Carney Jumps from the American Frying Pan into the Chinese Fire

Canada’s China EV-Canola Deal Risks Sovereignty

Mark Carney’s Liberal government deal with Beijing is less of a sound economic or strategic pivot, and more of a sell-out if not an outright betrayal of Canada. Declaring China a “more reliable” partner than the United States (U.S.) while slashing tariffs on 49,000 Chinese EVs for vague canola promises, Carney has deepened Canadian ties to Beijing’s authoritarian machine at the likely expense of Canadian sovereignty. This seems like an abandonment of Carney’s much touted “values” (and Canadian values) to spite American President Donald Trump or reward certain business interests, while aligning Canada with China’s larger orbit of Russia, Iran, and other authoritarian regimes. What follows is a critical look at the dependency risks, the net-zero embrace, the geopolitical dangers, and the domestic concern this reckless move has ignited.

Shifting Dependencies

Reacting to American tariffs on Canada, on 27 March 2025, a month before his Liberals won re-election, Mark Carney declared “The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over.” Little did Canadians know that when Carney said, “Canada must “fundamentally reimagine” its economy for a “drastically different world,” it meant running, bowing and scraping, into the arms of China.

Considering the amount of planning required for a state visit, preparations for Carney’s Beijing pilgrimage must have begun almost immediately after that April election victory. This seems hardly a pragmatic pivot, but rather a reckless leap from the frying pan of targeted American tariffs into the fire of China’s well-honed economic coercion, where trade dependencies are routinely weaponized to bully competitors and manipulate political outcomes. It also seems to suggest that the Carney Liberals have not been engaging in good faith dialogue or negotiations with the United States regarding the tariff situation or the re-evaluation of the Canada-US-Mexico trade Agreement (CUSMA).

Carney’s stab that China is “more reliable” and “predictable” than the U.S. is rather perverse: reliable, perhaps, in its consistent use of product dumping to eliminate rivals, economic blackmail to silence critics, and systemic slavery and human rights abuses—from Uyghur genocide at home to exploitative operations in Africa—to crush resistance wherever it operates. Let’s be honest: this deal doesn’t secure Canada’s future; it compromises it.

This new “strategic partnership” with Communist China tosses into the dust bin the very “values” Carney once championed. And for what? For questionable short-term gains just to score petty points against trump or grease the wheels for Canadian investors in China? All of this done without parliamentary discussion or a white paper or a considered examination of the pros and cons of deeper entanglement with a hostile authoritarian rival. Deepening ties with Communist China means that Canada will be aligning with the authoritarian orbit (Russia, Iran, formerly Venezuela) China dominates.

This is a naïve betrayal, not leadership, that risks turning Canada into just another satellite, or vassal state, in Beijing’s sphere of influence. How? – you might ask. The various MOUs signed by the Liberals with China (the texts are currently unavailable to the public) deepen Canada’s ties to a geopolitical rival that built its EV, battery, wind, and solar dominance through massive state subsidies, overcapacity, and dumping practices that justified those original 100% tariffs. Carney’s push for deeper ties in clean energy tech invites scaled-up Chinese exports to and investments in Canada’s struggling auto sector, clean energy storage/production, solar panels, and even offshore wind projects like West Wind Offshore (with up to 60 GW potential).

The result? Canadian manufacturing risks becoming even more dependent on Chinese components and capital, delaying genuine domestic innovation and undermining true energy independence from domestic Canadian sources. For example, Prime Minister Carney commented at a Q&A in Qatar that there is

“an expectation that there will be Chinese investment, will be Chinese investment partnering with Canadian companies in Canada…we’ve had direct conversations directly from the Chinese companies directly from and and and uh companies that are amongst the world leaders and collectively are the world leaders in this space um with explicit um interest and intention to partner with Canadian companies.”

What does that mean in practice? Will China be setting up manufacturing plants in Canada to make Chinese cars including the batteries and other components? Is that such a good idea? Which Canadian companies will be partnering with China? Is it Project Arrow or some other prototype company that has received government handouts?

Meanwhile, the deal encourages Canadian investments in China, which will then be subject to penalties or confiscation if Canada does not behave properly. Critics like former ambassador David Mulroney warn this is akin to bending the knee to a modern emperor, confusing commercial opportunity with strategic alignment. Make no mistake: by entangling Canada in China’s web, Carney is not just risking jobs—he’s gambling Canadian sovereignty, pulling us into a sphere where dissent is crushed.

