Being Open Is No Longer Enough: Toward a More Assertive Canadian Industrial Policy

In an Era of Global Economic Fragmentation

Fictional strategic note – non-partisan

A necessary debate, but still too narrow

General Motors’ decision to end electric vehicle production at its CAMI plant in Ingersoll understandably sparked concern: job losses, questions about the effectiveness of public subsidies, and renewed debate over trade measures and quotas.

These discussions are legitimate.

But they remain incomplete.

Beyond the GM case lies a more fundamental question:

Does Canada still have an industrial policy suited to the world it now operates in?

The global economy is no longer neutral

What many perceive as trade frictions, opportunistic decisions, or temporary disorder increasingly resembles a deliberate reconfiguration of global value chains.

Major economies are actively seeking to:

• secure critical supply chains,

• reduce strategic dependencies,

• strengthen economic sovereignty,

• and improve their long-term negotiating position.

In this environment, industrial decisions are no longer purely market-driven.

They are inherently political, even when framed as technical or commercial choices.

Canada is not immune to this shift — but it has been slower than others to fully acknowledge it.

GM is not the problem. The framework is.

It is tempting to personalize the debate or moralize corporate decisions.

But GM, like any multinational, acted rationally: it arbitrated between jurisdictions based on cost structures, incentives, risks, and policy predictability.

The central question is therefore not:

Why did GM make this decision?

But rather:

Why does Canada’s current framework allow such decisions to carry so few consequences, despite the strategic importance of the assets involved?

In other words, the issue is not corporate arbitrage itself.

It is the absence of sufficiently clear, coherent, and assertive policy levers.

Being an open economy does not mean being unconditional

Canada rightly defines itself as an open, welcoming, and stable economy.

For decades, this openness has been a competitive advantage.

But in a world where:

• the United States practices overt economic nationalism,

• Europe actively protects its value chains,

• and many countries now condition market access,

Unconditional openness becomes a strategic vulnerability.

Being open should not mean:

• granting benefits without measurable commitments,

• subsidizing activities that can be easily relocated,

• or allowing strategic industrial assets to become adjustment variables.

Toward a modern Canadian industrial policy

Canada does not need to revert to protectionism or centralized planning.

It needs clear, predictable, and intentional rules of engagement.

Several guiding principles could underpin a modern industrial policy.

1. Reciprocity as a foundation

Access to the Canadian market, public incentives, and fiscal advantages should be linked to concrete commitments: local production, durable investment, and measurable value creation.

2. Conditional incentives

Public support must be tied to outcomes, not intentions.

When commitments are not met, benefits should be adjusted or withdrawn through transparent, automatic mechanisms.

3. Strategic diversification of partners

Economic openness does not preclude strategy.

Canada must retain the ability to diversify industrial partnerships based on long-term national interests, without ideological taboos or naïveté.

4. Targeted sovereignty

Canada cannot produce everything, nor should it.

But it must identify and retain control over critical links in the value chain: energy, batteries, data, software, infrastructure, and climate technologies.

5. Contractual predictability, not ideological certainty

Stability remains essential — but it must be grounded in reciprocal commitments, not unilateral trust.

The message Canada should send

Canada remains open to international investment. But it now expects clear, durable, and measurable commitments in return.

Producing, investing, and innovating in Canada must once again be a competitive advantage — not an optional consideration.

This message is neither hostile nor ideological.

It is simply aligned with today’s economic realities.

Conclusion: choosing lucidity

The debate triggered by Ingersoll extends far beyond the automotive sector.

It touches Canada’s ability to:

• protect its industrial base,

• support a socially responsible economic transition,

• and preserve strategic autonomy in a fragmented global economy.

Strategic neutrality is no longer sufficient. Lucidity has become indispensable.

__________

About Convenio

Convenio supports executives and boards in defining and executing growth strategies, digital transformation initiatives, and long-term value creation at the intersection of economic, technological, and organizational challenges.

#politiqueindustriellecanadienne #stratégieindustrielle #économiecanadienne #chaînesdevaleur #investissementindustriel #souverainetééconomique #ouvertureéconomique