned with the role of individual responsibility. And libertarians missed an opportunity to make a substantial contribution.Mandates to the left of me and minimizing to the righSince the beginning of 2020, I've altered my view about how much Canadians are prepared to sacrifice to aid one another.Skeptics of large, active government should recognize that some problems do not have individual answers and require collective effort to address. The Covid-19 pandemic is a perfect example: even if I have the resources to wear high-quality masks, stay at home when unwell, and do thorough testing, I rely on others to do the same.But I underestimated how much people who want society to respond together will do freely to help each other if it costs them something, unless everyone is obliged to do so. As if nothing we accomplish on our own matters at all.Individual action supporting group action is both normal and vital. We have municipal waste collection and municipal staff who clean our streets and parks, but we are still expected not to litter, and we serve as enforcers by calling out those who do. We live in a democracy, therefore we must persuade people to support policy changes if we want them to stick. 

Sometimes a change in government policy 

persuades people, but not this time.By relying almost entirely on mandates, particularly in Ontario, we have avoided essential aspects of societal transformation that would have supported "living with Covid." We did not update "What's Normal?" Alternatively, "what's polite?" We let bylaw officers show up instead. It's no surprise that masking dropped so rapidly after requirements were repealed.Almost as worrisome was how the "mandates-only" mindset helped to politicize the outbreak. If the sole solution to a hazardous virus is government requirements, the political stakes rise dramatically.On the political right, there has been an increase in people who deny the virus's severity in order to avoid taking responsibility for it. I believe the belief at the heart of this argument is the same as that which supports mandates: if Covid-19 is a public health threat, then broad government regulations are required to combat it. Those who buy it yet refuse to adjust their own behavior have a strong incentive to feel there is nothing to be concerned about.