This article was written by Eric Atkins and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 15, 2025.
Executives’ letter calls on Carney to ‘stand firm’ on target, says regulation will support investment, job creation
The electric-vehicle industry says the federal government’s move away from EV sales targets undermines the Canadian sector while threatening investment and job creation.
The government said in September it was dropping the requirement that 20 per cent of car sales be EVs in 2026, and launching a review of the entire program, which raised the requirement to 100 per cent by 2035.
Now, a group of 40 executives in the Canadian EV business is urging Prime Minister Mark Carney to make “reasonable” tweaks but stick with the rules, introduced to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change.
In an open letter to the Prime Minister, the group said the sales mandate is “more than a climate measure.”
“It leverages Canada’s clean energy, skilled workforce and innovation ecosystem. It lowers transportation costs for Canadians … strengthens domestic supply chains,” said the letter, to be released on Wednesday morning. “We understand that policies must evolve with changing realities. But evolution doesn’t mean retreat. Canada should stand firm on [sales mandates] and provide clear direction.”
The government considers an EV to be a car powered by a battery, fuel cell or plug-in hybrid system.
Zero-emission vehicles accounted for 8.6 per cent of total motor vehicles sales in the second quarter, according to Statistics Canada. This is a 29-per-cent drop from the same period a year earlier. Purchases of all types of motor vehicles rose by 6 per cent on an annual basis.
The decline in EV sales coincides with the loss of federal and provincial subsidies for such purchases. (The U.S. also recently withdrew programs that provided incentives to buy EVs.)
In the letter, the EV executives call for the reinstatement of the subsidies and for the installation of charging infrastructure to be accelerated. Signatories include executives from Rivian, ChargePoint and Alstom Transport Canada.
“Maintaining the standard with reasonable adjustments will allow Canada to build on its EV industrial leadership, attract long-term investment, and ensure affordability for Canadian drivers,” the group said.
Ottawa’s move to cancel the 2026 sales minimums was welcomed by the traditional car industry, which pointed to slipping
EV sales and the expense manufacturers faced to purchase credits if they failed to meet the threshold. The carmakers said the goals presented a burden at a time of uncertainty brought about by U.S. tariffs.
Canada has seen billions of dollars invested in the EV industry, from battery plants to charging networks. A handful of projects are moving ahead, including the $3.7-billion NextStar Energy plant in Windsor, Ont., a joint venture between Stellantis NV and LG Energy Solution.
But amid slowing demand for EVs, Honda Canada postponed its $15-billion EV and battery project in Ontario, and other carmakers have cancelled EV models.
This opinion was written by Yrjo Koskinen, director of research at the Institute for Sustainable Finance at the Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, and BMO professor of sustainable and transition finance at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 10, 2025.
The Carney government has been focused on lowering trade barriers between provinces and building infrastructure to reach new markets in response to the Trump administration’s tariffs on Canadian goods. This has attracted criticism from environmentalists who are disappointed by the potential inclusion of fossil-fuel infrastructure in priority projects and the retreat from policies such as the consumer carbon tax and electric-vehicle mandate.
I believe that climate action can and must be an integral part of the pro-growth agenda. This requires pragmatism and compromise. Does the famously climateconscious Prime Minister Mark Carney agree? With the government’s climate plan expected soon, we will find out. Canada’s prosperity depends on the answer.
For generations, economists have lamented that Canada has drifted along as a resource appendage to the United States or a branch plant economy. To reverse this trend, we must recognize that environmental sustainability is not a concession to activists or strictly a moral imperative – it can be a powerful driver of competitiveness, investment and longterm growth.
Washington may be shrugging off climate commitments, but others are not. Europe has launched carbon border adjustment mechanisms to ensure that imports meet strict environmental benchmarks. Asian buyers, from Tokyo to Seoul, are screening suppliers for carbon intensity and climate disclosure. Sustainability is quickly becoming the price of entry for trade beyond North America. Canada must align with these trends, otherwise our exporters – in all sectors, from mining to agriculture to manufacturing – will face trade frictions, lost market access and reputational damage.
Fortunately, Canada is blessed with the resources needed to power the global energy transition. Nickel, cobalt, lithium and rare earths – our mining sector sits on the raw materials that make electric vehicles, wind turbines and batteries possible. But possession alone is not enough.
If our metals and minerals are extracted with outdated, highemission practices, buyers in Europe and Asia may simply turn elsewhere.
The world’s leading countries on climate require mandatory disclosures by large companies of their carbon emissions and plans to reduce them. Canada should too.
To unlock our advantage, Canada must brand itself as a supplier of the cleanest, most responsibly sourced resources on Earth. That requires stringent sustainability standards, credible oversight and consistent investment in low-carbon extraction methods.
We must also face the reality that our oil and gas sector remains a cornerstone of the Canadian economy, but it is also our largest source of emissions. Pretending we can abandon it any time soon is fantasy; equally, pretending that we can kick the can down the road and ignore emissions is economic suicide.
The way forward is a “grand bargain.” Canada should continue to develop its energy resources, but only in exchange for binding commitments from producers to slash the carbon intensity of production. That means electrifying operations, deploying carbon capture and storage at scale and investing in efficiency technologies. This is the only way to reconcile our energy endowment with our trade ambitions in a carbonconstrained world.
One key to all of this opportunity is transparency. The world’s leading countries on climate require mandatory disclosures by large companies of their carbon emissions and plans to reduce them. Canada should too. Investors, lenders and regulators demand clear, comparable information – not selective news releases or voluntary pledges.
At the Institute for Sustainable Finance, we have studied the sustainability practices of TSX-listed companies. We’ve found some growth in voluntary emissions reporting and net-zero target setting by Canadian companies in recent years. But we haven’t come far enough, fast enough. And there is evidence that what progress we’ve seen is slowing when we need to speed up.
For example, the federal government’s Bill C-59, with its provisions on greenwashing, was passed with the best intentions but has created confusion in the marketplace. This has highlighted the urgency of credible and predictable rules for firms operating in Canada. The debate is not about whether to regulate, but rather how to do so in a way that ensures consistency, accuracy and accountability.
