this post was submitted on 10 May 2025

63 points (89.9% liked)

Canada

9662 readers

971 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

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 4 years ago

MODERATORS

otter@lemmy.ca

mp3@lemmy.ca

otters_raft@lemmy.ca

Should Canada Pursue an Electric Vehicle Truce With China? | Your Morning (youtu.be)

submitted 2 days ago by humanspiral@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Canada relies on foreign auto executives for its auto industry. It already provides huge taxpayer subsidies per job. There is certainly a possible future where all of those foreign loyal companies side with US to destroy Canadian auto production/investment.

China could help save Canadian auto industry by providing motors and batteries for Canadian made EVs. Chinese investment to make goods from Canadian resources in Canada is a path for scale that includes global export potential of autos and other industrial goods to whole globe including China.
If it doesn't make economic sense to make our own tube socks, it doesn't make sense to make overly expensive cars, either. There is a stronger national security argument for apparel, that needs yearly replacements, than solar, batteries, and autos that last 20+ years. More so, when they are not dependent on continuous international fuel supply chains/geopolitics.

Pressure on foreign executives to support Canadian production includes access to Canadian market. The stability of status quo will appeal to most people. But the threat/plan B of cooperation with China is both a path to manufacturing and resource FDI paid by China instead of taxpayers, and better quality of life through better value goods.

top 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Dholi@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

No thanks. I don't trust them after what they did to Nortel. It's much better for Canada to build a high-speed train line and more LRTs all across Canada because:

Building transit allows us to train our workers for these types of projects. Workers gain new skills which can be used for more transit projects.
Relying on auto manufacturing results in federal and provincial governments dumping billions of investment incentives into these companies for production runs that are essentially limited time only. Once the production run is up after 5 or so years, they ask the government for more money again or they threaten to move production.
Makes our communities walk-able, safer, and makes travelling more convenient.
Our roads in major cities are already at or above capacity and we can't keep jamming our roads with more and more cars.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago

No.

Which is short for Nortel.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Canada heavily investing in electrified public transit would do a lot more for the economy and the environment than any EV deal with any country. It also has a side effect of supporting denser housing which could help us get out of our housing crisis.

Canada will still need EVs for people who would rather drive or live rurally but our focus should be reducing the reliance on cars. EVs are massively energy and resource ineffcient compared to transit and transit can be made accesible to more people.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Our Canadian EV bus maker is about to go bankrupt (Lion Electric).

[–] Franklin@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A big issue for them is a lot of their manufacturing happens in the US, I don't see things getting better for them considering current events

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

Car culture and city/road design is very much a function of the importance of auto industry. Your transportation priorities are easier to push for when auto lobby is not also a job lobby.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago

This is a good idea I hadn't thought of.

Could do this in partnership with EU companies too.

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Hell no.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

If the manufacturers we have here don't want to make EVs, we have no EV manufacturing jobs to protect. Unless we're planning to live on ICE vehicles into the climate crisis, we have to get a source of EVs. The options are import and FDI (foreign direct investment (build factories here)). FDI is probably preferable since it gives us the ability to make the vehicles we use. If we go for import, we probably want the cheapest possible deal that fits the bill, unless we want to pay extra for a good reason. E.g. we may want to buy European. Of course we have to ask whether that's worth the cost given that they source some of their components from China. I think some European autos are planning to use Chinese platforms for their vehicles. At that point it may or may not make sense to pay the premium. That differs from maker to maker. E.g. Renault's latest EVs seem EU-made. More broadly, the less in corporate profits we pay for our EVs, the more money are left in our pockets to spend on other Canadians. The cheaper the EVs, the less the cost of Canadian businesses using them is and the more competitive they are.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The key is batteries. Honda is supposed to be making a battery factory (and whole EVs) in Ontario. It is a key "sensible option" to continue supporting. But there has to be a threat of abandoning all product sales from manufacturers who abandon Canada.

Chinese technology for battery plants in Canada using Canadian materials (other than lithium) can make good value EVs in Canada. I don't know that Honda can do the same.

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

Is Honda doing it here to ship to the US?

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago

Not an expert, but it is/was a $16B plant investment made during a time when shipping to US would be tariff free. All Canadian plants export some to US.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The Stellantis factory in Windsor seems to be on track to make cells this year. But someone has to put them in cars. Cars that are affordable.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Didn't Trudeau make a number of tax ince tive deals relating to EV production years ago?

