Automotive
Trudeau and Ford at it again with more taxpayers dollars for EVs
From Canadians For Affordable Energy
More good money is being thrown after bad, but that seems to be the theme of Trudeau’s government.
On Monday Goodyear Tire announced a $575 million expansion of their Eastern Ontario manufacturing plant to produce electric vehicles, and to make their plant more energy efficient.
And Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau were there for the photo opportunity. Why? Because — shocker — this move comes with serious money from taxpayers in Ontario and throughout Canada. Goodyear is set to receive up to $44.3 million from the federal government through the Strategic Innovation Fund and $20 million from Ontario through the provincial Invest Ontario.
In case you’ve lost track of the money — your money — which has been thrown down this blackhole to date, here’s only some of the close to $46 billion that has been committed:
- Northvolt, electric vehicle battery manufacturing facility, up to $1.34 billion
- Stellantis—LGES (NextStar), EV battery manufacturing facility — $5 billion
- Volkswagen (PowerCo), Federal ($700 million) and Ontario governments ($500 million)
- Ford EcoPro, $322 million
- Stellantis, Federal ($529 million) and Ontario government ($513 million)
- Umicore, Federal ($551.3 million) and Ontario government ($424.6 million)
- Ford Motor Company of Canada, $295 million from both the Federal and Ontario governments
- GM Ingersoll, $259 million from both the Federal and Ontario governments
More taxpayer dollars for cars that no one wants to buy, and are only affordable with heavy government subsidies.
In fact, last month Ford Canada announced that they would be abandoning their plans to retool their plant in Oakville, ON to focus on EV production. Instead, the plant will begin to produce their popular F-Series gasoline-powered heavy duty pickup truck. Ford plants in Ohio and Kentucky are at full capacity and can’t keep up with the demand for the F-Series, so they are shifting some of the load to Oakville. (Trudeau might learn a lesson here about supply and demand, which is what makes a healthy economy work.)
Plant workers were no doubt relieved to hear this, as Ford had already delayed the date when the plant would begin producing EVs from 2025 to 2027, due no doubt to their multi-billion dollar annual losses on EVs. (They lost $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023 and they’re projected to lose nearly $5.5 billion this year.) Many workers had already been laid off, and many more layoffs were expected. But now they’ll be hard at work producing a reliable Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) pickup.
This should come as no surprise. We need only look around the world for examples of dwindling EV sales. In Germany, EV sales fell by 37%. This slump is directly related to the premature ending of the purchase subsidies program. Budget issues forced Germany to end the program a year sooner than anticipated.
In fact, whenever a country reports an increase in EV sales, be sure to look at the subsidies being offered. “In France, a social leasing scheme which helps to provide cheap EVs to low-income households helped see BEV sales increase by 14.9 per cent in the first half of 2024”. And in Italy EV incentives helped push EV sales “up by 7 per cent across the first six months of the year.”
The lavish subsidy programs for EVs have created a false economy whereby they are only attractive and affordable with taxpayer handouts. Canada should expect the same slump in sales when our own subsidy programs come to an end.
In fact, the only nation which shows no sign of slowing down on electric vehicles is China, where they’re pumping them out at breakneck speed. This is, of course, so that they can take advantage of the EV mandates which Canada and other nations have enacted. China’s EV manufacturers are able to undercut Western producers since they control the lion’s share of Lithium battery production.
Their government also heavily subsidizes the industry. But chances are, once they control most of the EV market share, bankrupting smaller producers, they’ll jack up the price. And because of the mandates, drivers will either have to pay what they’re asking, or else invest in a horse and buggy.
This has led to calls for the Trudeau government to impose punitive tariffs on Chinese EVs, to prevent them from inundating the Canadian market to the detriment of Canada’s economy and Canadian workers. Trudeau and co have dragged their feet, likely because they don’t want to offend Chairman Xi.
We certainly should impose those tariffs. But what would be even better for regular, everyday Canadian taxpayers — not that that ever seems to be top-of-mind for Trudeau or Doug Ford — would be to scrap the EV mandates altogether. Forcing Canadians to buy EVs by 2035 is a terrible policy that will make us poorer as individuals and poorer as a nation. And it will ultimately fail.
Better to admit that now, while we still have some money we haven’t paid out by the truckload to green corporate grifters.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
From the Montreal Economic Institute
Seven in 10 Canadians are concerned about the negative impact of cancelled energy projects on Canadian jobs.
More than half of Canadiens are against the federal mandate forcing all new cars sold in Canada to be electric by 2035, shows a new MEI-Ipsos survey released this morning.
“Across the country, Canadians are a lot more hesitant to ban conventional vehicles than their elected representatives in Ottawa are,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI. “They have legitimate concerns, most notably with the cost of those cars, and federal and provincial politicians should take note.”
The poll shows that 55 per cent of Canadians disagree with Ottawa’s decision to ban the sale of conventional vehicles by 2035. In every region surveyed, a larger number of respondents were against the ban than in favour of it.
Among Canadians who don’t already own an electric vehicle, slightly fewer than one in four said their next car would be electric.