Sustainable finance used to be one of the fastest-growing segments of global capital markets. It faces some headwinds now, but it will come back as a major force because climate change is accelerating and natural disasters are getting worse. Canadian banks, pension funds and asset managers should be positioning themselves at the forefront of this new wave. Instead of treating sustainability as a box-ticking exercise, we must view it as a product differentiator.
If we fail, we risk isolation, dwindling competitiveness and continued over-dependence on a U.S. market that is turning its back on the future.
This article was written by Jack Ewing and was published in the Globe & Mail on October 3, 2025.
Tesla, Ford and General Motors all reported jumps as American buyers raced to buy vehicles before incentives ended
Tesla Inc. sales jumped from July to September, breaking a string of quarterly declines, as U.S. car buyers raced to collect federal tax credits of up to $7,500 before the incentives expired at the end of last month.
But other automakers, including Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Hyundai Motor Co., reported much sharper jumps in U.S. electric-vehicle sales during the third quarter.
Analysts and industry executives expect sales of electric vehicles to slump in coming months because Congress ended the tax credits and other incentives.
Tesla said it delivered 497,000 vehicles worldwide in the third quarter, up 7 per cent from 463,000 a year earlier. Elon Musk, the company’s chief executive, has increasingly downplayed the importance to the company of selling cars, betting instead on self-driving taxis and humanoid robots that are still being developed and do not generate significant revenue.
The company also said Thursday that sales of large batteries rose more than 80 per cent. Storage batteries, which utilities are adding to the electric grid to smooth out the fluctuations of solar and wind energy, have become an increasingly important business for Tesla.
In July, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a law passed by Republicans in Congress that did away with a tax credit of up to US$7,500 available to people who buy or lease electric vehicles. The credit ended Sept. 30.
The impending demise of the credits prompted sales of electric vehicles in the United States to surge 22 per cent in the third quarter from a year earlier, to 410,000 vehicles, according to estimates by Cox Automotive Inc. Electric vehicles accounted for 10 per cent of the new car market, a record.
Tesla does not publish the number of cars it sold by country or region, unlike other automakers, which makes it hard to compare its performance to the rest of the industry. Analysts will eventually publish estimates of the company’s sales in the United States and other markets, but not right away.
Electric vehicles were the fastest-growing category for several major carmakers in the last quarter. Ford Motor said Monday that sales of electric vehicles such as the Mustang Mach-E rose 30 per cent in the U.S., compared with an 8-percent increase for all vehicles.
General Motors said Tuesday that sales of its electric vehicles such as the Chevrolet Equinox EV more than doubled, while overall sales rose 8 per cent. Hyundai said its electricvehicle sales doubled while overall retail sales in the U.S. rose 11 per cent. Volkswagen Group of America said sales of its electric vehicles more than tripled, while total sales fell 6 per cent.
Analysts expect electric-vehicle sales to flag in coming months, then recover gradually as the technology improves and prices fall closer to cars that run on gasoline.
Some carmakers are already lowering electric-vehicle prices. Hyundai said Monday that it would continue to offer US$7,500 incentives on 2025 models in October, and cut the suggested retail prices for its 2026 Ioniq 5 models by as much as US$9,800.
Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, said he was optimistic about the long-term prospects for electric vehicles. “Because when people buy them they don’t trade out,” he said in an interview this week. “That’s what I watch. The loyalty. The loyalty of EV buyers is super high.”
Several versions of Tesla’s Model 3 sedan, Model Y sport utility vehicle and Cybertruck qualified for the credits. But any benefit for Tesla sales in the United States was partly offset by big declines in Europe, where Mr. Musk’s outspoken support for right-wing politicians has alienated many car buyers.
Registrations of new Teslas in the European Union slumped 43 per cent in the first eight months of the year from the same period in 2024 even as overall sales of electric vehicles rose 25 per cent, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association.
Tesla’s weak sales also reflect intense competition. Chinese carmakers such as BYD are pushing into Europe and taking customers who may have previously bought a Tesla. Volkswagen, Renault, BMW and other European automakers are offering electric vehicles that often sell for much less than Teslas. Some offer newer technology, such as a digital display in some BMWs that is embedded in the windshield.
Tesla’s newest vehicle, the Cybertruck, has sold poorly. And an upgraded Model Y, the company’s bestselling vehicle, has failed to stem the collapse in sales. The company has promised to begin producing a less expensive car by the end of the year, but has yet to show that vehicle.
Tesla has also struggled to compete in China, where dozens of automakers are slashing prices in a fierce battle for customers. Even BYD, which until recently was growing fast, has seen sales falter in its home market over the past few weeks.
But Tesla sales picked up in September, according to Chinese state media reports. The company delivered more than 66,251 vehicles over the month, based on insurance registrations. Tesla had particular success with the Model Y L, a sixseat version of the Model Y. Incentives also helped, including five-year interest-free loans and around $1,200 in insurance subsidies.
Tesla’s improved performance also reflects strong sales across the industry, as government subsidies, aggressive pricing and a surge of cheap models fuel consumer demand, according to Bill Russo, a Shanghai-based electric-car industry expert.
“Tesla is ending the third quarter on a strong note,” said Mr. Russo, a former Chrysler executive. “But the broader story remains the overwhelming scale and momentum of Chinese automakers.”
The terms of Mr. Musk’s proposed trillion-dollar pay package, announced last month, set ambitious goals for profit, deployment of robots and self-driving taxis, and for the stock price. But the targets for car sales are relatively modest – an average of 1.2 million cars a year through 2035. That is far fewer than the 1.8 million vehicles the company sold last year.
Robyn Denholm, the chair of Tesla’s board, said that the company has not given up on the car business.
Brand claimed more than 20% of new subsidies during special makeup period
This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on September 23, 2025.
Brand claimed more than 20% of new subsidies during special makeup period
When the federal government reopened the online portal for car dealers to claim EV rebates this summer, it was supposed to be for all the independent Canadian dealers who got stiffed when Tesla gobbled up almost all the remaining money and forced the subsidy program to close early.
But new data released Monday shows that Tesla came back for more and ended up claiming more government money than any other EV brand.
