Tag: technology

Ontario lands $3.2B graph­ite fact­ory

Plant will hire up to 1,000 to pro­duce bat­tery com­pon­ent

This article was written by Rob Ferguson and was published in the Toronto Star on November 21, 2025.

Ontario’s elec­tric vehicle industry is get­ting a boost with a $3.2­ bil­lion feeder fact­ory, but the new jobs won’t make up for thou­sands lost recently at auto assembly plants in Bramp­ton and the Lon­don area.

Nor­we­gian com­pany Vian­ode said Thursday it will make syn­thetic graph­ite — a key com­pon­ent of lith­ium ion bat­ter­ies — in St. Thomas, near the site of a massive EV bat­tery plant under con­struc­tion by Volk­swa­gen sub­si­di­ary PowerCo.

Vian­ode will get a $670 ­mil­lion loan from Ontario tax­pay­ers for the project, expec­ted to cre­ate 300 jobs when pro­duc­tion begins and 1,000 when full capa­city is reached, sup­ply­ing cus­tom­ers in North Amer­ica and Europe while chal­len­ging China’s 80 per cent dom­in­ance of the industry.

“We’re going to keep doing everything in our power to sup­port our work­ers, attract new invest­ment,” Premier Doug Ford said at the announce­ment in an empty field, call­ing it “the best birth­day present” as he turned 61.

His gov­ern­ment also pro­posed legis­la­tion Thursday that would require pro­vin­cial and muni­cipal gov­ern­ments and pub­lic sec­tor organ­iz­a­tions such as transit agen­cies to “Buy Ontario,” pri­or­it­iz­ing the pur­chase of mater­i­als and sup­plies made here over goods made else­where in Canada or abroad to counter the dam­age from U.S. Pres­id­ent Don­ald Trump’s trade war.

The new plant — which will also sup­ply the nuc­lear, steel, semi­con­ductor and defence indus­tries — comes weeks after auto­work­ers got bad news when Gen­eral Motors scrapped pro­duc­tion of its poorsell­ing Bright­Drop elec­tric deliv­ery vehicle in nearby Inger­soll and Stel­lantis moved pending pro­duc­tion of the Jeep Com­pass to Illinois from Bramp­ton.

Neither plant has a product to build and more than 4,100 work­ers are wor­ried about their futures.

“We’re look­ing at dif­fer­ent options, we’re work­ing with the com­pany itself to see if we can get another line in there, and we’re work­ing with the fed­eral gov­ern­ment,” Ford said of the Inger­soll fact­ory.

At Queen’s Park, oppos­i­tion parties said the Pro­gress­ive Con­ser­vat­ive gov­ern­ment needs to do more to buoy the auto industry, which has seen Cana­dian pro­duc­tion drop by half since the turn of the cen­tury.

“We are fall­ing farther and farther behind,” Lib­eral MPP John Fraser (Ott­awa South) told report­ers.

“It’s great when we get something, but we’re going to lose more jobs.”

Across the eco­nomy, more than 400 com­pan­ies inves­ted $40 bil­lion in Ontario last year to cre­ate 24,000 jobs in part because they see the province as a safe haven in a “tumul­tu­ous world,” Eco­nomic Devel­op­ment Min­is­ter Vic Fed­eli said in St. Thomas.

“Canada itself has a stable, pre­dict­able polit­ical sys­tem and situ­ation, so that’s very import­ant for com­pan­ies invest­ing a lot of money,” Vian­ode chief exec­ut­ive Burkhard Straube added at the fact­ory announce­ment.

The plant will provide enough syn­thetic graph­ite to sup­ply three mil­lion elec­tric vehicles a year, he said.

With sales growth of EVs in Canada lower than fore­cast a few years ago, Green Leader Mike Schreiner urged the premier to do more to stim­u­late the industry, such as bring­ing back rebates for pur­chases of elec­tric vehicles which are often more expens­ive than auto­mo­biles that run on gas­ol­ine.

Ford has said his gov­ern­ment prefers to use pub­lic money to provide dir­ect sup­ports to the EV industry.

How to win the race for data centres

This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on November 15, 2025.

Technology companies are throwing around extraordinary numbers as they race to build data centres.

OpenAI and Meta alone have promised to sink US$1-trillion into these facilities. Other companies are pledging to spend hundreds of billions more.

Although the bulk of the spending will happen in the United States, many Canadian politicians are hoping to get a piece of the action. Alberta is dreaming of $100-billion in data centre investment and Quebec wants to put out the welcome mat for these projects. They should be cautious.

These centres use huge amounts of power and water.

They provide few local jobs once they are built. And if rising fears of an AI bubble prove accurate, communities could be left with white elephant facilities.

This is not to say that data centres should be blacklisted or banned. It would be hypocritical to do so considering how much of Canadians’ life is online. But governments should also not dangle incentives such as tax breaks to attract them.

