By Jerome Gessaroli for Inside Policy

Reducing transportation emissions is a worthy goal, but policy must be guided by evidence, not ideology.

In the next few years, the average new vehicle in British Columbia could reach $80,000, not because of inflation, but largely because of provincial and federal climate policy. By forcing zero-emission-vehicle (ZEV) targets faster than the market can afford, both governments risk turning climate ambition into an affordability crisis.

EVs are part of the solution, but mandates that outpace market acceptance risk creating real-world challenges, ranging from cold-weather travel to sparse rural charging to the cost and inconvenience for drivers without home charging. As Victoria and Ottawa review their ZEV policies, the goal is to match ambition with evidence.

Introduced in 2019, BC’s mandate was meant to accelerate electrification and cut emissions from light-duty vehicles. In 2023, however, it became far more stringent, setting the most aggressive ZEV targets in North America. What began as a plan to boost ZEV adoption has now become policy orthodoxy. By 2030, automakers must ensure that 90 per cent of new light-duty vehicles sold in BC are zero-emission, regardless of what consumers want or can afford. The evidence suggests this approach is out of step with market realities.

The province isn’t alone in pursuing EV mandates, but its pace is unmatched. British Columbia, Quebec, and the federal government are the only ones in Canada with such rules. BC’s targets rise much faster than California’s, the jurisdiction that usually sets the bar on green-vehicle policy, though all have the same goal of making every new vehicle zero-emission by 2035.

According to Canadian Black Book, 2025 model EVs are about $17,800 more expensive than gas-powered vehicles. However, ever since Ottawa and BC removed EV purchase incentives, sales have fallen and have not yet recovered. Actual demand in BC sits near 16 per cent of new vehicle sales, well below the 26 per cent mandate for 2026. To close that gap, automakers may have to pay steep penalties or cut back on gas-vehicle sales to meet government goals.

The mandate also allows domestic automakers to meet their targets by purchasing credits from companies, such as Tesla, which hold surplus credits, transferring millions of dollars out of the country simply to comply with provincial rules. But even that workaround is not sustainable. As both federal and provincial mandates tighten, credit supplies will shrink and costs will rise, leaving automakers more likely to limit gas-vehicle sales.

It may be climate policy in intent, but in reality, it acts like a luxury tax on mobility. Higher new-vehicle prices are pushing consumers toward used cars, inflating second-hand prices, and keeping older, higher-emitting vehicles on the road longer. Lower-income and rural households are hit hardest, a perverse outcome for a policy meant to reduce emissions.

Infrastructure is another obstacle. Charging-station expansion and grid upgrades remain far behind what is needed to support mass electrification. Estimates suggest powering BC’s future EV fleet alone could require the electricity output of almost two additional Site C dams by 2040. In rural and northern regions, where distances are long and winters are harsh, drivers are understandably reluctant to switch. Beyond infrastructure, changing market and policy conditions now pose additional risks to Canada’s EV goals.

Major automakers have delayed or cancelled new EV models and battery-plant investments. The United States has scaled back or reversed federal and state EV targets and reoriented subsidies toward domestic manufacturing. These shifts are likely to slow EV model availability and investment across North America, pushing both British Columbia and Ottawa to reconsider how realistic their own targets are in more challenging market conditions.

Meanwhile, many Canadians are feeling the strain of record living costs. Recent polling by Abacus Data and  Ipsos shows that most Canadians view rising living costs as the country’s most pressing challenge, with many saying the situation is worsening. In that climate, pressing ahead with aggressive mandates despite affordability concerns appears driven more by green ideology than by evidence. Consumers are not rejecting EVs. They are rejecting unrealistic timelines and unaffordable expectations.

Reducing transportation emissions is a worthy goal, but policy must be guided by evidence, not ideology. When targets become detached from real-world conditions, ideology replaces judgment. Pushing too hard risks backlash that can undo the very progress we are trying to achieve.

Neither British Columbia nor the federal government needs to abandon its clean-transportation objectives, but both need to adjust them. That means setting targets that match realistic adoption rates, as EVs become more affordable and capable, and allowing more flexible compliance based on emissions reductions rather than vehicle type. In simple terms, the goal should be cutting emissions, not forcing people to buy a specific type of car. These steps would align ambition with reality and ensure that environmental progress strengthens, rather than undermines, public trust.