This summer, the American EV giant claimed more than 20 per cent of the additional $20.4 million in rebates filed during a special makeup period after the iZEV program prematurely shut down in January.
The government had abruptly paused its EV rebate program after receiving an “unprecedented surge” in rebate claims from Tesla, which used an automated system to massfile more than 8,600 rebates over a threeday period — a rate of more than two a minute, 24 hours a day.
When the Star broke the story in March, it sparked outrage at the idea that Tesla could have sold so many cars over a single weekend. Tesla had, in fact, rushed to file a massive backlog of rebate claims
for sales dating back as much as two years earlier. The outrage nonetheless prompted thenminister of transport Chrystia Freeland to freeze payouts pending an audit, which subsequently cleared the company of wrongdoing. She also pledged to make whole the estimated 200 car dealers who were left out of pocket when the program shuttered early.
Monday’s numbers show that Tesla took advantage of the extended claim period to obtain $4.2 million in additional public subsidies.
“There’s incredible irony in this,” said Huw Williams, a spokesperson for the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. “In trying to restore fairness to independent Canadian auto dealers, the government provided yet another cash influx to Tesla.”
Tesla did not respond to questions for this story.
Since Ottawa launched the iZEV program in 2019, Tesla has claimed more than $717 million, or 27 per cent, of the $2.6 billion paid out in EV rebates. The second highest claimer was Hyundai, with $392 million.
“As Tesla’s models reached a high market share percentage, it drew considerable funding from the Program,” states an internal Transport Canada document discussing Tesla’s large draw on government funds.
When the government announced in January that the program was running low on funds, Tesla rushed to stake out more than 89 per cent of the remaining funding before the online portal was shuttered, additional documents, obtained using access to information legislation, show.
That the company laid claim to so many public funds at the same time as its CEO, Elon Musk, stood beside U.S. President Donald Trump as he mused about annexing Canada, added public scrutiny to the file, especially as the Star reported that independentlyowned Canadian auto dealers were out of pocket more than $10 million.
“Transport Canada has examined all possible options for dealerships who did not submit their eligibility application before the pause of the Program. The temporary reopening of the iZEV web portal is to ensure that dealerships and manufacturers have another opportunity to submit the required documentation/information,” one document states.
The government originally intended to exclude Tesla from being able to claim additional subsidies when the portal reopened, the document states. Monday’s public data dump shows that the government eventually abandoned this plan and allowed Tesla to file more rebate claims.
In response to questions, Transport Canada spokesperson Hicham Ayoun wrote that the only change made to the program when it was reopened was a daily submission limit of 25 claims per dealership.
EV sales in Canada have dropped since the federal rebate was discontinued in January, going from 18.9 per cent of the new car market in December 2024 to 9.7 per cent in March 2025, according to data from S&P Global Mobility. This drop coincided with the end of provincial rebates in B.C. and Quebec, which added as much as $12,000 to the price of some EVs.
As more makes and models have become available in Canada, Tesla’s share of the EV market has been collapsing since 2022, going from nearly 50 per cent to less than 10 per cent, the S&P numbers show. This trend accelerated in the first four months of 2025, with Tesla’s market share dropping by more than half, exacerbated by both the end of rebates and the public pronouncements of Musk.
“Tesla is a company surviving on government subsidies,” said CADA’s Williams.
“Our dealers are locally owned, familyrun businesses in local communities. And you can see that there’s a fundamental inconsistency when government money is being shovelled out the door to Tesla and Elon Musk and his shareholders.”
Ottawa has been tightlipped on the increasingly sensitive issue of public money going to Tesla, refusing to even confirm statements it gave to other media outlets. The internal documents show widespread concern over how the issue would be perceived.
“Not reimbursing eligible claims for which an incentive has already been provided to consumers could trigger criticism from Tesla vehicle purchasers, especially if Tesla tried to recover the incentive from purchasers,” stated the investigation. “The Department will also face a challenge as to why it is not reimbursing claims from other dealerships and authorized sellers who fell short of the Program due to the abrupt closure of the iZEV portal.”
“Any decision on this file is likely to generate media scrutiny, polarized stakeholder reactions, and an increase in public inquiries through emails and phone calls.”
Keeping Chinese EVs out of Canada will have quantifiable costs that haven’t been widely acknowledged, the data shows.
This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on Oct 30, 2024.
An electric vehicle production line at a Leapmotor factory in China. Chinese electric vehicles are being hit with tariffs that will keep them out of Canada. Many agree with the policy, but new analysis shows it will come with a cost to Canadians and to the climate.Adek Berry/AFP via Getty Images
If you live in Canada and want to buy an electric vehicle, you’re going to shell out far more than you would if you lived elsewhere.
In China, you can purchase the compactBYD Seagull for 90,000 yuan — or about $17,000 Cdn.
In Switzerland, the similarly sizedDongfeng Nammi Box runs about $27,000 Cdn.
But here, the cheapest EV is the Fiat 500e, a small three-door hatchback, which comes in around $40,000.
That’s a 48 per cent surcharge, essentially for living in Canada. Or, more precisely, because Canada is keeping cheap, Chinese-built EVs out.
Visitors inspect a BYD Sealion 6 DMi electric car during the 2024 Bangkok EV Expo at the Queen Sirikit National Convention Center in Bangkok, Thailand.Anadolu via Getty Images
Support for this decision has been widespread — from industry, unions and partisans across the political spectrum, who say it will protect Canada’s nascent domestic EV supply chain, which has been promised more than $50 billion in public subsidies, and all the jobs and economic ripple effects the auto industry provides. The tariffs are also being justified as a barrier to keep Chinese spyware out of North American cars.
But while few would advocate for dropping the tariffs entirely and allowing Chinese EVs to flood the market, keeping them out has quantifiable costs that haven’t been widely acknowledged.
Environmentalists and green economists say the tariffs come at a steep cost to the Canadian consumer, who will shell out tens of thousands of dollars more for an EV, and to the climate, which will be forced to absorb additional carbon, due to the slower uptake of more expensive EVs.
Ralph Torrie, director of research at Corporate Knights, has crunched the numbers in a bid to show the opportunity cost of keeping Chinese EVs out of Canada.
