Ottawa’s EV mandate may destroy Canadian auto industry

No one had to force the public to abandon land lines for cellphones, or vinyl records for CDs and then online streaming. When superior products appear, people will switch voluntarily. An EV mandate may be affordable by 2035—but only if the product quality and user costs have progressed to the point that people want to switch anyway, in which case the mandate is not needed.

According to energy transition and “net zero” enthusiasts, the future looks bright for electric vehicles (EVs). So bright that the federal government and some provincial governments have had to offer some $15 billion in subsidies to prompt carmakers to develop Canadian production facilities while also offering lavish subsidies to get people to buy EVs. And since even that isn’t enough, according to a Trudeau government mandate, all new light-duty vehicles sold in Canada must be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2035. In other words, the government wants to ban traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs).

The fundamental problem is that EVs cost more to make and operate than most consumers are willing to pay. In a 2016 submission to the Quebec government, which was then considering an EV mandate of its own, the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturing Association warned that its members were then losing between $12,000 and $20,000 per EV sold. Since then, the situation has gotten worse, with Ford reporting first quarter 2024 losses of US$132,000 per EV.

What will be the economic consequences of a national EV mandate in Canada? In a new paper forthcoming in the peer-reviewed Canadian Journal of Economics, I develop and run a detailed inter-provincial model of the Canadian economy including the auto sector. I argue that during the phase-in period the auto sector will raise the price of ICEVs and earn above-market rents on them, but that won’t cover the losses on the EV side and the industry will go into overall losses by the late-2020s. The losses will be permanent unless and until EV production costs fall enough that a mandate is unnecessary. In short, the 2035 mandate is affordable only if it’s not needed. If it takes a mandate to force consumers to choose EVs over ICEVs, the mandate will destroy the Canadian auto industry.

The mandate sets up a race between regulation and technology. Some aspects of EV production are falling, such as batteries. Others, such as specialty metals used in motors, are sole-sourced from China and are not getting cheaper. Other user costs are rising including electricity, for which we can thank two decades of green energy madness. Taking all aspects together, suppose EV technology improves so quickly that by 2035 consumers are absolutely indifferent between an EV and an ICEV, so the mandate is costless thereafter. Getting to that point would still impose Canadian auto industry losses that total $140 billion compared to the no-policy base case. As of 2031 the losses in real GDP and industrial output compared to the base case would average more than $1,000 per worker across Canada. Greenhouse gas emissions would fall by just under 3 per cent relative to the base case as of 2035, but the abatement costs reach about $2,800 per tonne as of 2030.

That’s the best-case scenario. What if full EV cost parity takes until 2050? According to the model, the auto sector will lose $1.3 trillion relative to the base case between 2025 and 2050. Of course, in reality the sector would simply shut down, but in the model a sector must keep operating even at a loss. In absolute terms the national economy would continue to grow but much more slowly. Economic losses relative to the base case as of 2035 include a 4.8 per cent reduction in real GDP nationally (8.9 per cent in Ontario), a 2.6 per cent cut in real earnings per worker, 137,000 jobs lost, a 10.5 per cent drop in auto demand nationally and a 16.8 per cent drop in capital earnings relative to average. Greenhouse gas emissions would fall by just under 6 per cent against the base case as of 2035 but at a cost of more than $3,400 per tonne, 20 times the nominal carbon tax rate.

These are unprecedented costs, but then again we have never before proposed to ban the production and purchase of one of the most popular consumer products of all time. A large part of our economy is organized around making and using gasoline-powered cars, so if the government plans to outlaw them we should not be surprised that doing so will have harsh and far-reaching economic consequences. While production of EVs will partially offset the losses, it’s a classic error in economic reasoning to suppose the policy package as a whole could yield a net gain or offer a genuine economic opportunity. If it could, think of all the economic growth we could contrive simply by banning things. We could ban computers and make people read books instead—think of the boom in publishing. We could ban all forms of transportation and make people walk. Think of how much money they’d save, and the opportunities this would open up for shoemakers.

I better stop there before I put ideas in politicians’ heads. To be clear, people are willing to pay for computers, cars and lots of other things because they perceive that they get greater consumption value than the cost of buying the item. So far that has not proven to be true of EVs, so an EV mandate by definition must make people worse off. No one had to force the public to abandon land lines for cellphones, or vinyl records for CDs and then online streaming. When superior products appear, people will switch voluntarily. An EV mandate may be affordable by 2035—but only if the product quality and user costs have progressed to the point that people want to switch anyway, in which case the mandate is not needed.

