From The Audit

Governments in Canada have been begging us to purchase EVs and plug-in hybrids for years. The carrot has been $600 million annually in federal subsidies (and more at the provincial level) aimed at consumers. The stick is the dark threat of outlawing internal combustion engines altogether. A third approach involves splashing billions of dollars of handouts and tax credits in the general direction of companies with starry-eyed plans to manufacture EV components locally.

I’m not going to discuss whether EVs are actually the best solution for whatever ails the environment. That may be a few levels above my pay grade. Instead, I’d like to analyze whether the consumer-focused subsidies actually worked.

To do that I first identified the provinces that offered subsidies for “battery electric vehicles” (i.e., EVs). Those would be British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. That’ll give us a nice reference point for comparison against provinces that don’t offer subsidies. Specifically, those are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario. (Although Manitoba did just introduce a rebate program in July of 2024.)

Of course, there are also federal subsidies available across the country.

Now there is one problem with the Statistics Canada sales data. Due to some weird licensing issue, there’s no sales data at all for Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, or Alberta. We’ll just have to do our best with what we’ve got.

Here are the numbers expressed as sales per 100,000 people (based on 2024 provincial population estimates):

The obvious big mover here is Quebec. Their Roulez Vert program – at $7,000 – is the most generous in the country (although it’s currently set to be phased-out by 2027). But Roulez Vert has been around since 2012, so it might not completely explain those huge jumps since 2022.

If you squint really hard at the graph, you should notice a modest jump in Ontario EV sales back in 2018. That would probably be due to last-minute bargain hunters reacting to the Ford government’s plans to cancel Ontario’s rebate.

But none of that is going to give us the precision we need to answer our real question: did government subsidies actually drive more EV sales? For that, we’ll need a bit of statistical analysis. This scatter plot visualizes the relationships between subsidies and average sales over time:

If our only data point was Quebec – with its impressive sales and high subsidy level – then the conclusion would be straightforward. But that’s exactly why we look for more data. So, for instance, BC has sales that, proportionally, were close to Quebec’s but with rebates that were 40 percent lower. And Canada’s federal rebates played a role in relatively few overall sales.

For those of you who enjoy such things, here are the actual numbers SciPy’s linear regression gave me:

Slope: 0.005910745672259122
Intercept: 13.256019105900187
R-squared: 0.31881294222441453
P-value: 0.14480378835260208
Standard Error: 0.00352721449117312

The slope indicates that for every additional thousand dollars of subsidy, EV sales would increase by only around six vehicles per 100,000 people. That’s compared with the intercept (13.26) which estimates the baseline (no-subsidy) sales at 13.26 units per 100,000 people.

The R-squared value suggests that about 32 percent of the variability in EV sales per 100,000 people is explained by the subsidy amount. But the P-value strongly suggests that the relationship is not statistically significant.

Meaning, in other words, that there’s no clear cause-and-effect relationship between the billions of dollars of government handouts and real-world vehicle sales. It’s distinctly possible that just as many EVs would have been purchased had there been no subsidies.

News release from Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Governments are pushing the public to switch to smart vehicles to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but there is also a second motive – surveillance.

This September, Ford filed a new patent to eavesdrop on riders. They plan to share this information with third-parties to personalize the advertisements riders hear. Ford will also take the driver’s destination into consideration to determine location-specific advertisements and suggestions. The technology will factor in the weather, traffic, and all external sensors to fine tune when and what to market to passengers.

Advertisements are perhaps the least ominous use of voice data based on the plans that these car manufacturers have. Car insurance rates in the United States spiked 26% in the past year, which is partly due to car manufacturers sharing ride data with insurance companies. Even older cars with basic features like OnStar have tracking devices that report your driving behavior to the manufacturers who share your data with insurance companies and, ultimately, the government. LexisNexis, which tracks drivers’ behaviors and compiles risk profiles, has been sharing individual data with General Motors, who passes that information along to the insurance companies. General Motors.

One driver demanded that LexisNexis send him his personal report, which was a 258-page document containing every trip he or his wife took in his vehicle over a six-month period. LexisNexis said that this data will be used “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage.” They even reported small issues such as hard breaking and rapid acceleration, according to the report. “I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” an unnamed Cadillac driver enrolled in the OnStar Smart Driver subscription service told reporters.

“Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward,” a researcher with Mozilla Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. In fact, 19 automakers in 2023 admitted that they have the ability to sell your personal data without notice. Law enforcement may subpoena these records as well.

Ford claims that the patent was submitted, but they do not necessarily plan to use the technology. “Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans. No matter what the patent application outlines, we will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services,” Ford said in a statement released to MotorTrend.

Now, the US Department of Transportation is permitted to mandate that certain manufacturers provide them with vehicle data. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts testified that all vehicles in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system are collecting travel data that car manufacturers have remote access to via the computer chips. The computer chips are compiling data on vehicle speed, movement, travel, and even using exterior sensors and cameras to record the vehicle’s location.

All of this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. These car manufacturers are surpassing what anyone would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governments, third-party advertisement companies, and insurance companies all have warrantless access to personal data, and drivers are largely unaware they are being spied on. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to have backdoor access to this data.

The aforementioned senators’ concerns fell on deaf ears at the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Transportation clearly is not listed within the US Constitution. People are already experiencing stiff consequences from autos sharing data with the sharp uptick in insurance rates.