He says that if cheap Chinese EVs were available in Canada, they would supercharge EV adoption, adding more than 1.8 million zero-emission electric vehicles to our roads over the next decade and lowering our carbon emissions by almost 28 million tonnes.
Ultra-low-cost EVs would also free up more than $21.6 billion in family budgets (that’s $11,675 per family), he says — money that will now be spent on more expensive EVs, gas cars and gasoline instead.
Torrie says the tariffs are going to imperil our climate targets, drive inflation and dampen economic growth by eating up billions in disposable income.
What’s more, there are those who say the tariffs could end up failing to achieve their goal of fostering a local EV industry. Some who have seen Chinese EVs up close — including the CEO of Ford Motor — say they are so advanced and so cheap, legacy carmakers might never catch up.
In other words, they suggest, Chinese EVs are on track to dominate globally, and these tariffs could end up doing nothing but forestalling the inevitable.
Road transportation is responsible for 120 million tonnes of carbon emissions in Canada every year — about 17 per cent of all emissions nationwide. Globally, thanks to EVs, the transportation sector is one of the few that’s on track to reach net zero by 2050. But Canada lags behind.
Would cheap Chinese EVs be the silver bullet to Canada’s climate efforts on transportation?Adek Berry/AFP via Getty Images
Until only a few months ago, EVs appeared to have a magic power to bring erstwhile opponents together, with environmentalists and business leaders, Liberals and Conservatives, unions and management working to encourage the development of a domestic EV supply chain to reduce carbon emissions and provide a new generation of blue-collar jobs.
The tariffs, however, have shattered this alliance, with critics saying that economic development is being put ahead of emissions reductions.
“We can’t lose sight of the fact that getting affordable electric cars into people’s hands isn’t something that is optional. It is essential to achieving our climate goals,” wrote Nate Wallace, clean transportation program manager at Environmental Defence, in a submission to the federal government calling for lower tariffs.
The No. 1 barrier to EV adoption: sticker price
The number one barrier to EV adoption is sticker price. Despite many studies showing the overall cost of owning an EV is cheaper in the long-run than a gasoline-powered car, they remain significantly more expensive upfront in the North American market — approximately 25 per cent, depending on the make and model.
In China, however, EVs have achieved price parity with cars powered by internal combustion engines across price points — from the cheapest models to the most luxurious — and the results speak for themselves: China leads the world in EV sales, with more than one third of all new cars powered by batteries. In fact, more than 60 per cent of all EVs bought globally are purchased in China.
Yet, EVs in Canada are only getting more expensive. The two cheapest models on the market — the Chevy Bolt and Nissan Leaf — were recently discontinued. They both retailed for several thousand dollars less than the cheapest models today.
“The only reason why low-priced electric vehicles from China pose any kind of threat to this industry is because the legacy automakers in North America have so far refused to bring affordable electric vehicle models to market,” Wallace wrote.
Tim Burrows, president of the Electric Vehicle Society, a non-profit that promotes EVs as a climate solution, says the tariffs on Chinese EVs appear at first glance to be jumping the gun.
“There are no Chinese vehicles yet in Canada that would be impacted by the tariff,” he said. “We don’t have Chinese EVs and we have no EV industry to protect yet.”
Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and now UN special envoy for climate action and finance, has questioned the lavish U.S. and Canadian subsidies to the auto industry to spur EV manufacturing, saying the money would be much better spent subsidizing heat pumps for households that can’t afford them.
But Burrows sees how tariffs are necessary to prevent cheap Chinese EVs from flooding the North American car market. Our auto industry needs time to catch up.
“The Chinese didn’t just show up with cheap, well-made EVs. They started 15 years ago. We’re just starting out.”
Burrows and other EV advocates take issue, though, with the lack of a sunset clause in the tariffs. If they were in place for a limited time — say, two to five years — with a clear end date, the tariffs would allow enough time to develop a North American supply chain and bring more inexpensive models to market. But as things stand now, they say, the tariffs coddle the domestic auto industry.
As Wallace put it: “No accountability mechanisms exist to apply downward pressure on EV prices, whether it be regulatory requirements or market-based competition.”
Chinese vehicles kick their bad reputation
Because they’re not available in North America, few people are familiar with Chinese car brands and can say with authority if they’re any good, or if they’d sell in North America.
“Chinese EVs are competitive in ways that go beyond just price,” he said. “They’re stylish, they’re well-made and they work really well.”
Williams, who has not minced his words after test drives of lacklustre American EVs, says Chinese vehicles have bucked their reputation for inferior quality.
“For a long time, Chinese cars really weren’t great,” he said. “That isn’t true anymore.”
In the early 2000s, a lot of Chinese cars were simply cloned versions of Western cars that had been reverse-engineered. Then, in the late 2000s, automakers in China pivoted to EVs — or “new energy vehicles,” as they’re called there — and invested far more in their development. Now, 15 years later, Chinese manufacturers sell more EVs than all other car companies combined.
“They’ve been doing a lot of research and development, and refining their product to the point where now they’re the one of the biggest automakers in the world,” said Williams. “It didn’t happen in a vacuum. They didn’t just, all of a sudden, start making solid vehicles. It took a minute.”
Detroit-area company Caresoft Global, which takes apart cars to analyze how they’re built, tore down a BYD Seagull and was very impressed with the quality of its construction, especially for the price point. The company was similarly impressed with other Chinese EVs, and wrote, “The automotive landscape is set for a significant shift, driven by the rapid evolution of China’s electric vehicle industry and should serve as a wake-up call to legacy automakers.”
Caresoft Global, a Detroit-area company that takes apart cars to analyze how they’re built, tore down several Chinese EVs, including a BYD Seagull, and was impressed. Caresoft Global
Williams said that if they were available in North America, there’s no doubt Chinese EVs would find eager buyers.
“Most consumers don’t care where the product comes from. I think if Americans or Canadians are ever given the opportunity to buy these vehicles, I think they would sell a lot stronger than a lot of Western automakers would think — and I think that’s really terrifying for them.”
In the 1980s, Japanese cars were cheaper and better than North American options and were being snapped up at a rapid clip. Then-U.S. president Ronald Regan imposed Japanese import quotas to allow the domestic auto industry time to catch up and, four years later, after Japanese companies agreed to open factories in North America, the quotas were dropped.
Now, Japanese cars are ubiquitous. But North American cars still exist — and they’re vastly more reliable than they were before competition arrived.
All EV supply chains lead back to China
One of the only places on Earth where Chinese EVs can compete head-to-head with Western vehicles is Australia, which has a free-trade agreement with China.
John Cadogan, a veteran Australian automotive journalist and qualified mechanical engineer, is far less enthusiastic about Chinese EVs, calling them “a functional appliance.”
He says they’re good for people who can’t afford more expensive models, but can’t compete on quality.
Employees work on an electric vehicle production line at the Leapmotor factory in Jinhua, China’s eastern Zhejiang province in September.Adek Berry/AFP via Getty Images
“When you make anything cheaply, inevitably quality issues such as endurability and performance suffer,” he said. “Consumers are finding that out.”
But the line between Chinese EVs and others isn’t as clear as you might think, he said. Regardless of where they’re assembled, all EVs rely on numerous parts from China. From semiconductors to battery cathodes, even the raw minerals in batteries and the rare earths in electric motors, all cars — and especially EVs — are reliant on a supply chain controlled by China.
“It’s becoming very hard to differentiate what’s Chinese-made and what’s not,” he said.
As a result, as soon as EVs start rolling off the line in the U.S. and Canada, they’ll still be drawing from the Chinese supply chain, and that won’t change until new mines and refineries are up and running, a process that typically takes more than a decade.
Money left on the table
With tariffs in place, and few used EV options, budget-conscious Canadians may remain in the internal combustion engine market. This means another eight years, on average, of paying private-sector oil companies to fuel up rather than (mostly) publicly owned utilities.
According to Corporate Knights’ analysis, utilities would receive $3.5 billion in additional revenue over the next decade from the charging of Chinese EVs alone — badly needed funds that could be used to expand the grid to support electrification of the economy.
Without Chinese EVs providing inexpensive options, EV sales aren’t growing fast enough to meet the federal government’s legislated 60 per cent sales target by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2035. Estimates put out by the Parliamentary Budget Office show that EV prices would need to drop by one third in order to meet the first target, echoing Scotiabank’s figures.
Coincidentally, the cheapest Chinese EVs retail in Europe for about one third less than the cheapest EVs available in Canada.
And while the U.S. and Canada’s 100 per cent tariff leaves no room for negotiation or improvement, the European Union’s 38 per cent tariff has already been dialed back on several models, following an investigation into state subsidies.
Being more open to addressing specific grievances with Chinese EVs could create an incentive for China to improve its labour and environmental practices while increasing access to cheaper EVs in Canada. In France, for example, EV rebates are dependent on the car’s carbon footprint — only vehicles made with clean energy qualify.
Are the government and industry up to the challenge?
On the other hand, dropping the tariffs entirely and allowing Chinese EVs to flood the market isn’t a great option, observers say.
It would not only cede a critical industry to a geopolitical rival, it would support the objectionable labour practices and environmental degradation the Chinese EV supply chain relies on, not to mention open consumers up to potential spyware in their cars.
Instead, while market competition is good, government regulations — that is, limiting rebates to less-expensiveEVs — could be necessary to drive down prices, says David Tracy, an automotive engineer and editor-in-chief of the Autopian, a car-focused online publication.
In the past, when the market has failed to protect consumers and the environment, the government has stepped up to make a difference, he said.
“I’m all about competition. But as someone who is well versed in automotive history, I’ve seen how really challenging automakers has led to great things. Throughout history, the greatest automotive innovations have been a result, oftentimes, of the government challenging automakers to improve.”
Fuel economy regulations in the U.S, for example, yielded cars that are more powerful, more reliable and more efficient than ever, he said.
“And that doesn’t happen naturally,” said Tracy. “I think if we just went by the market, it’s possible we’d still have carbureted automobiles without airbags.”
Federal investigation clears carmaker of wrongdoing after anger over subsidies
This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on September 19, 2025.
Federal investigation clears carmaker of wrongdoing after anger over subsidies
Tesla used an automated system to make a run on the bank of Canada’s dwindling EV subsidies, outmanoeuvring Canadian dealerships that filed claims manually and were left short millions of dollars, the Star has learned.
In January, when Ottawa announced that funds were running low in its electric vehicle rebate program, it sparked an “unprecedented surge” as the American EV giant filed more than 8,600 rebate claims over the next 72 hours, a rate of more than two per minute, around the clock.
When the Star broke the story in March, it sparked outrage at the idea that Tesla could have sold so many cars over a single weekend and prompted then minister of transport Chrystia Freeland to freeze payouts pending an audit of each claim.
The resulting investigation into Tesla’s conduct, obtained by the Star, cleared the company of wrongdoing and found the cars weren’t actually sold during that last weekend.
Instead, the investigation found the company employed a robot to file a batch of back claims for cars sold months and even years beforehand.
“Since early in the iZEV Program, Tesla Motors Canada has used a tool that allows for (an) accelerate(d) submission of claims, and correspondingly, they have submitted
claims at a faster rate than other dealerships,” states a memo to the deputy minister of transport summarizing the results of the investigation, obtained via accesstoinformation legislation.
“Tesla is the only authorized seller who submits claims in bulk.”
The Transport Canada investigation found Tesla’s claims covered EVs delivered to customers as far back as Oct. 14, 2022, and as late as Jan. 30, 2025, nearly three weeks after the iZEV program shuttered.
In all, Tesla claimed $43.1 million in rebates over the threeday period, “significantly contributing to the surge,” the memo states.
Tesla accounted for 89 per cent of all funds claimed during the final weekend.
“The number of claims submitted by Tesla over two days just before the program pause has generated public and industry criticism. The public may not understand how Tesla Motors Canada could claim such a high volume of incentives between the pause announcement and the pause itself,” states the memo.