Key reasons cited for this lukewarm attitude included the high cost of the cars (70 per cent), the lack of charging infrastructure (66 per cent), and their reduced performance in Canada’s cold climate (64 per cent).
Across the country, only 26 per cent of Canadians believe Ottawa’s plan to ban the sale of conventional vehicles is realistic. Meanwhile, 66 per cent maintain that the plan is unrealistic.
“Canadians understand that 2035 is sooner than Ottawa thinks, and nothing indicates electric vehicle adoption rates are going to follow what federal lawmakers anticipated,” notes Ms. Wittevrongel. “Concerns with their high cost, the lack of charging infrastructure and their poor performance in our cold climate remain strong.”
The survey also found Canadians were troubled by the effects that federal legislation has had in stalling or cancelling energy projects.
Seven in 10 respondents were concerned by the negative impact on Canadian jobs arising from the cancellation of tens of billions of dollars in energy projects due to regulatory hurdles.
Slightly more than three in four Canadians (76 per cent) say the federal government’s environmental impact assessment project takes too long, with only nine per cent taking the opposite view.
“Canadians understand that our energy industry plays a key role in Canada’s economy, and that lengthy approval delays from regulators have a negative impact on a project’s chances of happening,” explains Ms. Wittevrongel. “They are looking for leadership in Ottawa and in the provinces to cut down on bureaucratic hurdles and shorten the time it takes to get shovels in the ground.”
A sample of 1,190 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between September 18th and 22nd, 2024. The results are accurate to within ± 3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here: https://www.iedm.org/wp-
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.
Through a variety of regulatory and spending initiatives, the Trudeau government is expanding its control over our lives, often in the name of climate change or other environmental objectives. For example, the government plans to force consumers to buy electric vehicles instead of conventional cars and has proposed or implemented plastics restrictions on consumers and businesses—everything from plastic drinking straws and plastic utensils to clothing material and food packages.
However, while evidence of the high costs to consumers continues to mount, evidence of the environmental benefits is notably absent. Indeed, many recent studies provide evidence that Ottawa’s restrictions on consumers may well cause net environmental harm. One reason is that the plastic products the federal government is so intent on restricting are more environmentally efficient than alternatives.
A study published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology concludes, “15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.” The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.
Why? Because plastic generally takes less energy to manufacture and transport than the alternatives. In fact, many plastic products that are more environmentally friendly than non-plastic alternatives (according to the study) are products the Trudeau government wants to ban or curtail through regulation.
Other evidence shows plastic bans of the type imposed in Canada cause environmental ruin, contrary to the predictions of politicians. For example, research in New Jersey found after single-use plastic bags were banned in 2022, shoppers switched to the heavier reusable bags. “Owing to the larger carbon footprint of the heavier, non-woven polypropylene bags,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “greenhouse gas emissions rose 500%.”
Similarly, the New York Times reported that while California banned single-use plastic bags almost a decade ago, in 2023 “Californians threw away more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed, according to figures from CalRecycle, California’s recycling agency.”
Also from the Wall Street Journal, analyses suggest electric vehicles often emit more particulate pollution (dust, dirt and soot) than conventional vehicles. That’s because most particulate pollution these days is not from the tailpipe but from tire wear. EVs are much heavier than conventional vehicles so their tires wear out faster, increasing particulate pollution. The firm Emissions Analytics compared a plug-in electric to a hybrid vehicle and found the plug-in electric, which weighed more, emitted about one-quarter more particulate matter than the hybrid as a result of tire wear.
Last year, the chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board noted that EVs manufactured by Ford, Volvo and Toyota were all about 33 per cent heavier than conventionally powered versions of those same vehicles. That’s a problem not only for the environment but also for driver safety—and yet more evidence that the Trudeau government’s EV mandates will harm Canadians.
When it comes to vehicles, plastic products and many other things, the Trudeau government should begin reducing its control over consumers. The harm to consumers is evident; the compensating benefits to the environment—if any—are not.
Author:
Canadian church goes up in flames for the third time in a week
Elon Musk at Trump rally: ‘This is the most important election of our lifetime’
Is the Senate in Violation of the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, and Hindering Reconciliation?
Evacuations urged in Tampa Bay ahead of Hurricane Milton
-
Daily Caller2 days agoFEMA Doled Out Millions Pushing ‘Equity,’ Prioritizing ‘Underserved Communities’ Leading Up To Hurricane Season
-
Disaster16 hours agoAid pours into North Carolina; dozens still missing
-
COVID-192 days agoDr. Trozzi appeals revocation of his medical license in ‘existential moment’ for Ontario courts
-
National2 days agoRetired judge slams Trudeau gov’t for promoting ‘false’ accusation about residential school deaths
-
Business2 days agoElon Musk Warns Harris Will Try To Shut Down X ‘By Any Means Possible’ If Elected
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoJulian Assange laments growing censorship, suppression of truth in the West upon release
-
John Stossel1 day agoFree Money? What a UBI Would Really Do to People … and the National Debt
-
Economy1 day agoFederal mismanagement to blame for Canada’s immigration backlash