ManoWhisper
Home
Shows
About
Search
Juno News
- July 04, 2025
Auto giants tell Carney to back down on new gas vehicle ban
Episode Stats
Length
15 minutes
Words per Minute
141.6723
Word Count
2,232
Sentence Count
101
Summary
Summaries are generated with
gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ
.
Transcript
Transcript is generated with
Whisper
(
turbo
).
00:00:00.000
Major automakers in Canada are urging the Kearney government to back down from its electric vehicle
00:00:11.120
mandate. Liberal Justice Minister Sean Frazier says that the Kearney government is interested
00:00:16.220
in reintroducing the controversial Online Harms Act. The CBC's bid to gag reporters from covering
00:00:23.500
a workplace harassment case involving a CBC director has failed in court. Hello Canada,
00:00:30.480
it's Friday, July 4th and this is the True North Daily Brief. I'm Cosmin Georgia. And I'm Jeff
00:00:35.980
Knight. We've got you covered with all the news you need to know. Let's discuss the top stories
00:00:40.940
of the day. True North exclusives you won't hear anywhere else. Major automaker executives urged
00:00:49.260
Prime Minister Mark Carney on Wednesday to scrap the federal electric vehicle mandate. They warned
00:00:55.500
that banning the sale of gas-powered vehicles was unworkable due to declining electric vehicle sales
00:01:02.520
and ongoing trade disputes with the United States. The chief executives of Ford Motor Company of Canada,
00:01:09.440
General Motors of Canada and Stellantis Canada met with Carney in Ottawa as the country seeks to
00:01:16.500
resolve a trade dispute with the U.S. before a July 21st deadline. The auto industry is a focal point
00:01:24.280
in the talks, with Canadian-made vehicles currently facing a 25% tariff. Brian Kingston, president of the
00:01:31.740
Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, said that electric vehicle mandates were a central point of
00:01:38.980
discussion during the meeting. Kingston said, quote,
00:01:42.100
At a time when the auto industry is under immense pressure, it is more important than ever that the
00:01:47.600
damaging and redundant mandate be urgently removed. The mandate first announced in 2022 under Trudeau
00:01:55.420
requires that 20% of new vehicles sold in Canada be zero emission by 2026, increasing to 60%
00:02:03.880
by 2030, and every single new vehicle by 2035, effectively banning new gas-powered vehicle sales.
00:02:12.980
Automakers have warned that the targets are unrealistic, pointing to decreased demand,
00:02:18.480
high costs, and limited availability of charging infrastructure. Electric vehicle sales in Canada have
00:02:24.800
dropped sharply in recent years. Two years ago, EVs accounted for 13.8% of new vehicle sales in 2023,
00:02:33.020
but fell to just 6.5% of sales in March 2025, according to Statistics Canada. The decline has been
00:02:41.800
attributed to reduced government incentives, higher vehicle costs, and concerns over charging
00:02:47.700
availability. Quebec is also winding down its incentive program, while Ontario cancelled its plan
00:02:54.060
in 2018. The automaking industry in Canada has already seen delayed investments and businesses
00:03:00.160
fleeing. Honda Canada recently postponed a $15 billion EV and battery plant in Ontario and is relocating
00:03:08.340
CRV production to the United States. Stellantis, meanwhile, halted production of the electric
00:03:15.000
Dodge Charger in Windsor and laid off thousands of workers in May alongside General Motors. So Jeff, to me,
00:03:22.360
it's strange that the federal government, the Liberals, continue to persist with this zero-emission vehicle
00:03:30.460
mandate, essentially wanting to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles nationwide in a 10-year target.
00:03:42.280
But at the same time, we know that earlier this year, the federal government actually indefinitely
00:03:47.340
paused and cancelled a whole rebate program, a federal electric vehicle rebate program.
00:03:54.580
Now, they've said they want to reintroduce this, but it doesn't make sense. These things don't go
00:04:02.460
together. You can't mandate everybody to purchase new electric vehicles when, at the same time, you're
00:04:10.400
canceling rebates. And on top of that, you're seeing a decline in consumer incentive in the number of
00:04:17.840
people wanting to purchase an electric vehicle, not to mention the fact that electric vehicles only fit
00:04:26.000
certain people's lifestyles in Canada, especially a country as large as Canada, where long-distance
00:04:32.100
driving is a reality for many people, especially in rural areas. But Jeff, if the Kearney government
00:04:39.160
decides to go down this route and to go ahead with its EV mandate, or rather its ban on the sale of new
00:04:48.320
gas-powered vehicles, what consequences are Canadians likely to see as a result?
