Latest news with #CanadianEnvironmentalProtectionAct
Edmonton Journal
3 days ago
- Automotive
- Edmonton Journal
Electric vehicle mandate risks being next carbon tax without 'adjustments,' EV industry warns
Article content OTTAWA — The head of a national association representing the electric transportation industry says the federal government, and provinces with a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate, should make 'short-term adjustments' to their programs at the risk of the policy going the way of the now-cancelled consumer carbon tax. Electric Mobility Canada President Daniel Breton's comments come as auto-makers and others in the industry express a fresh round of concerns about the Liberals' sales mandate, which has set a target of reaching 100-per-cent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, beginning with initial targets of hitting 60 per cent by 2030 and at least 20 per cent by 2026. Article content 'We believe that B.C, Quebec, and the federal government should make short-term adjustments, because between now and 2030 we don't know yet what's going to happen south of the border. We don't know yet what's going to happen between Canada and the U.S.,' Breton told National Post in an interview Thursday. 'Lowering the targets between now and 2030 would be a reasonable path.' With Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre ratcheting up his efforts in demanding that the mandate be scrapped, arguing it removes 'choice' from consumers, Breton, a former Quebec environment minister, says the risk of not making short-term adjustments at the federal level is that, 'this is going to become a political hot potato.' 'Like the carbon tax was.' The consumer carbon tax was a signature climate policy of the Liberals until March, when Prime Minister Mark Carney cancelled it, saying it had become 'too divisive.' That followed a years-long campaign by Poilievre, who criss-crossed the country, promising to 'axe the tax,' blaming it for forcing consumers to pay additional costs amid a cost-of-living crisis. Article content Breton, whose association represents 180 members in the electric transportation industry, including those who sell electric cars, says 'we have to find a pathway' that will allow people and those in the traditional automotive industry to buy credits and 'ease into this regulation.' A credit system is at the heart of the federal policy, which the Liberals finalized in 2023 as part of their plan to reduce Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions, taking aim at the transportation sector, one of the top emitters. The government says manufacturers can earn credits by either selling or making zero-emission vehicles, which Ottawa defines as either a battery-powered vehicle or a plug-in hybrid, or by purchasing credits from an electric vehicle maker, or putting money towards building out charging infrastructure. Companies that fail to comply could face penalties under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Article content While manufacturers have long expressed opposition to the government mandating the sale of electric vehicles, Ford Canada CEO Bev Goodman recently called for the regulation to be scrapped in light of falling sales of these vehicles. Back in March, Statistics Canada reported a nearly 45-per-cent drop in the sale of new zero-emission vehicles from the same month the year before. The agency reported in April that the sales of these vehicles fell to around 7.6 per cent. Leading automotive associations have pointed to these decreases as evidence that hitting the 20 per cent sales target is unrealistic and creates additional burden on Canada's auto-sector at a time when it is dealing with a trade war with the U.S., which under President Donald Trump has dropped the electrification goals introduced by former president Joe Biden. A spokesperson for Ontario Economic Development Minister Vic Fedeli called on the federal government to respond to the concerns from automakers. Article content 'We are meeting regularly with auto companies, industry leaders, and workers as they navigate unprecedented global economic uncertainty,' wrote Jennifer Cunliffe. 'We need the federal government to do the same and address the concerns raised by industry partners about the impact that their net-zero vehicle mandates will have on investment, jobs, and supply chains.' Breton attributes the 'crash' in electric vehicle sales to the way the federal government suddenly ended the $5,000 rebate program for consumers in January, which it first introduced in 2019. He said the way Ottawa did so was the 'worst-case scenario' as compared to phasing it out more slowly and decreasing the value over time. What made matters worse, he says, was that at the same time, Quebec, which has its own zero-emission sales mandate, paused its rebate, which it has since reintroduced. Article content Since doing so, he says, Quebec dealers have been telling him sales have been going back up. A presentation to industry by B.C.'s Energy Ministry, which was obtained by reporters, also showed the province was considering changes to its own program amid falling sales. The Liberals campaigned on reintroducing the federal rebate, which Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin's office confirmed it was working on, but has not stipulated when it will be announced. Breton said people are now waiting to see when the federal rebate will return before purchasing an electric vehicle. 'In the past two weeks, I've been getting phone calls from dealers that I know who told me, 'well, (electric vehicle) sales are stopping again because people are waiting for the federal rebate to come back.'' Breton says if it were up to him, the country would reach its overall target of having 100-per-cent new vehicle sales be zero-emission but 2030, 'but it's not me.' Article content He declined to speculate on what lower targets should be, saying he wants to have further discussions with the government and industry. 'We have to make sure that people see a reasonable pathway, meaning some kind of compromise between some traditional automakers' issues or challenges,' he said. 'But also we need enough market certainty so that private companies will see that as more electric cars come to market, we will need more infrastructure, and then those companies want to invest in infrastructure charging.' In a recent interview, Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturing Association, said the government has the option of either abandoning its mandate or taking a look at the policy to 'have them reflect reality.' He said the government will have to adjust its program. 'Sure, you should have stretch goals, but stretch goals might be 10-per-cent (by 2026) or you can stick to what you think your ultimate goal is, 100-per-cent by 2035, and the first compliance date out to 2028.' -With files from The Canadian Press Latest National Stories
