China will remove canola tariffs if Canada scraps EV levies: ambassador
China will remove canola tariffs if Canada scraps EV levies: ambassador
China will remove its tariffs on Canadian agriculture — including on canola products — if Canada scraps its levies on Chinese electric vehicles, that country’s ambassador says.Spencer Van Dyk (CTVNews)
IndridCold
in reply to IndridCold • • •I say we do this. The ONLY reason Canada put tariffs on Chinese EVs is because of the US - back when the US was our friend. Those days are well over.
From what I understand, Chinese EVs out perform the US ones (charge quicker with longer range) and are way cheaper.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
BlameThePeacock
in reply to IndridCold • • •I have a security concern with Chinese EVs.
They're far too computerized, and connected, at this point.
The last thing I want is the ability for the Chinese government to disable a quarter of the Canadian vehicle fleet if they decided they wanted to. Or potentially even worse than disabling them in some cases.
acargitz
in reply to BlameThePeacock • • •BlameThePeacock
in reply to acargitz • • •I'm far less concerned about the American government disabling vehicles in Canada. If America wanted to take us over we couldn't even dream of stopping them.
China could benefit from causing problems though.
acargitz
in reply to BlameThePeacock • • •At this point it's not even inconceivable for Americans to do something as retaliation for, say, Dougie Ford shutting down electricity. Or use it as a bargain chip as part of playing it tough in a negotiation.
Or forget the taking us over bit. It's not the taking over that is hard for them, it's keeping control. We can very effectively resist and make the occupation extremely costly for them. Every bit of leverage they have makes this harder.
Fuck, is it that inconceivable that if they go full Gilead they wouldn't start shit like controlling whether you can drive your car to an abortion clinic?
melsaskca
in reply to BlameThePeacock • • •BlameThePeacock
in reply to melsaskca • • •Nik282000
in reply to BlameThePeacock • • •BlameThePeacock
in reply to Nik282000 • • •Yes, but I'd much rather have the company controlling the official switch not be directly under the control of China.
The US is only marginally better right now, but they have less incentive to do it and less control of their car companies.
Nik282000
in reply to BlameThePeacock • • •(DEF CON 33) How I hacked over 1,000 car dealerships across the US
Eaton (eaton-works.com)BlameThePeacock
in reply to Nik282000 • • •They are worse, because the Chinese government has direct access to an official kill switch if they want it.
Just because there can be other problems doesn't make that any less of a problem
reddig33
in reply to IndridCold • • •China isn’t Canada’s friend. Spending money on Chinese goods means you are funding Russia’s war against Ukraine.
If you need to import something, why not import it from the EU? They make EVs. As does South Korea.
reuters.com/world/china/china-…
acargitz
in reply to reddig33 • • •DonkMagnum
in reply to IndridCold • • •Wanna see a trick? I can make bots appear, watch this:
Maybe if China agrees to stop being a threat to Taiwan, stops interfering in our politics, and stops spying on us, and builds some auto plants here to employ some Canadians, we can talk about their fucking EVs. Until then, we already have one international bully as a trade partner, we don't need more.
don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
mrdown
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •Canada lied about stop selling arms to israel who are we to gives lessons?
The reasons we have tariffs on China has nothing to do with bs you spew we did it to protect the usa car industry
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
DonkMagnum
in reply to mrdown • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
mrdown
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Red Whacker
in reply to DonkMagnum • •Not a fan of China, but it's sort of rich to demand non-interference when inferring some interference ourselves.
Also this is rich:
So does that mean we will be basing our canola growers in China?
Canada reshared this.
DonkMagnum
in reply to Red Whacker • • •Red Whacker
in reply to DonkMagnum • •No, I do not.
But it does beg the question why you didn't lead with that instead of your cute grandstanding initial comment.
Canada reshared this.
Em Adespoton
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •Is it? Have you run the numbers?
Just think about the amount of land in Canada dedicated to growing canola vs the amount dedicated to building EVs. Or the number of people employed, for that matter.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
twopi
in reply to Red Whacker • • •Packet
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •"Threat to Taiwan" they are a threat to each other, Taiwan claims the whole of China, PRC claims the whole of China as well.
"Interfering in our politics" sinophobic, but even then the US presents a much bigger threat. I don't really think there is much interventionism done by the PRC troughout its history lol
"Stops spying on us" US giggles lol
DonkMagnum
in reply to Packet • • •DonkMagnum
in reply to Packet • • •These are all blatant lies, but thanks for proving me right, bot.