Canada and Ontario’s recent woes with subsidizing electric-vehicle battery production is an example to avoid.

In that case, the governments eagerly offered billions to companies, in the hopes of creating a local EV economy that has proved elusive. One glimmer of a silver lining is that, in some cases, the proposal failed before serious money began to flow. But the whole saga suggests governments too eager to hitch their wagons to the hot new idea.

It’s good that some Canadian provinces are starting to think more critically about how to handle an influx of data centres, even if their approaches raise questions.

In Ontario, the government is seeking input on a proposal that would prioritize electricity requests based on how well the use would serve the province’s economic interests. In a worrying indicator that the province is buying into tech hype, though, the idea comes dressed up with some highly speculative language about how data centres “could anchor new high-tech ecosystems” in northern and rural communities.

British Columbia, meanwhile, announced last month that priority for power would go to natural resource and manufacturing projects. Data centres, AI and other users would be further down the list when applying for electricity supply.

This attempt at preserving local industries could result in rewarding lower-productivity businesses at the expense of more productive ones.

It’s understandable to want to prevent a situation in which new data centres put enormous additional demand on the power supply, pushing up costs for everyone. But if the companies are willing to pay the true marginal cost of providing additional power then there is no reason to refuse them. Long term, building out the electrical grid to maximize economic development is a good thing.

In the same way, provinces and municipalities should look more closely at how much large-scale users are paying for water. Too often, the heaviest consumers pay the least per litre. That can’t be allowed to continue, especially if new demand forces costly expansion of water infrastructure.

There are also questions about the federal approach. Fortunately, Ottawa’s promise last year to provide up to $15billion for loans and equity stakes in data centre projects was missing from this month’s budget. It did pledge, however, to change the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s mandate to allow it to invest in these facilities. The government is also developing a new AI strategy, and is considering whether there should be new incentives.

As well, the budget promised nearly $1-billion towards data sovereignty. This issue is on a lot of minds, understandably, given the drumbeat of threats from United States President Donald Trump. But the term itself is not easily defined and Ottawa risks being captured by tech prophets spinning an alluring web.

The history of industrial policy is littered with embarrassing examples of government largesse that didn’t pan out.

Hydroponic cucumber cultivation in Newfoundland springs to mind, as does the ill-fated Bricklin sports car.

Governments shouldn’t get starry eyed about data centres. Instead, make sure the appropriate regulations are in place and then let the market take over.

The Sunday Editorial: The airport of the future has arrived – just not in Canada. Landing tomorrow morning at theglobeandmail.com

PM confirms mining, energy projects added to fast-track list for major infrastructure

This article was written by Stephanie Levitz and was published in the Globe & Mail on November 14, 2025.

Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks about the second batch of referrals to the Major Projects Office in Terrace, B.C., on Thursday.

The next round of referrals includes six mining and energy proposals that span from B.C. to New Brunswick

Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed new mining and energy projects have been added to a list of natural-resource developments the government wants to see fast-tracked in a bid to wean Canada off its economic reliance on the United States.

The six projects are the second batch of referrals to the Carney government’s Major Projects Office (MPO), given the task of speeding up what the Prime Minister has described as “nation-building” infrastructure. The first round was announced in September.

The projects announced Thursday are the Ksi Lisims liquefied natural gas project in British Columbia; Ontario’s Crawford nickel project; New Brunswick’s Sisson mine; Nouveau Monde Graphite’s Matawinie Mine in Quebec; the Iqaluit Nukkiksautiit Hydro Project and the North Coast Transmission Line in northwest B.C.

Mr. Carney also said the Canada Infrastructure Bank is lending $140-million to BC Hydro for the transmission line.

“Each of these projects that we are referring to the MPO today is transformational, and their impacts will be amplified by being part of bigger national strategies to boost Canada’s competitiveness,” Mr. Carney said at an event in Terrace, B.C.

The office was set up under the Building Canada Act, legislation passed in the spring to follow through on a key campaign promise from Mr. Carney: find faster ways to build big things.

Led by former Trans Mountain chief executive Dawn Farrell, the office can designate projects that meet certain criteria as “national interest,” which would expedite regulatory processes. None of the projects referred to her office to date have received that designation.

Many projects now on the MPO list have been in development for decades, have most permits and financing in place, as well as buy-in – if not outright ownership – from Indigenous communities.

That led to numerous questions Thursday on how the involvement of the federal office changes anything.

“For projects like Crawford, we’re working to come up with processes where we can run all the permitting in parallel, so that we’re not doing it sequentially,” Ms. Farrell said.

“So, something that might have taken five or six more years can now take two years.”

Canada Nickel Co.’s Crawford nickel project is touted as the world’s second-largest nickel-sulphide reserve, located 42 kilometres north of Timmins, Ont.