Cision Canada
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Cision Canada
We don't have to tear down nature to 'Build Canada'
TORONTO, June 16, 2025 /CNW/ - The federal government's proposed Build Canada Act, a plan to fast-track "nation-building" development projects, from critical minerals mines and oil and gas pipelines to habitat-fragmenting highways and Arctic deep-water ports, risks damaging the nature that is at the core of Canada's economy and identity — threatening the wealth of the nation it is supposed to defend. World Wildlife Fund Canada is deeply concerned about the bill, which would allow Cabinet to override key environmental protections, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for projects deemed in the national interest. We are also concerned that this legislation could undermine the federal government's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Development decisions that bypass Indigenous consultation risk perpetuating the very harms that reconciliation is meant to address. Canada is already falling behind on its biodiversity commitments. It has yet to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010, and recently agreed to new targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Meanwhile, the data tell a troubling story: populations of species listed as at risk nationally by COSEWIC have declined by 59 per cent on average from 1970 to 2016. Species of global conservation concern — those assessed as "threatened" on the IUCN Red List — have declined by 42 per cent on average in Canada over the same time period. We understand the need to build infrastructure and support economic growth, particularly considering uncertain geopolitical times. But nature must be part of that future, not a casualty of it. Our wetlands, forests and grasslands are not obstacles — they are assets. They store carbon, filter water, and act as natural firebreaks. Undermining the laws that protect them risks repeating the mistakes of the past, when unchecked development led to widespread habitat loss, degraded water systems, and long-term costs to both people and wildlife. If we've learned anything from recent years of wildfire smoke-filled skies, mega storms and floods, it's that a healthy environment isn't a luxury, it's a line of defence. Now is the time to invest in nature-based solutions, creating conservation economies that strengthen communities, create jobs and help safeguard us from the impacts of climate change. We urge Parliament to take a more balanced path, one that ensures development does not come at the expense of the nature that defines and protects us. About World Wildlife Fund Canada WWF-Canada is committed to equitable and effective conservation actions that restore nature, reverse wildlife loss and fight climate change. We draw on scientific analysis and Indigenous guidance to ensure all our efforts connect to a single goal: a future where wildlife, nature and people thrive. For more information visit
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
We don't have to tear down nature to 'Build Canada'
TORONTO, June 16, 2025 /CNW/ - The federal government's proposed Build Canada Act, a plan to fast-track "nation-building" development projects, from critical minerals mines and oil and gas pipelines to habitat-fragmenting highways and Arctic deep-water ports, risks damaging the nature that is at the core of Canada's economy and identity — threatening the wealth of the nation it is supposed to defend. World Wildlife Fund Canada is deeply concerned about the bill, which would allow Cabinet to override key environmental protections, such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, for projects deemed in the national interest. We are also concerned that this legislation could undermine the federal government's obligations under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Development decisions that bypass Indigenous consultation risk perpetuating the very harms that reconciliation is meant to address. Canada is already falling behind on its biodiversity commitments. It has yet to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, adopted in 2010, and recently agreed to new targets under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Meanwhile, the data tell a troubling story: populations of species listed as at risk nationally by COSEWIC have declined by 59 per cent on average from 1970 to 2016. Species of global conservation concern — those assessed as "threatened" on the IUCN Red List — have declined by 42 per cent on average in Canada over the same time period. We understand the need to build infrastructure and support economic growth, particularly considering uncertain geopolitical times. But nature must be part of that future, not a casualty of it. Our wetlands, forests and grasslands are not obstacles — they are assets. They store carbon, filter water, and act as natural firebreaks. Undermining the laws that protect them risks repeating the mistakes of the past, when unchecked development led to widespread habitat loss, degraded water systems, and long-term costs to both people and wildlife. If we've learned anything from recent years of wildfire smoke-filled skies, mega storms and floods, it's that a healthy environment isn't a luxury, it's a line of defence. Now is the time to invest in nature-based solutions, creating conservation economies that strengthen communities, create jobs and help safeguard us from the impacts of climate change. We urge Parliament to take a more balanced path, one that ensures development does not come at the expense of the nature that defines and protects us. About World Wildlife Fund Canada WWF-Canada is committed to equitable and effective conservation actions that restore nature, reverse wildlife loss and fight climate change. We draw on scientific analysis and Indigenous guidance to ensure all our efforts connect to a single goal: a future where wildlife, nature and people thrive. For more information visit SOURCE World Wildlife Fund Canada View original content to download multimedia: Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Winnipeg Free Press
