Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Canada Politics

Canada Delaying Plan To Force Automakers To Hit EVs Sales Targets (www.cbc.ca) 125

Longtime Slashdot reader sinij shares a report from CBC News: Prime Minister Mark Carney is delaying a plan to force automakers to hit minimum sales levels for electric vehicles. The move is part of a series of measures the government announced Friday to help the sectors most affected by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs. The EV mandate will be paused as the government conducts a 60-day review of the policy, and will be waived for 2026 models. Sources told CBC News that the review will look at the entire mandate and next steps.

"We have an auto sector which, because of the massive change in U.S. policy, is under extreme pressure. We recognize that," Carney said at a news conference in Mississauga, Ont. "They've got enough on their plate right now. So we're taking that off." The government is using the review as part of broader look at all the government's climate measures, he added. [...]

Brian Kingston, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, called it "an important first step." "The EV mandate imposes unsustainable costs on auto manufacturers, putting at risk Canadian jobs and investment in this critical sector of the economy," he said in a statement. "A full repeal of the regulation is the most effective way to provide immediate relief to the industry and keep it competitive."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Delaying Plan To Force Automakers To Hit EVs Sales Targets

Comments Filter:
  • You can't have an EV mandate unless you have charging infrastructure in place first. The Chinese and the Norwegians got that part right.

    • I’ve noticed lots of chargers in small towns and at restaurants in Ontario. Granted they’re level 2 but it’s still infrastructure. Also spotted a few Vinfast cars which surprised me.

      • There are quite a few Vinfast cars going around, I wondered if people were importing them individually but then I spotted a Vinfast dealership off the highway (401 I think?) next to a Lotus dealership.

      • No, infrastructure is a couple guaranteed working fast chargers every 200km of highway everywhere. Not random businesses here and there.
      • by _merlin ( 160982 )

        People are buying Vinfast? They're the butt of jokes in Viet Nam (everyone wants a Toyota or Honda). They don't meet Australian standards and can't be imported. Why are Canadians buying them?

      • I’ve noticed lots of chargers in small towns and at restaurants in Ontario. Granted they’re level 2 but it’s still infrastructure. Also spotted a few Vinfast cars which surprised me.

        We have lots of chargers put into odd locations to capture government grants. Hence the problem in the USA of chargers built on some available land, possibly a little out of the way, and not maintained. The gov't grants paid for construction, not maintenance. So there was some build and abandon sort of scamming going on. Classic well intended gov't program that had a superficial analysis and they didn't really consider unintended consequences and scammers.

        The real solution to charging infrastructure is t

        • The real solution to charging infrastructure is to slowly convert individual gas pumps to EV chargers at a rate the match local EV adoption. We've had nearly a 100 years of a Darwinian process determining where people tend to need to refuel, the land and businesses are already in place. A charger merely needs to replace a pump.

          Due to the difference in charge time vs pump rate it takes multiple chargers to replace one pump to maintain the vehicles serviced per hour rate. Time how long it takes you to fill up your car next time and compare that to how long it takes to fully charge an EV and you'll see what I mean. The charging tech isn't quite there yet but it's getting closer. At which point it will take a serious upgrade to the electrical distribution system along with load leveling batteries at the station to deal with this.

          T

    • You can't have an EV mandate unless you have charging infrastructure in place first.

      The EV mandates are all political theatre. They are just pandering to voters who vote based on virtual signaling rather than actual accomplishments.

      These mandates are set in the distant enough future to not impact the virtue signaling politician at the time they issue the mandate. Many will have moved on to different roles by the target date, it won't be their problem.

      That future office holder will feel no obligation to accept the negative consequences of the previous office holder's PR stunt.

      When

  • How is it that I'm to trust a 10 yer plan from any politician when so few can be expected to stay in office long enough to see this plan to the end? As an example I can recall Democrat politicians for POTUS proudly explaining their 10 year plan when the constitution prevents them from staying in office for 10 years. Why is it that so few called them out on this? I have my suspicions but I'd like to see others present their own theories.

    Not only is a 10 year plan from any politician rarely anything seriou

    • by rta ( 559125 )

      Because of this issue and generally that nothing is ever final and also that politicians just say whatever's convenient at the time, someecades ago someone mentioned to me that you shouldn't get caught up in specific politicians but in political parties instead.

      And in the US since we only have two parties, really i think it's more about picking, supporting or building think tanks, PACs, and other organizations around the specific policies you care about so that they can always apply pressure (and money) in

    • Isn't a main complaint with politicians/parties is they only focus on their own term, and don't make any long-term plans?

      Shit or get off the pot.

      10yr plans are fine. BAD 10yr plans are a problem. Same with short term plans.

  • With the current economic war being waged on Canada by the US, and the disruption to our auto sector which is a huge economic component in Canada, it's probably a good idea to back off for now.

    Cars are expensive enough as it is, and we've built cities that basically require cars in order to work and live for 99% of the population. The environment's going to have to take a back seat.

    You might say, "let China in", but while we'd get cheap EVs we'd also lose our auto sector overnight. They can build a factor

    • I'm a fan of union jobs, but I think we might have to let this fight go. The tariffs on Chinese EVs means that a lot of our farmers are getting demolished by counter-tariffs on canola and whatnot. There's a tradeoff to be made here, and given that we really should be moving away from ICE vehicles, we may need to bite the bullet and wind down car manufacturing here. Or get some Chinese companies to set up shop so we can move the workers to those.

      • China can not be depended upon long term. Even though the interconnectedness with the US became the first to cause massive disruption, doesn't mean you should now dig your grave with China even deeper.

        • You couldn't probably dig a deeper grave than working with the USA as it's falls. Canada is still on track to be USA's Austria before WW3.

          • Canada needs to be economically independent of the United States but we've spent decades chasing prosperity by integrating with a massive English-speaking, similar-culture, geographically convenient economy on our southern border. It's going to hurt, and it's just a matter of time because the US is going to continue to turn the screws until they won't turn any further. Even if everything went perfectly smoothly, we're not going to be more prosperous by sealing off that border and attempting to trade aroun

        • Nobody's asking to DEPEND on China, but we already import a shittonne of stuff from them, why not cars? The whole point is to untether ourselves from any industry or nation that demands that we go all-in on them. That means we import Chinese cars while they're a good deal. If they stop being good for us, we'll import something else. Or build something else. But the status quo is busted as hell.

      • How about COMPETING? The extreme protectionism only made the USA and Canada weaker. The Japanese destroying their auto industry with superior cars was survived with some protectionism - but that just promoted trucks and truck-based cars; which made more long term problems while buying a little time for their cars to catch up. This is a much bigger more complex gap to fill which could have been planned for in advance but was not. We could all see EVs were the future for a long time but put off doing anythin

  • Retired and got a paid off gas truck w/o ANY issues....don't forsee an EV in my future !
  • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday September 06, 2025 @06:22AM (#65643006) Journal
    "Tomorrow, tomorrow, I luv ya, tomorrow, you're always, ten years, awaaaaayyyyy!"
  • "Canada accounts for approximately 1.4% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions"

    They are idiots.

For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.

Working...