By Ray Rivers
October 22nd, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
The cancellation of another automotive assembly plant in Ontario has made auto production top of mind. The reality is that North American integrated assembly is now in the toilet. And we’re just watching from the sidelines as each car builder picks up, as if on command, and heads south to Trump land.
In 1997, TMMC North opened for business in Cambridge, Ontario. The North Plant was TMMC’s first plant expansion and was where the award-winning Corolla was produced for over 20 years.
The truth is we are victims of our own doing. We have been conned by the trade tricksters and have ended up making poor choices when it comes to our economy. The first was giving up the US-Canada auto pact in favour of Mulroney’s trade deal. The second was extending that deal to Mexico – NAFTA and CUSMA (USMCA) – which grew the Mexican industry at Canada’s expense.
So Canada should have two primary objectives when it comes to fixing the auto sector:
1. To create employment
2. To protect the environment.
The idea that Canadians build the same number of vehicles they purchase is fundamental. That was the idea behind the 1964 auto trade pact – and it worked. And that was the philosophy used to encourage Toyota and Honda to build their cars here in the 1980’s – the last auto companies to locate manufacturing here since the Mulroney deal.
Canada’s new steel sector tariffs provide a sense of direction for a cogent Canadian industrial strategy. A global 25% tariff on all imported vehicles would give pause to other auto plants thinking of closing up. It would allow Canada to partially repair its frayed relationship China. And it would send a signal to the South Korean and European auto folks to come and build, or suffer the tariff.
The American Big Three have now turned their backs on the future, which is the EV.
Canadians are both a problem and a solution when it comes to fossil fuels and global warming. The easiest solution, to stop burning fossil fuels when cleaner alternatives exist, has also become the biggest hurdle. Big oil, right wing idealists and cultural throwbacks resist every move of the needle. The electric vehicle (EV) is still in its relative infancy, but it is already proving superior to traditional fossil fuel powered vehicles in almost every way.
Given the climate impact of the fossil fuel auto and Canada’s emission limits, applying a 50% tariff on gas guzzlers would not be unreasonable. It might encourage the US makers to live up to their promises to build electric here, for which they have received massive subsidies and left partially built factories vacant.
There will be disruption in the markets, but it’s already here. And the ancillary market for used cars will also likely receive a boost. After all, when there are available used cars, purchasing a new one is just another option. Canada is not closing any doors – in fact opening them for those who care enough about this country to start making cars here. After all, the auto-pact is over, CUSMA will be soon and Canada is all on its own.
The American Big Three have now turned their backs on the future, which is the EV. They are all going back to the fifties with sexy curves and big mother V8 engines to burn up the pavement. Still, at least some of us will still keep buying them, even with the duty. After all, Henry Ford helped start Canada’s auto manufacturing industry by setting up a branch plant here in the early 1900’s.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Farewell to the Big Three – Adios Big three – Stellantis – Trump’s Trade War – EV Sales Record – Carney on Stellantis –
Ray’s prescription to fixing the auto sector , “1. Create employment and 2. Protect the environment” is not enough. Electric delivery fleets will come, but not as quickly or as profitably as politicians and automakers hope.
Canada still has a slim chance to be a player in this space, but only if we learn from Ingersoll. That means measured investment, patient policy, and a focus on scalable technology.
BrightDrop’s fall doesn’t end the electric delivery vehicle story, it simply turns the page. Amazon’s recent announcement that it will deploy 50 Rivian electric delivery vans in British Columbia shows where the momentum is heading. The question is whether those vehicles will one day be built here, powered by Canadian batteries, and supported by Canadian infrastructure, or, whether, once again, we’ll be applauding innovation that happens somewhere else.
Thanks, Ray. Much to contemplate here between your text and those of the commenters. I may return to add more later. BB in VA
The reason car makers have stepped away from making EV’s is because they can’t sell them.
Canada is a big country, a road trip can be problematic in an electric vehicle.
There are not enough EV stations and what happens if you get to one and it is not operational. It is not like gasoline stations that are located everywhere. If you have a problem an Auto Club can bring you some gasoline to get you to an open station.
The reality is that most people cannot afford the price of purchasing an electric vehicle.
With regard to Chinese EV’s there is the added concern that there could be some sort of information gathering in the system.
AI as you know requires a huge amount of electricity to operate. Doubt if our electrical grids can accommodate both AI and EV’s
The Liberal Government tried to push EV’s down the throats of Canadians and presently many of us don’t feel secure in the fact that the infrastructure is there for us to depend on being there should we need it.