Canada Nickel CEO Mark Selby told reporters on Thursday that the referral will help attract international investors and partners to chip in for construction as well as put its remaining permits in the priority line.

Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce said the Crawford project could start construction next year.

“It’s also a critical step in reducing the Chinese regime’s grip on the critical-mineral supply chain,” he said in a statement on social media.

B.C. Premier David Eby said the MPO’s involvement could help resolve tensions with First Nations, arrange financing and sell the projects to international markets.

Many projects now on the Major Projects Office list have been in development for decades.

The Building Canada Act passed in June with the support of the Conservatives. Party Leader Pierre Poilievre had also campaigned on a promise to speed up naturalresource development.

However, he criticized Thursday’s announcement.

“He’s not actually getting anything done, he’s just showing up to take credit for things that were going to happen anyway,” he said during a speech in Kelowna, B.C.

Environmental and Indigenous groups are also concerned, arguing that the government’s fast-tracking powers will trample ecological protections and treaty rights.

Ksi Lisims is being led by Nisga’a Nation, but other B.C. First Nations are challenging it in court.

Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs lost their own challenge of the project in B.C. Supreme Court in August. The group raised concerns that included the potential the project could threaten salmon populations travelling up the Nass River to their territory.

“Our lands and rights to salmon are unceded, and this means consent and consultation are required,” Simogyet Watakhayetsxw, also known as Hereditary Chief Deborah Good, said in a statement.

The minority Liberals’ budget, tabled last week, sets aside millions to help Indigenous leaders engage in the consultation process around proposed projects, and also funding for the MPO itself.

Climate groups singled out the LNG infrastructure proposals Thursday, pointing to American investor involvement, and that the projects support a dying industry in a world focused on eliminating emissions.

“Saying that building LNG infrastructure is in the national interest is oxymoronic,” said Alex Walker of Environmental Defence.

The proposed Sisson Mine in New Brunswick – an idea that’s more than a decade old – would extract tungsten and molybdenum, two minerals used for energy storage and production, and that also have military applications. The U.S. Defence Department has funded the mine’s development.

The five projects announced in September were: LNG Canada Phase 2, which would expand the liquefied natural gas export facility at Kitimat, B.C.; modular reactors at Ontario’s existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station; an expansion by the Port of Montreal in Contrecoeur, Que.; Saskatchewan’s Foran McIlvenna Bay copper mine project; and the Red Chris Copper and Gold Mine expansion in B.C.

The Red Chris mine is part of the Northwest Critical Conservation Corridor, an area with a significant deposit of critical minerals. Two of the projects announced Thursday – the LNG proposal and the transmission line – are also part of the area.

The entire corridor was referred to the MPO in September, though on Thursday Mr. Carney announced its referral again, stressing the potential for the area to play a major role in economic growth.

“The Northwest corridor has extraordinary potential to unlock critical minerals development, clean-power transmission, all under Indigenous leadership,” he said.

“We’re talking tens of billions of dollars of investments, and in parallel, creating a new conservation area the size of Greece.”

Who’s killing Canada’s EV dreams? It’s not just Trump and his tariffs

This opinion was written by Chris Severson-Baker and Adam Thorn, and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 31, 2025. Chris Severson-Baker is executive director at the Pembina Institute, where Adam Thorn is director of transportation.

General Motors announced this month that Ontario will lose production of its BrightDrop electric parcel vans.

Who put Canada’s EV opportunity at risk? Was it Donald Trump’s tariffs? Partly. But the bigger issue may be our own half-measured approach. Canada has poured billions into electric vehicle (EV) and battery manufacturing. But while we’ve gone all in on building the supply, we’ve done almost nothing to secure the demand. The risk is painfully evident: We could end up with world-class factories and no domestic customers to buy what they make. That’s not a fully thought-out strategy.

The recent announcements that Ontario will lose production of the Chevrolet BrightDrop electric parcel van and Stellantis’s Jeep Compass EV (moving to Illinois) are a case in point. While Canada has committed billions in public funding to U.S. companies to build EVs, support for Canadian businesses and consumers to buy them or install charging infrastructure remains limited. Truck and van incentives exist but uptake has been slow, and passenger vehicle incentives have been paused. A complete strategy must invest in both production and adoption. After all, the best subsidy is a paying customer.

This has never been a hands-off market; major industries have long benefited from government support. Investing in both EV supply and adoption future-proofs Canada’s ability to compete globally, build independent supply chains and reduce our reliance on U.S. decisions. Canada must diversify our trade and secure a stronger presence in the global market, and to do this we need to move where the momentum is – not wait and fall behind. California and China have shown that increasing domestic demand is a catalyst for developing globally competitive supply chains and manufacturers like Tesla Inc. and BYD. Whether we like it or not, the global auto market is moving toward electric, and sooner or later we will have to meet that demand.