Btw, native English speakers don't write things like "giggles".
Packet
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •DonkMagnum
in reply to Packet • • •external-content.duckduckgo.co…
Packet
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •DonkMagnum
in reply to Packet • • •Nothing racist about Winnie the Pooh, he is cuddly and stuffed with fluff!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ri…
human rights compliance and violation in the People's Republic of China
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Packet
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •Yes, nothing wrong with Winnie the pooh, great character, silly bear. Except for when the yellow bear is used to portray an Asian person, coupled with the "Tigger" the tiger used to portray a black person, i.e. Obama.
github.com/dessalines/essays/b…
essays/us_atrocities.md at main · dessalines/essays
GitHubArthur Besse
in reply to DonkMagnum • • •The comment you're replying to contains an opinion, two statements of fact, two more opinions, an historical assessment couched in "i don't really think", and finally closes with giggles and lol.
I don't see any lies there; if you think the factual claims in it are wrong I encourage you to read up: the PRC and ROC actually do both claim all of China, and the PRC's foreign policy is largely non-interventionist.
Do you find many people online with opinions differing from your own who you don't think are bots?
People's Republic of China foreign policy
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Devanismyname
in reply to IndridCold • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
snoons
in reply to IndridCold • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
BlameThePeacock
in reply to snoons • • •snoons
in reply to BlameThePeacock • • •A_A
in reply to IndridCold • • •AGM
in reply to IndridCold • • •On October 8th, after Carney's meeting with Trump, Lutnick said that the US is going to insist on dominating the North American auto market and have assembly all happen in the US with Canada being forced into a subordinate role.
We need alternatives.
I doubt we will make this deal with China, because the US will not tolerate that, but it would be much better for Canadians.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
https://scribe.disroot.org/u/Scotty
in reply to AGM • • •AGM
in reply to • • •Kyle
in reply to IndridCold • • •With Canada so obsessed with keeping vehicle manufacturing jobs to the detriment of every Canadian not wanting to buy American cars. Why does Canada drop the Chinese tarrifs but demand certain assembly and manufacturing of Chinese vehicles happen in Canada?
Sounds like a win win, but they are too stuck on the idea they should only manufacture cars from incumbent companies that are stuck in the past. Canada has significant geological resources like lithium and rare earth metals is an even better reason to be excited about EV production in Canada.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Nik282000
in reply to Kyle • • •ILikeBoobies
in reply to IndridCold • • •acargitz
in reply to IndridCold • • •ikidd
in reply to IndridCold • • •Serious question; how much does China subsidize EV sales to glut markets and buy market share? I'm guessing it's non-zero.
I'd love to see canola embargoes open because I have a bunch of bins full, but is this fair to other vendors, domestic and other foreign makers?
humanspiral
in reply to ikidd • • •Probably less than our subsidies.
ikidd
in reply to humanspiral • • •goalless_banana
in reply to IndridCold • • •Canada needs to diversify the trade to rely less on the USA. The current gov has a huge problem on their hands but also opportunities to do something new!
When it comes to the EV tariffs I see opportunities for Canada, we have factories, some of the raw materials, Human Resources, experienceand logistics in place for the automotive industry! The Ev industry needs more than the cars there is a new ecosystem that can be worked with Chinese companies by doing knowledge transfer, manufacture autos + parts by bringing the suppliers as well. EVs need batteries and the charging network, we can bring these items to the trade talks.
China al has the largest high-speed rail network and why not expand the deals to help Canada build our high-speed rail Network?
melsaskca
in reply to IndridCold • • •betanumerus
in reply to melsaskca • • •Soup
in reply to melsaskca • • •Nik282000
in reply to Soup • • •Soup
in reply to Nik282000 • • •nyan
in reply to IndridCold • • •rose56
in reply to IndridCold • • •It's not like Chinese EV's are bad, but they have started a war to overtake EV industry.\
Their government is founding EV companies, to advance and take the lead, putting at risk companies like Ford, BMW and so on.
I saw, and I saw how they have managed to change battery instead of charging the car, and I was impressed of what they can actually do.
- YouTube
www.youtube.comSoup
in reply to rose56 • • •I don’t think Ford and BMW will be in that much danger, and given how long they’ve had to address this inevitability isn’t that just them not investing in their future and by capitalist standards their deserved failure if it were to happen?
