3

Archived link

...

[US President Donald Trump] has repeatedly made it clear that he wants vehicles built in the United States, not in Canada, even if that means unraveling long standing trade agreements like CUSMA. To Trump, Canadian auto plants are not partners in an integrated supply chain. They are competitors siphoning away American manufacturing strength.

,,,

[China's Xi Jinping'] position is quieter but far more consequential.

China’s global auto strategy is not about Canada specifically. It is about scale, dominance, and dependency. Beijing has poured enormous state resources into turning its automakers into export juggernauts, not just in electric vehicles but across the entire automotive spectrum. The goal is not simply to sell cars abroad. China may not say it as it thinks like—like Trump—but Beijing’s ultimate goal is to reshape who builds them at all.

...

Trump’s approach is blunt force economics. Build here or lose access. His message to automakers is simple. If you want to sell to Americans, invest in American factories. Canada becomes collateral damage in a political argument framed as economic nationalism.

China’s approach is more strategic and arguably more dangerous. By flooding markets with low-cost vehicles backed by state support, it erodes domestic manufacturing ecosystems over time. Once factories close and supply chains weaken, rebuilding them becomes nearly impossible. Consumers may celebrate cheaper cars in the short term, but the long-term cost is industrial dependency.

...

That is where Trump and Xi converge, intentionally or not.

Both paths lead to a future where Canada builds fewer cars. One shifts production south. The other crowds it out entirely. In either case, Canada is left choosing between integration and irrelevance. This is not just an economic debate. It is about sovereignty, employment, and technological leadership.

More than vehicles of transportation, cars are now rolling computers, data collectors, and energy platforms. Losing the ability to build them means losing influence over critical infrastructure.

The question facing Canada, and by extension North America, is not whether Chinese cars are good or affordable. Many are. The real question is whether hollowing out domestic manufacturing is a price worth paying for cheaper sheet metal and software.

...

Trump says he wants the jobs. Xi wants the market. Neither wants Canada in the driver’s seat.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] twopi@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

Canada has long been a branch economy. There is nothing new.

[-] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 5 days ago

Canada built more than 3 million cars in 1999, now it builds 1.3 million. As many other Western countries, it must and will 're-industrialize' as geopolitical tensions can't be expected to ease, not with the US nor with long-standing dictatorships like China and Russia.

[-] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago

Yeah the world's 10th largest economy with one of the world's most highly skilled workforces, abundant renewable energy, and some of the most natural resources in the world should focus on just giving its resources away for the cheapest price possible and don't even try to do anything else by itself. Come on, gaslight us some more, trade partners. Keep telling us we can't do anything without your help, fuckers. I'm not sick of it at all and I'm sure other Canadians aren't either.

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Sure we might be the tenth largest but that doesn't make us big. We are small in comparison to the tip five. We do not have the scale for a do.estic auto market unless the companies are fine being tiny. And that's not the way the world works now.

[-] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

You're not entirely wrong. The US and China are two huge economies. But there are lots of countries with not-dissimilar economies that have domestic auto manufacturing (Japan, UK, France, Germany), which are all 30-100% larger than ours. And then there are domestic manufacturers from countries that have comparatively smaller economies (Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Russia). Now of course some of those are notable for being low wage jurisdictions. But not all. For a country where mass transit is highly regionalized and economically challenging, there's a lot of incentive to have a domestic auto industry.

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago
[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Whatever dystopian landscape results from giving the consumers a break should happen. The consumers deserve a break at least once! Enough of this "the world will burn if we help the masses" bullshit.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

You can help the masses via importing cheaply made EVs, or you can help the masses by employing them to build EVs they can afford.

Only one of those options really gives them a break in the long run.

[-] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

The difference is one of timelines. As you ramp up industry, you can import affordable EVs. It's not either-or.

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago

I'm looking for a short term, one time only offer. Just a break for once. Save the "ethical ways to proceed" for our systems, not the consumer.

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

The people are the system. The prices are the product of systemic choices. Your Short Term break will end up costing you a fortune down the road when they've cornered the market and either Enshittification or price gouging ends up costing you your shirt in 10 years.

I don't want to pay any more than you do, but "Screw tomorrow, today we feast" kind of mentality is how we got here in the first place. If we don't think our way through this, we're going to end up shooting ourselves in the face.

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I mostly agree with you but just once I would like the "people's system" to help the people and not the government or the corporations. "Screw tomorrow, today we feast" always falls to the government or corporations. The people (masses; citizenry) need a win.

[-] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

To be clear, the people and the government are the same thing. It's the same wallet.

[-] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

I hear you. I don't want to get shafted either. I'm not a 1% elitist that can light $100k on fire and not care. I want people to get a break too, but we have to use our heads. We need to have a bare minimum level of domestic manufacturing. People still need jobs to eat, and we need to stop putting trust in people who don't give a damn about us to do what's best for us.