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Contentious major projects bill falls under microscope as Liberals rush it through
OTTAWA – Provisions in the federal government's controversial Bill C-5 that would allow the executive branch to skirt laws in order to push forward major projects are likely to survive a court challenge, some constitutional experts say. But others warn the proposed law would allow Ottawa to flout its constitutional duty to consult with First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution. The bill has become a magnet for criticism as the Liberal government moves to push it through the House of Commons by the end of this week. The legislation would give the federal cabinet the ability to set aside various statutes to push forward approvals for a small number of major industrial products, such as mines, pipelines and ports, if the government deems them to be in the national interest. Paul Daly, chair in administrative law and governance at University of Ottawa, said that while the provisions giving the executive more power are controversial, they're likely to survive a court challenge. 'This bill probably is constitutional,' he said. 'It is unlikely that a court would invalidate this as violating the Constitution.' Sections 21 to 23 of the bill allow the executive branch to bypass existing rules and processes in 13 laws — including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Indian Act and the Impact Assessment Law — through a regulatory process that does not need to be approved by Parliament. These sections are what's known in the legal community as 'Henry VIII clauses' — a reference to a King who preferred to govern by decree rather than through Parliament. Courts have not found these to be constitutionally invalid, Daly said, adding there are guardrails in the legislation. He said Charter rights and the duty to consult will continue to apply to the legislation. 'It's similar in character to the carbon tax legislation from a few years ago, where the Supreme Court said the Henry VIII clause was constitutionally valid. And I suspect that a court, if this statute were challenged, would come to the same conclusion,' Daly said. His faculty colleague Errol Mendes, another law professor and constitutional expert, also said by email that he thinks the clauses can be defended constitutionally. But Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said sections 22 and 23 and 'very worrisome' because they could allow the federal cabinet to exempt a pipeline or some other project from the Species at Risk Act. And she said she thinks it gives the federal government too much leeway on the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them. 'If I were Canada's lawyers, I would have advised them strenuously against this bill,' she said. 'That consultation has to be meaningful and I worry that, especially under the timelines that this government wants to make these decisions, that this bill is basically circumventing the government's constitutionally required duty to consult.' The bill aims to speed up the approval process for major projects so that cabinet can render a decision in two years at the most. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said it takes too long to push major new projects through 'arduous' approval processes. 'Canada is a country that used to build big things,' Carney said when the bill was introduced on June 6. 'In recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country.' Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Friday that the legislation must be studied thoroughly since it can suspend various laws and regulations relating to language, First Nations rights, the environment and threatened species. 'The government seems to want to avoid scrutiny on the bill, which by itself is worrisome,' he said in English when speaking to reporters in the House of Commons foyer. 'How could we go forward with such a huge bill with huge consequences for Quebec and Canada without at least doing what we have been elected to do, which is studying, thoroughly, this bill in committee?' Speaking on background at a technical briefing for journalists, federal officials said that while the government has no intention at this time to draft regulations that would bypass those laws, the legislation does give it a lot of flexibility. NDP MPs Leah Gazan, Alexandre Boulerice and Lori Idlout wrote to government House leader Steven MacKinnon on Friday to formally request that the bill's study be slowed down to provide for more debate in the House. 'Failure to uphold constitutional obligations and environmental standards at a time when we are experiencing a climate emergency will have the opposite effect of developing Canada's economy and sovereignty, and will only lead to conflicts in the courts,' they wrote. 'In its current iteration, Bill C-5 violates Canada's constitutional obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 that recognizes and affirms Aboriginal treaty rights by giving the governor in council the ability to sidestep constitutional obligations.' Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The bill is expected to undergo an unusually fast one-day study by the House transport committee Wednesday afternoon and evening. The government expects to pass the bill by the end of Friday. The federal Conservatives have argued the bill does not go far enough. Conservative Natural Resources critic Shannon Stubbs said in the House on Friday that the 'anti-energy, anti-development' Liberals should repeal the 'no-new-pipelines' Bill C-69, passed by the Justin Trudeau government. She said the Impact Assessment Act it created heaped difficulties on energy sector projects and prevents them from going ahead. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025.
