BSH CONSULTING
SMART CONSULTING MADE IN GERMANY 

Canada’s EV Agreement with China: Strategic Turning Point or Miscalculation?



The planned electric vehicle agreement between Canada and China marks a step of significant economic and geopolitical importance. While Ottawa presents the initiative as a strategic diversification of its trade relationships and as an opportunity for more affordable electric vehicles as well as new export prospects, the decision also raises fundamental questions. In an increasingly tense international environment—particularly in relation to the United States—the agreement could have far-reaching industrial and security policy consequences.

The following chronological error analysis therefore examines at which points strategic miscalculations may have occurred, which assumptions underpin the approach, and what risks could emerge in the medium and long term.

1. Initial Situation: Underestimating Geopolitical Sensitivity
Possible error:

Canada assesses the agreement primarily as an economic measure and underestimates its geopolitical implications.
From the outset, it should have been clear that an EV agreement with China in a strategically sensitive sector sends not only a trade signal but also a security policy signal—particularly toward the United States.

2. Decision Phase: Focus on Short-Term Economic Benefits
Possible error:

The government prioritizes short-term consumer benefits (more affordable electric vehicles) and market access for Canadian canola oil without sufficiently weighing long-term industrial policy consequences.
Risks at this stage include:
  • Price pressure on domestic manufacturers.
  • Weakened incentives for investment in Canadian EV production.
  • Displacement effects in the labor market.
Short-term gains could undermine long-term strategic industrial objectives.

3. Strategic Planning: Miscalculation of the U.S. Reaction
Possible error:

Canada assumes that the United States will tolerate the agreement or respond only moderately.
Given the strong integration of the North American automotive market, closer coordination with Washington might have been advisable. If the U.S. were to implement regulatory or trade countermeasures, Canada could lose significantly more than it gains.
This creates a potential imbalance between:
  • The economic weight of the U.S. market.
  • And the expected benefits from China.

4. Implementation Phase: Overestimating Chinese Willingness to Invest
Possible error:

Canada relies on joint ventures and investments by Chinese companies without sufficiently considering that such investments depend on access to the U.S. market.
If geopolitical tensions intensify:
  • Investment commitments could fail to materialize.
  • Projects could be delayed.
  • Political costs could arise without corresponding economic returns.
Canada would then bear strategic risks without securing adequate benefits.

5. Medium-Term Effects: Structural Dependence
Possible error:

Increasing integration of Chinese EV supply chains creates technological and industrial dependencies.
Particularly sensitive areas include:
  • Battery technology.
  • Critical raw materials.
  • Software and digital vehicle architecture.
In an escalating geopolitical environment, this could limit economic sovereignty.

6. Long-Term Consequence: Positioning Between Blocs
Possible fundamental strategic error:

Canada attempts to balance between the United States and China without clarity on whether this balance is sustainable in the long term.
If systemic rivalry intensifies, Canada could be forced to take a clearer stance—while already being deeply economically intertwined, making a policy shift more difficult.

Overall Assessment
Viewed chronologically, the potential errors follow a clear pattern:
  1. Underestimation of geopolitical signaling effects.
  2. Overemphasis on short-term benefits.
  3. Miscalculation of the U.S. reaction.
  4. Overestimation of Chinese investment.
  5. Risk of structural dependencies.
  6. Long-term strategic vulnerability.

Whether these points ultimately prove to be genuine errors depends on the future development of U.S.–Canadian relations and the global EV industry. The agreement is strategically risky above all because it takes place in a highly sensitive geopolitical environment.