Connect with us

Automotive

Canadian tariffs on Chinese EVs should look like the United States’, not Europe’s

Published

9 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By Heather Exner-Pirot

It is clear that China’s green manufacturing subsidies are not merely levers to promote their domestic economy at the expense of their competitors, but part of a larger strategic plan to control parts of the global energy and transportation system.

China is now, beyond a doubt, engaged in dumping and subsidizing a range of clean technologies to manipulate global markets. The remaining question is: How should Canada respond?

The Finance Minister’s consultations on China’s unfair trade practices in electric vehicles is welcome, if belated. Canada should closely follow the United States’ lead on this matter, and evaluate the extent to which other Chinese products, from lithium-ion batteries to battery components, should also be sanctioned.

The New Trio

A key plank of China’s economic growth strategy is manufacturing and exporting the “new trio”: solar photovoltaics, lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles. These are high value-add, export-oriented products that China is hoping can compensate for domestic economic weakness driven by a property market crisis, poor demographics, and insufficient consumer demand.

To solidify its role in green technology manufacturing, the Chinese government has provided enormous industrial subsidies to its firms; far higher than those of western nations. According to analysis by Germany’s Kiel Institute, the industrial subsidies in China are at least three to four times – or even up to nine times – higher than in the major EU and OECD countries.

Washington-based think tank CSIS conservatively estimates industrial subsidies in China were at least 1.73 percent of GDP in 2019. This is equivalent to more than USD $248 billion at nominal exchange rates and USD $407 billion at purchasing power parity exchange rates – higher than China’s defense spending in the same year.

On top of state subsidies, Chinese green technology manufacturing companies also benefit from preferential access to critical mineral supply chains (many aspects of which China dominates and manipulates the global market), weak labour and environmental standards, and economic espionage (including stealing technology from western firms and using Chinese-made products to gather intelligence from their western consumers). This green tech espionage includes Chinese-made electric vehicles which are widely suspected of collecting users’ data and sending it back to China in ways that violate their privacy and security.

It is clear that China’s green manufacturing subsidies are not merely levers to promote their domestic economy at the expense of their competitors, but part of a larger strategic plan to control parts of the global energy and transportation system.

European and American Response

In response to these blatantly egregious practices, both the European Commission and United States have recently announced tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles.

The European Commission announced their tariffs on July 4, 2024, following a nine-month anti-subsidy investigation. Individual duties were applied to three prominent Chinese producers: BYD (17.4%); Geely (19.9%); and SAIC (37.6%).

Other Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) producers in China, which cooperated in the investigation but were not sampled, are subject to a 20.8% duty. Non-cooperating companies are subject to a 37.6% duty.

The United States policy was announced on May 14, 2024, and is both more comprehensive and more punitive than the European Commission’s. It covers not only electric vehicles, which face an increase in tariffs from the previous 25% to 100% as of August 1, 2024, but lithium-ion batteries (from a 7.5% to 25% tariff) and battery parts (from a 7.5% to 25% tariff). Natural graphite and permanent magnets will also face a tariff of 25%, starting in 2026.

Canada’s Response

Minister Freeland’s determination that Canada “does not become a dumping ground” for subsidized Chinese-made EVs, and commitment that Canada “will not stand” for China’s unfair trade practices, is very welcome.

To that end, Canada’s tariff policy on Chinese-made EVs should closely match the United States’, rather than Europe’s.

Canada’s auto industry is highly integrated with the United States, and our EV and battery supply chain, to the extent consumers will demand them, will be no different. Official Washington is seized with the threat China poses to the liberal world order and their position atop the global hierarchy. The United States will have little tolerance for Canada as a back door for Chinese-made EVs and battery parts. The growth and penetration of Chinese-made EV imports in Canada from 2022 to 2023 – an increase of 2500% year over year, now representing 25% of our imported EVs – shows that this is not a theoretical problem, but an existing one.

A soft touch on Chinese EV tariffs would likely create worse economic consequences for Canada in the North American context – in terms of impact to our domestic auto manufacturing industry, extensive battery supply chain investments, and CUSMA renegotiations – than it would confront from China, though these may indeed be painful.

