Following Prime Minister Mark Carney’s announcement in Beijing that Canada will allow a limited annual quota of Chinese electric vehicles (EV) into the domestic market at reduced tariffs, the federal government has framed the agreement as a pragmatic response to rising vehicle costs and slowing EV adoption in Canada.
...
While the agreement may ease immediate price pressures, it introduces longer-term risks that deserve closer scrutiny. In particular, it raises questions about Canada’s industrial resilience, environmental accountability and strategic autonomy at a time of growing global economic fragmentation.
...
There is little dispute that affordability has become a binding constraint on EV adoption in Canada. Recent policy shifts, including the removal of consumer incentives and a pause on the EV availability standard, a regulation intended to require automakers to ensure a minimum supply of electric vehicles in the Canadian market, have coincided with a measurable slowdown in EV uptake.
Allowing a quota of lower-cost imports could help temporarily bridge this gap. In that sense, the agreement responds to a real political and economic challenge. However, the concern is not whether prices fall in the near term, but whether trade policy aimed primarily at correcting short-term market failures creates structural vulnerabilities if it is not paired with a broader industrial strategy.
...
Chinese EV manufacturers operate within a political economy that differs fundamentally from that of Canada and most OECD countries. Their cost competitiveness reflects not only technological efficiency, but also extensive state support, preferential financing, controlled energy prices, and regulatory frameworks that do not fully internalize environmental and labour costs.
Allowing a limited number of these vehicles into the Canadian market falls short of neutral competition in the conventional sense. It introduces a degree of dependence on an external industrial system over which Canada has limited regulatory influence and little leverage in the event of trade disruption or geopolitical tension.
...
Lower vehicle prices are often presented as an unequivocal benefit to consumers. Industrial economics suggests a more complex reality. Sustained exposure to heavily subsidized imports compresses margins for domestic manufacturers and suppliers, discourages investment, and erodes production capacity over time.
This dynamic can reduce competition rather than enhance it, leaving consumers more vulnerable to supply concentration and price volatility in the future. Similar patterns have been observed in sectors such as solar manufacturing and consumer electronics, where early affordability gains were followed by industrial hollowing out.
From a policy perspective, the relevant question is not whether prices fall over the next year or two, but whether Canada retains the capacity to participate meaningfully in the value chains that underpin its transportation system.
...
Reliance on external suppliers for critical transportation technologies may reduce costs in the short term, but it also constrains future policy options. Once domestic capacity erodes, rebuilding it becomes costly and politically difficult. Strategic exposure accumulates gradually and is often recognized only after options have narrowed.
From this perspective, the EV quota agreement should be evaluated not only in terms of consumer prices and adoption rates, but also in terms of its implications for Canada’s long-term autonomy in mobility and manufacturing.
...
Alternative approaches exist. These include conditional imports tied to Canadian job creation, local manufacturing, or supply chain participation, binding technology transfer requirements, stronger recycling and materials recovery mandates, and a greater emphasis on smaller, less mineral-intensive vehicles. These measures are more complex to design, but they better align affordability goals with long-term capacity building.
...
In an era defined by uncertainty, durable policy frameworks matter more than quick fixes. The challenge for Canada is not simply to accelerate the EV transition, but to ensure that the transition strengthens rather than weakens the foundations on which it depends.
Similarly, you have your life and are free to stick to whatever propaganda channels you want to believe in.
The "us" in the statement refers to voters, such as myself, who recognize both governments (China and Canada in this case) subsidize industries and the fact that other developing countries have complained about Western subsidies dismantling their nascent industries. There are a lot of good analyses. Feel free to read them to broaden your horizons (there are some good reports also here on Lemmy as I have seen) and then come back.
It’s apparent that you don’t even have the willingness to engage in good faith discussions. When you are on the winning side you claim "International Rules-Based Order". At the moment the environment changes you claim to be the 'first' to "stop putting the sign on the window", as the PM said, and acknowledge it was never true to begin with.
Yeah, and myself, too? And those other voters with a opinion different from yours?
It's a safe bet that you and your like minded 'comrades' don't represent the voters.
Is it a safe bet? Since you're so clueless about where Canadians are, and a confidently wrong asshole on top, here's visual aid:
From a recent poll.
@twopi FYI ☝️in case you took the asshat seriously.