This is not hypothetical. One in four passenger cars sold globally this year will be electric. In China, it’s already more than half. Europe is approaching 20 per cent. Electric vans and trucks are growing, too, capturing nearly onefifth of the commercial fleet market in China and projected to reach almost half by 2030. While we hesitate, the world is not waiting.

With smart demand-side policies like business incentives, accessible charging networks and regulatory clarity, we could unlock jobs, supply chains and tech leadership.

Instead, we’ve stopped at building the production lines and failed to build the customer base. You can have the most advanced EV plant in North America, but if Canadian’s aren’t buying, the line goes idle, jobs are lost and taxpayers pick up the bill. It’s like building a home and never connecting it to water or heating systems – technically complete, but unlivable.

Critics, including many in the auto industry now pausing or shutting Canadian factories, will argue that automotive manufacturing in Canada will always focus on exports to the United States. That is part of the challenge, but that is something Canada cannot control.

What Canada can control is whether we build a strong domestic market that supports the development of a world-class EV supply chain. One that builds affordable vehicles and components that can meet market demand in Canada, the U.S. or globally. If Canada wants a competitive EV manufacturing sector, and it would be economically wise to do so, domestic demand is an essential piece of the puzzle.

Developing the knowledge and skills to be world-class leaders at home is key to building the capacity to compete globally.

Canada has the tools to succeed as a global exporter of EVs and batteries: a skilled work force, clean and abundant electricity and access to critical minerals. Critical minerals have been trumpeted by both federal and provincial governments as a new economic opportunity but global demand for critical minerals ultimately follows demand for batteries. A smart industrial strategy includes stimulating domestic adoption to support the development of a supply chain that can compete globally.

When our governments threaten to sue automakers, they may be focused on the wrong risk. The more immediate question might be, what is Canada doing to ensure that EVs built here actually get bought here? Because without a domestic market, we’re still depending on someone else’s policy to make our strategy work.

The opportunity isn’t gone, but it won’t wait. If Canada can pair industrial investment with real demand-side policy, we can secure long-term jobs, lead in the next era of automotive innovation and export to the world. If we continue with only half a strategy, we’ll watch others define the market while we pay for factories that never run at full capacity.

Exxon sues California over climate disclosure laws

This article was written by Chandni Shah and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 27, 2025.

Exxon Mobil Corp. sued California on Friday, challenging two state laws that require large companies to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Exxon argued that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling Exxon to “serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees,” and asked the court to block the state of California from enforcing the laws.

Exxon said the laws force it to adopt California’s preferred frameworks for climate reporting, which it views as misleading and counterproductive. The oil giant said it already reports emissions and climate risks voluntarily, and objects to California’s frameworks.

Democratic-ruled California has long had some of the strictest environmental rules in areas like vehicle fuel efficiency standards and planning policy, after passing a climate-change law in 2006. California passed two laws in 2023 that would require companies to report their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. The California laws were supported by several big companies including Apple, Ikea and Microsoft, but opposed by several major groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called them “onerous.”

SB 253 requires public and private companies that are active in the state and generate revenue of more than US$1-billion annually to publish an extensive account of their carbon emissions starting in 2026. The law requires the disclosure of both the companies’ own emissions and indirect emissions by their suppliers and customers.

SB 261 requires companies that operate in the state with over US$500-million in revenue to disclose climate-related financial risks and strategies to mitigate risk. Exxon also argued SB 261 conflicts with existing federal securities laws, which already regulate what publicly traded companies must disclose regarding financial and environmental risks.

“The First Amendment bars California from pursuing a policy of stigmatization by forcing Exxon Mobil to describe its non-California business activities using the State’s preferred framing,” Exxon said in the lawsuit.

The California Department of Justice and the California Air Resources Board did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

SB 253 requires public and private companies that are active in the state and generate revenue of more than US$1-billion annually to publish an extensive account of their carbon emissions starting in 2026.

Investors like GM’s tilt toward gas-powered cars. It could be a mistake

This opinion was written by David Berman and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 25, 2025.

Cars are seen in the yard of the General Motors factory in Brazil in May. GM will stop producing BrightDrop commercial electric vans at its Ontario facilities.

General Motors Co. is rediscovering the importance of gas-powered trucks and big sport-utility vehicles, and investors couldn’t be happier.

But could GM’s move away from electric vehicles hurt the company over the longer term?

This week, it was all cheers after the automaker delivered upbeat quarterly financial results that demonstrated the company’s resilience to tariffs, disrupted supply networks and cash-strapped consumers.

GM reported adjusted earnings of US$2.80 a share, down from the same period last year but more than 20 per cent higher than analysts’ expectations, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Reported revenues beat estimates by more than US$3-billion.

