China has just booked 50,000 tons of canola seeds from Australia, and the Canadian premier announces a visit to China in the coming weeks.

Recent news about Canadian canola has been emerging continuously, with two key events intertwining, sending a strong market signal.

On one hand, Chinese companies have purchased 50,000 tons of new season canola from Australia, expected to arrive before the end of the year.

On the other hand, the Premier of Saskatchewan, Canada, publicly stated that he would visit China in the coming weeks, with another potential meeting later in the year.

The core message is very simple: whoever can demonstrate a pragmatic attitude, follow the rules, and offer the right price will seize the market opportunity.

The market never stops waiting; those who seize the opportunity will win the orders.

In September last year, the Ministry of Commerce of China initiated an anti-dumping investigation into Canadian canola to check for any low-price dumping that could affect the normal operation of the domestic industry.

After a long period of evidence gathering and investigation, in August this year, the Ministry of Commerce of China made a preliminary ruling: it confirmed that Canada’s canola was being dumped, and that it had a substantial impact on China’s domestic industry.

As a result, starting on August 14, China implemented provisional anti-dumping measures on canola imported from Canada, requiring importers to pay a 75.8% deposit based on the price ratio.

This move directly increased the import cost of Canadian canola, posing a significant challenge to its export to the Chinese market.

At the same time, media reported that Chinese companies had ordered 50,000 tons of new season canola from Australia.

Although this order is not particularly large, its significance cannot be ignored: diversification of supply has become key.

As a major exporter of canola, Australia offers short transport distances and stable supply, making it an important supplement to China’s market.

Facing the cost pressure from the anti-dumping measures, the supply of Australian canola can not only fill the gap left by Canada but also ensure the stability of China’s market supply.

This order signals that the Chinese market’s demand is not reliant on a single source but is seeking multiple suppliers to ensure a steady supply.

Over the past year, Canada has been quite assertive in its trade relations with China, especially in two key areas.

First, Canada imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles, nearly blocking normal trade channels.

Second, Canada’s 25% tariff on steel and aluminum and the annual import quota system have added extra cost pressure on these goods.

Especially in the steel sector, China’s export share to Canada is not significant, yet it still faced such “one-size-fits-all” treatment, which clearly caused dissatisfaction among Chinese companies.

These actions made China’s initiation of the anti-dumping investigation unsurprising.

It is clear that Canada has increased the burden on Chinese goods through tariffs while still hoping to continue exporting canola, oil, and meal to the Chinese market.

Such a contradictory dual strategy is clearly unsustainable.

When a country applies a “double standard” in trade—blocking one side while hoping to profit from the other—it inevitably leads to friction.

The preliminary results of the anti-dumping investigation mean that Canadian canola exports will face higher costs, directly impacting their competitiveness in the Chinese market.

For Canada, this is the canola harvest season and a crucial time for shipping.

Every extra day in the warehouse means losing sales revenue.

At this critical juncture, the Premier of Saskatchewan quickly announced plans to visit China and called on the Canadian federal government to take action in response to market changes.

Clearly, they have realized that if they don’t adjust quickly, losing market share in China will become increasingly difficult to recover.

Compared to the tension with Canada, Australia’s 50,000-ton canola order is not a simple “spoiling” move but is done out of a “stabilizing” strategy.

For China, stabilizing price and supply is the primary goal.

Through a phased shipment approach, Australia ensures stable supply and leaves room for negotiation, neither closing the door nor keeping the issue hidden.

If Canada can show sincerity and actively resolve the issues, the market will notice and offer some space.

If Canada continues to insist on high tariffs and rely on China’s “unconditional orders,” this tough stance will undoubtedly face more challenges.

Only by truly changing its policy towards Chinese goods, adjusting tariffs, and optimizing the supply chain can Canada regain its place in the Chinese market.

In fact, many Canadian industry insiders also realize that once market share is taken by another country, it will be extremely difficult to regain.

For agricultural trade, buyers usually care most about price, rhythm, and cooperation attitude.

If the price is competitive, the supply rhythm matches, and the attitude is willing to solve problems, cooperation can continue.

If any of these three elements is problematic, other suppliers will seize the opportunity and take the advantageous position.

Australia’s 50,000-ton order is the first step in its “stabilizing” strategy for the Chinese market.

The next question is whether Australia can maintain this supply and avoid dropping the ball in market competition.

As for Canada, if it wants to regain the lost market share, it must take more practical actions, not just make empty promises.

The Canadian government should seriously consider: can the tariff policy towards China be adjusted?

Can communication and cooperation with Chinese enterprises be increased?

Many people worry that since China has already imposed a deposit on Canadian canola, does this mean that China will no longer import canola from Canada in the future?

But in fact, this deposit policy is just a temporary anti-dumping measure aimed at curbing low-price dumping and ensuring fair market competition.

The future development depends on the final ruling and the communication results between the two governments.

Regarding the visit of the Premier of Saskatchewan to China, what we care most about is whether we will see substantial changes in Canada’s policies.

Can they relax the high tariffs on Chinese goods?

Can they resolve the current trade friction through concrete actions?

If they can strengthen communication with Chinese enterprises and solve real problems, there is still potential for cooperation.

On the other hand, if it’s only verbal political statements with no follow-up actions, then this visit may just be a formality and will not change the deadlock in bilateral trade.

Doing business must be based on mutual respect.

If Canada hopes to gain more orders from the Chinese market, it must sincerely adjust its trade policies, especially the tariff policies, inspection and quarantine procedures, and logistics efficiency.

If it can provide Chinese enterprises with a more stable and transparent supply chain guarantee, the market will naturally respond.

For China, we care about supply diversification, price fairness, and supply stability.

Whoever can meet these conditions will stand out in fierce market competition.

Australia has already proven its strength through stable supply, while Canada must make substantial policy adjustments, particularly in tariffs, to catch up.

Through time and facts, we believe that as long as all parties adhere to the basic principles of “respecting rules, moving towards each other, and achieving mutual benefits,” a balanced solution will ultimately be found.