It doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy. In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.
What does Donald Trump’s resounding win in the recent U.S. election mean for Canada? Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to have been much thought about the answer to this question in Ottawa, because the vast majority of our political and pundit class expected his opponent to be victorious. Suddenly they’re all having to process this unwelcome intrusion of reality into their narrow mental picture.
Well, what does it mean?
It is early days, and it will take some time to sift through the various policy commitments of the incoming Trump Administration to unpack the Canadian angle. But one thing we do know is that a Trump presidency will be no friend to the electric vehicle industry.
A Harris administration would have been. But, Trump spent much of his campaign slamming EV subsidies and mandates, pledging at the Republican National Convention in July that he will “end the electric vehicle mandate on day one.”
This line was so effective, especially in must-win Michigan, with its hundreds of thousands of autoworkers, that Kamala Harris was forced to assure everyone who listened that the U.S. has no EV mandate, and that she has no intention of introducing one.
Of course, this wasn’t strictly true.
First, the Biden Administration, of which Harris was a part, issued an Executive Order with the explicit goal of a “50% Electric Vehicle Sales Share” by 2030. The Biden-Harris Administration (to use their own formulation) instructed their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to introduce increasingly stringent tailpipe emission regulations on cars and light trucks with an eye towards pushing automakers to manufacture and sell more electric and hybrid vehicles.
Their EPA also issued a waiver which allows California to enact auto emissions regulations that are tougher than the federal government’s, which functions as a kind of back-door EV mandate nationally. After all, auto companies aren’t going to manufacture one set of vehicles for California, the most populous state, and another for the rest of the country.
And as for intentions, though the Harris camp consistently held that her prior policy positions shouldn’t be held against her, it’s hard to forget that as senator she’d co-sponsored the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, which would have mandated that all new vehicles sold in the U.S. be “zero emission” by 2040. During her failed 2020 presidential campaign, Harris accelerated that proposed timeline, saying that the auto market should be all-electric by 2035.
In other words, she seemed pretty fond of the EV policies which Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault have foisted upon Canada.
For Trump, all of these policies can be filed under “green new scam” climate policies, which stifle American resource development and endanger national prosperity. Now that he’s retaken the White House, it is expected that he will issue his own executive orders to the EPA, rescinding Biden’s tailpipe instructions and scrapping their waiver for California. And though he will be hindered somewhat by Congress, he’s likely to do everything in his power to roll back the EV subsidies contained in the (terribly named) Inflation Reduction Act and lobby for changes limiting which EVs qualify for tax credits, and how much.
All of this will be devastating for the EV industry, which is utterly reliant on the carrots and sticks of subsidies and mandates. And it’s particularly bad news for the Trudeau government (and Doug Ford’s government in Ontario), which have gone all-in on EVs, investing billions of taxpayer dollars to convince automakers to build their EVs and batteries here.
Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,” according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”
Canada’s EV subsidies were pitched as an “investment” in an evolving auto market, but that assumes that those pre-existing lines of trade will remain essentially unchanged. If American EV demand collapses, or significantly contracts without mandates or tax incentives, we’ll be up the river without a paddle.
And that will be true, even if the U.S. EV market proves more resilient than I expect it to. That is because of Trump’s commitment to “Making America Great Again” by boosting American manufacturing and the jobs it provides. He campaigned on a blanket tariff of 10 percent on all foreign imports, with no exceptions mentioned. This would have a massive impact on Canada, since the U.S. is our largest trading partner.
Though Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland have been saying to everyone who will listen how excited they are to work with the Trump Administration again, and “Canada will be fine,” it doesn’t bode well for our country that our economic security rests on tariff exceptions to be negotiated by Liberal politicians who have spent the majority of Trump’s public life calling him a “threat to liberal democracy” and his supporters racists and fascists. Their hostility doesn’t lend itself to fruitful diplomacy.
In any event, Trump’s EV rollback and aggressive tariffs will spell disaster for the Canadian EV sector.
The optimism that existed under the Biden administration that Canada could significantly increase its export capacity to the USA is going down the drain. The hope that “Canada could reestablish its export sector as a key driver of growth by positioning itself as a leader in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing, along with other areas in cleantech,” in the words of an RBC report, is swiftly fading. It seems more likely now that Canada will be left holding the bag on a dying industry in which we’re invested heavily.
