That's a pretty big "if", as I see it. In more than 7 decades in America, I've never seen a greater move *away from* "more manufacturing at home" than I've seen in the last 15 months or so.
Think about it: The idiot in the white house (I think of him as the Assatol'ya Khakamami) put tariffs on every country in the world, but he has not invested a dime in American manufacturing; in fact, Biden planted a bunch of manufacturing jobs around the country (largely in renewable energy), but the Assatol'ya immediately canceled them and has even paid (or threatened to pay) to keep more from coming online. He's exported as many immigrants as he could get his mitts on, including the ones setting up a Kia factory in Georgia. He's stopped funding for university research programs.
He isn't interested in giving America "more manufacturing at home"; he just wants to manipulate markets and make money hand over fist for himself.
🇨🇦💙 Foreign direct investment hit $97Billion CDN in 2025, the highest level since 2007.
Under consideration for Canada’s submarines and fighter jets.
SUBMARINES South Korea is proposing broad investment across Canada’s economy, not just defense: Shipbuilding, Steel, Aerospace, AI & advanced tech and partnerships across multiple industries - 200,000 jobs by 2040.
GRIPEN FIGHTER JETS Sweden/Saab will build, assemble, and maintain the jets in Canada. Create a Canadian aerospace production hub and not just for Canada. The factory would also export Gripens globally from Canada . Canada would own more of the industrial base, not just be a buyer.
Canada is using both these deals to force inward investment.
CHINESE EV’s - Not manufacturing in Canada yet but are exporting Chinese EV’s to Canada - factories would be Step 2 or Chinese EV manufacturers could also lease their technology/software to other automakers in Canada.
The downside of Trump is the upside of Carney. A rules based honourable leader, respected by world leaders, financiers, and global players. What’s not to love?
Spot on assessment Fred. All of the real time evidence is available. Tubes to transistors. Iceboxes to refrigerators. Landlines to cellphones. All of these, while fundamentally different, all highlight points where not adapting would be counterproductive. If we want an auto industry, it must modernize, or remain an old school methodology.
Before Canada modernizes, it needs something to improve on. Historically we have seen ourselves as hewers of wood and carriers of water. We supplied raw material to the U.S and they built stuff with it. Sure we tailor-made what we supplied to their specs, and we got good at doing that. Here I speak of steel and aluminum, wood and auto parts, you know, the very things that the Orange U-tan has tried to stop in his effort to reduce Canada to a supplicant.
Of course he neglected to consult with those people who purchased the very things we supply or he would have known that they can't build stuff without what we supply. So now we send parts and pieces under the protection of CUSMA because U.S. manufacturers screamed loud enough that they needed these bits. CUSMA suddenly became the magic gateway to relieve the pressure. Sadly, they are the assemblers of the finished product, and the sales are where the profit lies.
When we talk about the automation of the Chinese auto plants we should gaze in awe, not because they're so modern but because we don't have any auto plants here. The U.S. has a few, of which they are they are trying to onshore to beat the tariff. Japan has a couple but has made it clear that CUSMA is a stopgap fix. If the tariffs don't go, they will.
We're pretty good at data management systems and we're building some amazing long-term global reach energy systems. We're good at building major projects to facilitate trade in energy, fertilizer and commodities. We can't update manufacturing here BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TO UPDATE. The good news is we've become very good at hewing and carrying!
Very good info, Jim. I recall somewhere you worked at GM. Living in Ontario, I acknowledge the importance of our auto assembly and parts plants and their significance to the whole CUSMA auto gig. Hating to say it, but do you foresee the day when auto assembly here is greatly reduced and or significantly automated?
I am far from an industry expert. Canada isn’t a small country but we can’t do everything. Just wondering if the way to go is identify our manufacturing/industrial strengths and nurture those hugely.
You’ve hit on the central anxiety of the Ontario economy. Having spent time inside the systems at GM, I’ve seen how the "mechanical necessity" of our plants is often the only thing keeping the lights on when the political winds shift. To answer your question: yes, I do foresee a significant reduction in traditional assembly, and the reasons are as much about math as they are about geography.
1. The Assembly Mirage
While we celebrate the multi-billion dollar retooling of plants like Oshawa or Oakville, we have to look at the "Contractual Anchor." These plants are often here because of massive government subsidies—like the $30 billion+ for the EV/Battery sector—and iron-clad union agreements.
The risk is that we are building "protected islands." If the CUSMA framework ever truly dissolves or the 25% tariff threats become permanent, the "Detroit Three" will inevitably consolidate. It is simply more efficient to build where the parts don't have to cross a border seven or eight times. In that scenario, assembly doesn't just automate; it migrates.
2. Automation: The Silent Partner
Automation isn't coming; it’s here. In the "white label" plants like Magna Steyr in Europe, or the new EV lines in Ontario, the human-to-machine ratio is shrinking. We aren't just losing jobs to low-wage jurisdictions; we are losing them to "lights-out" manufacturing where the only humans on the floor are the ones maintaining the robots.
3. Nurturing Our "Industrial Pillars"
You mentioned identifying strengths—this is the "Carney Strategy" logic. Canada cannot be a "branch plant" forever. If we want to survive the reduction in assembly, we have to pivot from being the people who bolt the car together to being the people who own the components.
