Pressure building on Liberals to rethink electric vehicle mandate
Article content
Starting next year, the Liberal plan to get more electric vehicles on the road will enter its first phase: mandating sales targets for car companies, which could purchase credits, including by spending on charging infrastructure, or face penalties for not complying.
Article content
Article content
Article content
The government has set a target of 20 per cent of new passenger vehicles sold in 2026 must be either battery-powered or hybrid, which increases to 60 per cent by 2030 and reaches 100 per cent by 2035.
Article content
Article content
But with plummeting electric car sales and Canada's auto sector under duress from a trade war with the U.S, which has abandoned its electrification goals under President Donald Trump, Carney's government must now decide whether to forge ahead or reconsider a core climate policy.
Article content
'They're going to have to make adjustments,' said Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association.
Article content
'I think they know that, the industry knows that. It's really a negotiation on where those adjustments land. Is this a time for stretch goals or is this a time for reality. What's the mix?'
Article content
Article content
He added that he had spoken to 'several ministers' this week.
Article content
Article content
Brian Kingston, the president and CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, which represents Ford, General Motors and Stellantis and has long opposed the sales mandate, says the policy heaps on added costs at a time when keeping production in Canada has been made more difficult by U.S. tariffs
Article content
'At a time where companies are already facing tariff pressure, they are now going to face challenges selling vehicles in the Canadian market. Very difficult to make the case for Canada with this policy in place.'
Article content
Ford Canada CEO Bev Goodman was among the latest to call for the mandate to be scrapped, pointing to falling customer interest.
Article content
Statistics Canada bears that out, with the agency reporting a 45-per-cent drop in new zero-emission vehicles sold in March from the same month the year before. It said these new vehicles accounted for around seven per cent of vehicles sold in March 2025 — a figure critics point to as fuel to argue a 20 per cent sales target is unrealistic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
38 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Updating the way governments work together
Opinion For a day last week, Canada's premiers ran the country. The most powerful governing institution wasn't Parliament or the Prime Minister's Office but the Council of the Federation. More than 20 years after it was founded in 2003 at Charlottetown, this idealistic and antagonistic avatar of federalism showed its worth. And all because they brought the prime minister to town. When the Council of the Federation (CoF, pronounced 'cough' by officials) was formed, Quebec's participation in the federation was the issue. The federalist Liberals had returned to power under Jean Charest, after 10 years of separatist Parti Québécois government and the near-death referendum result of 1995. All premiers were responsive to Quebec's imitative to create a new, stronger version of the summer Annual Premiers Conference to revitalize the role of provinces and territories in Canada and, in the process, begin the re-engagement of a distinctive Quebec with the federalist idea. Charest called it 'internal diplomacy to build alliances.' For other premiers, the imperative was 'strength in unity.' They would have a better shot at influencing the federal government if they stood and acted as one. Consensus was in, 'asterisks' denoting dissent were out. Unilateral federal cutbacks to health-care transfers and equalization payments by the Chrétien/Martin governments had angered all premiers. They pointed to a growing fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and among the provinces. NATHAN DENETTE / THE CANADIAN PRESS Prime Minister Mark Carney greets Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew as Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston looks on, during the first ministers meeting in Huntsville, Ont., on Tuesday. While CoF created a 'table of equals,' one government was primus intra pares, or first among equals — the federal government. No matter that CoF's founding agreement stated that 'Canada's two orders of government are of equal status, neither subordinate to the other,' they could not force the federal government to act that way. While premiers and prime ministers are all styled 'first ministers,' it is always the prime minister intent on preserving his prerogatives that calls and hosts first minister meetings, inviting premiers, not the other way around. This is what makes Prime Minister Mark Carney's decision to show up for a CoF meeting in Huntsville, Ont., so notable. No matter that it formally reverted to a First Ministers Meeting chaired by the PM for the time he was there, it was to CoF he decamped. This was a first. To date, Canada's CoF has been more influential as a governing institution outside of Canada. Australia too is a federal state. Three years after ours came into being, the Council for the Australian Federation consisting of chief ministers of all states and territories formed. It emulates fully the purpose and operations of Canada's council, even borrowing some of the same wording in its founding agreement. The catalyst for its formation was the same too, frustration with the central Commonwealth government's approach to federalism, where it was accused of 'dictating the agenda' of what governments discussed. Sound familiar? One glaring difference stands out. Australia had a formal central/state/territorial intergovernmental mechanism for more than a decade before, called the Council of Australian Governments or COAG. Whatever benefits accrued from having all governments at the table for some matters were seen as inadequate by others. Canada's example seemed better to increasingly frustrated sub-national governments. But then COVID hit COAG. The pandemic reordered federalism mechanisms in Australia. Intergovernmental co-ordination and co-operation imperatives led to the creation of a national cabinet of chief ministers, supplanting COAG. Today, that new structure is the governing institution for federalism in Australia. This proves the flexible nature of federalism. It can change to meet the moment without changing the constitution to do so. Canada should take note. Tuesdays A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world. To his credit, Carney is investing serious time and effort in working with premiers and Indigenous leaders. He needs to if he is to succeed in rallying the country to meet this moment of economic consequence and change facing the country. Trouble is, we've all seen the movie. An initial 'era of good feelings' is followed by episodes of intergovernmental fratricide. Why? Because there is no established institution of federalism involving all constitutional orders of government in running the country. A place to conciliate. We are already seeing the limits to two orders of government — Ottawa and the provinces and territories — wanting to advance on infrastructure projects faster and more purposefully than some Indigenous governments. Demanding a seat at the table will continue until there is one. Disruptive presences outside can often become ameliorating presences inside. Canada is setting itself an historic agenda for economic and political change in response to the American tariff and trade threats. For this to succeed, we need to update how we govern ourselves as one country. The CoF founding agreement calls itself an 'enduring and evolving institution.' No question it has endured as a regular forum to demand more money and powers from the federal government. The question now is whether it can evolve into a true Council of the Federation involving representatives of all orders of government: federal, provincial, territorial and, yes, Indigenous. For the first time, Canada can imagine so. David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.
Winnipeg Free Press
38 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Warpath to profitability?
Opinion The defence industry is often overlooked by investors. It's perceived as boring compared with technology or worse, it's just an unethical way to put profit in the portfolio. Since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia, however, the defence industry has drawn significant investor interest. Notably, the perception has changed. That includes some of those who might have felt investing in defence was distasteful; they now see it as a needed buttress against rising authoritarianism. Of course, another shift is financial — based on the forecast injection of hundreds of billions of dollars in additional spending by NATO members. Pexels NATO members (including Canada) are forecast to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in additional annual spending in defence in the years to come. Canada alone is expected to increase military spending about $70 billion annually to meet its most recent defence commitment of five per cent of gross domestic product. The big question for many intrigued investors is whether they've already missed the warship. 'Our view is that type of information gets incorporated into market prices really quickly,' says Ben Felix, chief investment officer with PWL Capital in Ottawa. 'The implication of that is by the time you read about it in a Free Press article, any advantage that you may have got by investing in that theme is already gone.' That said, the defence industry landscape and recent performance are still of interest to inquisitive investors who might consider putting their money to work when prices pull back periodically. For the time being, however, many defence company share prices have hit lofty heights, including a handful of Canadian firms such as satellite technology company MDA Space Ltd. Its share price is up more than 50 per cent year to date. As well, aerospace company Bombardier's share price 'has almost doubled in recent months, so obviously, all of the talk that has been going on is certainly helping,' says Brian Donovan, New Brunswick-based president of provider of valuation models for investors. 'It tells you that there is an interest shift into this space.' StockCalc tracks performance of thousands of North American equities, including about eight Canadian firms with defence industry revenues. One even has a footprint in Winnipeg: Magellan Aerospace Corp., which makes components for military aircraft. Its share price is up more than 80 per cent YTD. If those gains sound lofty, consider some firms listed in the United States and Europe. Notably, artificial intelligence firm Palantir is up 106 per cent this year. Even more impressive, its share price is up nearly 1,600 per cent over the last five years. A key driver is its defence contracts with the U.S. and partnerships with other technology and manufacturing companies involved in defence. That includes L3 Harris Technology, which, like Palantir, operates in many industries. Its drone technology business is a big defence revenue driver. (That said, its share price growth YTD is much less than other defence stocks.) In Europe, the most notable defence growth story is manufacturing conglomerate Rheinmetall AG. Among the many defence technologies it manufactures are Challenger and Leopard tanks. Its share price is up about 200 per cent YTD, and more than 2,000 per cent in the last five years. The big driver is Germany planning to spend more than a trillion dollars on defence in the next five years. That investors are now turning onto the defence sector is understandable (given the headlines) and somewhat ironic at the same time because it has not been a lacklustre industry for long-term performance. Publicly traded companies involved in the U.S. defence industry have collectively provided returns on an annual basis that have outpaced the S&P 500, says Scott Sacknoff, manager of the SPADE Defense Index in Washington, D.C. 'There is a long history of defence outperforming.' And it very well could continue to outperform, given the U.S. defence budget is expected to surpass US$1 trillion annually for the first time in history, he adds. If anyone has deep knowledge of the defence sector, it's Sacknoff. The SPADE Index, which he manages, consists of leading U.S.-based defence companies and has outperformed the S&P 500 by roughly more than 1,000 basis points (or 100 percentage points) over the last 25 years. Yet until Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine in 2022, defence was a profitable but sleepy market corner. The explosion in defence spending has changed that, leading to greater investment and even a rush of new investment products, notably exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Prior to 2022, investors largely had three ETFs to choose from, including one of the longest running: Invesco Aerospace & Defense ETF. For investors looking for exposure, the Invesco product is worth a look. Since launching in 2005, it has had steady growth. Investment data firm Morningstar data shows US$10,000 invested in 2005 would be worth nearly US$120,000 today. In turn, the ETF has Morningstar's highest rating. Sacknoff notes the ETF's performance is driven by the underlying SPADE index, which uses a modified market cap weighting to address the downsides of passive investing that lead to over-concentration in overvalued stocks. 'In simplest terms, this involves ensuring that large companies aren't too large, and small companies aren't too small.' He adds the index's annualized return over 15 years is 17 per cent. 'You have never lost money in any product tracking our index if you invested and held onto it for at least three years.' Yet one might ask, would that still hold true today? 'The big question is whether earnings and revenues will catch up to the high valuations,' Sacknoff says. Only time will tell. Yet not all companies on the index are surging in price, including Lockheed Martin, manufacturer of the F-35 fighter that Canada and other NATO countries have contracts to buy. Its share price is actually down slightly this year. Wednesdays A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom. What's more, U.S. President Donald Trump's scattershot economic policy is likely to lead to downside market volatility, presenting buying opportunities for defence companies. Yet their long-term tailwind is likely not going away soon. For the time being, however, this high-flying sector seems more of a minefield than a warpath to profitability. Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist joelschles@
Canada News.Net
3 hours ago
- Canada News.Net
Netanyahu gets nod from Trump to widen war in Gaza
WASHINGTON DC — Just weeks after expressing optimism that a ceasefire deal in Gaza was within reach, U.S. President Donald Trump has reversed course, withdrawing his negotiators from talks and signaling support for Israel to intensify its military campaign, despite growing global concern over starvation and suffering in the Palestinian enclave. The White House decision to suspend involvement in ceasefire negotiations came amid what it described as frustration with Hamas, which Trump administration officials claimed have been disorganized and unwilling to engage in good faith. Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy to the Middle East, confirmed this week that he is now exploring "alternative options" to secure the release of remaining hostages. He did not comment on the plight of the more than two million Palestinians who are being constantly bombarded, shot to death, and starved. Rather than press for a return to negotiations, Trump appeared to back Israeli escalation during comments to reporters Friday before departing for a weekend trip to Scotland. "I think they want to die, and it's very, very bad," he said of Hamas. "It got to be to a point where you're gonna have to finish the job." As CNN reported, it remains unclear whether Trump's remarks reflect a genuine collapse in talks or a calculated strategy to pressure Hamas into concessions. Nevertheless, the president's tone marked a shift from earlier this month, when he had suggested a deal was imminent. Despite Trump's public pessimism, Egypt and Qatar—key mediators in the region—described the latest pause in negotiations as routine given the complexities involved. In a joint statement released by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the two countries said they would continue efforts toward a lasting truce. A senior Israeli official, speaking to CNN, also insisted that negotiations had "not at all" collapsed and suggested they could still resume. However, the U.S. withdrawal sent shockwaves through Doha, the Qatari capital hosting the talks. "This is an earthquake," one source familiar with the process told CNN. "We're dealing with the aftershock." The unresolved issues reportedly include the timing and conditions of a permanent ceasefire, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the Israeli military's future presence in Gaza. Underscoring the indifference of Israel's concern for hostages, Hamas said they were shocked at the U.S. claim, saying the return of the hostages had not yet come up in negotiations, and were scheduled to be discussed next week. Regardless, speaking from the South Lawn of the White House on Friday, before departing for a tour of his golf resort in Scotland, Trump placed blame for the impasse squarely on Hamas. "Now we're down to the final hostages," he said. "And they know what happens after you get the final hostages... they really didn't want to make a deal." The president's comments appeared intended to provoke movement from Hamas, even as some U.S. officials maintained that negotiations could still be salvaged. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce told CNN that both Trump and Witkoff remained committed and were exploring all available tools. "We've tried. The world has watched this," Bruce said. "There are many tools in President Trump's tool chest." Yet no timeline has been provided for when—or if—a deal might come together, even after Trump's earlier assertion in July that an agreement was just days away. "Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff got it right. Hamas is the obstacle to a hostage release deal," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted on X on Friday night. "Together with our U.S. allies, we are now considering alternative options to bring our hostages home, end Hamas's terror rule, and secure lasting peace for Israel and our region." Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. During a meeting Friday in Tunis, Tunisian President Kais Saied handed Trump's senior Africa adviser Massad Boulos photographs of malnourished children, highlighting the urgency of delivering aid. "It is absolutely unacceptable," Saied said, according to AFP. "It is a crime against all of humanity." At the White House, Trump deflected blame, accusing Hamas of blocking humanitarian supplies and defending U.S. contributions. "We gave $60 million to food and supplies and everything else," he said. "We hope the money gets there… the food gets taken." However, according to CNN, an internal U.S. government review found no evidence that Hamas has systematically stolen American-funded aid in Gaza. International criticism of Israel's military actions is also mounting. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described Israel's campaign as "indefensible" on Friday. French President Emmanuel Macron said France would recognize a Palestinian state at September's UN General Assembly—an announcement that drew sharp rebuke from Israel and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump, for his part, appeared unbothered. Referring to Macron, he said, "He's a very good guy. I like him. But that statement doesn't carry weight." Meantime rallies protesting the plight of the Gazans have erupted around the world. Even in Tel Aviv, tens of thousands of people gathered in Habima Square, not only demanding the return of the hostages, but calling for an end to the so-called war in Gaza.