For all these reasons, Canada should extend tariffs to lithium-ion batteries and battery parts as well, as the United States has done. This is fully with precedent. Canada has already applied extensive duties to Chinese-made  photovoltaics and wind towers, and has put heavy investment restrictions on Chinese ownership of critical minerals production and miners in Canada.

Long-term Thinking

Free trade is a cornerstone of the liberal world order. It has improved the material well-being of billions of people. Restrictions on trade should not be taken lightly.

But Chinese dumping, subsidies, and market manipulation mean that the global market is not free for many critical minerals, EVs, solar panels, wind towers, lithium-ion batteries, and other green technology components. Canada cannot ignore that fact for a perceived short-term gain from cheaper products.

Just as Europe learned that relying on Russia for cheap natural gas was expensive, relying on China for our energy transition will not move Canada to a lower carbon energy system easier, faster or cheaper.  It will impose different costs that Canadians will pay in a multitude of ways.

This may disappoint those that prioritize renewables and EV deployment over national security and domestic economic growth. The good news is that Canada has good options that satisfy climate goals as well. Canada is rich in oil, gas, uranium, and water. We are independent in fossil fuels, nuclear and hydroelectric energy. Let us build on those strengths and invest in green technologies that leverage them, including carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), third and fourth generation nuclear reactors, pumped storage hydropower, and hydrogen.

Canada needs to focus on decarbonization efforts in areas in which we can both be energy independent and protect Canadian consumers and workers from unfair trade practices. To do this, Canada should apply appropriately punitive anti-dumping subsides on Chinese-made EVs, lithium-ion batteries, and battery parts.


Heather Exner-Pirot is director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Big Auto Wants Your Data. Trump and Congress Aren’t Having It.

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Ken Blackwell

Congress is not going to allow Big Auto to sideline consumer privacy and safety while getting subsidized massively by the federal government.

That is because, in late September, by an overwhelming vote of 50 to 1, Chairman Brett Guthrie’s (R-KY) House Energy & Commerce Committee joined the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in passing the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act.

This legislation is in response to some automakers removing AM radios from new model vehicles despite pleas from America’s public safety community not to do so.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Advisors to President Trump have argued they continue doing so for financial reasons — because they want to force increased traffic onto their infotainment systems, which collects drivers’ personal information and sells it to third parties.

“They’d rather force consumers to use their infotainment devices — which collect and sell their third-party data — than protect American lives,” Corey Lewandowski, President Trump’s 2016 campaign manager and senior adviser to his 2020 and 2024 campaigns, stated.

 No one in Congress likes that the auto companies are doing this. That is why the bill has broad bipartisan support with over 300 cosponsors in the House as well as a filibuster-proof level of support in the Senate.

The entirety of America’s public safety community spanning the federal, state, and local levels, insists AM radio remaining in cars is critical for protecting the nation’s emergency alerting systems. These systems rely heavily upon AM radio, the only communication method that has stayed reliably accessible during many disasters such as the Sept.11 terrorist attack and major disasters like Hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, and most recently, Helene.

Brendan Carr, the current chairman of President Trump’s FCC, nominated by President Trump, has also endorsed the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. In a statement, Carr said that “millions of Americans depend on the value of AM radio and the local news that AM broadcasters offer in communities across the country.” He also recounted hearing firsthand stories of Hurricane Helene victims who “could only access lifesaving information in the days following the storm by tuning into their AM radios.”

AM radio also serves another purpose that the elites in Silicon Valley and Detroit often forget: it keeps rural and working-class America connected. Millions of people outside the big cities rely on AM for local news, farm reports, weather alerts, and even community events. For many small towns, AM stations are a lifeline—far more reliable than expensive streaming services or spotty cell coverage. Pulling it out of cars is yet another way of telling Middle America: “you don’t matter.”

Of course, no good idea in Washington is safe from special interests.