China, the US, the mega corps, they don't care about any of us. If you die, if your children starve, if you are marching with pitchforks and torches in the public square, they don't care. They are a million miles away and have zero skin in this game, they just show up and declare themselves the winner and demand your money.

We need ambition, we need to prove we can take care of ourselves because no one else will. That's the only way we get a "break" from the relentless BS.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Enough of this "the world will burn if we help the masses" bullshit.

That is almost always coming from the people threatening to burn the world if they don't get their way.

And, of course, them getting their way will also burn the world, but just a bit slower.

[-] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As an addition a personal opinion: I don't mind to engage in trade with China, but I argue that Mr. Carney's Canada-China deal, if not corrected or even deepened, will reap benefits only for one side. And this side is not Canada.

According to the current deal, Canada delivers commodities (canola) to China, but China delivers high-end products (EVs) to Canada. Deals like this will erode the Canadian industrial base further. At its peak almost one generation ago, in 1999, Canada produced more than 3 million cars. Today it produces 1.3 million.

Furthermore, this trade deal will increase Canada's trade deficit with China which already stands at around 40 billion US dollars, according to Comtrade.

While China is Canada's second-largest trading partner (behind the U.S.), less then 4% of Canada's exports go to China (U.S. counts for almost 77%), and 12% of Canadian imports come from China. On the other hand, only 2% of China's imports come from and only 1.3% of China's exports go to Canada.

This means Canada plays an even much smaller role for China than China does for Canada, making Ottawa extremely vulnerable for future political and economic coercion, which is definitely a major part in Beijing's playbook as we have seen in the past.

This is why Canada's future lies elsewhere, namely in trade and economic ties with countries of shared democratic values such as those in Europe, in Australia and New Zealand, in South Korea and Japan.

These democratic countries play a minimal role for Canada both in exports and imports, which means there is a huge potential for the future.

[Edit typo.]

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

The Chinese EV tariff waiver only affects 49,000 cars.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

that's a really long winded way to say you have no clue how economics work and don't understand what democracy is

[-] Glide@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I do have to give it to you, you know how to demonstrate in very few words how little you know. I guess this makes you an expert on the topic.

But hey, no self-respecting Tankie would ever let a well-reasoned opinion slide by without spouting divisive vitriol. Honestly, do you post anything in Lemmy that isn't anti-western democracy or pro-china propaganda? That's certainly the only slop you post in Canadian communities.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago
[-] Glide@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

How strange to dredge up a multiple day old comment to try and take some kind of win-loss stance. There's no competition to win or lose. Yog spams Canadian communities with pro-China propoganda, and I call it out as I see fit. If you want to take some strange subjective approach on whether I won or lost a given argument, that's your prerogative.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

I'd be so insulted by that if I didn't already know from prior interactions what an utter ignoramus you are. Keep on seething there dronie, you're going to be doing a lot of that going forward.

[-] Glide@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 week ago

So, that's a no, then? It's literally just Chinese propaganda and weak "lol so mad" trolling the whole way down?

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

lmfao if you really think I need to justify myself to some random troll on the internet then you're even dumber than I thought, and that's really saying something, now why don't you glide on out of here like a good dronie

[-] Glide@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

What I think is that you're not capable of it. You don't have to do anything.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

calling what goes on inside that head of yours thinking is very generous

[-] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org -4 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it must feel good to wake up in the morning as a tankie and know the ultimate truth about everything and how to explain it to us simpletons.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago

Yup, feels great to be a tankie and wach dronies having to deal with the whole neoliberal nightmare they constructed collapse in real time. Meanwhile, there's no educating racists like you.

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

You can't replace China or the US with other countries. They are massive economies there is no one to replace them with. Do you need them not not necessarily but be prepared for your economy to shrink.

[-] Scotty@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 1 week ago

For the US that may be true in the long term as its the only direct neighbour.

For China it's not true. As I said, less than 4% of Canadian exports go to China, and 12% of its imports come from China.

At the same time, democratic countries which share similar values play a minimal role so far. The UK has a similar relevance like China as an export partner, but EU members' shares in both exports and imports are mostly 1% or lower. There is a huge potential, and it would help Canada's economy and independence if and when it strengthens its ties with these countries.

China isn't a necessity, and it's not a reliable partner as we have seen so often in the past. Las year Carney himself declared China as "Canada's biggest security threat." He should act accordingly.

[-] sugarfoot00@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

This really hand-waves away how big a deal it was for Canola growers and seafood producers to have the tariffs dropped. It cost us comparatively little. What amounts to less than 1% of domestic new car market, and with the opportunity to have those EVs made in whole or part here in the future.

this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
3 points (53.7% liked)

Canada

11531 readers
492 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