this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
-30 points (21.2% liked)

Canada

11012 readers
917 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived link

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org -2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

The "us" in the statement refers to voters.

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.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s a safe bet that you and your like minded ‘comrades’ don’t represent the voters.

Safe bet, eh? Where's my money now?

source: https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/slim-majority-canadians-54-support-stronger-trade-ties-china

[–] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org -1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

The same poll says that Canadians prioritize human rights and economic opportunities in new trade deals. How did Mr. Carney pursued that?

That aside, it's just a poll that gave participants a binary choice. If you ask Canadians about their most important economic partners, they paint a different picture: They prefer the European Union (43%), then the UK (40%), Mexico (33%), and only then comes China (27%).

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

Wow you made an entire set of posts to spread propaganda. Lol what a loosed.

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Moving the goalposts, aren't we?

The question of this thread is increasing trade with China. It is a binary question. Yes or No.

From Abacus:

Disclaimer: The polling was conducted before the US tariffs took place on March 4, 2025 which were then removed for another month.

The abacus poll was conducted a year ago, while the Ipsos poll is this year. My how a year changed things.

The abacus poll also asks about international partners not economic partners. International partners include a partner in diplomacy as well as trade.

The abacus poll does not ask strictly about increasing trade.

You are still lying by changing the presented facts.

The party (@Scotty@scribe.disroot.org) told you (people who can read) to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Do fucking better.

Again, where's my money? I can DM you my Interac information.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Always moving the goalposts. Never good faith engagement. Had the gall to claim isn't here to win an argument. 😆

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

They're even using the misinterpreted poll as a stand alone post to spread propaganda see:

https://vger.to/scribe.disroot.org/post/6923350

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Wait what. I assumed they're showing other resutls from the same poll from December. I did not suspect it's a poll from March! Wow the dishonesty. 😆

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

lol. "us" is the plural of "me", there only needs to be at least two voters to use "us". I can definitely use "us" when it is a minority of voters. You can use "us" too if you find someone with the same views as you.

You also manipulated the quote. Quote of what I said:

The “us” in the statement refers to voters, such as myself, who recognize ...

You shortened it to

The “us” in the statement refers to voters.

My use "us" does not refer to all voters (like how you misquote it as) but to voters who hold opinions similar to those I currently hold.

Thank you @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca for the link to the survey for showing my use of "us" is actually referencing an outright majority of voters (54% for only support and 68% for not oppose) as opposed to your "us" which represents a minority (32%). Even more insulting is that your "us" which is "Strongly Oppose" (11%) is smaller that the "us" representing voters who "Don't Know" (14%).

The difference between support and oppose is 22%, which is double the amount of people like you who strongly oppose.

It’s a safe bet that you and your like minded ‘comrades’ don’t represent the voters.

Safe bet, eh? Where's my money now?

Do better or get lost.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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@lemmy.ca FYI ☝️in case you took the asshat at their word.

[–] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org -2 points 9 hours ago

The same poll says that Canadians prioritize human rights and economic opportunities in new trade deals. How did Mr. Carney pursued that?

That aside, it's just a poll that gave participants a binary choice. If you ask Canadians about their most important economic partners, they paint a different picture: They prefer the European Union (43%), then the UK (40%), Mexico (33%), and only then comes China (27%).

[–] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Thank you so much for this. Didn't realize both strongly support is more than strongly oppose and somewhat support is more than strongly oppose with an overall 22% percent lead of support over oppose.