Automotive
Bad ideology makes Canada’s EV investment a bad idea
It doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy. In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.
What does Donald Trump’s resounding win in the recent U.S. election mean for Canada? Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to have been much thought about the answer to this question in Ottawa, because the vast majority of our political and pundit class expected his opponent to be victorious. Suddenly they’re all having to process this unwelcome intrusion of reality into their narrow mental picture.
Well, what does it mean?
It is early days, and it will take some time to sift through the various policy commitments of the incoming Trump Administration to unpack the Canadian angle. But one thing we do know is that a Trump presidency will be no friend to the electric vehicle industry.
A Harris administration would have been. But, Trump spent much of his campaign slamming EV subsidies and mandates, pledging at the Republican National Convention in July that he will “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one.”
This line was so effective, especially in must-win Michigan, with its hundreds of thousands of autoworkers, that Kamala Harris was forced to assure everyone who listened that the U.S. has no EV mandate, and that she has no intention of introducing one.
Of course, this wasn’t strictly true.
First, the Biden Administration, of which Harris was a part, issued an Executive Order with the explicit goal of a “50% Electric Vehicle Sales Share” by 2030. The Biden-Harris Administration (to use their own formulation) instructed their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce increasingly stringent tailpipe emission regulations on cars and light trucks with an eye towards pushing automakers to manufacture and sell more electric and hybrid vehicles.
Their EPA also issued a waiver which allows California to enact auto emissions regulations that are tougher than the federal government’s, which functions as a kind of back-door EV mandate nationally. After all, auto companies aren’t going to manufacture one set of vehicles for California, the most populous state, and another for the rest of the country.
And as for intentions, though the Harris camp consistently held that her prior policy positions shouldn’t be held against her, it’s hard to forget that as senator she’d co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which would have mandated that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be “zero emission” by 2040. During her failed 2020 presidential campaign, Harris accelerated that proposed timeline, saying that the auto market should be all-electric by 2035.
In other words, she seemed pretty fond of the EV policies which Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault have foisted upon Canada.
For Trump, all of these policies can be filed under “green new scam” climate policies, which stifle American resource development and endanger national prosperity. Now that he’s retaken the White House, it is expected that he will issue his own executive orders to the EPA, rescinding Biden’s tailpipe instructions and scrapping their waiver for California. And though he will be hindered somewhat by Congress, he’s likely to do everything in his power to roll back the EV subsidies contained in the (terribly named) Inflation Reduction Act and lobby for changes limiting which EVs qualify for tax credits, and how much.
All of this will be devastating for the EV industry, which is utterly reliant on the carrots and sticks of subsidies and mandates. And it’s particularly bad news for the Trudeau government (and Doug Ford’s government in Ontario), which have gone all-in on EVs, investing billions of taxpayer dollars to convince automakers to build their EVs and batteries here.
Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,” according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”
Canada’s EV subsidies were pitched as an “investment” in an evolving auto market, but that assumes that those pre-existing lines of trade will remain essentially unchanged. If American EV demand collapses, or significantly contracts without mandates or tax incentives, we’ll be up the river without a paddle.
And that will be true, even if the U.S. EV market proves more resilient than I expect it to. That is because of Trump’s commitment to “Making America Great Again” by boosting American manufacturing and the jobs it provides. He campaigned on a blanket tariff of 10 percent on all foreign imports, with no exceptions mentioned. This would have a massive impact on Canada, since the U.S. is our largest trading partner.
Though Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland have been saying to everyone who will listen how excited they are to work with the Trump Administration again, and “Canada will be fine,” it doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy.
In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.
The optimism that existed under the Biden administration that Canada could significantly increase its export capacity to the USA is going down the drain. The hope that “Canada could reestablish its export sector as a key driver of growth by positioning itself as a leader in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, along with other areas in cleantech,” in the words of an RBC report, is swiftly fading. It seems more likely now that Canada will be left holding the bag on a dying industry in which we’re invested heavily.
The Trudeau Liberals’ aggressive push, driven by ideology and not market forces, to force Electric Vehicles on everyone is already backfiring on the Canadian taxpayer. Pierre Poilievre must take note — EV mandates and subsidies are bad for our country, and as Trump has demonstrated, they’re not a winning policy. He should act accordingly.
By Jerome Gessaroli for Inside Policy
Reducing transportation emissions is a worthy goal, but policy must be guided by evidence, not ideology.
In the next few years, the average new vehicle in British Columbia could reach $80,000, not because of inflation, but largely because of provincial and federal climate policy. By forcing zero-emission-vehicle (ZEV) targets faster than the market can afford, both governments risk turning climate ambition into an affordability crisis.
EVs are part of the solution, but mandates that outpace market acceptance risk creating real-world challenges, ranging from cold-weather travel to sparse rural charging to the cost and inconvenience for drivers without home charging. As Victoria and Ottawa review their ZEV policies, the goal is to match ambition with evidence.
