…
The AutoTrader 2026 Electric Vehicle Survey has polled 1,761 Canadians between February 9 and March 11, with the results showing that 53% of them are interested in Chinese EVs.
Of those, 74% have admitted that pricing is the main reason, with half noting that longer driving range is also being considered.
However, the study also found that 50% of those interested have reservations about data collection by the Chinese automakers.
“Some concerns remain, and there are still areas to bridge for example, 50% of intenders are still concerned about how data is collected, used and stored by EVs from Chinese brands,” the study read.
Consumer concerns echo those raised by several government officials and politicians.
The Conservative Party has partly based its opposition of Chinese EVs entering Canada on potential surveillance risks.
“We’re hearing loud and clear from security experts: Chinese electric vehicles have the capability, for all intents and purposes, of being surveillance vehicles,” Conservative shadow minister for industry Raquel Dancho said earlier this year.
…
As Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled the China–Canada deal — allowing 49,000 Chinese EVs to enter Ottawa each year at a reduced 6.1% tariff — [Premier of Ontario] Doug Ford had already criticized the vehicles as “spy cars” and described the agreement as “Huawei 2.0.”
“I find it ironic that the Prime Minister is using a burner phone and all his staff over in China, but we’re making a deal — it’s Huawei 2.0 — to come back and send to Canada, and we get nothing but potential job losses in our factories right across the border,” the province leader said.
…
Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, from the China Strategic Risks Institute, said that there’s a threat of surveillance stemming from software in Chinese EVs that links to mobile networks and often the driver’s personal phone.
Other analysts and former officials, including attorney George Takach, have testified about the security risks.
According to these experts, Chinese EVs often use software (like the country’s tech giant Baidu) that can collect camera, microphone, GPS, and even phone data — even when the car is off — and transmit it back to China under the country’s national security laws.
…
Earlier, reports showed that even with Carney’s new deal, don’t expect to buy a cheap Chinese EV any time soon.
Nothing about the recent deal means the sky is falling on Canada’s auto industry, nor does it mean Canadian drivers will suddenly enjoy a raft of cheap Chinese EVs …
Consumers shouldn’t get too excited; Carney’s deal doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to put a $15,000 or $20,000 EV from BYD or Geely in your driveway anytime soon, if ever.
“If anybody’s thinking that A) there will be Chinese vehicles on the road in the next few weeks and B) that they’re going to be cheap, they’re probably being a little naïve,” said Greig Mordue, an associate professor at McMaster University specializing in advanced manufacturing and public policy …
Love the framing that makes it sound like people are only concerned with Chinese data collection, I’m actually more concerned with American companies harvesting my data.
I’m worried about both.
For the record, I’m concerned about how all auto manufacturers surveil current vehicles. This needs to addressed with every vehicle, period.
While I’m less than happy about the CCP having access to that data, there’s more to be worried about domestically with companies willing to sell every brake pedal application, gps waypoint and interior camera view to companies that will use it against us here.
Every car sold in Canada should have its internet connectivity easily disablable by the user and maintain functionality without it except for features that obviously need connectivity to work such as live traffic data.
We should even extend that to all consumer products.
And owners should be able to access and curate (but not necessarily delete) the data the car does collect.
Why not delete?
It’s my data, I get to say if it is retained for others to see.
“Oh, I see you were steering and braking erratically for minutes before this accident occurred. Perhaps you were drunk or under the influence?”
You’re maneuvering a massive machine with a lot of terrible things that can happen. Being able to determine that you shouldn’t be allowed to due to records of your actions shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to be avoided just because it would make your life easier, and certainly not just because we couldn’t before. Now, should that information be accessible without reasonable cause and a court order, or be allowed to be included as a requirement by insurance agencies for claims without the aforementioned reasonable cause and a court order, is certainly a consideration.
I think we can figure this out well enough that we don’t need to sacrifice everyone’s privacy to accomplish it in a way that’s uncertain at best.
You mean like warrants and judicial oversight?
Because that’s the only way that information gets accessed, right? Jesus, Flock has sales reps and the BD vice president accessing school gymnasium cameras in some US town.
Not to mention companies the size of Equifax get popped constantly, and with LLMs like gpt5.4 building zero days like it’s a todo app, I don’t think it’s hard to find reasons to just not have something we don’t need anyway.
I always think about the cartoon where they’re about to wrap some shitty legislation at the store for a gift, and the two wrapping papers are “Think of the children” and “law and order”.
Perhaps you were drunk or under the influence?"
Or perhaps I was avoiding hittiing a child who suddenly ran into the road?
The fact that the data looks the same and that the negative assumption is likely is exactly an example of why that data shouldn’t be accessible without my consent.
For minutes? Were you driving through a high-school track meet, or just slaloming around young Superman?
That’s not the point.
Potholes, then
Software focused cars will have recalls due to software at which point you need to bring it in to get the update and they update it and siphon any info out anyway.
Ya, maybe there should be laws protecting Canadians’ privacy, since this is already an issue.
That’s pure crazy talk. They’ll do you for that.