Will an EV mandate destroy the Canadian auto industry and impose serious harm on the Canadian economy? There’s a simple way to tell: if the government perceives, based on trends in vehicle sales data, that a mandate is necessary to force consumers to switch, the answer is yes.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Related Topics:#CanadianAutoIndustry #FraserInstitute #Ottawa'sEVMandate #RossMcKitrick

Up Next

Taxpayers call on Trudeau to scrap Digital Services Tax as US threatens trade action

Don't Miss

Feds spending $1.7 million pushing carbon tax on other countries

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Business / 3 hours ago

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Courageous Discourse / 4 hours ago

Europe Had 127,350 Cases of Measles in 2024

2025 Federal Election

Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars

Published on April 6, 2025

Dan McTeague

Dan McTeague

“The Liberals, hoodwinked by the ideological (and false) narrative that EVs are better for the environment, want to force you to replace the car or truck you love with one you can’t afford which doesn’t do what you need it to do.”

The Liberals’ carbon tax ploy is utterly shameless. For years they’ve been telling us that the Carbon Tax was a hallmark of Canadian patriotism, that it was the best way to save the planet, that it was really a “price on pollution,” which would ultimately benefit the little guy, in the form of a rebate in which Canadians would get back all the money they paid in, and more!

Meanwhile big, faceless Captain Planet villain corporations — who are out there wrecking the planet for the sheer fun of it! — will shoulder the whole burden.

But then, as people started to feel the hit to their wallets and polling on the topic fell off a cliff, the Liberals’ newly anointed leader — the environmentalist fanatic Mark Carney — threw himself a Trumpian signing ceremony, at which he and the party (at least rhetorically) kicked the carbon tax to the curb and started patting themselves on the back for saving Canada from the foul beast. “Don’t ask where it came from,” they seem to be saying. “The point is, it’s gone.”

Of course, it’s not. The Consumer Carbon Tax has been zeroed out, at least for the moment, not repealed. Meanwhile, the Industrial Carbon Tax, on business and industry, is not only being left in place, it’s being talked up in exactly the same terms as the Consumer Tax was.

No matter that it will continue to go up at the same rate as the Consumer Tax would have, such that it will be indistinguishable from the Consumer Tax by 2030. And no matter that the burden of that tax will ultimately be passed down to working Canadians in the form of higher prices.

Of course, when that happens, Carney & Co will probably blame Donald Trump, rather than their own crooked tax regime.

Yes, it is shameless. But it also puts Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives in a bind. They’ve been proclaiming their intention to “Axe the Tax” for quite some time now. On the energy file, it was pretty much all you could get them to talk about. So much so that I was worried that upon entering government, they might just go after the low hanging fruit, repeal the Carbon Tax, and move on to other things, leaving the rest of the rotten Net-Zero superstructure in place.

But now, since the Liberals beat them to it (or claim they did,) the Conservatives are left grasping for a straightforward, signature policy which they can use to differentiate themselves from their opponents.

Poilievre’s recently announced intention to kill the Industrial Carbon Tax is welcome, especially at a time when Canadian business is under a tariff threat from both the U.S. and China. But that requires some explanation, and as the old political saying goes, “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

There is one policy change however, which comes to mind as a potential replacement. It’s bold, it would make the lives of Canadians materially better, and it’s so deeply interwoven with the “Green” grift of the environmentalist movement of which Mark Carney is so much a part that his party couldn’t possibly bring themselves to steal it.

Pierre Poilievre should pledge to repeal the Liberals’ Electric Vehicle mandate.

The EV mandate is bad policy. It forces Canadians to buy an expensive product — EVs cost more than Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles even when the federal government was subsidizing their purchase with a taxpayer-funded rebate of $5,000 per vehicle, but that program ran out of money in January and was discontinued. Without that rebate, EVs haven’t a prayer of competing with ICE vehicles.

EVs are particularly ill-suited for Canada. Their batteries are bad at holding a charge in the cold. Even in mild weather, EVs aren’t known for their reliability, a major downside in a country as spread out as ours. Maybe it’ll work out if you live in a big city, but what if you’re in the country? Heaven help you if your EV battery dies when you’re an hour away from everywhere.

Moreover, Canada doesn’t have the infrastructure to support a total replacement of gas-and-diesel driven vehicles with EVs. Our already-strained electrical grid just doesn’t have the capacity to support millions of EVs being plugged in every night. Natural Resources Canada estimates that we will need somewhere in the neighborhood of 450,000 public charging stations to support an entirely electric fleet. At the moment, we have roughly 30,000. That’s a pretty big gap to fill in ten years.

