Canada faces danger from more than one direction. The United States, under the influence of Donald Trump, represents a volatile and unpredictable risk, particularly because it controls over 70% of our exports. But there is a critical distinction we must not ignore. There is a difference between managing exposure to an amateur autocrat operating inside a democratic system and voluntarily deepening our reliance on a professional autocrat who governs a one-party surveillance state. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent visit to China, and the deal that followed, forced Canada to confront that distinction head-on.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent visit to Beijing was presented as pragmatic statecraft, a necessary diversification in an uncertain world. It was a fundamental misreading of power. This is not about symbolism or ideology. It is about realpolitik: how leverage is created, how dependency is weaponized, and how states lose sovereignty not through conquest, but through contracts.
What is happening to the United States is terrifying. Canadians know Americans better than anyone. We share a continent, a language, and a long history. In many ways we are more alike than any other people on earth, even when we wish we weren’t. And yet, we are also profoundly different.
You either feel that difference or you don’t. The arguments over how or why it emerged can wait. When your shared home is under threat, political anthropology is a luxury. What matters is whether we understand ourselves clearly enough to act in our own interest. Economic policy is not separate from political order. Serious economic strategy is only possible when a state understands its own power, its vulnerabilities, and the nature of the regimes it deals with. This is where Prime Minister Carney’s approach fails.
Authoritarian states do not trade the way democracies do. Trade is not a neutral exchange; it is a tool of statecraft. In China, commerce, industry, finance, and foreign policy are fused under party control. Market access is conditional. Contracts are revocable. Regulation is political. Dependency is not a side effect — it is the objective.
Canada has already lived through this lesson. When Beijing wished to punish us, it did not debate or negotiate. It blocked canola, detained citizens, and applied pressure precisely where it hurt most. That was not an aberration; it was a demonstration.
To deepen trade with such a system is to invite coercion. To invest in shared supply chains is to hand over leverage. To embed Chinese capital, standards, or platforms into strategic sectors is to constrain future Canadian governments’ freedom of action. This is not hypothetical. China has used trade as a weapon against Australia, Lithuania, Japan, South Korea, and others. The pattern is consistent: identify dependency, apply pressure, demand silence or compliance.
Canada’s mistake in the 1990s was believing that economic engagement would liberalize China. That theory failed. The regime adapted instead, using Western capital, technology, and markets to strengthen itself internally and project power externally. Prime Minister Carney’s visit risks repeating that error at a far more dangerous moment.
The moral case against the Chinese Communist Party is already settled. Parliament has condemned its actions against Uyghurs. Tibet, Hong Kong, and the threat to Taiwan speak for themselves. These facts matter, but they are not the core of this argument.
The core issue is strategic. China is preparing for decoupling. Beijing has said so explicitly. Its industrial policy is designed to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers while increasing others’ reliance on it. Entering long-term agreements under these conditions means Canada bears the risk, while China retains the exit.
That is not diversification. It is asymmetrical exposure. Canada does need new markets, yes. But not all markets are equal. A partner that is more powerful, less transparent, and openly hostile to liberal democracies is not a stabilizer, it is a source of long-term constraint.
Yes, sell food where possible. Agricultural exports are transactional and replaceable. But Canada must avoid entanglement in sectors that shape future power: electric vehicles, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, data infrastructure, and energy. We should never export resources that could directly enable military aggression. The question is not whether China is an enemy in a rhetorical sense. It is whether China’s system, incentives, and behavior align with Canada’s long-term sovereignty. They do not.
Canada does not need to choose between Washington and Beijing. That framing is a trap. We need to choose resilience: diversified trade among trusted democracies, domestic capacity in strategic industries, and clear limits on engagement with authoritarian powers. Real leadership is not about bowing to power or pretending risk does not exist. It is about understanding power. It’s about preserving the freedom to act when it matters most.
Dominic Cardy has spent his career fighting for better government, real accountability and a democracy that works for Canadians - not just politicians. Whether in government, opposition or working directly in his community, he’s consistently pushed for fairness, transparency and policies that deliver real results. Most importantly, he’s never shied away from tough decisions. Especially the ones that impact people’s daily lives
The views expressed are those of the author(s). National Newswatch Inc. publishes a range of perspectives and does not necessarily endorse the opinions presented.