The News Rundown

Doug Ford calls for tariffs on Chinese EVs: ‘We risk Ontario and Canadian jobs’

Recent goals by the Trudeau government shepherded by Environment Minister Stephen Guilbeault wants to see 100% of vehicles sold in Canada by 2035 be electric.
If China has their way, that will happen.
This week Premier Doug Ford is calling on the federal government to put a tariff of 100% on Chinese electric vehicles.
Ford said, “taking every advantage of low labour standards and dirty energy, China is flooding the market with artificially cheap electric vehicles… Now’s the time to work with our U.S. partners to deepen and strengthen home-grown, U.S.-Canada supply chains. Now’s the time to protect good, hard-earned Ontario and Canadian jobs by matching U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports.”
The EU is talking about imposing tariffs up to 38% starting on July 4 and recently the US has quadrupled tariffs under the Biden administration to 100% on Chinese electric vehicles.
Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturer’s Association feels we could see China’s EVs sell for around $20,000 in Canada and of course our consumers would be drawn to that cheaper price.
If that were to happen and our North American automakers hit their stride with EVs in 3-5 years then China would already have a foothold on the North American EV industry.
Electric vehicles of course came to prominence with the likes of Tesla early hybrids from companies like Toyota but in recent years the sales rate for electric vehicles in north america has slowed.
In Q1 2023 it took an average of 22 days to sell an EV in Canada while a gas powered car took 42 days. Today it takes 55 days to sell an EV and 51 days for a gas powered car.
Companies like Ford are consistently expanding what is available in the EV market moving towards parity in choice that we see when it comes to gas powered vehicles.
Reporting in the Financial Post from April addressed this matter. Robert Karl, senior manager at J.D. Power’s Power Information Network said that the EV market is shifting from early adopters to the mass market and the issue is that transition.
The early adopters were consumers who weren’t concerned with cost but wanted the newest and latest technology.
Now that the move to the mass market has begun, another emerging trend with electric vehicles is that the sale of luxury EVs has been doubling every year for the last 5 years and the people who buy these tend to own a house that has a garage where they can charge.
That doesn’t address the entire discussion though.
Why are EVs not selling and why does China have an advantage?
First as to why the EVs don’t sell as anticipated.
EV’s are still higher priced than traditional vehicles.
EV owners have also reported 79% more problems with their powertrains, that is the core of the car over 3 years use than owners of gas powered vehicles.
There is also the issue of battery technology. Companies like Tesla that are built around EVs have better batteries.
Electric vehicles also face troubles in the cold Canadian winters due to the pure physics and chemistry surrounding that of lithium batteries.
Coupling this with range issues for those who live in rural parts of the country and need to move around, an electric vehicle is a tough sell compared to someone who lives in the city.
To sum it up, on the demand side it comes down to cost, reliability (perceived or real), range, and climate.
China is successful because a successful company in China has the inherent blessing of the Chinese communist party.
This means that Chinese companies can inherently do what they want without needing to worry about societal or environmental buy-in which needs to happen in North America.
There is also the issue of China’s consistent pattern of stealing intellectual property or IP from western companies.
Just last week the US Department of Justice announced that Klaus Pflugbeil, 58, a Canadian and German national and resident of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), pleaded guilty today to conspiring to send trade secrets that belonged to a leading U.S.-based electric vehicle company.
Tesla has also sued Bingling Intelligent Technology for stealing trade secrets and intellectual property.
One of Bingling’s major backers is Chinese electronics giant Xiaomi who owns 12% of the company. For people keeping track, Xiaomi and Huawei are known for their cheap yet effective tech products on the North American landscape.
This is the future of electric vehicles if our North American auto makers aren’t able to compete with China.
And of course we should do everything possible to make our automakers competitive without the need to resort to tariffs but time is ticking down and jobs in both Canada and the US are at stake due to actions by China and the CCP.
Doug Ford is right, the media didn’t discuss this much if at all this week, and the ball is now in the Trudeau government's court to act.
Supplementals:

While most British Columbians are probably thinking about their upcoming summer, along with all of the struggles in daily life that have seemingly gotten more difficult in the last few years, it seems like at least one secretive group wants people of this province to be thinking more about the upcoming provincial election in October. While that's about 4 months away, this group has already started pushing relentless attack ads on TV, skirting around election advertising rules by the nature of it being so far out from the election.
And who are these attack ads targeting? B.C. United Leader Kevin Falcon and B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad. The ads have appeared on TV and online and link both party leaders to their time as B.C. Liberal MLAs under former premier Christy Clark.
In one 30 second video ad, made in the style of a horror movie trailer, complete with ominous music and largely unflattering visuals, a deep voiced announcer proclaims: “This October, B.C. families face a returning threat, except now there’s two of them. Kevin Falcon and John Rustad. In Christy Clark’s Liberal government they cut health care, raised fees and tolls, and made housing unaffordable. Now they want to do it all again.”
If you want to see the ad for yourself, it is linked in our show notes. Somehow it already has 1.2M views on Youtube, a rarity for Canadian political videos.
The ads are made by a seemingly new group called Project for a Strong B.C. The group’s website and social-media accounts on Facebook and Instagram were set up in April and May. It describes its members as “a group of concerned and engaged British Columbians.”
On its Instagram page, Project for a Strong B.C. calls itself “a non-partisan group” despite the fact its ads so far focus solely on Falcon and Rustad.
As of June 14, the group had spent $17,500 on Facebook’s ad platform, according to a Postmedia News’ review of available data. It’s unclear where it gets its funding from.
Postmedia was able to determine the group’s website was registered by a person named Sam Schechter on April 8. His online biography says he teaches in the communications department at Douglas College. It says he previously was a municipal councillor in the City of North Vancouver. It also says he worked as a campaign manager and on the political staff for one opposition MLA and one cabinet minister, as well as in the headquarters of the B.C. NDP.
In an email Monday, Schechter directed Postmedia to the PR firm Emdash. Megana Ramaswami, a senior strategist with Emdash, didn’t respond to questions about the group’s membership or funding sources but did forward a statement from Project for a Strong B.C. that said in part:
“Campaigns like ours help to inform voters about new political leaders. Over previous election cycles, B.C. corporations have spent millions on information campaigns like this.”
The address used for the website’s registration also matches an address used by the Richmond law firm KZEL Law. When reached by phone, staff at the firm said they were unaware of any connection to the group but said they would investigate.
According to its Societies Act registration dated March 12, three people are directors of the Project for a Strong B.C. Association: David John Andrew Porteus (sic) of West Kelowna, Samuel Aaron Schechter of New Westminster and Elaine Adele Willis, Duncan.
David Porteous is a former NDP-appointee to the Okanagan College board of governors. Willis has a background as a schoolteacher and B.C. Teachers Federation activist. Schechter is a former North Vancouver city councillor, a protege of former NDP president and North Vancouver city councillor Craig Keating, and a communications instructor at Douglas College in New Westminster.
Until 60 days before an election, there are no requirements for third-party groups to register with Elections B.C. or to provide financial or other information about their organization.
Andy Watson of Elections B.C. wrote in an email that: “Rules for third party election advertisers start on July 23, which is the start of the pre-campaign period.”
This means that on July 23, if Party for a Strong B.C. has any active ads, it would be required to register with Elections B.C. and report financial information from that day forward, as well as contact information and other details. Conveniently, the group said in its statement through Emdash that the campaign is set to conclude by mid-July.
Currently, no financial information for Project for a Strong B.C. is available. Elections B.C. doesn’t require financial disclosures until 60 days before election day.
This means that by design, the campaign will be conducted in a way where nobody will ever have to say who is behind it and provide the funding, which is good enough to meet B.C.’s laws as they are currently written.
Shinder Purewal, a political-science professor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University commented on the ads, saying: “If you are only limited to election time, that means you are free to do American-style (political funding) for the rest of the term. If you want to safeguard democracy, you have to make sure that the law applies all the time. We don’t say, ‘You can’t drink and drive’ but only in the summer.”
Outside of those 60 days, “democracy is up for sale” because there are no reporting requirements on funding or spending by third-party groups, Purewal said, noting that none of the funds raised by the group before July 23 would need to be declared to Elections B.C.
Previous governments attempted to introduce spending limits for the pre-campaign period, but the B.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeal made rulings between 2009 and 2012 that struck those limits down as an unconstitutional limit on free speech.
And the strictest restrictions on third-party advertising don’t take effect until the final 30 days before the election. During that period, which won’t start until Sept. 21, advertisers have to register with Elections BC, be separate from candidates and parties, provide their name and contact information on all advertising and stick to legal limits on the contributions they accept and how much they spend. They may accept contributions only from individuals who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents residing in B.C.
Advertising ahead of the pre-campaign period doesn’t meet the Election Act definition of “election advertising” and therefore anyone paying for it doesn’t meet the definition of “third-party sponsor.”
Both B.C. United and the B.C. Conservatives were highly critical of the lack of transparency around the attack ads.
B.C. United’s director of communications, Adam Wilson, said in a statement that current rules around election advertising have “a clear gap that anonymous and secretive third parties can exploit.”
“We expect third-party advertisers to be held to the same accountability as political parties in advertising,” Wilson wrote.
Angelo Isidorou, executive director for the B.C. Tories said in a statement that the party was “not surprised to see dark money being used” by groups supporting the NDP, calling them “American-style attack ads.”
“We believe that British Columbians will decide whether that is appropriate on Oct. 19,” Isidorou wrote.
People on the left wing in Canada always decry American-style politics being imported into Canada, and largely blame Conservatives for doing so. And yet, here is a case of an American-style attack ad campaign designed to keep the incumbent BC NDP in power while skirting Elections BC rules almost perfectly.
One has to wonder if there are actual NDP connections behind this group. Are they that scared of the opposition parties that they have to shadily fund attack ads 4 months out from an election because their record may not be good enough on the problems British Columbians have faced? Well, that will be up for voters to decide in October.
Supplementals:

Pathways Alliance oilsands group removes content from website and social media, citing Bill C-59

Bill C-59 has passed the Senate and is waiting to receive Royal Assent in Ottawa. Bill C-59 is another attack by the federal government against the energy industry of the west.
Bill C-59 amends the Competition Act to include a burden of proof provision requiring companies justify how their claims are backed up by “internationally recognized methodology.”
The amendments would also compel companies to appear before a Competition Tribunal to defend themselves. Presently the Competition Bureau enforces misleading advertising laws but going forward the Competition Bureau is going to be able to see a deluge of complaints against said companies.
Presently the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is against this new legislation.
As is the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.
As is the Pathways Alliance, a group representing 6 of the largest oil companies in Canada.
The issue is that from what is laid out in the Bill there is no clear definition of what these internationally recognized methodologies are.
As a result of this the Pathways Alliance has removed all content on their website and social media profiles.
If under Bill C-59 a company was forced to defend itself in front of the competition bureau and was unsuccessful they would be subject to huge fines.
The Pathways Alliance to their credit has done a wonderful job of advertising what the industry is doing to lower emissions and create one of the cleanest energy industries on the planet.
The Calgary Chamber of Commerce is taking a more interesting stance and one that maybe the federal government hasn’t considered: the Chamber believes that C-59 would limit disclosure of climate targets and ambitions to investors and financial markets.
Deborah Yedlin in a statement said, "The Investment Tax Credits and other long-overdue measures included in Bill C-59 are unfortunately obfuscated by other aspects of the bill — including the so-called 'greenwashing' amendments introduced last-minute and without consultation — casting a shroud over what could have been a good news story.”
Andrew Leach who has consulted on the Alberta Carbon Tax for the NDP and is an energy and environmental economist said there is uncertainty and, “what the [legislation] basically says is, in broad terms, any claim that you make with respect to the impact on the environment of your product, that's subject to you having the burden of proof to show … that that claim is true.”
Even when it comes to offering a burden of proof it’s not clear what kind of proof is needed. Is it production emissions, consumption emissions, downstream emissions, Canada’s emissions, global emissions, or some combination of those? Or all of them? No one knows.
The Pathways Alliance has the group of having the largest oil sands companies hit net zero by 2050.
For their part the Alberta government plans on pushing back against this legislation and are looking at a potential invocation of the Alberta Sovereignty Act.
The view of the Alberta government is that this legislation hurts Canada’s ability to hear the truth about the Canadian energy industry and the success that Alberta has had in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In a statement on X, Premier Danielle Smith said, “We’re already seeing the NDP-Liberal coalition’s plan play out as organizations like Pathways Alliance and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers are making difficult decisions to remove websites, reduce available information, and cease advertising out of fear that if they do not comply with the narrative of eco-extremists like Minister Stephen Guilbeault and Jagmeet Singh, their companies will face tens of millions in penalties.”
This legislation is stark and the changes to the Competition Act are very clearly made with the idea of limiting what industry can say. In some countries this would be protected with no questions asked but it is not in Canada.
While the changes are stark and the potential impact on the industry and free expression is grim the biggest part missing from this discussion is that if it’s happening to the energy industry, which industry next?
And let’s also not forget that this story in the grand scheme of things this week was a drop in the pool.
Will anyone actually be fined or is what Pathways Alliance and others have done in terms of removing their website and social media profiles the end goal?
If it is then the federal government has succeeded and we should all be alarmed.
Supplementals:

Firing Line

Airplane food cost more than $220K on Trudeau's Indo-Pacific trip

New records show that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s six-day Indo-Pacific trip in September 2023 had a catering bill of more than $223,000.
The trip, in which Trudeau met with business leaders in Singapore and the president of Indonesia as well as attending the G20 summit in India, cost nearly $2 million.
The catering costs had previously been pegged closer to $180K but a response to an order paper question in the House of Commons reveals the final tally was $223,234. The total cost of the trip could still rise as some records continue to be processed.
The number of passengers travelling with Trudeau on a Royal Canadian Air Force CC-150 Polaris ranged from 37 to 72 across various stages of the trip, with one notable segment of travel notching a catering bill of $85,000 alone.
Meals on-board the plane included beef brisket with mashed parsley potatoes with truffle oil, pan fried beef tenderloin with port wine sauce, braised lamb shanks with steamed broccoli and boiled baby potatoes, and baked cheesecake with pistachio brittle.
In a statement to National Post, Canadian Taxpayers Federation federal director Franco Terrazzano drew parallels to Gov. Gen. Mary Simon’s infamous March 2022 trip to Dubai, where she and her 29 guests incurred a $100,000 inflight catering bill over the course of a week.
“It might be tough to connect with the middle class while chowing down on lamb shanks served on fine China and billing taxpayers for it. You shouldn’t need a focus group to recommend telling the prime minister to turn down the baked cheesecake with pistachio brittle when Canadians are lining up around the block at the foodbank.”
A special request was also made to stock the plane with Flow Water, a brand of premium alkaline spring water. According to the CTF the product is a Trudeau favourite that has shown up in his personal grocery expenses. The documents also showed a $900 request for pops, chips, and snacks on board and “cases of Flow water.” It also outlined meal “ideas” for the trip but did not specify who made that request or who it was sent to.
Following the outrage that accompanied Simon’s bill in 2022, a parliamentary committee grilled bureaucrats about the significant expenses.
“We recognize that the system that we had in place was not delivering the kind of oversight and control that Canadian taxpayers deserve,” said Stewart Wheeler, who was then Canada’s chief of protocol. “Certainly, drink garnishes will be eliminated from service.”
Terrazzano said: “Is the government running a secret contest to see who can order up the most expensive meals while flying around the world? Someone should let the prime minister know the government promised to cut down on fancy airplane food because Trudeau doubled Simon’s outrageous tab.”
In 2021, the CTF noted that Governor General Mary Simon’s trip to Germany came with a $100,000 in-flight catering bill for her and her entourage.
In December 2023, Trudeau also made headlines for taking a family trip to Jamaica.
The PMO confirmed that Trudeau, his three children, and Sophie Grégoire Trudeau — whom he legally separated from last year — stayed at a luxurious $9,000-per-night resort owned by wealthy businessman and family friend Peter Green.
This government continues to have a spending problem, and Trudeau, as the head of government, continues to lead poorly by example. While it might be expected to have a high catering bill for such a huge diplomatic trip, hundreds of thousands of dollars is pushing the realm of credulity.
Supplementals:

https://youtu.be/_sBxAvxr9fo

Quote of the Week

“It might be tough to connect with the middle class while chowing down on lamb shanks served on fine China and billing taxpayers for it. You shouldn’t need a focus group to recommend telling the prime minister to turn down the baked cheesecake with pistachio brittle when Canadians are lining up around the block at the foodbank.” - Canadian Taxpayers Federation Director Franco Terrazzano on Trudeau’s $220k catering bill for the Indo-Pacific trip

Word of the Week

Style - to design or make in a particular form or theme

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Catering in the Air

Teaser: Doug Ford calls for tariffs on Chinese EVs, an unknown group funds BC attack ads, and Bill C-59 reduces advertising transparency from companies. Also, Trudeau racks up a $223k catering bill on the Indo-Pacific trip.

Recorded Date: June 22, 2024

Release Date: June 23, 2024

Duration: 59:24

Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX