logoalt Hacker News

Canada's deal with China signals it is serious about shift from US

120 pointsby breveyesterday at 7:29 PM124 commentsview on HN

Comments

Insanityyesterday at 8:13 PM

Good. People are sometimes negative or worried about China, with how they spy on people etc. But for most of the western world, the real danger is US and not China. Just think - Canadian, Europeans etc are more likely to go on business travel to the States than China. You can get your phone checked at the border and if you’re not too keen about the US dear leader, that won’t be good for your US admission.

Being negative about Xi might have similar results, but less likely in practice.

show 6 replies
maxgluteyesterday at 8:21 PM

Nature is healing (mild /s), not that there isn't high risk of pivot backfiring for CAN. Regardless people forget Canada under the British and post independence was fundamentally an anti-American project until WW1. Before that, it took multiple wars and (failed) US annexation effort before CAN/US realized jawjaw was better than warwar, really when Canada realized you can't be FOB for US adversaries, then British, and even that coexistence was under decadesof mutual suspicion. Of course the chance of PRC/CAN defense cooperation is nil, US will never allow that considering all the NORAD infra, but way things are going, even generic trade with PRC (something US already does - agriculture, energy, technology) is probably going to put another 51st state annexation attempt back on the menu.

pegasusyesterday at 8:03 PM

This agreement was reached at almost the same time as Mercosur, the huge EU - South America trade deal. Hopefully the American electorate is paying attention.

show 4 replies
UI_at_80x24yesterday at 8:33 PM

Canada should re-enact the AutoPact [0] (tldr: I don't see this in the wiki article, but the real benefit was; for every 3 cars sold in Canada, 1 had to be 'made' in Canada). This was ruled as unfair under NAFTA and thus terminated. It also had the effect of incredible auto-industry cutbacks.

BUT, with a new contender (China); we could re-enact it, rebuild our diminished blue-collar manufacturing base; and hasten the rollout of EV vehicles. Which is the real objective here.

IMHO, that would be a solid win for everybody.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93United_States_A...

show 3 replies
theptipyesterday at 8:38 PM

This is a sound tactical move to provide a hedge against future US economic threats.

Strategically, I do think you want to be coming up with a plan to shield core industries like auto, shipping, energy, and some parts of manufacturing (eg “factories for factories” rather than “factories for consumer goods”) from dumping / state subsidies.

It might be OK to let the PRC subsidize your solar cells, assuming you can build wind instead if they try to squeeze you. It’s probably not wise to depend on PRC for your batteries, drones, and cars, where these are key to strategic autonomy and you don’t have an alternative.

show 1 reply
fencepostyesterday at 9:30 PM

There's certainly no reason for Canada to consider significant EV imports from the US - I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla was tainted based on Musk's association with Trump and there aren't really other major US EV producers. For international manufacturers it probably makes more sense to have direct trade agreements with Canada vs possible significant tariffs in response to whatever Cheetolini decides to do on any given day.

_diyaryesterday at 8:03 PM

Very curious if this will result in US tariffs for car imports from Canada. Also curious how those tariffs would be justified (they‘re always using Terrence Howard math but at least pretending to be analytical). „Canada has to pay because China bad“?

show 3 replies
PlanksVariableyesterday at 8:58 PM

The percentage of Canadians of Asian descent shifted from 1.4% to 23% in the past fifty years. While Trump’s policies are a factor here, there’s a demographic factor as well. Many Canadians, especially younger Canadians, have stronger cultural and familial ties to Asia than America or Europe, and this trend will continue to play out in the years ahead.

show 2 replies
matthewaveryusayesterday at 8:06 PM

FAFO* goes both ways. US is in an interesting spot. We have a 1 one-time reset button: Since we’re the reserve currency we can inflate out debt away at the cost of inflation. If and when we do that the world will pivot away, maybe, to another currency. At that point the great American tailwind will be over and we’ll have to be competitive at the global stage — interesting to see what that means, if anything.

As an analogy, imagine you’ve accumulated enough debt and bought yourself a house, a car, and invested in enough productive unseizable assets (very important), like a farm and whatnot, to sustain yourself. what’s the point in servicing your debt? If the only consequence is no one will lend you again, you already have everything so whatever, right?

I can poke a million flaws in this logic, but I _think_ that’s the megasupersmart move the current administration is gunning for. Hell do I know how it will pan out, but I have a hunch. FAFO I guess.

*fuck around, find out (◔_◔)

show 5 replies
engineer_22yesterday at 9:02 PM

Canada total trade with USA in 2024: $917 billion

Canada total trade with China in 2024: $119 billion

3eb7988a1663yesterday at 7:57 PM

Nearly every day, I wonder what the top Republican leaders honestly think about these foreseeable outcomes. They made a deal with the devil -power at any cost.

It is going to be a rough ride as America re-calibrates to a world which no longer relies on it. We took enormous amounts of benefits for granted.

show 15 replies
martythemaniakyesterday at 8:19 PM

Mark Carney wrote a buzzwordy, but still informative article on his approach: https://www.economist.com/the-world-ahead/2025/11/12/the-wor...

TLDR: Developed countries will come together to cooperate on matters they agree without the US, or US-dominated forums like the UN. Whether it's a group to support Ukraine, tackle climate change, increase trade etc it'll be faster and looser. We will indeed trade a lot more with China and allow chinese EVs, but there's also lots of pressure to bring down domestic trade barriers, automatically recognize European-approved products etc. Over time this will help us decouple from the US.

I'm looking forward to a less US-reliant Canada. We used to have a more vibrant and distinctive culture in the 80s, 90s so it's nice to see people travel less to the US, consume fewer US products. Like the pandemic, it is a painful external event you have to deal with, but what else are you gonna do other than deal with it head on.

Torwaldyesterday at 8:22 PM

So Canada found out it doesn't have any leverage over China in this so-called trade war, that is going on between North America and China?

That is at least the logical conclusion based on the information the linked-to article provides.

What I am asking myself now is, why did Canada join the US in the 2024 tariffs enactment the article is talking about in the first place? What was their motivation?

The US president always said, that he deemed the existing contracts between China and the US as "unfair" for America, hence the tariffs and trade war. That is his official explanation at least. But why would Canada join that? That's what I want to know.

Any takers?

show 4 replies
throwpoasteryesterday at 9:25 PM

Canadian reporting in. The expanded police cooperation with the CCP is not playing well here.

Plus, this is a canola-for-cars deal. 90+% of our trade is structurally American, forever.

IMO we did this deal to front run the renegotiation of USMCA this years. However, we are only 5% of America’s trade, and last I heard Trump had already walked from the table (and perhaps we signed with China because of this).

The two sides of the debate between our major parties are whether we should sell canola or LNG to China while we wait for America to come back to the table.

daft_pinkyesterday at 8:35 PM

Good luck with that

JKoliosyesterday at 7:54 PM

Casual threats of invasion don't build solid and lasting partnerships? Who knew.