With both Ottawa and Victoria reviewing their EV mandates, their next moves will show whether Canadian climate policy is driven by evidence or by ideology. Adjusting targets to reflect real-world affordability and adoption rates would signal pragmatism and strengthen public trust in the country’s clean-energy transition.

Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the BC Institute of British Columbia

From Resource Works

By Jim Rushton

Can we learn to work together and build together?

The Western provinces now stand on the precipice of achieving the status they have craved since joining Confederation. However, let’s be clear: this is about oil and gas, not just oil, not just gas.

Objectively, the West is the leading edge in Canada’s pursuit of 21st-century prosperity. Will the Western provinces get their act together, or, more to the point, will the premiers and the Prime Minister find a way to do what Canada needs them to do?

The political and cultural differences between Alberta and British Columbia date back to before they entered Confederation.

The Colony of British Columbia was a classic creation of the British Empire. The familiar British structures and institutions of governance were in place, just as they were in central and eastern Canada before Confederation. Settlers to British colonies were typically recruited with secure employment. They were usually employees of an industry, working in administration, logistics, or some aspect of commerce. It is fair to say they were not particularly adventurous, beyond the fact that they had travelled all the way to the West Coast of North America.

Before and after Confederation, many Americans moved into the prairie provinces, where British institutions were not yet well-established. Albertans are often seen, not without reason, as the most “American” of Canadians, a perception rooted in the wave of settlers who brought a frontier culture and economy north from the Great Plains. All of which becomes clear when one surveys the range of historical accounts available through a Google search.

The conflict between the staid British heritage of the Colony of British Columbia and Upper Canada, and the restless energy of the American Wild West, has always been in the background of Alberta’s relationships within Canada.

B.C. and Alberta’s conflicts over pipelines do not originate with oil; they are more like siblings in a never-ending quarrel over anything and everything. That does not mean there is no substance to the pipeline dispute, it means it requires a grown-up response.

Because if we did not think things could get more complicated, they have.

Venezuela, with the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil, is now a clear target of the United States. With the U.S. Navy positioned in the Caribbean Sea, clearly surrounding Venezuela, it is no joke and a clear threat to Canada’s oil and gas industry.

It appears evident that the American end goal is unchallenged access to Venezuelan oil. The strategy resembles a return to the centuries-old model of Empire and Vassal States. The tactical move is regime change.

The United States has only 35.2 billion barrels of oil reserves, while Venezuela, ranked first, holds 300 billion barrels, and Canada, ranked third in the world, has 170.9 billion barrels. For the United States to maintain its global oil status, it will increasingly need large quantities from Canada, Venezuela, or Mexico. (It should be noted that Mexican oil production has declined in recent years.)

Should America’s domination of Venezuela come to fruition, what does this put in front of Canada, for our economic security and sovereignty? It raises difficult questions:

• Can we be sure of maintaining access to the U.S. market?
• Would we be limited to the current capacity of the Midwest refineries, as Gulf refineries expand their heavy-oil processing capabilities?
• Can we be certain that the discount we now experience will not grow even larger?

We must be honest with ourselves. Every day brings new evidence that Canada’s oil and gas future points toward the Asia Pacific region, strengthening the case for an open mind about a new pipeline to the Pacific Coast.

The 6.5-billion-person underserved market is far more attractive, as is a market where buyers are focused on their own countries and their own people, with no intent or interest in punishing their suppliers.

For the next half-century, oil and gas will continue to be the dominant global trade currency. This does not mean we should ignore emissions or fail to protect our coastlines, it implies that neglecting the oil and gas bounty we are blessed with would betray our grandchildren.

To protect Canadian sovereignty, we must significantly expand our oil and gas production and shipping capacity to the Asia Pacific region.

Thirty years ago, no one was predicting anything close to what is happening today.

One thing that has not changed is the United States itself. Since its formation, its leaders have been both expansionist and isolationist. Preferential access to resources and Fortress America are today’s manifestations of U.S. foreign and economic policy.

We should not believe this is just Trump. There is broad public support across America. Polls indicate that while many dislike his tactics, they are also no longer accepting of the Free World relying solely on the United States. They also show growing support for a more nationalist economy, a sentiment increasingly visible across most Western democracies, including Canada.

Future American leaders may not be so Trumpian, but it would be wrong to think the Fortress America approach will be abandoned as Trump leaves office.

Prime Minister Carney needs to lead a discussion that finds a path forward and addresses long-held prejudices founded on differing entry points into Confederation.

Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.