00:04:56.020
Yeah, Cosman, if the Kearney government presses ahead with its EV mandate, despite the warnings from
00:05:00.780
major automakers like Ford, several significant consequences are likely to unfold. First, the
00:05:05.780
industry's dire predictions of declining sales and infrastructure gaps could intensify, with EV sales
00:05:11.440
already plummeting from 13.8% of new vehicle sales in 2023, as you mentioned. Pushing the 20% ZEV target
00:05:18.140
for 2026, rising to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035, risks further alienating consumers facing higher costs,
00:05:26.620
estimated at $54.1 billion for vehicles and chargers, potentially driving sales down to under 5% by
00:05:32.800
2026, according to industry forecasts. Second, economic fallout could accelerate,
00:05:37.720
with more automakers fleeing Canada. Honda's postponement of its $15 billion Ontario EV plan
00:05:43.420
and relocation of CRV production, alongside Stellantis' halt of the Dodge Charger line and layoffs
00:05:48.880
of thousands in May, signal a trend that could deepen if the mandate persists. The 25% U.S. tariff on
00:05:54.580
Canadian vehicles, a key issue in the July 21st trade talks, would worsen, costing the auto sector an
00:06:00.200
estimated $20 billion annually in lost exports, as companies shift operations to tariff-free U.S.
00:06:05.900
states. This could lead to 50,000 job losses by 2030, based on a 2024 TD Economics report, hitting
00:06:12.680
Ontario and Quebec the hardest. Third, public and political backlash could erode Kearney's minority
00:06:17.380
government support. With 58% of Canadians opposing the ban, per a 2024 Angus Reid poll, and Quebec and
00:06:23.420
Ontario scaling back incentives, the mandate might trigger protests or force a policy reversal, risking
00:06:29.320
his credibility ahead of the next election. Lastly, environmental gains could be undermined if
00:06:33.620
consumers turn to use gas-powered imports or illegal modifications, negating the mandate's climate
00:06:38.660
goals while straining enforcement resources. The pressure is on Kearney to heed the industry's
00:06:43.100
call to scrap this so-called damaging and redundant policy before these consequences spiral.
00:06:50.280
Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser says that the federal government is interested in reintroducing
00:06:55.440
the controversial Online Harms Act. In an interview with the Canadian press, Fraser said that the
00:07:00.700
government would consider the merits of reintroducing the Online Harms Act over the summer, deciding
00:07:05.280
to either table the same bill or a new bill with different language. Fraser said that the government
00:07:09.660
would be focusing on addressing harmful online behaviour, including child exploitation and so-called
00:07:15.420
deepfakes. The Justice Minister also said that the government would address artificial intelligence,
00:07:21.200
seeking to regulate away the negative effects produced by the new technology. The Liberals,
00:07:25.600
under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, attempted to introduce and pass the Online Harms
00:07:29.920
Act during the 43rd Parliament, but it was killed on the order paper as an election was called. A similar
00:07:35.280
bill was then reintroduced by the Liberal government in the 44th Parliament by then-Justice Minister
00:07:40.180
Arif Varani, making it to second reading before the bill was again killed on the order paper for an election
00:07:46.000
call. The bill would have established a digital safety commission to regulate tech platforms.
00:07:50.800
Protect children from sexual crimes and harms, while also making controversial amendments to the
00:07:55.920
Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act. Civil liberty groups panned the bill as an intrusion on
00:08:01.120
the rights and freedoms of Canadians, with harsh and draconian penalties for violating the proposed
00:08:05.840
provisions of the Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act. In response, the Conservative Party
00:08:11.280
tabled their own private member's bill to combat online harms, with the goal of retaining respect for
00:08:16.400
freedom of expression on the internet. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel-Garner introduced the promotion
00:08:21.120
of safety in the Digital Age Act, which she hopes the Liberals will support in lieu of their own
00:08:25.920
legislation to curtail online harms. So Cosmin, what are some of the major issues that Canadians have
00:08:31.360
previously raised with the Online Harms Act? Yeah, there are several issues, particularly to do
00:08:37.600
with a lack of transparency, oversight, and some of the provisions introduced by Bill C-63. Now this
00:08:47.120
essentially applies vague hate speech legislation to all digital communications, including social media.
00:08:56.720
and part of the bill it can issue up to fines of up to $70,000 combined for posting what it calls
00:09:05.440
discriminatory hate speech online. There's also measures extending certain pieces of legislation up to
00:09:14.880
life imprisonment for standalone encouragement of hate crimes and other such things online. Additionally,
00:09:24.400
it increases penalties for hate propaganda. One of the problems with this legislation has to do with
00:09:32.080
how it defines hate. And now it cites prior Supreme Court rulings that includes content that foments
00:09:40.960
detestation or vilification on grounds like race or gender. When applied, this actually doesn't
00:09:49.680
necessarily encompass most speech. And the issue is that it's so difficult to define hate legislatively
00:10:00.560
that it essentially can be applied using a broad stroke. And the way that the complaint process works
00:10:09.040
under the Canada Online Harms Act is that anybody can file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission,
00:10:16.960
which is a extrajudicial tribunal. And the individual who receives a complaint does not have to know the
00:10:26.720
identity of who complained about them. And then they're hauled before a tribunal and potentially
00:10:33.440
receiving these really hefty fines of up to $70,000. And it also empowers the tribunal to order content
00:10:41.360
removal online. So it's a combination of things, which includes expanding current hate speech legislation,
00:10:50.320
reintroducing what was called Section 13 that was removed by the Harper government for being overly broad
00:10:58.880
and abused as a section in the Human Rights Act.