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contentious major projects bill falls under microscope as Liberals rush it through
OTTAWA — Provisions in the federal government's controversial Bill C-5 that would allow the executive branch to skirt laws in order to push forward major projects are likely to survive a court challenge, some constitutional experts say. But others warn the proposed law would allow Ottawa to flout its constitutional duty to consult with First Nations under Section 35 of the Constitution. The bill has become a magnet for criticism as the Liberal government moves to push it through the House of Commons by the end of this week. The legislation would give the federal cabinet the ability to set aside various statutes to push forward approvals for a small number of major industrial products, such as mines, pipelines and ports, if the government deems them to be in the national interest. Paul Daly, chair in administrative law and governance at University of Ottawa, said that while the provisions giving the executive more power are controversial, they're likely to survive a court challenge. "This bill probably is constitutional," he said. "It is unlikely that a court would invalidate this as violating the Constitution." Sections 21 to 23 of the bill allow the executive branch to bypass existing rules and processes in 13 laws — including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Indian Act and the Impact Assessment Law — through a regulatory process that does not need to be approved by Parliament. These sections are what's known in the legal community as "Henry VIII clauses" — a reference to a King who preferred to govern by decree rather than through Parliament. Courts have not found these to be constitutionally invalid, Daly said, adding there are guardrails in the legislation. He said Charter rights and the duty to consult will continue to apply to the legislation. "It's similar in character to the carbon tax legislation from a few years ago, where the Supreme Court said the Henry VIII clause was constitutionally valid. And I suspect that a court, if this statute were challenged, would come to the same conclusion," Daly said. His faculty colleague Errol Mendes, another law professor and constitutional expert, also said by email that he thinks the clauses can be defended constitutionally. But Anna Johnston, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, said sections 22 and 23 and "very worrisome" because they could allow the federal cabinet to exempt a pipeline or some other project from the Species at Risk Act. And she said she thinks it gives the federal government too much leeway on the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples on decisions that affect them. "If I were Canada's lawyers, I would have advised them strenuously against this bill," she said. "That consultation has to be meaningful and I worry that, especially under the timelines that this government wants to make these decisions, that this bill is basically circumventing the government's constitutionally required duty to consult." The bill aims to speed up the approval process for major projects so that cabinet can render a decision in two years at the most. Prime Minister Mark Carney has said it takes too long to push major new projects through "arduous" approval processes. "Canada is a country that used to build big things," Carney said when the bill was introduced on June 6. "In recent decades, it has become too difficult to build new projects in this country." Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Friday that the legislation must be studied thoroughly since it can suspend various laws and regulations relating to language, First Nations rights, the environment and threatened species. "The government seems to want to avoid scrutiny on the bill, which by itself is worrisome," he said in English when speaking to reporters in the House of Commons foyer. "How could we go forward with such a huge bill with huge consequences for Quebec and Canada without at least doing what we have been elected to do, which is studying, thoroughly, this bill in committee?" Speaking on background at a technical briefing for journalists, federal officials said that while the government has no intention at this time to draft regulations that would bypass those laws, the legislation does give it a lot of flexibility. NDP MPs Leah Gazan, Alexandre Boulerice and Lori Idlout wrote to government House leader Steven MacKinnon on Friday to formally request that the bill's study be slowed down to provide for more debate in the House. "Failure to uphold constitutional obligations and environmental standards at a time when we are experiencing a climate emergency will have the opposite effect of developing Canada's economy and sovereignty, and will only lead to conflicts in the courts," they wrote. "In its current iteration, Bill C-5 violates Canada's constitutional obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 that recognizes and affirms Aboriginal treaty rights by giving the governor in council the ability to sidestep constitutional obligations." The bill is expected to undergo an unusually fast one-day study by the House transport committee Wednesday afternoon and evening. The government expects to pass the bill by the end of Friday. The federal Conservatives have argued the bill does not go far enough. Conservative Natural Resources critic Shannon Stubbs said in the House on Friday that the 'anti-energy, anti-development' Liberals should repeal the "no-new-pipelines" Bill C-69, passed by the Justin Trudeau government. She said the Impact Assessment Act it created heaped difficulties on energy sector projects and prevents them from going ahead. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