“It’s important to clarify that, while mediareported figures are accurate … the data has been misinterpreted. The term `submitted’ does not indicate that the vehicles were sold on that specific day. Rather, `submitted’ refers to the date on which the requests were entered into the iZEV portal, which may not align with the actual date of the delivery of the vehicles.”
The confusion was compounded by program rules on Transport Canada’s website that stated dealerships “must” file claims before delivery to the customer. In practice, this rule was not enforced and backfiling for EVs that had already been shipped out was common practice across the industry.
Tesla’s claims for EVs sold nearly twoandahalf years prior were approved because “the vehicles were delivered during the eligible period of the iZEV Program (before the program paused)” on Jan. 12, the memo states. The Teslas delivered after that date were deemed eligible because “those vehicles were preapproved before Jan. 12, 2025, but delivered afterwards.”
Tesla and Transport Canada did not respond to emailed questions for this story.
The Monday morning following the program’s pause, when hundreds of independently owned Canadian car dealerships attempted to file for reimbursement of rebates they had given customers, they found the online portal had been deactivated weeks ahead of schedule, leaving them out of pocket an estimated $10 million.
They were outraged that the federal government had cut them off while tens of millions of taxpayer dollars flowed to Tesla, which is run by CEO Elon Musk, who was a key figure in U.S. President Donald Trump’s White House as it waged a trade war against Canada.
In July, Ottawa reopened the iZEV claims portal and pledged that dealerships would be made whole. At the time, those dealers were told they could not submit claims for EVs delivered after the program ended on Jan. 12.
News that Tesla received reimbursement for rebates on cars delivered after the program ended will not be well received by EV buyers, many of whom didn’t receive their expected rebates because their vehicles weren’t delivered on time.
“They’re protecting the dealerships but not the people who were supposed to benefit from the EV program,” said Sherine Young, who didn’t get the rebate after ordering an EV in 2024 and receiving it in April this year.
“They should be honouring when you actually purchased the vehicle because that was within the program’s time frame,” she told the Star this summer.
As the only electric vehicle dealer to employ a “bulk submission” sys
Canadian car dealers were outraged that the federal government had cut them off while tens of millions of taxpayer dollars flowed to Tesla, which is run by CEO Elon Musk, a key figure in U.S. President Donald Trump’s White House as it waged a trade war against Canada
tem, Tesla had overwhelmed the EV rebate system in the past and had been warned by the federal bureaucrats to knock it off.
“Because Tesla didn’t provide upfront notification for their bulk submission, it has been difficult for the iZEV program,” states the memo. “The iZEV team met several times with Tesla Motors Canada to request that they submit on a more regular basis and, as a result, reduce the number of claims submitted in bulk.”
Nevertheless, the surge in claims was anticipated by federal bureaucrats, who warned their superiors before the program was wound down that this was likely to occur.
“It is likely that when a program pause announcement is made, the manufacturers and dealerships will create a surge of requests … to ensure they receive the reimbursement for the incentives they already provided. This may speed up the depletion of funds,” states a December 2024 memo to then transport minister Anita Anand.
“Many manufacturers/dealerships do not proceed with the required eligibility assessment prior to the delivery of the vehicles (they perform this step after the delivery, even if instructed to submit before) … As a result, there are many vehicles already delivered for which the funds have not yet been reserved.”
This article was written by Matthew McClearn and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 11, 2025.
Nova Scotia Power demonstrated “a lack of urgency” in meeting provincial standards for electricity service reliability, its regulator has found, after the electrical utility failed to achieve those standards for the eighth year in a row.
The Nova Scotia Energy Board fined the power utility $1million on Wednesday for its performance in 2024. The board expressed concern over Nova Scotia Power’s position that it doesn’t expect to meet the standards until 2029, and also its “apparent reluctance to move beyond frequent referral to weather conditions” when explaining its failures, which raised doubts about its commitment to improvement.
“Progress has been lagging,” the regulator concluded. “More needs to be done and with greater urgency. … It is not acceptable that non-compliance of the performance standards has become a normal occurrence for NS Power.”
The board introduced reliability requirements for Nova Scotia Power in 2017. In particular, it set targets for industrystandard reliability metrics such as System Average Interruption Frequency Index, or SAIFI, which measures the average number of outages customers experience each year; and System Average Interruption Duration Index, or SAIDI, which represents the total duration of outages experienced by the average customer during the year. Deteriorating SAIFI and SAIDI can be early indicators that a utility is underinvesting in reliability.
Last year, Nova Scotia Power’s SAIDI was 5.26, meaning, on average, its customers experienced power outages lasting a total of five hours and 16 minutes in 2024. (The target is 4.29.)
“SAIDI has generally gotten worse in recent years and failed the standard again in 2024, having not satisfied the target since 2020,” the regulator observed in its decision.
However, Nova Scotia Power met 12 of the 14 targets. For example, it achieved all customer-service targets, which include the percentage of calls answered within 30 seconds and connection times for new customers.
Advocates for Nova Scotia’s small businesses and consumers slammed the company’s performance in submissions to the regulator earlier this year. Melissa MacAdam, a lawyer with the firm Blackburn Law who represents small businesses, said the missed SAIDI target was of the greatest concern.
“Longer duration outages directly affect small businesses through the loss of revenue and inventory, equipment damage, overall productivity etc.,” she wrote.
David Roberts, a lawyer with Halifax-based firm Pink Larkin who represents the interests of consumers, called for penalties while criticizing Nova Scotia Power’s arguments for lowering the provincial standards.
“Further incentives are clearly needed,” Mr. Roberts wrote. In its own assessment of its 2024 performance, Nova Scotia Power congratulated itself on its best reliability showing since 2005, and said it beat the national average for outage duration and frequency.
“These results demonstrate that while there is more to do, the Company’s focus on removing trees from rights-of-way, storm hardening the system (i.e. equipment replacements and upgrades) and modernizing the grid is helping to prevent outages.”
The utility said it was hiring more field staff and spending more on cutting back vegetation along its rights-of-way. Newly installed poles will be larger and stronger than their predecessors, capable of withstanding gusts of 110 kilometres an hour.
Citing its strained financial position, Nova Scotia Power asked that the board not levy an administrative penalty.
This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on September 8, 2025.