Introduced in 2019, BC’s mandate was meant to accelerate electrification and cut emissions from light-duty vehicles. In 2023, however, it became far more stringent, setting the most aggressive ZEV targets in North America. What began as a plan to boost ZEV adoption has now become policy orthodoxy. By 2030, automakers must ensure that 90 per cent of new light-duty vehicles sold in BC are zero-emission, regardless of what consumers want or can afford. The evidence suggests this approach is out of step with market realities.
The province isn’t alone in pursuing EV mandates, but its pace is unmatched. British Columbia, Quebec, and the federal government are the only ones in Canada with such rules. BC’s targets rise much faster than California’s, the jurisdiction that usually sets the bar on green-vehicle policy, though all have the same goal of making every new vehicle zero-emission by 2035.
According to Canadian Black Book, 2025 model EVs are about $17,800 more expensive than gas-powered vehicles. However, ever since Ottawa and BC removed EV purchase incentives, sales have fallen and have not yet recovered. Actual demand in BC sits near 16 per cent of new vehicle sales, well below the 26 per cent mandate for 2026. To close that gap, automakers may have to pay steep penalties or cut back on gas-vehicle sales to meet government goals.
The mandate also allows domestic automakers to meet their targets by purchasing credits from companies, such as Tesla, which hold surplus credits, transferring millions of dollars out of the country simply to comply with provincial rules. But even that workaround is not sustainable. As both federal and provincial mandates tighten, credit supplies will shrink and costs will rise, leaving automakers more likely to limit gas-vehicle sales.
It may be climate policy in intent, but in reality, it acts like a luxury tax on mobility. Higher new-vehicle prices are pushing consumers toward used cars, inflating second-hand prices, and keeping older, higher-emitting vehicles on the road longer. Lower-income and rural households are hit hardest, a perverse outcome for a policy meant to reduce emissions.
Infrastructure is another obstacle. Charging-station expansion and grid upgrades remain far behind what is needed to support mass electrification. Estimates suggest powering BC’s future EV fleet alone could require the electricity output of almost two additional Site C dams by 2040. In rural and northern regions, where distances are long and winters are harsh, drivers are understandably reluctant to switch. Beyond infrastructure, changing market and policy conditions now pose additional risks to Canada’s EV goals.
Major automakers have delayed or cancelled new EV models and battery-plant investments. The United States has scaled back or reversed federal and state EV targets and reoriented subsidies toward domestic manufacturing. These shifts are likely to slow EV model availability and investment across North America, pushing both British Columbia and Ottawa to reconsider how realistic their own targets are in more challenging market conditions.
Meanwhile, many Canadians are feeling the strain of record living costs. Recent polling by Abacus Data and Ipsos shows that most Canadians view rising living costs as the country’s most pressing challenge, with many saying the situation is worsening. In that climate, pressing ahead with aggressive mandates despite affordability concerns appears driven more by green ideology than by evidence. Consumers are not rejecting EVs. They are rejecting unrealistic timelines and unaffordable expectations.
Reducing transportation emissions is a worthy goal, but policy must be guided by evidence, not ideology. When targets become detached from real-world conditions, ideology replaces judgment. Pushing too hard risks backlash that can undo the very progress we are trying to achieve.
Neither British Columbia nor the federal government needs to abandon its clean-transportation objectives, but both need to adjust them. That means setting targets that match realistic adoption rates, as EVs become more affordable and capable, and allowing more flexible compliance based on emissions reductions rather than vehicle type. In simple terms, the goal should be cutting emissions, not forcing people to buy a specific type of car. These steps would align ambition with reality and ensure that environmental progress strengthens, rather than undermines, public trust.
With both Ottawa and Victoria reviewing their EV mandates, their next moves will show whether Canadian climate policy is driven by evidence or by ideology. Adjusting targets to reflect real-world affordability and adoption rates would signal pragmatism and strengthen public trust in the country’s clean-energy transition.
Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the BC Institute of British Columbia
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.
“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.
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!
The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.
Tesla Annual meeting starting now
https://t.co/j1KHf3k6ch— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2025
“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”
Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.
“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.
“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.
The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.
Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.
Canada moves forward with digital identification for federal benefits seekers
It’s time for Canada to remember, the heroes of Kapyong
US Nuclear Bomber Fleet Shares Fence With Trailer Park Linked To Chinese Intel-Tied Fraudster
Chinese-Owned Trailer Park Beside U.S. Stealth Bomber Base Linked to Alleged Vancouver Repression Case
-
National2 days agoConservative bill would increase penalties for attacks on places of worship in Canada
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoRichmond Mayor Warns Property Owners That The Cowichan Case Puts Their Titles At Risk
-
armed forces2 days agoCanadian veteran says she knows at least 20 service members who were offered euthanasia
-
Alberta2 days agoHow economic corridors could shape a stronger Canadian future
-
Business1 day agoMark Carney Seeks to Replace Fiscal Watchdog with Loyal Lapdog
-
Business1 day agoSluggish homebuilding will have far-reaching effects on Canada’s economy
-
COVID-191 day agoMajor new studies link COVID shots to kidney disease, respiratory problems
-
Daily Caller2 days agoLaura Ingraham’s Viral Clash With Trump Prompts Her To Tell Real Reasons China Sends Students To US