From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Bad policy, not misinformation, is to blame for the decline in EV sales

It was a clever move for federal minister Gregor Robertson to stand in Victoria and blame the oil and auto industries for spreading “misinformation” about electric vehicles.

If people don’t follow a government order, then someone else must have lied to them.

But the truth is simpler, and more uncomfortable for Ottawa and Victoria: Canadians are against aggressive EV mandates because the policies behind them are not based on reality.

Politicians have been pushing electric vehicles (EVs) as a cornerstone of the fight against climate change for years, promising a cleaner future through ambitious mandates and generous rebates.

All of this effort looked good on paper:  passing laws, handing out thousands (millions, billions) in subsidies, paving the way for Canada’s transition to an electric future.

But, in real life, it’s just not working out this way.

Why?  Because instead of crafting long-term rules based on the realities of infrastructure, cost, and consumer choice, Ottawa rushed ahead with policies that ignored market signals.

They assumed subsidies would keep EV sales flowing indefinitely, only to be shocked when sales plummeted once the rebates dried up.

Canadians are responding rationally to high prices, unreliable charging networks, and impractical mandates.

Not long ago, Ottawa set ambitious, unattainable targets: 20 percent zero-emission vehicle sales by 2026, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035.

British Columbia went further, aiming for 26 percent by 2026, 90 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2035.

In theory, it looked achievable. In practice, it’s been a wake-up call.

The numbers tell the story. Statistics Canada reported that EVs accounted for 18.29 percent of new vehicle sales in December 2024. Just four months later, when Ottawa’s iZEV program ran out of funds and provincial rebates ended, that figure crashed to 7.53 percent.

In British Columbia, once a leader in EV adoption, the market share dropped from nearly 25 percent in mid-2024 to 15 percent a year later.

Quebec, long the most EV-friendly province, saw a similar decline when its $7,000 subsidy was slashed nearly in half.

Why? Canadians have been very clear.

Cost is the biggest barrier, according to polls like this one from Ipsos in 2025. But this isn’t the only issue.

Ipsos found 56 percent of British Columbians oppose EV mandates, with even higher resistance among older households and those outside Metro Vancouver. People resent being told they must buy expensive cars they can’t easily charge or fully trust in harsh winters.

Subsidies made high sticker prices tolerable for middle-class families, but when the rebates vanished while mandates and fines remained, buyers walked away.

Barry Penner of the Energy Futures Institute put it bluntly: governments “put the cart before the horse,” demanding widespread adoption before ensuring affordability or infrastructure.

The financial penalties for automakers are steep. Missing federal targets by 10 percent could mean hundreds of millions in fines.

In British Columbia, dealers face $20,000 penalties for every gas-powered car sold over the mandated ratio. Those who can’t comply often buy credits—frequently from Tesla, a California-based company that benefits while Canadian businesses foot the bill. These rules aren’t just hitting “Big Oil”; they’re straining local dealers and sending money abroad.

Infrastructure is another glaring issue. Ottawa estimates Canada has 33,700 chargers today but needs 679,000 by 2040—an average of 40,000 new chargers annually for 15 years, a pace experts call unrealistic.

In British Columbia, Penner notes the province has just 5,000 chargers now and needs 40,000 more by 2030. Meeting the 2035 mandate would also require electricity equivalent to two additional Site C dams, even as B.C. relies on 20 to 25 percent of its power from external sources, often fossil fuels.

Canadians aren’t against cleaner technology—they’re against being forced into choices that don’t fit their lives. The frustration stems from policies that feel disconnected from the realities of cost, convenience, and infrastructure. More blame or moralizing won’t fix this.

Penner has urged governments to “take our foot off the gas and realign our policies with reality.”

That could mean reinstating rebates if mandates persist, investing heavily in charging networks, or setting broader emissions targets that give consumers real choices instead of rigid quotas.

The EV dream will keep stalling unless that happens. It’s not because Canadians don’t know what’s going on; it’s because governments made decisions based on wishful thinking.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

The U.S. is escalating its fight against drug cartels by treating them like terrorist organizations, while Canada risks becoming a safe haven if it fails to act. Cartels already exploit Canadian banks, real estate, and trade, posing national security threats beyond drugs. In this commentary, Frontier Centre senior fellow Scott McGregor urges Canada to tighten ownership laws, strengthen enforcement, and apply terrorism financing tools—otherwise, it will become the weak link vulnerable to cartel infiltration and corruption.

The U.S. is getting serious about drug cartels. If Canada doesn’t step up, we risk becoming their next base of operations

According to a recent New York Times report, U.S. President Donald Trump has given the Pentagon the green light to target Latin American drug cartels. Not “target” in the metaphorical sense—this is the real thing. Drones. Intelligence ops. Boots, if not yet on the ground, then certainly in the briefing rooms.