Until Friday morning, the Canadian auto industry was facing an unenviable choice, of either doubling sales of new electric vehicles over the next year or so or paying huge sums for failing to do so.
Under the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, at least 20 per cent of new vehicle sales must be electric, or plug-in hybrids, rising to 100 per cent by 2035. Manufacturers and importers who fail to meet that target must either buy credits from firms that have – read, Tesla – or pay into a government fund for EV infrastructure.
The EV mandate was always a heavy-handed intervention, but the true weight has only become apparent in recent months, as the first year of targets approached. As of June, EVs accounted for barely more than a third of that target, just 7.9 per cent.
Attempting to push that proportion to 20 per cent in the current model year would have meant an economically destructive combination of soaring vehicle prices, restricted consumer choice and financial carnage in the industry.
On Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney put off that doomsday for at least a year, suspending the electric-vehicle mandate for the current 2026 model year and announcing a 60day review of the policy.
There is but one logical outcome to that review: scrapping the mandate. The current policy is far too inflexible.
Hybrid vehicles, for instance, aren’t counted toward the EV sales quota, even though they are significantly more fuel-efficient than conventional internal-combustion options. A subcompact car that burns gasoline is far more fuel efficient than an outsized diesel pickup truck. But as far as the EV mandate is concerned, the two are indistinguishable.
Also ignored is the environmental effect from consumers who decide to stick with their gas-guzzling beater because a cleaner replacement vehicle is priced beyond reach.
That conundrum is a feature, not a bug, of the EV mandate. Fundamentally, the policy is not focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a backdoor subsidy for the EV industry, aimed at inflating the costs of fossil fuel-powered vehicles in order to push consumers into electric vehicles. Indeed, Ottawa boasts that the mandate is “part of a comprehensive plan by the Government of Canada to develop a robust electric-vehicle supply chain and infrastructure.”
The EV mandate should be scrapped, but that should not mean that Ottawa abandons the idea of accelerating the auto industry’s shift toward zero-emission vehicles – merely that the federal government adopt more flexible policies.
Happily, the Liberals do not need to come up with such a policy. One already exists: the greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles and light trucks, which have been in force since 2010. Those regulations set company-specific goals for average emissions – an elegant tool ready to be used.
Those standards would be far more flexible than the EV mandate, and would allow for a broader and more effective push in reducing emissions from passenger vehicles. Auto companies could promote sales of hybrids, more fuel efficient smaller vehicles and, of course, electric vehicles to meet their targets.
And those standards could be tightened over time, eventually reaching a point where the only way to meet them would be to have an EV-only product line.
Automakers would be able to pursue different paths to meet those requirements. Some might choose to shift their product lines to hybrids in the short term. Others might opt for a leap to purely electric vehicles for passenger cars.
That should avoid massive compliance costs that would be inevitably be passed on to consumers.
As part of this policy pivot, the federal government should make it clear there will be no more subsidies for EV purchases. Instead, Ottawa can focus any spending on building up charging infrastructure, the lack of which is a major constraint in EV adoption. If there must be a subsidy program, it should be limited to defraying the cost of household charging stations, a far more cost-effective approach.
That would require a major shift on the part of the Liberals, but Mr. Carney has shown a willingness to scrap other high-profile measures of the Trudeau government: the federal carbon charge, the digital services tax and the hike in capital-gains taxation. The EV mandate should join that growing list of Trudeau-era policies that the current prime minister has reversed.
Experts say price gap, market conditions make federal sales targets unrealistic
This article was written by Josh Rubin and was published in the Toronto Star on September 6, 2025.
A trade war might have been the trigger, but Prime Minister Mark Carney’s decision to pause the federal government’s electric vehicle sales mandate is also a reflection of reality, industry experts say: EV sales are nowhere near meeting government targets.
In an announcement Friday, Carney ditched a requirement for 20 per cent of vehicles sold in Canada in 2026 to be electric and said the government would hold a 60day investigation into the rest of the EV mandate “to identify future flexibilities and ways to reduce costs.” There’s a 60 per cent target by 2030, and a 100 per cent target by 2035.
“This will provide immediate financial relief to automakers at a time of increased pressure on their competitiveness,” said Carney.
According to auto industry analysts, electric vehicles are still a relatively small fraction of vehicles sold in Canada.
“Yeartodate, you’re looking at about 7.7 per cent for traditional automakers. And maybe just under 10 per cent if you include direct-to-consumer brands like Tesla,” said Robert Karwel, senior manager of J.D. Power’s Power Information Network, a vehicle sales database.
No one who’s been paying close attention to auto industry trends is surprised that the government is stepping back from the target, at least temporarily, said Ryan Robinson, who leads the automotive practice at Deloitte Canada.
“To a large extent, this was kind of inevitable,” said Robinson. “That was always going to be a hard target to hit, and we knew that. The closer we got to the stake in the sand … the more unrealistic that target appeared.”
The biggest stumbling block to higher EV adoption, Karwel and Robinson said, is that EVs are still substantially more expensive than cars powered by traditional internal combustion engines.
“It’s dollars and cents,” said Karwel. “People are already worried about inflation and the price of real estate and now you’re forcing them to buy a car that is much more expensive because it carries a certain type of power train.”
Karwel estimated that the price gap between comparable models of ICE and EVs is still almost $10,000, even if the gap is smaller than it once was.
While allowing imports of cheaper EVs from Asia — particularly China — would likely lead to an uptick in sales, the government is likely leery of the economic and political fallout, Karwel suggested.
“You can have cheaper, Asian, Chinese imports which are EVs, but we will destroy the auto industry in Ontario, so what’s it gonna be? And I don’t think the outcome of that is clear,” said Karwel.
The head of the association representing the Big Three Detroit automakers in Canada was pleased at news of the 60day review, but wants the EV mandate killed entirely.
“This regulation is redundant, it’s unnecessary, and it’s costing manufacturers who build cars in Canada and employ Canadians significant sums of money, so it needs to go away,” said Brian Kingston, president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association.