Despite the broad support within Congress, the administration, and throughout the public safety and first responder communities, the bill has faced a full-court press by the musicFIRST Coalition — a group backed by the Recording Industry of America — to tank the legislation unless it is tied to unrelated music royalty reform legislation.  That’s cronyism politics at its worst—holding public safety hostage to squeeze out another payday.

However, now that the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act has passed both committees by overwhelming margins, the only stop left for the legislation is the House and Senate Floor — meaning Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and House Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) must call it up for a roll call vote.

At the heart of this fight is more than just whether a radio dial stays in your dashboard. It’s about whether Americans can trust that their safety won’t be sacrificed for corporate profit.

It’s also about data privacy. Automakers and Big Tech are eager to funnel drivers into infotainment systems that monitor every move, harvest personal information, and sell it to the highest bidder. AM radio doesn’t spy on you. It doesn’t crash when the grid goes down. It doesn’t put profit ahead of people. It just works.

For the sake of both public safety and personal freedom, Congress should make sure it stays that way.

Ken Blackwell (@KenBlackwell) is an adviser to the Family Research Council and a chair at the America First Policy Institute. He is a former Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio Treasurer and Secretary of State, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He is also a former member of the Trump transition team.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Governments continue to support irrational ‘electric vehicle’ policies

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Another day, another electric vehicle (EV) fantasy failure. The Quebec government is “pulling the plug” on its relationship with the Northvolt EV battery company (which is now bankrupt), and will try to recoup some of its $270 million loss on the project. Quebec’s “investment” was in support of a planned $7 billion “megaproject” battery manufacturing facility on Montreal’s South Shore. (As an aside, what normal people would call gambling with taxpayer money, governments call “investments.” But that’s another story.)

Anyway, for those who have not followed this latest EV-burn out, back in September 2023, the Legault government announced plans to “invest” $510 million in the project, which was to be located in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville. The government subsequently granted Northvolt a $240 million loan guarantee to buy the land for the plant, then injected another $270 million directly into Northvolt. According to the Financial Post, “Quebec has lost $270 million on its equity investment… but still had a senior secured loan tied to the land acquired to build the plant, which totals nearly $260 million with interest and fees.” In other words, Quebec taxpayers lost big.

But Northvolt is just the latest in a litany of failure by Canadian governments and their dreams of an EV future free of dreaded fossil fuels. I know, politicians say that it’s a battle against climate change, but that’s silly. Canada is such a small emitter of greenhouse gases that nothing it could do, including shutting down the entire national economy, would significantly alter the trajectory of the climate. Anything Canada might achieve would be cancelled out by economic growth in China in a matter of weeks.

So back to the litany of failed or failing EV-dream projects. To date (from about 2020) it goes like this: Ford (2024)Umicore battery (2024)Honda (2025),General Motors CAMI (2025)Lion Electric (2025)Northvolt (2025). And this does not count projects still limping along after major setbacks such as Stellantis and Volkswagen.

One has to wonder how many tombstones of dead EV fantasy projects will be needed before Canada’s climate-obsessed governments get a clue: people are not playing. Car buyers are not snapping up these vehicles as government predicted; the technologies and manufacturing ability are not showing up as government predicted; declining cost curves are not showing up as government predicted; taxpayer-subsidized projects keep dying; the U.S. market for Canada’s EV tech that government predicted has been Trumped out of existence (e.g. the Trump administration has scrapped EV mandates and federal subsidies for EV purchases); and government is taking the money for all these failed predictions from Canadian workers who can’t afford EVs. It really is a policy travesty.

And yet, like a bad dream, Canada’s governments (including the Carney government) are still backing an irrational policy to force EVs into the marketplace. For example, Ottawa stills mandates that all new light-duty vehicle sales be EVs by 2035. This despite Canadian automakers earnest pleas for the government to scrap the mandate.

Canada’s EV policy is quickly coming to resemble something out of dysfunctional-heroic fiction. We are the Don Quixotes, tilting futilely at EV windmills, and Captain Ahabs, trying to slay the dreaded white whale of fossil-fuelled transportation with our EV harpoons. Really, isn’t it time governments took a look at reality and cut their losses? Canada’s taxpayers would surely appreciate the break.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X