The Battery Trench: We are currently betting the farm on the Ontario/Quebec battery corridor. If we control the lithium, the processing, and the cell manufacturing, the U.S. must trade with us, regardless of who is in the White House.
The "Parts King" Strategy: Look at Magna. They don't need their name on the bumper to dominate the market. By specializing in high-margin tech—like e-powertrains and ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems)—we make ourselves indispensable to the global supply chain.
The Bottom Line
Canada's future isn't in trying to compete with Tennessee or Mexico on assembly costs. Our way forward is to identify the three or four industrial "pillars"—Natural Resources, Specialized Auto-Tech, and perhaps AI Ethics/Governance—and nurture them with the same ferocity the U.S. uses to protect its own borders.
We can’t do everything, but if we do the essential things, the assembly plants will have no choice but to stay close to the source.
Thanks for the excellent information, Jim. I’m loathe to say it but perhaps CUSMA dissolution or severe contraction would move us to those preferred industrial sectors you mentioned.
We're moving there now as quickly as we can. There's no headlines because nothing's finished yet. We really want to keep CUSMA as long as we can to support the country while the transition takes place.
Over the years, I’ve had the chance to visit manufacturing SMEs abroad. It could see a contrast with those I have seen in Canada. While it may not be completely representative, I have seen more CAM/CAM, CNC and other automated manufacturing abroad than in Canada. Small one or two person operations were designing on the computer and created toolpaths for automated tools then the equipment would produce complex parts with great precision while in Canada few small manufacturers had the ability to design and build using automated equipment. I’ve seen changes happening in Canada but I think we are generally laggers and this impacts our productivity.
I’ve had people tell me that they don’t see the advantage in automation and it is too complicated or too expensive. I think that help and education could address this issue, if people are not familiar or comfortable or even can’t see the use, they need help. IMO, this should be the focus to get Canadian SMEs to be more productive by investing in new technology.
"If America wants more manufacturing at home…"
That's a pretty big "if", as I see it. In more than 7 decades in America, I've never seen a greater move *away from* "more manufacturing at home" than I've seen in the last 15 months or so.
Think about it: The idiot in the white house (I think of him as the Assatol'ya Khakamami) put tariffs on every country in the world, but he has not invested a dime in American manufacturing; in fact, Biden planted a bunch of manufacturing jobs around the country (largely in renewable energy), but the Assatol'ya immediately canceled them and has even paid (or threatened to pay) to keep more from coming online. He's exported as many immigrants as he could get his mitts on, including the ones setting up a Kia factory in Georgia. He's stopped funding for university research programs.
He isn't interested in giving America "more manufacturing at home"; he just wants to manipulate markets and make money hand over fist for himself.
Fair point... and I think that’s the deeper danger.
The rhetoric says “bring manufacturing home,” but the policy execution often undermines the very industrial capacity needed to do it.
You can’t rebuild manufacturing by tariffs alone while gutting research, labour supply, and industrial investment.
That’s not industrial strategy... that’s theatre.
Well, what a shocker, coming from our Actor in Chief, eh?
And you can substitute "completely" for "often".
🇨🇦💙 Foreign direct investment hit $97Billion CDN in 2025, the highest level since 2007.
Under consideration for Canada’s submarines and fighter jets.
SUBMARINES South Korea is proposing broad investment across Canada’s economy, not just defense: Shipbuilding, Steel, Aerospace, AI & advanced tech and partnerships across multiple industries - 200,000 jobs by 2040.
GRIPEN FIGHTER JETS Sweden/Saab will build, assemble, and maintain the jets in Canada. Create a Canadian aerospace production hub and not just for Canada. The factory would also export Gripens globally from Canada . Canada would own more of the industrial base, not just be a buyer.
Canada is using both these deals to force inward investment.
CHINESE EV’s - Not manufacturing in Canada yet but are exporting Chinese EV’s to Canada - factories would be Step 2 or Chinese EV manufacturers could also lease their technology/software to other automakers in Canada.
The downside of Trump is the upside of Carney. A rules based honourable leader, respected by world leaders, financiers, and global players. What’s not to love?
Exactly Roxy.
Buying hardware is one thing.
Forcing foreign firms to build here, train here, and invest here?
That’s how a country turns procurement into industrial strategy instead of just writing cheques.
Spot on assessment Fred. All of the real time evidence is available. Tubes to transistors. Iceboxes to refrigerators. Landlines to cellphones. All of these, while fundamentally different, all highlight points where not adapting would be counterproductive. If we want an auto industry, it must modernize, or remain an old school methodology.
Well said Pete.
History keeps teaching the same lesson... adapt or get replaced.
The auto sector won’t be any different just because people are emotionally attached to the old model.
Howdy stranger
Hey Lynne... I'm still alive, opinionated, and apparently still employable by the algorithm 😄
Good to hear
LOL 😆 🤣
Before Canada modernizes, it needs something to improve on. Historically we have seen ourselves as hewers of wood and carriers of water. We supplied raw material to the U.S and they built stuff with it. Sure we tailor-made what we supplied to their specs, and we got good at doing that. Here I speak of steel and aluminum, wood and auto parts, you know, the very things that the Orange U-tan has tried to stop in his effort to reduce Canada to a supplicant.