This isn’t just another law-and-order flex. It’s a clear signal that cartels are no longer being treated like street thugs with fast cars and gold-plated pistols. The U.S. is starting to treat them as what they’ve become: strategic actors capable of hollowing out nations through violence, economic sabotage and political manipulation.

Canada, take note. These cartels aren’t lurking just south of the Rio Grande. They’re here—moving narcotics through our ports, washing dirty money through casinos and real estate, and slipping illicit profits into the bloodstream of our legitimate businesses. The same loopholes that let hostile states meddle in our economy—opaque ownership laws, sluggish enforcement, paper-thin oversight—are a buffet for criminal networks.

The U.S. move to label cartels as foreign terrorist organizations isn’t just semantics. It unlocks serious tools: sanctions, asset freezes, intelligence collection, and expanded interagency coordination. And yes, it will inevitably reshape how American agencies engage with Canadian police, prosecutors and financial watchdogs. Whether we’re ready or not.

Our private sector, already lumbering under the alphabet soup of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, if you’re into that sort of thing, will now face higher expectations. The law technically requires banks, real estate firms, casinos and others to flag dodgy transactions. But reality hasn’t lived up to regulation. Just ask TD Bank, which somehow let billions in suspected drug money pass through its accounts like it was business as usual.

Now, with U.S. regulators treating some cartels like terror networks, those Canadian reporting obligations take on a whole new urgency. Vague links to shady partners won’t be brushed aside—they’ll be flagged, frozen and maybe prosecuted. Transactions won’t just be scrutinized for origin—they’ll be examined for intent, connection and risk exposure.

And if you think this only applies to bags of cash under the table, think again. Trade-based laundering—fudged invoices, over- or underpriced exports, corporate shell games—is very much in the crosshairs. So is service-based laundering: professional firms, logistics handlers, consultants. If it moves, it can be used. And if it moves dirty money, it’s fair game.

For businesses with Latin American partners or operations in high-risk sectors—agriculture, commodities, shipping, construction—the rules have changed. Every client, every partner, every middleman becomes a compliance risk. Insurers and investors are already sharpening their pencils. If you thought due diligence was annoying before, just wait.

But the private sector won’t be the only one feeling the heat. Canadian law enforcement can’t afford to lag behind. If the U.S. is reaching for terrorism laws to take down cartel operations, Canada can’t keep leaning on an outdated “organized crime” framework better suited to The Sopranos reruns than transnational hybrid conflict.

Integrated enforcement units will need more than pep talks—they’ll need authority, funding and legal backing to go after not just cartel foot soldiers, but the enablers hiding in plain sight: financial fixers, trade brokers and regulatory sleepers.

It’s time to revisit whether our terrorism financing laws can apply to cartels that, let’s face it, look and act an awful lot like geopolitical insurgents. If they meet the Criminal Code’s thresholds, why aren’t they being treated accordingly?

Because this isn’t just about drugs. It’s about hybrid warfare.

Cartels are no longer just violent criminal enterprises. They’ve become destabilizing forces—sometimes aligned with hostile regimes, always exploiting weak institutions. Take Venezuela’s Cartel de los Soles. It’s allegedly run by senior government officials. That’s not just a crime ring. That’s a criminal state actor.

When such networks pass through Canada, they don’t just bring drugs. They bring the risk of corruption, economic distortion and political interference. In short: they’re a national security threat.

And here’s the kicker: if Canada doesn’t match the U.S. posture, we become the soft underbelly. Cartels will exploit every gap between Washington’s crackdown and Ottawa’s inertia. Even if Canada doesn’t change a thing, the private sector won’t get a pass. U.S. regulators don’t particularly care what Parliament does—they care about risk exposure. And they will act accordingly.

The U.S. designation confirms what many in intelligence and enforcement have long known: the cartels use the same toolkit as hostile states: illicit finance, economic disruption and market infiltration. That makes them more than a policing challenge. They are a test of national resilience.

Canada’s response needs to be sharp, strategic and immediate. That means tightening ownership laws, expanding the operational muscle of FINTRAC—the federal agency that tracks suspicious financial transactions and combats money laundering—and properly resourcing joint enforcement teams. Above all, we must stop treating compliance as a box-checking exercise and start treating it as the security tool it was meant to be.

Washington’s message couldn’t be clearer. If Canada stays on cruise control, the cartels will set up shop here—and we’ll be the ones footing the bill in corrupted institutions, compromised markets and communities left to deal with the fallout.

Hybrid threats don’t wait for committee reports. They move fast, adapt quickly and embed deeply. So should we.

Scott McGregor is an intelligence consultant and co-author of The Mosaic Effect. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and writes here for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.