The issue now is likely tarrif related.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

With VW, this is why subsidies shouldnt exist for profitable companies

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Agreed.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What we need is an auto pact with China. A tit-fr-tat cross-border supply chain. They make cars in Canada, buy parts from the Canadian supply chain for cars they make in China. and everyone wins.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Chinese Don"t need any supply chain help, they have incredibly good domestic supply chains.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

Not completely. Even given China's enormous manufacturing capacity, there are still gaps in it. China very definitely prioritizes the manufacturing, even after the opening up of the economy to private entrepreneurs. For instance, it has delegated cities of well over a million people each to a dedicated task - one to robotics and the other to quantum computing. Everything in the city - infrastructure, education, facilities, governance - is directed towards these focus centers of excellence.

If it is not high on the government priority list, it is fair game to outside countries to fill the gap. America just does not want to manufacture what China wants. If Canada decides to do so,the opportunities are there.

[+] tleb@lemmy.ca -6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

No.

Their labour standards are way too low which means countries with good standards cannot compete (tariffs can balance this out though)
They're a foreign adversary so we should minimize our tech reliance on them as much as possible
We don't "need" cheap cars

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I feel like they def have issues, Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, human rights record, general authoritarianism.

They also seem to have a better climate change story than anyone in north america, and USA has totally shown itself to be a mercurial alley.

I don't see what advantage high tariffs have on something we want more of (EV's). If the standards suck, then I'm ok with bringing them up to standard and charging for that.

Making this an either or "they are or aren't our enemies" seems unnecessary, when we could buy their things and put pressure on them to do better on the things at the top.

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

They also seem to have a better climate change story than anyone in north america

They lied about covid numbers, so I don't really trust their pollution numbers either, but they make some kind of "one step forwards, two steps back" progress because they keep building new coal power plants.

and USA has totally shown itself to be a mercurial alley.

The US is absolutely a shithole now, I don't think we should look to them for EVs either.

I don't see what advantage high tariffs have on something we want more of (EV's). If the standards suck, then I'm ok with bringing them up to standard and charging for that. Making this an either or "they are or aren't our enemies" seems unnecessary, when we could buy their things and put pressure on them to do better on the things at the top.

So, Trump kind of ruined saying tariffs as a solution to anything, but they are a tool to apply pressure to trade partners. Huge tariffs on Chinese EVs isn't contributing to our cost of living crisis, because we can get EVs from elsewhere for decent prices, and because EVs are a super luxury item anyway.

There's no pressure applied if we buy their EVs at cost. We don't realistically have enough global political power to apply any political pressure either.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

We don't realistically have enough global political power to apply any political pressure either.

Right, so why bother, it seems like we are just hurting canadians by having tariffs on evs

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Because we can apply economic pressure.

No one is being hurt by not being able to buy a cheap Chinese EV.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Their labour standards are way too low which means countries with good standards cannot compete (tariffs can balance this out though)

This is politicized, but is more credibly claimed in construction and lower value manufacturing. Their EV advantage is based on robotics and battery tech.

They’re a foreign adversary so we should minimize our tech reliance on them as much as possible

This is just something we copy from US. There's a need to befriend lesser enemies, though China has never threatened us.

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

This is just something we copy from US. There's a need to befriend lesser enemies, though China has never threatened us.

Nonsense. They're an existential threat to good allies like Taiwan and Hong Kong, and support other threats including Russia and North Korea.

Edit: And if you need specific risks to Canada, don't forget the Chinese police stations, the 2 Michaels being detained, and interfering with our elections.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago

Their labor standards are a LOT higher than those in the US.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 days ago (5 children)

You're forgetting something critical, cars are computers and can be updated or even bricked remotely with the current systems in place. This is an unacceptable risk from a foreign power, only a close ally (not the US anymore) should even potentially be able to supply these.

I would actually like to see any sort of over the air update systems be banned, it should only be possible when plugged in physically.

The only thing that should be possible remotely is reading info.

[–] nebula@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

For that part, I'd be equally scared of any company, no matter it's origin. So as solution, I'd prefer if we get laws that ensures there is option for concerned users to completely disable remote telemetry. I don't need my car internet connected just so I can see the tire pressure in an app, I'd rather a car not share my location 24/7 and driving data only for companies to sell it to cheapest bidder.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Almost all laptops you've touched over the last decade are made in China or Vietnam. Most computer motherboards are made in China or Vietnam. My Framework laptop is made in Taiwan but its mainboard is Chinese. Most Android phones are made in China or Vietnam. So are most iPhones.