Net Zero and Energy

Far from retreating from net zero, this agreement doubles down on it. Carney eliminated the consumer carbon tax in March 2025 (effective April 1), shifting the burden to industry via the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS). Experts and reports indicate plans to tighten this industrial carbon pricing in the 2026 benchmark review, potentially increasing costs on large emitters to fund “green” incentives and justify the EV mandate. That mandate—requiring escalating zero-emission vehicle sales (originally 20% in 2026, rising to 100% by 2035)—was paused for 2026 last September amid U.S. tariff pressures and a 60-day review for “cost-efficiency.” The China deal provides political cover to revive and enforce it: cheap imported EVs help meet targets without fully building a competitive Canadian industry, while higher industrial costs ostensibly drive decarbonization. But at what cost? This shortsighted move ignores the failure of the post-1970s delusion that economic integration would democratize China. Communism has not yielded to markets, it has weaponized them, and Carney’s deal repeats that fatal mistake. China’s long game of deception is outlined in Michael Pillsbury’s book The Hundred-Year Marathon; Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg in Hidden Hand, expose Communist China’s infiltration tactics; and James Fanell in Embracing Communist China: America’s Greatest Strategic Failure, warns of the perils of naïve engagement. This seems to be the epitome of naïve engagement!

What about energy? The renewed Canada-China energy Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), emphasizes cooperation on clean and conventional energy, including natural gas/LNG, emission reductions, and potential renewables like offshore wind and solar. It recognizes Canada as a partner in “responsibly produced and reliable global oil, LNG, and LPG supply,” but statements highlight scaling LNG exports to 50 million tonnes annually by 2030—much destined for Asian markets, including China—while importing Chinese clean tech. This “both-and” approach prioritizes short-term trade diversification to counter U.S. tariffs over national security, ignoring China’s history of trade bullying—from halting rare earth exports to Japan in 2010 over territorial disputes to imposing bans on Australian goods after a COVID inquiry call, not to mention the on-again, off-again targeting of Canadian canola and agrifood.

Geopolitics

Geopolitically, the timing is alarming. Just weeks ago, on 3 January 2026, the U.S. launched a military operation capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—seen as heavily influenced by China and Russia—removing a key foothold for Beijing and Moscow in the Western Hemisphere. China condemned the action as U.S. “bullying” and acting like a “world judge,” while Russia decried it as aggression. This bold U.S. move signals zero tolerance for Chinese/Russian influence in the Americas, amid heightened tensions over spheres of influence. For Canada, cozying up to China with security cooperation and on critical infrastructure—EVs, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines—now carries heightened risks of being viewed as enabling Beijing’s “spy products” on North American soil, including illegal police stations, election interference, and fentanyl.

Amid the ongoing CUSMA review, this could provoke U.S. blowback, complicating auto supply chain alignment and making American tariffs even more intractable. Ontario’s auto sector faces direct threats: Premier Doug Ford remains “100% dead against” tariff cuts unless China builds unionized factories here. Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association president Flavio Volpe warns China’s interests are “frequently hostile” to Canada’s—urging caution. What happens to existing plants if cheap imports surge? Critics like Toronto Sun columnist Warren Kinsella decry trading U.S. democracy for China’s dictatorship, while Anna Farrow, writing on Peter Menzies’s Substack, calls it a “triple kowtow”. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says that Carney misled voters by calling China our “biggest security threat” pre-election, only to embrace it after the Liberals won the election.

This deal is not a “win” for Canada especially since it has no strict guardrails like mandatory domestic content, rigorous security vetting for investments, and closer alignment with U.S. allies to safeguard North American chains. Without them—or without the parliamentary scrutiny it so clearly lacks—Carney risks subsidizing and enhancing Beijing’s dominance, on its biggest rival’s doorstep, while exposing Canada to continental security fallout. Canadians deserve jobs, security, and realistic progress—not deeper entanglement with a rival the U.S. is actively pushing back against, nor a “new world order” built on naivety or a hubris fueled “third way”. In choosing this direction, Canada risks becoming a willing pawn in China’s long game for world dominance, trading its democratic future for Beijing’s (false) promises and authoritarian control.