The Trudeau Liberals’ aggressive push, driven by ideology and not market forces, to force Electric Vehicles on everyone is already backfiring on the Canadian taxpayer. Pierre Poilievre must take note — EV mandates and subsidies are bad for our country, and as Trump has demonstrated, they’re not a winning policy. He should act accordingly.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
President Donald Trump announced a permanent 25% tariff on automobiles made in other countries that will go into effect on April 2.
Trump made the announcement Wednesday in the Oval Office. He also hinted that the reciprocal tariffs he plans to announce on April 2 could be more lenient, suggesting the tariffs would be less than fully reciprocal.
“What we’re going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the U.S.,” the president said.
Asked if any changes could avert the auto tariffs, Trump said they would be “permanent.”
“This will continue to spur growth like you haven’t seen before,” Trump said.
Trump said the tariffs will be good news for auto companies that already build products in the U.S. He also said carmakers that don’t build in the U.S. are looking to do so.
“We’re signing an executive order today that’s going to lead to tremendous growth in the automobile industry,” Trump said.
The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two.
Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.
Trump also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to approve a measure that would allow car buyers to deduct the interest on loans for cars that are made in America. Trump said that such a plan would make cars nearly free for buyers.
“So when you get a loan to buy a car … I think it’s going to pay for itself, I don’t think there’s any cost,” he said.
Trump also said the reciprocal tariffs he plans to unveil on April 2 would be fair.
“We’re going to be very nice actually,” he said. “It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff they’ve been charging us for decades.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tariffs would hurt businesses and consumers.
“I deeply regret the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” she said. “Tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers, in the U.S. and the EU.”
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.
Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” Trump has also used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.
Tariffs are taxes charged on imported products. The company importing the products pays the tariffs and can either try to absorb the loss or pass the additional costs on to consumers.
Nissan is reportedly abandoning merger talks with Honda, scrapping a $60 billion deal that would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. The collapse raises questions about Nissan’s turnaround strategy as it faces challenges from electric vehicle competitors and potential U.S. tariffs.
Key Details:
Nissan shares dropped over 4% following the news, while Honda’s stock surged more than 8%, signaling investor relief.
Honda reportedly proposed making Nissan a subsidiary, a move Nissan rejected as it was initially framed as a merger of equals.
Nissan is struggling with financial challenges and the transition to EVs, still reeling from the 2018 scandal involving former chairman Carlos Ghosn.
Diving Deeper:
Merger talks between Nissan and Honda have collapsed, according to sources, after months of negotiations to form an auto giant capable of competing with Chinese EV makers like BYD. The proposed deal, valued at over $60 billion, would have created the world’s third-largest automaker. However, differences in strategy and control ultimately derailed the discussions.
Reports indicate that Honda, Japan’s second-largest automaker, wanted Nissan to become a subsidiary rather than an equal merger partner. Nissan balked at the idea, leading to the collapse of negotiations. Honda’s market valuation of approximately $51.9 billion dwarfs Nissan’s, which may have fueled concerns about control. The failure of talks sent Nissan’s stock tumbling more than 4% in Tokyo, while Honda’s shares rose over 8%, reflecting investor confidence in Honda’s independent strategy.
Nissan, already in the midst of a turnaround plan involving 9,000 job cuts and a 20% reduction in global capacity, now faces mounting pressure to restructure on its own. Analysts warn that the failed merger raises uncertainty about Nissan’s ability to compete in an industry rapidly shifting toward EVs. “Investors may get concerned about Nissan’s future [and] turnaround,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said.
Complicating matters further, Nissan faces heightened risks from U.S. tariffs under President Donald Trump’s trade policies. Potential tariffs on vehicles manufactured in Mexico could hit Nissan harder than competitors like Honda and Toyota. The stalled deal also impacts Nissan’s existing alliance with Renault, which had expressed openness to the merger. Renault holds a 36% stake in Nissan, including 18.7% through a French trust.
While both Nissan and Honda have stated they will finalize a direction by mid-February, the collapse of this deal signals deep divisions in Japan’s auto industry. With Nissan’s financial struggles and the growing dominance of Chinese EV makers, the company must now navigate an increasingly challenging market without external support.