“The gap is so large, it’s just simply not possible to close and it costs companies the longer that this is delayed,” he said. “I’m encouraged that (the government) heard that there is a problem and they’re willing to take a hard look at it, but obviously the outcome needs to be clearer and quick.”
The head of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association said the decision to pause the EV sales target was needed given that the entire industry is facing financial hardship because of the ongoing trade war.
“The White House has turned on the industry while we’re trying to make sure that those foreign automakers remain committed here, so let’s not punish them with $3 billion in new costs,” said APMA CEO Flavio Volpe.
Manufacturers were facing fines of $20,000 for each vehicle sold beneath the 20 per cent threshold. In order to meet the target, manufacturers likely would have restricted the number of ICE vehicles they sold, said J.D. Power’s Karwel. “Now, they’ll sell more gas cars because they don’t have to artificially restrict sales. And they avoid getting those $20,000 fines,” he said.
At Queen’s Park, Premier Doug Ford said he is not concerned that Carney is putting the federal government’s EV mandate on hold at a time when both Ottawa and Ontario have invested heavily in EV battery plants in Windsor and St. Thomas to support nextgeneration auto industry jobs.
“The market dictates, the people dictate, not the government,” the premier said in reference to slowerthanforecast growth in electric vehicle sales that has prompted some auto manufacturers to scale back their EV production plans.
“If you can’t hit it, you can’t hit it,” added Ford.
Proponents of the policy charge that a sales mandate is a key prong of Canada’s plan to meet its climate targets, a necessary measure in helping automotive manufacturers transition into increased electric vehicle production, and a policy that could pay off for Canadians in the long run.
Joanna Kyriazis, a policy director with Clean Energy Canada, said that any review of the EV mandate should be focused on affordability, citing research that has shown the policy could slash the cost of an electric vehicle by as much as $20,000.
“We know that EVs save a lot of money for Canadians on gas. But the upfront cost still continues to be a challenge, particularly in Canada, where we’ve kind of walled off our car market, unlike other parts of the world like the EU, the U.K. and Australia,” Kyriazis said.
“We think that other tweaks could also be added to the policy, like giving carmakers extra credit for bringing in cars under the price point of $40,000, or giving carmakers extra credit for offering zero per cent financing to better drive that affordability of cars,” she added.
This opinion was written by Brian Kingston, president and chief executive of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, and was published in the Globe & Mail on September 3, 2025.
The current industry forecast for 2025 is 9.7 per cent EV sales, representing 179,839 vehicles. To meet the government’s 20-per-cent mandated target for 2026, EV sales need to grow by more than 100 per cent, or 182,355 vehicles.
U.S. protectionism, federal and provincial government EV mandates dictate the future of hundreds of thousands of livelihoods
Canada’s auto industry faces two existential threats: U.S. protectionism and electricvehicle mandates here at home. How these threats are managed will determine the future of the industry in Canada and the hundreds of thousands of livelihoods that depend on it.
On April 3, 2025, the United States placed a 25-per-cent tariff on automobile imports, including vehicles built in Canada. In response, the Canadian government matched the tariffs on U.S. vehicles.
With approximately 90 per cent of Canada’s automotive production destined for the United States, tariffs of any level are highly damaging to the industry and consumers on both sides of the border. Given the importance of the auto industry to Canada’ s economy – responsible for more than 130,000 direct manufacturing jobs – urgently securing an agreement with the United States to eliminate these tariffs must be the government’s top priority.
But this is not something within Canada’s control. And the Prime Minister has said that in the face of a changing global landscape we must focus on what we can control.
Unlike securing a trade agreement with the United States, EV mandates are at the discretion of federal and provincial governments.
Canadian federal and provincial government EV mandates dictate aggressive and unrealistic sales in Canada. These mandates are so detached from market realities they could destroy the industry before a trade deal is struck with our American partners. The federal government’s mandate requires 20-per-cent EV sales in the 2026 model year, which is now. Mandates in Quebec and British Columbia are even more extreme requiring 32.5 per cent and 26.3 per cent EV sales in model year 2026, respectively.
With EV sales falling for five months in a row, sitting at just 7.9 per cent of vehicles sold in June, there is no pathway to meeting government mandated target. Federal ministers publicly musing about reinstating the EV purchase incentive program have only worsened the situation as would-be EV buyers wait for details on a funding program that may or may not materialize.
Canadians are clearly not ready for widespread EV adoption. The pace of EV sales should be driven by the consumers willingness to make the transition, not government mandates.
The current industry forecast for 2025 is 9.7 per cent EV sales, representing 179,839 vehicles. To meet the government’s 20-percent mandated target for 2026, EV sales need to grow by more than 100 per cent, or 182,355 vehicles.
Even if government were to reintroduce an EV purchase incentive, there is simply no way to close a gap of this size. This leaves automakers with two compliance options, purchase credits from companies such as Tesla or restrict gas-powered and hybrid vehicle sales to comply with the mandated EV to gaspowered vehicle ratio.
Credit purchases put a financial burden on companies at the exact moment they are incurring billions of dollars in tariff costs. Assuming a cost per credit of $20,000 (the price government established in the regulation), complying with the EV mandate could cost automakers more than $3-billion in 2026.
The other compliance pathway is through restrictions on gas-powered and hybrid vehicle sales to Canadians. At current sales rates, automakers will need to pull between 700,000 to 900,000 gas-powered and hybrid vehicle sales from the Canadian market starting this year.
The results will be dire for Canadian consumers and the economy. Vehicle inventories will plummet, prices will rise, dealerships will be put out of business and auto plants will close.
Instead of mandating what type of vehicles Canadians buy, government efforts should focus on boosting consumer demand and leading by example. Building a national EV charging network is a good place to start. According to Natural Resources Canada, Canada needs 100,500 public charging ports in 2025 to support higher EV adoption. Today there are only 35,863 chargers available, a gap of 64,637 chargers. At the current charger installation rate of approximately 7,000 chargers a year, the charging gap only grows with 234,500 chargers needed in 2030, 446,800 in 2035 and 678,600 by 2040.
Canada’s automotive future is on the line. Scrapping these mandates now is the fastest way to relieve pressure on the industry and keep it competitive in the face of rising protectionism.
My Climate Change Website 