Automotive
Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

MxM News
Quick Hit:
Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.
Key Details:
-
Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.
-
The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.
-
California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.
Diving Deeper:
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.
California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.
A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.
The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.
Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.
California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.
As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?
Agriculture
Canola or cars? Canada can’t save both

This article supplied by Troy Media.
By Doug Firby
Canada is risking its most successful export to prop up an EV pipe dream
Picture a Canadian industry that contributes $43 billion to the economy and employs about 200,000 people.
There aren’t many of those in this country. Any industry of that size should be considered indispensable.
And yet, while there is (understandable) national hand-wringing over the future of Canada’s auto industry—especially in light of U.S. President Donald
Trump’s renewed tariff rampage—another industry, arguably more economically important, is being dangerously overlooked.
That industry is canola.
A summer drive through Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta makes the scale hard to miss. Yellow fields stretch to every horizon. Canola production has exploded over the past decade and has become the very lifeblood of the Prairies.
Without it, large parts of those provinces would be economically barren and far more sparsely populated. We’re not talking about niche agriculture here—we’re talking about a foundational industry that keeps the lights on across three provinces.
Canada is the world’s largest exporter of canola, a crop used to produce cooking oil, animal feed and biofuels. Its export-driven success makes it a cornerstone of the Prairie economy.
Now consider this: Canada’s auto manufacturing industry contributes about $19 billion annually to GDP and employs around 125,000 people directly in assembly and parts manufacturing. Include distribution and aftermarket services, and you get a bigger figure, but the core numbers still pale in comparison to canola.
So, here’s the uncomfortable question: If you had to sacrifice one, which would it be?
It’s a Hobson’s choice. Nobody wants to lose either. But Canada has been pushed into a position where something has to give.
The Trudeau government—and before that, the Biden administration—imposed 100 per cent tariffs on made-in-China electric vehicles (EVs). The logic was straightforward: protect the billions being pumped into Canada’s auto sector and turn the country into a hub for EV innovation and production.
It was a defensive move: one meant to slow China’s dominance in the global EV market and give domestic manufacturers room to grow. Without it, cheap, wellbuilt Chinese EVs would undercut Canadian and North American models before they ever left the factory floor.
But China doesn’t take these things lightly. In retaliation, it slapped a 76 per cent tariff on Canadian canola. Prairie farmers, many of whom are already grappling with rising costs and unpredictable weather, are now wondering if their main market is disappearing overnight.
China has long been Canada’s largest canola customer, though the relationship has had flare-ups, including temporary bans in past years tied to diplomatic disputes.
More than two-thirds of Canada’s exported canola goes to China. The latest tariff hike has already wiped out an estimated $1 billion in value. And there’s no clear end in sight.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew was blunt last week: Canada cannot afford to be in a trade war with both the United States and China. He suggested that, in the short term, Ottawa should direct EV tariff revenues to support canola producers. That may buy us some time. But the broader strategic question looms larger: With the U.S. under Trump becoming an increasingly unstable trade partner, and China punishing us for playing by American rules, where does Canada place its long-term bet?
It’s not an easy question to answer.
China is hardly an ideal partner. Its human rights record is abysmal, and its growing economic power often comes with strings attached. But we also can’t deny that it has already become the global manufacturing centre in many key sectors—including electric vehicles.
Then there’s the U.S. A longtime ally, yes, but under Trump, all bets are off. In January, he said of Canada, “We don’t need anything they have.” Not cars. Not oil. Not even niceties.
CUSMA—the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement that replaced NAFTA—governs most of Canada’s trade with our two largest partners. If Trump reopens the deal—and with Trump, it’s usually safest to take him literally—the Canadian auto industry may not survive. Billions in subsidies and protective tariffs won’t matter if the largest market slams its door shut.
So, again: what should we protect?
New markets for canola are being pursued—in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. But they won’t match China’s scale anytime soon. Diversifying export markets takes years. Prairie farmers don’t have that kind of time.
Meanwhile, dreams of building a Canadian-made EV remain just that: dreams. The auto sector may eventually pivot and survive, but right now, it’s the one on life support. Canola is the industry that’s vibrant—unless we let it get crushed in a trade crossfire.
I lived in an auto town for over two decades. I know the stakes. I’ve seen what happens when plants close, when supply chains dry up, and when livelihoods vanish.
But we need to be realistic.
Canola is a winning industry. It feeds the economy, supports thousands of families and helps keep our rural communities alive. It doesn’t need endless
subsidies or federal cheerleading—it just needs stable access to markets.
That might mean giving ground on EV tariffs. That might mean swallowing some pride on the international stage. But Canada cannot afford to sacrifice a thriving sector to save one already on the brink.
If we’re going to make hard choices—and we will—let’s make the one that protects what still works.
Canada cannot lose canola.
Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country
Automotive
Drop in EV sales signals Ottawa should drop its mandate

The slowing adoption of electric vehicles is a clear signal that the federal government should abandon its gradual ban on gas-powered vehicles, says the MEI.
“Consumer choices belong to consumers, not the government,” says Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst at the MEI. “With consumers’ appetite for electric vehicles waning, not only is the federal government’s mandate unrealistic, but it is also coercive.”
Data released this morning show that electric vehicle purchases are down 36.8 per cent year over year (Q2 to Q2).
In June, only 7.9 per cent of vehicle sales in Canada were zero emission, down from 13.0 per cent in June of 2024, according to Statistics Canada.
In 2023, the federal government introduced targets for gradually eliminating the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
To meet the government’s targets, 20 per cent of new vehicle sales would need to be electric or plug-in hybrid in 2026, representing a 12-point jump from current levels and a reversal of the current trend.
“At this rate, the target will simply not be met, since Canadians’ current purchasing habits reveal a preference for other types of vehicles,” notes Mr. Giguère.
Seven in 10 Canadians (68 per cent) consider the prohibition of gas-powered vehicle sales by 2035 to be “unrealistic,” according to a Leger poll conducted earlier this month.
Asked whether they believe the EV mandate should be maintained or scrapped, 71 per cent of Canadians say it should be rescinded due to “high costs and implementation concerns.”
These concerns align with findings from an MEI Viewpoint published in February, which highlighted significant worries over the availability of charging infrastructure, the pressure on provincial electrical grids, and the high cost of purchasing new electric vehicles. Together, these concerns justify the abandonment of the federal prohibition.
“Canadians should have the freedom to purchase the vehicles that suit their needs,” says Mr. Giguère. “The adoption of new technology should be driven by innovation, not by government decree.”
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, 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.
-
Business2 days ago
Bigger Government, Bigger Bill: PBO reveals $71.1 billion in federal personnel spending in 2024–25
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s fiscal update—and $6.5 billion deficit—underscores need for spending reductions
-
Alberta2 days ago
Natural gas connection to breathe new life into former Alberta ghost town
-
Business2 days ago
Canadians can’t afford another Ottawa budget failure
-
Business1 day ago
Trump targets billions in foreign aid with first pocket rescission in nearly 50 years
-
Education19 hours ago
Spending per K-12 student in Canada ranged from $13,494 in Alberta to $19,484 in Quebec in 2022/23
-
Energy2 days ago
Guess there’s a “business case” after all. Europe wants LNG, but can Canada still provide it?
-
Crime2 days ago
U.S. Treasury Warns of $312 Billion in Chinese Laundering For Mexican cartels