Hell, large manufacturers often fought EV companies so they wouldn’t have to compete. It was cheaper to hurt the competition than it was to innovate so they did that instead. Maybe if they didn’t spend so much time and money attacking renewable resources they’d have more governments in place who actually supported giving them support for developing this technology.
“Woe is me, I on-purpose created an environment where all my most loyal customers have an irrational and deep-seated hatred for the thing I now want to do!” Like, cry me a river.
Besides, we don’t need more cars. We need more infrastructure that makes them unnecessary and we need to bring back the mid-density, walkable small town. We need to bring back the rail and bus systems we already had but
... Show more...I don’t think Ford and BMW will be in that much danger, and given how long they’ve had to address this inevitability isn’t that just them not investing in their future and by capitalist standards their deserved failure if it were to happen?
Hell, large manufacturers often fought EV companies so they wouldn’t have to compete. It was cheaper to hurt the competition than it was to innovate so they did that instead. Maybe if they didn’t spend so much time and money attacking renewable resources they’d have more governments in place who actually supported giving them support for developing this technology.
“Woe is me, I on-purpose created an environment where all my most loyal customers have an irrational and deep-seated hatred for the thing I now want to do!” Like, cry me a river.
Besides, we don’t need more cars. We need more infrastructure that makes them unnecessary and we need to bring back the mid-density, walkable small town. We need to bring back the rail and bus systems we already had but tore up and/or knee-capped.
SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to rose56 • • •IndridCold
in reply to rose56 • • •I don't think China even needed to work hard to take the lead. US car companies have been fighting EV manufacture for years. The few EVs they do put out are crippled to make them less viable for the average American market. They do this to push more HUGE trucks that slurp gas.
US car companies refuse to work outside what they know. Fuck um. They need to die.
Nik282000
in reply to IndridCold • • •If Chinese manufactures can exceed Canadian standards, provide spare parts for a minimum of 10 years from the date of manufacture, provide a minimum of 10 years of software support/updates, AND allow all software to be audited for both safe function and security. Then sure. Bring on the cheap EVs.
(But not even our current domestically produced vehicles meet those requirements)
BCsven
in reply to Nik282000 • • •The issues is they are artificially cheap, which undercuts Canada's auto component industry from serving as an EV hub.
The Chinese government paid for production and have lots (as in sites) of cars that are unsold. They offered huge discounts to unload last years production. Since there were laws about discounting new cars, they moved them (paperwork wise) through shell type arrangements to make them appear as used cars (with less than 5km on the odometer etc).
That stuff undercuts any means of US and Canada EVs being viable.
mistermodal
in reply to BCsven • • •BCsven
in reply to mistermodal • • •mistermodal
in reply to BCsven • • •BCsven
in reply to mistermodal • • •mistermodal
in reply to BCsven • • •PenguinTD
in reply to Nik282000 • • •It's a serious security hole cause the software can be updated through network, the version gets audit and all the follow up update can be good, but the moment it needs to go rogue you just need 1 malicious update to have serious and wide spread harm/attack on a button.
IMO for any vehicles to allow over the network update is beyond stupid. (yes, that includes Tesla.)
Nik282000
in reply to PenguinTD • • •Clearwater
in reply to Nik282000 • • •Once you're inside a car that's on, there really isn't any security*. The OBD2 port that every remotely modern car has is perfectly capable of accessing all the diagnostics and data streams the car has, and can also control/reconfigure the various computers.
IMO that doesn't really matter, since the system isn't powered until the key is in the ignition and the car turned on. You can't do anything with the key off, and if your passenger wanted to sabotage the car, they'd just yank the wheel as you drive down the highway.
That said, yes OTA updates are a travesty. Specifically because cars have so little security, having any access to their computers from the outside is a massive risk... And if there's a potential that the country the manufacturer is in turns hostile, that risk certainly isn't reduced.
* A handful of manufacturers have "added" security to their systems by... (drumroll pls) restricting access to the systems and requiring a subscription for full access. That's fucking evil and doesn't even do anything (at least for a mechanic or tin
... Show more...Once you're inside a car that's on, there really isn't any security*. The OBD2 port that every remotely modern car has is perfectly capable of accessing all the diagnostics and data streams the car has, and can also control/reconfigure the various computers.