The share price surged 14.9 per cent on Tuesday, after the results were released, closing at a record high.

The gain pushed the performance of the stock ahead of the S&P 500 by more than 12 percentage points so far this year and left Tesla Inc. in the dust.

The stock’s attraction went beyond the better-than-expected quarterly results.

It also reflected GM’s ability to pivot with new trade policies and shifting consumer tastes – through increasing production at U.S. plants and downsizing its money-losing EV business.

“In the past, it was said it was difficult to turn the big ship GM too quickly. Given the changing landscape, GM has found a way to turn it much faster than in the past,” Michael Ward, an analyst at Citigroup, said in a note.

GM will stop producing BrightDrop commercial electric vans at its Ontario facilities, owing to low demand.

And it will produce more full-sized SUVs with internal combustion engines at its Orion Assembly in Michigan, which had previously been envisioned as an EV plant.

This shift might be welcome news to anyone who is skeptical of EVs.

Sales growth in North America has been slower than expected, while consumers wrestle with limited range, spotty public charging infrastructure and the high upfront cost of new vehicles. EVs are out of contention for many younger consumers who might not have access to home-charging facilities.

Changing government policies aren’t helping either. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has ended financial incentives, relaxed clean emission standards and revoked the EV sales goals championed by the previous administration of Joe Biden.

Facing significant losses associated with EV production after taking a US$1.6-billion EV-related charge during the quarter, GM is now rethinking its plans.

“EVs remain our North Star,” GM chief executive Mary Barra said during a call with analysts this week.

But, she added: “It is clear that ICE volumes will remain higher for longer.” The problem here?

Apart from Tesla, North American automakers appear to be falling behind the EV production efforts of Chinese manufacturers, which pumped out more than 11 million electric vehicles last year. This EV output accounted for nearly half of all car sales in the country, according to the International Energy Agency.

The IEA estimates that worldwide EV sales will rise to 20 million in 2025, up from 17 million in 2024, and account for about one-quarter of all car sales.

It’s not hard to envision a day when EVs dominate the roads, with or without sales mandates and financial incentives. The IEA puts the EV share of new car sales at 40 per cent by 2030. The only thing that’s missing in North America is cheap EVs.

Full disclosure: I’m an enthusiastic EV owner. I’m approaching four years of ownership, and have mostly great things to say about the experience, including low-cost charging and zero emissions.

The few inconveniences, such as frequent public charging on long trips, simply can’t compare to the advantages, especially for commuters living in cities.

That’s why GM’s tilt back toward gaspowered vehicles, after stating in 2021 that it hoped to have all of its production geared toward EVs by 2035, could be shortsighted.

If Chinese manufacturers are already ahead, with cheaper vehicles and a vast operational scale that promises to lower prices even more as efficiencies improve, GM may be surrendering the future to the likes of China’s BYD Company Ltd.

Sure, North American automakers can point to lacklustre consumer demand for EVs and inconsistent government support.

But demand would likely get a significant boost with cheaper EVs that could make the switch from gas to electric more attractive to more people.

The world is going electric. GM, it seems, is dragging its feet – and that’s a long-term risk for investors.

Right now, the company’s EV business is being saved by high tariffs on Chinese imports. If that’s GM’s best strategy, investors should be worried.

B.C. proposes new rules that would limit power use for AI, data centres

This article was written by Justine Hunter and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 21, 2025.

Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix said the decision to limit growth of the AI industry will ‘avoid the mistakes of other jurisdictions’ where consumers are now facing higher electricity costs because of the pressure placed on the grid.

British Columbia intends to curb the growth of data centres, including those used for artificial intelligence, giving priority instead to natural-resource development projects competing for a limited supply of electricity.

A proposed law, introduced Monday, would free the Crownowned utility BC Hydro from the obligation to supply electricity equally to all industrial customers. It would also ban cryptocurrency mining – another sector with large electricity demands.

BC Hydro has for decades provided an abundant supply of cheap hydroelectricity that has helped shape the province’s economic development.

With industrial demand set to spike in the next decade, however, it is now shifting to a model of allocation.

AI and data centres are energy intensive, and the B.C. government is sending a signal to investors in the mining industry and other natural-resource sectors that their projects will take priority.

The new policy runs counter to a global rush to invest in AI infrastructure. Prime Minister Mark Carney has tasked his new Major Projects Office with developing “sovereign” cloud-computing resources to secure the independence of Canada’s advanced-computing sector.

Closer to B.C., Alberta is aiming to have $100-billion worth of AI data centres under construction within the next five years. The proposed centres to date are requesting power equivalent to Alberta’s total current consumption.

The B.C. government, meanwhile, is pinning its economic hopes on landing $50-billion worth of private-sector investments in mining in the northwest corner of the province alone.