And that’s another fact which doesn’t get nearly as much attention as it should. The law mandates that every new vehicle sold in Canada must be electric by 2035. Maybe that sounded incredibly far in the future when it was passed, but now it’s only ten years away! That’s not a lot of time for these technological problems or cost issues to be resolved.

So the pitch from Poilievre here is simple.

“The Liberals, hoodwinked by the ideological (and false) narrative that EVs are better for the environment, want to force you to replace the car or truck you love with one you can’t afford which doesn’t do what you need it to do. If you vote Conservative, we will fix that, so you will be free to buy the vehicle that meets your needs, whether it’s battery or gas powered, because we trust you to make decisions for yourself. Mark Carney, on the other hand, does not. We won’t just Axe the Tax, we will End the EV Mandate!”

A decade (and counting) of Liberal misrule has saddled this country with a raft of onerous and expensive Net-Zero legislation I’d like to see the Conservative Party campaign against.

These include so-called “Clean Fuel” Regulations, Emissions Caps, their war on pipelines and Natural Gas terminals, not to mention Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental benefits of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard.

But the EV mandate is bad for Canada, and terrible for Canadians. A pledge to repeal it would be an excellent start.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Automotive

Tesla Vandals Keep Running Into The Same Problem … Cameras

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Hudson Crozier

People damaging Teslas in anger toward their owners and Elon Musk aren’t picking up on the fact that the vehicles have multiple cameras capable of catching them in the act.

At least nine perpetrators have been caught on video keying, writing graffiti or otherwise defacing Tesla vehicles in parking lots across the U.S. in the month of March alone. Most have led to an arrest or warrant based partly on the footage, which Tesla’s “Sentry Mode” automatically films from the side of the unattended vehicle when it detects human activity nearby.

“Smile, you’re on camera,” Tesla warned in a March 20 X post about its Sentry Mode feature. Musk’s company has been working to upgrade Sentry Mode so that the vehicles will soon blast music at full volume when vandals attack it. The camera system, however, has not stopped an increasing number of vandals from singling out Tesla owners, usually in protest of Musk’s work in the Trump administration for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

One incident happened on March 29, the same day leftists coordinated protests around the country for a “Global Day of Action” against Musk. That Saturday also saw alleged instances of violence at protests. The demonstrations stemmed from an online call to action by groups such as the Disruption Project, which encourages activists to foment “uprisings,” find a “target’s” home address and other confrontational tactics.

Tesla’s press team did not respond to a request for comment.

One man allegedly caught on camera keying a Tesla SUV on March 24 apologized to the owner who confronted him in a parking lot in Pennsylvania, police and media reports said. The man faces charges of criminal mischief, harassment and disorderly conduct for allegedly carving a swastika onto the vehicle.

“I have nothing against your car, and I have nothing against you,” the suspect said while the owner filmed him in the parking lot. “Obviously, I have something against Elon Musk.” The man called his own behavior “misguided.”

The defendant’s lawyer told Fox News his “client is a proud father, long-time resident, and is currently undergoing cancer treatment” and that he would not comment publicly “pending the outcome of the case.”

One of the most aggressive acts caught by Sentry Mode was in the case of a man who drove an ATV-style vehicle into a Tesla on March 25. Texas police identified the man as Demarqeyun Marquize Cox, arrested him and said he allegedly gave two other nearby Teslas the same treatment while also writing “Elon” on them. The public defender office representing Cox did not respond to a voicemail from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Tesla cameras also caught three other people in Florida, Texas and Arizona keying and smearing bubble gum on the vehicles in March. The three suspects named by police do not have attorneys listed in county records available for contact.

Many of the vandalism cases since Trump’s return have reportedly caused thousands of dollars in damage for individual owners. For example, the bubble gum incident in Florida brought $2,623.66 in costs, while another keying incident in Minnesota brought $3,200.

Some reported attacks on Tesla vehicles and chargers have gotten the attention of federal law enforcement, including cases of alleged firebombing or shooting.

Two other suspected vandals in New York, one in Minnesota and one in Mississippi have reportedly avoided arrest for now — with one owner declining to press charges — but were all seen on the Teslas’ cameras scratching up the vehicles. Police identified the Mississippi suspect as an illegal migrant from Cuba.

One Tesla owner in North Dakota ridiculed a man who allegedly carved the letter “F” into his Cybertruck in a Costco parking lot — as seen on the Cybertruck’s camera. The defendant faces charges of criminal mischief, and county records say he is representing himself in court.

“I can’t believe this guy is potentially ruining his life to follow a political ideology,” the owner told WDAY News.

“If you’re going to vandalize these vehicles, you’re going to get caught,” the owner said.