IMO that doesn't really matter, since the system isn't powered until the key is in the ignition and the car turned on. You can't do anything with the key off, and if your passenger wanted to sabotage the car, they'd just yank the wheel as you drive down the highway.
That said, yes OTA updates are a travesty. Specifically because cars have so little security, having any access to their computers from the outside is a massive risk... And if there's a potential that the country the manufacturer is in turns hostile, that risk certainly isn't reduced.
* A handful of manufacturers have "added" security to their systems by... (drumroll pls) restricting access to the systems and requiring a subscription for full access. That's fucking evil and doesn't even do anything (at least for a mechanic or tinkerer like me) since you can just google "FCA bypass cable" and skip right past the firewall.
FCA Security Gateway Module Basic Info and Location – JScan
jscan.netNik282000
in reply to Clearwater • • •Modern cars expose the engine/body control CAN bus through the fucking headlights. You don't need to be in the car and it doesn't need to be on for you to have the same or more access than the OBDII port.
It doesn't matter what the country of origin is, someone is gonna find a way to break OTA updates, gain access via exposed wireless networks or just pop off a CAN bus controlled light and plug in. How long before someone pushes a malicious update that causes the ABS to disable or degrade braking to near 0%, or just throw the electronic power steering full left whenever the speed exceeds 101km/h?
ProgrammingSocks
in reply to Nik282000 • • •Nik282000
in reply to ProgrammingSocks • • •ProgrammingSocks
in reply to Nik282000 • • •Nik282000
in reply to ProgrammingSocks • • •Do you lock your door? Why, people don't just go into other people's houses, they're not inclined to do so.
The point is having vehicles vulnerable to such trivial abuse is unacceptable. It only takes one cunt who decides that he wants to randsomeware every Toyota in the world to spoil the party.
Lemmyoutofhere
in reply to Nik282000 • • •Nik282000
in reply to Lemmyoutofhere • • •Lemmyoutofhere
in reply to Nik282000 • • •Nik282000
in reply to Lemmyoutofhere • • •Jeep software update bricks vehicles
Edward Targett (The Stack)Lemmyoutofhere
in reply to Nik282000 • • •floofloof
in reply to Nik282000 • • •This happened for real at the weekend:
arstechnica.com/cars/2025/10/s…
Software update bricks some Jeep 4xe hybrids over the weekend
Jonathan M. Gitlin (Ars Technica)Nik282000
in reply to floofloof • • •HertzDentalBar
in reply to PenguinTD • • •Hey kinda like the F-35
It's fine though when the Americans do it do is.
SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to HertzDentalBar • • •HertzDentalBar
in reply to SaveTheTuaHawk • • •krooklochurm
in reply to IndridCold • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
PenguinTD
in reply to krooklochurm • • •You probably did not aware how many IP theft happened to Canadian local firms and institutions.
Walk_blesseD
in reply to PenguinTD • • •lol. lmao.
krooklochurm
in reply to PenguinTD • • •SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to PenguinTD • • •dubyakay
in reply to krooklochurm • • •Nik282000
in reply to krooklochurm • • •They only kill people I don't care about in mines and factories, so it's cool!
krooklochurm
in reply to Nik282000 • • •humanspiral
in reply to IndridCold • • •There is/should be a lot of room for compromise.
A mix of "reasonable" tariffs and quotas to start, to make Chinese EVs competitive without destroying domestic manufacturing is a good path. Canada needs investment. Whether foreign auto makers do it, following through on previous commitments, shutting out China can be a reward for them.
Without choosing to provide value cars to Canadians, Canada could offer agriculture for Chinese (solar) energy trade. Pemitting them to boost capacity even more.
Instead of begging the US to buy (and own through investment) our resources, Chinese development would help significantly as well.
Corrupt ideology programmed into Canadians is bad for Canada. We need new friends instead of abusers, and the only reform of an abuser possible comes when they beg for forgiveness when you flirt with new friends.
Nik282000
in reply to IndridCold • • •nucleative
in reply to Nik282000 • • •SaveTheTuaHawk
in reply to Nik282000 • • •RenLinwood
in reply to Nik282000 • • •corsicanguppy
in reply to IndridCold • • •The timing seems suspicious. Crops are sold already, with tariffs, and now it's 11 months with no sales.
Come back in 9 months and we can talk.