At a news conference Monday, Premier David Eby called the promise of those projects “incredible,” adding, “Right now, outdated rules make it too difficult and too costly for major projects to get to that final investment decision, and make that decision to build and employ people and build our prosperity.” The changes proposed in Bill 31, the Energy Statutes Amendments Act, are meant to clear those hurdles away.

Energy and Climate Solutions Minister Adrian Dix said the decision to limit growth of the AI industry will “avoid the mistakes of other jurisdictions” where consumers are now facing higher electricity costs because of the pressure placed on the grid.

He pointed to two U.S. states – New Jersey and Virginia – that successfully courted the tech sector to secure massive data centres, and are now passing along higher utility costs to residents as a result.

Existing law requires BC Hydro to serve any customer within its coverage area who requests and can receive service, which is provided on a first-come, first-served basis.

Under the new allocation system, it would assess new industrial customers based on criteria such as their contribution to the provincial economy.

Despite the completion of the Site C megadam and a recent move by BC Hydro to purchase private power, there will not be enough electricity to accommodate all new requests.

Under the proposed law, new natural-resource and manufacturing projects would not be restricted, and the industrial rate for electricity is not set to change. However, starting next year, the province will open up bidding for artificial-intelligence and other data centres, with a total cap of 400 megawatts over a two-year period. Prices will be set by regulation.

Under the new allocation system, it would assess new industrial customers based on criteria such as their contribution to the provincial economy.

Bill 31 will also enable construction of the $6-billion North Coast Transmission Line, which is meant to secure new private-sector investments, including a string of critical-mineral mines, for the province’s sparsely developed northwest corner. BC Hydro is seeking to build the NCTL with First Nations equity partnerships, and B.C. is also pressing Ottawa to help fund the project as a “nationbuilding” initiative.

Mr. Eby said his government can’t control whether the proposed developments will be built, but it needs to fast-track the infrastructure to ensure they can move forward.

“We are making the decision as a government that this is in the public interest,” Mr. Eby said. “This will lift communities out of poverty. This will create almost 10,000 jobs. This is like a big revenue machine – it just needs to be plugged in, so we’re building the plug.”

There are 14 projects currently lined up to tap into the new transmission line, including mines, liquefied natural gas plants and an expansion of the Port of Prince Rupert. The first stage of the NCTL route runs from Prince George to Terrace, with additional spurs under consideration.

Michael Goehring, president and chief executive of the Mining Association of BC, said the project is low-risk because there is huge demand for the critical minerals and precious metals that his members want to develop in the province’s northwest and central Interior. “This line, in our industry’s view, is a strategic and safe bet,” Mr. Goehring told the news conference.

Canada is seeking to join a global critical-minerals revolution by developing mining for copper, nickel, lithium, graphite and cobalt needed for renewableenergy projects and electric vehicles.

Ottawa has identified 34 minerals and metals as critical to the country’s economic or national security. B.C. has 19 of those minerals and metals in the ground.

A coalition of environmentalists denounced the decision to fast-track the NCTL, however, saying it amounts to a fossil-fuel subsidy because it will help develop new LNG plants.

“By wiring up polluters, the province is locking us into decades of fossil fuel expansion under the greenwashed banner of electrification,” Isabel Siu-Zmuidzinas, climate co-ordinator for the Wilderness Committee, said in a statement.

EV rules a missed chance we can still fix

This article was written by Matthew Fortier and Bentley Allan, and was published in the Toronto Star on October 17, 2025.

MATTHEW FORTIER AND BENTLEY ALLAN CONTRIBUTORS MATTHEW FORTIER IS PRESIDENT OF ACCELERATE ZEV. BENTLEY ALLAN IS VICE­PRESIDENT OF FUTURE ECONOMY AT THE TRANSITION ACCELERATOR.

When Stel­lantis announced it was shift­ing Jeep assembly from Bramp­ton to Illinois, it wasn’t just a loss of auto jobs — it was a warn­ing. As the auto industry under­goes seis­mic change, his­tory and good­will won’t be enough to keep invest­ment in Canada if our policies don’t make stay­ing here worth­while.

When Prime Min­is­ter Mark Car­ney recently hit pause on Canada’s EV Avail­ab­il­ity Stand­ard (EVAS) as it became clear auto­makers wouldn’t meet the 2026 sales tar­gets, it offered a chance to help fix that. Instead of scrap­ping these require­ments, we should make them smarter and adapt them to cre­ate jobs here at home.

Right now, the EVAS, Canada’s primary elec­tric vehicle policy, aims to get more EVs into show­rooms, but it doesn’t con­sider where those vehicles or their mater­i­als and com­pon­ents are made. We could poten­tially meet our tar­gets entirely through imports, cre­at­ing zero Cana­dian jobs in the pro­cess.