Of course he neglected to consult with those people who purchased the very things we supply or he would have known that they can't build stuff without what we supply. So now we send parts and pieces under the protection of CUSMA because U.S. manufacturers screamed loud enough that they needed these bits. CUSMA suddenly became the magic gateway to relieve the pressure. Sadly, they are the assemblers of the finished product, and the sales are where the profit lies.
When we talk about the automation of the Chinese auto plants we should gaze in awe, not because they're so modern but because we don't have any auto plants here. The U.S. has a few, of which they are they are trying to onshore to beat the tariff. Japan has a couple but has made it clear that CUSMA is a stopgap fix. If the tariffs don't go, they will.
We're pretty good at data management systems and we're building some amazing long-term global reach energy systems. We're good at building major projects to facilitate trade in energy, fertilizer and commodities. We can't update manufacturing here BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TO UPDATE. The good news is we've become very good at hewing and carrying!
Fair criticism Jim.
We can’t modernize what we barely built.
Canada mastered supplying inputs while others captured the high-margin finished-product game.
That’s the real strategic hole we need to climb out of.
Very good info, Jim. I recall somewhere you worked at GM. Living in Ontario, I acknowledge the importance of our auto assembly and parts plants and their significance to the whole CUSMA auto gig. Hating to say it, but do you foresee the day when auto assembly here is greatly reduced and or significantly automated?
I am far from an industry expert. Canada isn’t a small country but we can’t do everything. Just wondering if the way to go is identify our manufacturing/industrial strengths and nurture those hugely.
You’ve hit on the central anxiety of the Ontario economy. Having spent time inside the systems at GM, I’ve seen how the "mechanical necessity" of our plants is often the only thing keeping the lights on when the political winds shift. To answer your question: yes, I do foresee a significant reduction in traditional assembly, and the reasons are as much about math as they are about geography.
1. The Assembly Mirage
While we celebrate the multi-billion dollar retooling of plants like Oshawa or Oakville, we have to look at the "Contractual Anchor." These plants are often here because of massive government subsidies—like the $30 billion+ for the EV/Battery sector—and iron-clad union agreements.
The risk is that we are building "protected islands." If the CUSMA framework ever truly dissolves or the 25% tariff threats become permanent, the "Detroit Three" will inevitably consolidate. It is simply more efficient to build where the parts don't have to cross a border seven or eight times. In that scenario, assembly doesn't just automate; it migrates.
2. Automation: The Silent Partner
Automation isn't coming; it’s here. In the "white label" plants like Magna Steyr in Europe, or the new EV lines in Ontario, the human-to-machine ratio is shrinking. We aren't just losing jobs to low-wage jurisdictions; we are losing them to "lights-out" manufacturing where the only humans on the floor are the ones maintaining the robots.
3. Nurturing Our "Industrial Pillars"
You mentioned identifying strengths—this is the "Carney Strategy" logic. Canada cannot be a "branch plant" forever. If we want to survive the reduction in assembly, we have to pivot from being the people who bolt the car together to being the people who own the components.
The Battery Trench: We are currently betting the farm on the Ontario/Quebec battery corridor. If we control the lithium, the processing, and the cell manufacturing, the U.S. must trade with us, regardless of who is in the White House.
The "Parts King" Strategy: Look at Magna. They don't need their name on the bumper to dominate the market. By specializing in high-margin tech—like e-powertrains and ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems)—we make ourselves indispensable to the global supply chain.
The Bottom Line
Canada's future isn't in trying to compete with Tennessee or Mexico on assembly costs. Our way forward is to identify the three or four industrial "pillars"—Natural Resources, Specialized Auto-Tech, and perhaps AI Ethics/Governance—and nurture them with the same ferocity the U.S. uses to protect its own borders.
We can’t do everything, but if we do the essential things, the assembly plants will have no choice but to stay close to the source.
Thanks for the excellent information, Jim. I’m loathe to say it but perhaps CUSMA dissolution or severe contraction would move us to those preferred industrial sectors you mentioned.
We're moving there now as quickly as we can. There's no headlines because nothing's finished yet. We really want to keep CUSMA as long as we can to support the country while the transition takes place.
Over the years, I’ve had the chance to visit manufacturing SMEs abroad. It could see a contrast with those I have seen in Canada. While it may not be completely representative, I have seen more CAM/CAM, CNC and other automated manufacturing abroad than in Canada. Small one or two person operations were designing on the computer and created toolpaths for automated tools then the equipment would produce complex parts with great precision while in Canada few small manufacturers had the ability to design and build using automated equipment. I’ve seen changes happening in Canada but I think we are generally laggers and this impacts our productivity.
I’ve had people tell me that they don’t see the advantage in automation and it is too complicated or too expensive. I think that help and education could address this issue, if people are not familiar or comfortable or even can’t see the use, they need help. IMO, this should be the focus to get Canadian SMEs to be more productive by investing in new technology.