All of the factory software loading happens at the place of manufacture. Some of the software is made there too. Some of these computers have had compromised factory software which has been subsequently fixed. Cough.. Lenovo.. cough. Yet Lenovo is used at Canadian banks and other critical infrastructure places.

What I'm trying to say is that the computers on wheels aren't a uniquely problematic domain. We have regulation for secure domains that systems have to pass audits and such. The same mechanism can be used for cars of any manufacture. I don't know how BYD software updates work by default but for example Ford doesn't do software updates without explicit agreement from the user letting them do it. If BYD works differently, it can be forced to change. Do you think the EU let BYD sell spying equipment on wheels that doesn't comply with the GDPR? I doubt it. We can ask for the same software compliance.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's far easier to detect software issues on a computer compared to a car, they're much more open ecosystems for software

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

Kind of. The high level OS modules are using QNX, Linux and Android. Lower level modules can be more arcane.

Am working in NA automotive and data collection is very much discussed in terms of what's allowed in different jurisdictions and modules are configured differently for different markets accordingly.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

What does that have to do with how proprietary the auto systems are?

It's far easier to detect a compromise on Windows or Linux than on a custom embedded system for which there is zero public documentation.

[–] MasterOKhan@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There’s already a precedent for this with most of our technology in our country and we already implement safeguards against this. I’m not worried about this being any different

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No there isn't

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Any vehicle that can recieve an ota update can be remotely bricked.

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

You said "we already implement safeguards against this"

No there isn't.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Uuuummm, the fuck ya talking about?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

There aren't safeguards to protect us from a car manufacturer intentionally disabling vehicles.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

We normally don't worry about products we buy having hidden bombs ready to be triggered by a genocidal government the manufacturer is beholden to. Same for bricking. It is bad for business.

I would actually like to see any sort of over the air update systems be banned, it should only be possible when plugged in physically.

A government agency independent of our spy/political systems, could administer all updates. wired or air doesn't matter much.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The computers in cars can NOT be 'bricked',updated OS or not. You need a LOT of evidence to support that claim'

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect-vulnerability-car-hijack

I mean, it's literally already happened, and this was a hacker doing it so it's even easier for a car company to do it.

Any vehicle with OnStar can also be remotely disabled as well, it's literally advertised as an anti-theft feature. https://www.onstar.com/tips/stolen-vehicle-assistance-helps-stop-thieves

If your car can be contacted remotely (almost every modern vehicle) I guarantee you that it's possible for the manufacturer to brick it. It may not even require an update, there could be a hidden command in the existing software since the software is not publicly available to validate, nor is it being validated by the regulatory authorities.

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

It depends on exactly what you mean by 'bricked'. Take over the operation of the car, or just cause it to stop functioning? Teslas are easy to disable remotely. Just botch up the navigation system. But to cause them to deliberately crash? Takeover the complete control of the car?

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Takeover the complete control of the car?

Maybe not complete control, but maybe taking away breaks yes: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

Miller and Valasek’s full arsenal includes functions that at lower speeds fully kill the engine, abruptly engage the brakes, or disable them altogether. The most disturbing maneuver came when they cut the Jeep's brakes, leaving me frantically pumping the pedal as the 2-ton SUV slid uncontrollably into a ditch.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago

There is always the purely mechanical emergency brake.

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

I simply mean it can't be used. Doesn't even need to be as bad as doing it while driving.

A foreign power able to disable the transportation for even 1 in 5 personal vehicles would be devestating to the country. The economic effects would be massive.

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

Yeah, then they would be forced to take public transportation.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

The public transportation infrastructure wouldn't hold up to that large a spike in demand

Not to mention that public transit doesn't even exist everywhere in the first place

Then on top of that, you'd have to pay for public transport while probably still paying off the car loan (which wouldn't just magically disappear because they break)

Also, car prices for everyone would go through the roof as demand shoots way up for a couple of years, since there isn't enough supply from the remaining companies to cover a 1 in 5 replacement for the entire country in any less time.

Then you'd have to deal with the millions of non-functional vehicles, towing and recycling them.