That’s a massive missed oppor­tun­ity.

But the solu­tion is straight­for­ward: keep the EVAS to drive adop­tion, while adapt­ing it to reward auto­makers that build parts of their future EV sup­ply chains here in Canada.

We have the resources, mater­i­als and skilled work­ers that the North Amer­ican auto industry increas­ingly needs.

The global shift to elec­tric vehicles gives us a rare chance to make Canada essen­tial to the future of an integ­rated North Amer­ican auto industry. And the truth is, if we’re not essen­tial, we’re irrel­ev­ant. In 10 years, half of global vehicle sales will be elec­tric; if we want any meas­ure of con­trol over our auto sec­tor, we’ll need invest­ment in min­er­als and bat­tery sup­ply chains that make us irre­place­able. Oth­er­wise, it won’t mat­ter who’s in the White House.

The EVAS already gives car com­pan­ies cred­its for invest­ing in char­ging sta­tions — one credit for every $20,000 spent. Those cred­its should extend across the sup­ply chain: min­ing oper­a­tions, bat­tery factor­ies and research part­ner­ships with Cana­dian uni­versit­ies.

Think about it this way: Volk­swa­gen’s $7 ­bil­lion bat­tery fact­ory in St. Thomas, Ont., could earn enough cred­its to cover most of its EV sales require­ments for years — reward­ing a com­pany already inves­ted heav­ily here while ensur­ing Cana­dians bene­fit from the trans­ition through good­pay­ing jobs.

Cana­dians would sup­port this change. Polling from Environ­ics and Accel­er­ate ZEV shows over 70 per cent want to build EV indus­tries at home, includ­ing crit­ical min­eral min­ing and bat­tery pro­duc­tion, as a way to cre­ate jobs and grow the eco­nomy. Yet most don’t see a clear national EV plan, and two­thirds think we’re fall­ing behind other coun­tries.

They’re right to worry. Europe and the U.K. are pour­ing bil­lions into bat­tery innov­a­tion, while heav­ily sub­sid­ized Chinese auto­makers are selling EVs for thou­sands of dol­lars less than North Amer­ican auto­makers can man­age. The only way to com­pete is by invest­ing in integ­rated sup­ply chains that could even­tu­ally match those low costs.

Canada could be the corner­stone of that strategy. We are the only North Amer­ican coun­try with many of the neces­sary raw mater­i­als to make EVs and bat­ter­ies. We have the indus­trial know­how, advanced bat­tery innov­a­tion and com­pan­ies ready to invest. But we need to move fast before Chinese com­pet­it­ors lock up global mar­kets entirely.

Reform­ing the EVAS would speed up this trans­ition by address­ing its biggest weak­ness: the lack of Cana­dian con­tent require­ments. Whereas today’s Stand­ard could be sat­is­fied entirely by import­ing cars, simple changes would mean that EV adop­tion is also driv­ing Cana­dian job cre­ation.

This approach cre­ates a vir­tu­ous cycle: com­pli­ance incent­ives drive sup­ply chain invest­ments, which scale pro­duc­tion, reduce bat­tery and com­pon­ent costs, and make EVs more afford­able for Cana­dian con­sumers, thereby increas­ing adop­tion.

Every­one wins. Auto­makers get flex­ible com­pli­ance options. Canada strengthens its indus­trial base. Con­sumers get more vehicles to choose from.

We have three options in front of us. We can scrap the rules that drive EV adop­tion, forever defin­ing Canada’s primary EV policy as a fail­ure and restrict­ing Cana­dian con­sumer choice. We can stick with the rules we have to drive EV adop­tion, while accept­ing that the EV invent­ory avail­able to Cana­dians will likely never have much Cana­dian con­tent.

Or we can have the best of both worlds: an EV policy that drives higher rates of adop­tion, incentiv­izes invest­ment into Canada and cre­ates jobs here at home.

Canada has the raw mater­i­als, the indus­trial expert­ise and com­pan­ies ready to invest. But we need to move fast before Chinese com­pet­it­ors lock up global mar­kets entirely.

Chinese exports doubled in Septem­ber

This article was written by Chan Hohim and was published in the Toronto Star on October 15, 2025.

China’s exports of elec­tric vehicles doubled in Septem­ber from a year earlier as its auto­makers expan­ded their reach into over­seas mar­kets.

Domestic pas­sen­ger car sales climbed 11.2 per cent year over year in last month, down from a 15 per cent rise in August, the China Asso­ci­ation of Auto­mobile Man­u­fac­tur­ers said Tues­day.

Exports of “new energy vehicles,” includ­ing bat­tery elec­tric vehicles and plug­in hybrids, jumped 100 per cent to 222,000 units in Septem­ber, the industry organ­iz­a­tion said. That was slightly lower than the 224,000 units expor­ted in August.