Exactly Penny. I don’t care what powers my car but here are my 4 major criteria: 1. the range even in the wintertime must be at least 600 km 2. I can refuel my vehicle within 5 minutes 3. a fuel source must be available within 20 kms no matter where I am driving in the province. 4. my vehicle maintains a reasonable degree of resale value. My hobby is wildlife photography and I spend a great deal of time driving the “backroads” of the province. Currently, only an ICE vehicle is able to meet these criteria. With improvements in technology and infrastructure, perhaps electric vehicles will one day meet these criteria but this certainly won’t happen in the near future.
Exactly Phil,
It is not just the “small three” that have abandoned or delayed roll out of EV’s. The list of car makers delaying EV’s has grown daily. Ray is delusional if he thinks Canada will be producing an “Avro Arrow” vehicle for the global market. These three in Canada have been declining for decades now. Let the bad man have them.
The current situation has been made much worse by the federal and Ontario governments shelling out $55 billion taxpayer cash and credit in pursuit of advancing their personal their personal ideology beliefs.
I had a discussion with Karina Gould several weeks ago at the Appleby Fair. I pointed out that Carney’s announcement of a one-year delay of Canada’s EV mandate was entirely the wrong message to send out not only to the automotive industry but other industries as well.
Businesses don’t make their expansion and capital plans on a one-year basis. Essentially Carney is saying that nothing has changed, Canada is not open for business and here we are. It will get even worse if our leaders resort to suggestions of pursuing legal actions. Ridiculous, just more burning of taxpayer funds with favoured lawyers.
If I was advising the government I would say immediately support the two automakers that remain in Canada, Honda and Toyota. They are at least have been assembling vehicles with mass appeal. Reach out and encourage the South Koreans and maybe even the Chinese, why not? Elbows up or down? The canola and seafood industries are vital.
Negotiate the purchase/takeover of idle plants. Retool them not to assemble cars, there is no chance this will succeed. Produce auto parts for multiple car companies. Produce military equipment. Do this with Canadian, steel, aluminum and minerals, now there is a thought.
This might even stimulate (foreign owned and controlled) steel and aluminum industry to move up market in grades. Heck maybe even to Inconel for tubes that I managed for Babcock and Wilcox for nuclear steam generators.
How many Canadians realize that we virtually produce no stainless steels and or products in this country?
End of rant.
A 25% across the board tariff is an excellent idea, and will go a long toward mollifying China and help our Canola farmers. However we should not regard EV’s as the be all and end all of fighting global warming. 2 other alternatives should be considered, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Hydrogen power, using hydrogen fuel cells with hydrogen cracked out of water is an excellent alternative, and can use the existing petroleum distribution system. This can encourage gasoline suppliers to switch to a more sustainable alternative. Also usable by existing gas companies is synthetic fuel made from carbon taken out of the atmosphere. This would also make all existing ICE powered vehicles essentially carbon neutral. Some auto racing leagues are already using this kind of fuel. A combination of these three alternatives to traditional gasoline will go long way to helping fight climate change.
I always thought that Brian Mulroney was making a mistake in 1988 when he convinced Canada that Free trade was the way to go. In my opinion, he bound Canada to the US as a permanent trading partner twin. That deal worked reasonably well and we benefitted from it until now when we were faced with a selfish person like the present US leader who is actively anti-Canada and has no interest in a collaborative relationship with us. We now can see how vulnerable we have become. So it’s back to the future and we must make our own independent way forward.
The Trudeau liberals gave billions of dollars to the car assemblers and battery plant constructers to try and create employment. There were supposed to be guarantees made but it appears they can be ignored and lengthy and expensive legal actions will be required. So much for the Liberal ability to plan for the future.
Today there is a lot of taxes collected from the sale of gasoline or diesel to be used for the building and maintenance of roads. When will EVs start contributing a like amount to maintain our highway systems? The electrical grid cannot today come close to providing enough power if we were to switch to EVs. Estimates suggest that it would take 10 years and close to a trillion dollars spent on generating enough power to supply the need. In addition, while miles on a charge are going up, there are many areas the restriction are not compatible with the need, particularly in winter, or when air conditioning is required.
The problem is very complex. A lot of balls need to be juggled. Just saying a switch to EV is the answer will not work until all the costs and tax implications are understood and agreed upon.
A lot of other countries in the world, such as Australia, live without automobile manufacturing. So it can be done. In the meantime, I suggest we move slowly and listen to the customer, rather than promote an ideology.
Your headline, “We have been conned by the trade tricksters and ended up making poor choices”, is a concise summary of the last federal election.