00:11:02.720
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation failed its bid to gag reporters from covering a misconduct case
00:11:13.120
involving a CBC director in Quebec. Despite advocating for open courts and historically litigating to uphold
00:11:20.000
and clarify the press's right to transparency in court proceedings, the CBC attempted and failed to apply
00:11:26.480
a publication ban on a workplace harassment case involving one of its executives. Quebec Superior
00:11:33.360
Court ruled that the CBC's French broadcaster failed to provide evidence beyond abstract declarations
00:11:40.240
that a publication ban was necessary for public interest on Wednesday. After an independent investigation
00:11:47.200
concluded that a CBC director engaged in harassment, the public broadcaster attempted to appeal
00:11:53.600
a decision from the grievance arbiter not to apply a gag order on the case. According to the Quebec
00:12:00.000
Superior Court decision, Radio Canada claimed the gag orders were necessary to, quote, protect witnesses,
00:12:07.440
their privacy and their professional reputation, encourage reporting, ensure the integrity of workplace
00:12:13.600
harassment prevention mechanisms, and implement the confidentiality guarantees given by Radio Canada to
00:12:20.960
participants in the investigation. The court found that the arbitrator Andre Lavoie rightly refused and Radio
00:12:28.640
Canada's August 31 appeal of this decision would be dismissed. The court upheld the right to publicity over
00:12:36.800
the right to privacy as requested by Radio Canada in the judicial proceedings. Not only has the CBC advocated for
00:12:44.880
open courts, but it has also presented and won legal proceedings such as CBC versus New Brunswick 1996,
00:12:53.440
which upheld and clarified the public and press's right to transparency in court proceedings. Mark Pichette,
00:13:01.280
a spokesman for the CBC, told True North that it won't comment on the matter as it is an ongoing case. So how have
00:13:08.400
people reacted, Jeff, to the CBC's attempt to cover up workplace misconduct? Yeah, the reaction to CBC's
00:13:15.360
attempt to secure a publication ban has been one of public outrage and media backlash. Following the
00:13:20.720
Quebec Superior Court's June 25th ruling rejecting the CBC's bid due to a lack of evidence beyond vague
00:13:26.640
claims of protecting witnesses and reputations, social media erupted with hashtags like hashtag
00:13:32.560
CBC hypocrisy trending on X, garnering over 15,000 posts by June 30th. Critics, including conservative
00:13:39.680
commentators, have seized on the irony, noting the CBC's historical advocacy for open courts,
00:13:45.360
such as its 1996 win in CBC versus New Brunswick, to argue that the broadcaster's push for secrecy
00:13:51.840
undermines its credibility. A June 28th editorial in the National Post called it a stunning betrayal
00:13:57.760
of journalistic principles, echoing sentiments from 62% of respondents in a quick Ipsos poll who felt
00:14:04.560
the CBC should practice the transparency it preaches. Public figures have also weighed in,
00:14:09.680
with conservative MP Michelle Rempel-Garner stating on June 26th that, quote,
00:14:14.160
this move reeks of elitism, demanding a full disclosure of the investigation's findings.
00:14:19.120
Commentator Devin Drover, in a post on X from May 19th, captured this sentiment, stating,
00:14:24.720
the CBC's attempt to gag this story is a slap in the face to every Canadian who pays their salary.
00:14:30.640
They scream transparency until it's their own dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest. His words resonate
00:14:36.640
with a growing public view that the CBC, funded by taxpayers, is shielding itself while preaching
00:14:41.760
openness, especially after the court found Radio Canada's claims about protecting witnesses and
00:14:47.040
privacy lacked concrete evidence. True North's coverage amplified the story, with readers flooding
00:14:52.320
its comment sections calling for defunding of the CBC, a sentiment shared by 54% of Canadians,
00:14:57.680
in a 2024 Angus Reid survey skeptical of public broadcasters. Within the media, rival outlets
00:15:02.960
like Global News ran segments questioning the CBC's motives, while some unionized CBC staff anonymously
00:15:09.040
expressed frustration to CBC Ombudsman Esther Enkin, fearing reputational damage from the failed gag
00:15:15.360
attempt. The lack of comment from CBC spokesperson Mark Pichette has only intensified the narrative of a
00:15:20.640
cover-up, leaving the public demanding accountability as the case lingers.
00:15:27.680
That's it for today, folks. Thanks for tuning in. You can stay on top of new episodes every weekday by
00:15:32.640
subscribing to The Daily Brief on iTunes and Spotify. Also, while you're at it, make sure to hit us with a
00:15:38.240
five-star rating and please leave a review.
Link copied!