China’s EV makers have been increas­ingly look­ing abroad to mar­kets such as Europe and South­east Asia as over­ca­pa­city and price wars back home have pres­sured their profit mar­gins.

They inves­ted more abroad than inside China last year, for the first time since 2014, the U.S.­based con­sultancy Rho­dium Group said in a recent report.

BYD, one of China’s largest EV makers, said this month the United King­dom has become its largest mar­ket out­side China. Its sales there rock­eted 880 per cent year over year in Septem­ber.

Chinese auto­makers increas­ingly are expand­ing invest­ments in the Middle East and Africa after the European Union, U.S., Canada and other coun­tries imposed stiff tar­iffs on Chinese­made EVs.

In China, man­u­fac­tur­ers have been crack­ing down on price wars that have raged due to fierce com­pet­i­tion.

BYD’s monthly domestic sales fell in Septem­ber for the first time since Feb­ru­ary 2024, down 5.5 per cent from the same month a year earlier, while some of its rivals still recor­ded strong growth in sales.

Septem­ber is a tra­di­tional peak period for auto sales in China, with car­makers launch­ing vari­ous new mod­els in a month dubbed “Golden Septem­ber.”

Sub­sidies for trade­ins for new energy vehicles have helped lift domestic demand and sen­ti­ment, though some local gov­ern­ments have sus­pen­ded such pay­ments in recent months.

China’s elec­tric vehicle makers have been increas­ingly look­ing to ship vehicles abroad as over­ca­pa­city and price wars back home put pres­sure on their profit mar­gins

GM to take $1.6B hit as U.S. tax incent­ives for EVs end

Com­pany to book charges due to fees, capa­city adjust­ments

This article was written by Michelle Chapman and was published in the Toronto Star on October 15, 2025.

Gen­eral Motors will record a neg­at­ive impact of $1.6 bil­lion (U.S.) in its next quarter after tax incent­ives for elec­tric vehicles were slashed by the U.S. and rules gov­ern­ing emis­sions are relaxed.

The EV tax credit ended last month. The clean vehicle tax credit was worth $7,500 for new EVs and up to $4,000 for used ones.

Mean­while, the U.S. Envir­on­mental Pro­tec­tion Agency has been work­ing on eas­ing rules aimed at clean­ing up auto tailpipe emis­sions as the Trump admin­is­tra­tion moves to undo incent­ives for auto­makers to go elec­tric. U.S. Pres­id­ent Don­ald Trump has also chal­lenged fed­eral EV char­ging infra­struc­ture money and blocked Cali­for­nia’s ban of new gas­powered vehicle sales. It adds up to less pres­sure on auto­makers to con­tinue evolving their pro­duc­tion away from gas­burn­ing vehicles.

Gen­eral Motors, which had led the way among U.S. auto­makers with plans to con­vert pro­duc­tion to an elec­tric fleet of vehicles, said in a reg­u­lat­ory fil­ing on Tues­day that it will have to book charges that include non­cash impair­ment and other charges of $1.2 bil­lion due to EV capa­city adjust­ments. There’s also $400 mil­lion in charges mostly related to con­tract can­cel­la­tion fees and com­mer­cial set­tle­ments asso­ci­ated with EV­related invest­ments.

GM warned it may take addi­tional hits as it adjusts pro­duc­tion, with non­cash charges poten­tially impact­ing oper­a­tions and cash flow in the future.

The com­pany said its EV capa­city realign­ment doesn’t impact its retail port­fo­lio of Chev­ro­let, GMC and Cadillac EVs cur­rently in pro­duc­tion, and that it expects those mod­els to remain avail­able to con­sumers.

EVs were con­sidered to be the future of the US auto­mot­ive industry. GM had announced in 2020 that it was going to invest $27 bil­lion in elec­tric and autonom­ous vehicles in the next five years, a 35 per cent increase over plans made before the pan­demic.

In 2021, GM said it planned to have more than half of its North Amer­ican and China factor­ies be cap­able of mak­ing elec­tric vehicles by 2030. It also pledged at the time to increase its invest­ment in EV char­ging net­works by nearly $750 mil­lion through 2025.

A year later, GM CEO Mary Barra said the auto­maker would sell more elec­tric vehicles in the U.S. than Tesla by the middle of the dec­ade. GM also had a goal of mak­ing the vast major­ity of the vehicles it pro­duces elec­tric by 2035, and the entire com­pany car­bon neut­ral, includ­ing oper­a­tions, five years after that.

Yet U.S. auto­makers are being hampered in some of their longterm plan­ning, with drastic changes in eco­nomic and envir­on­mental policy from one admin­is­tra­tion to the next. The auto­makers are also facing increased com­pet­i­tion from auto­makers such as China’s BYD.