Accountability After Ideology: Who Pays for Canada’s EV Experiment?


 

It is now a settled fact that Justin Trudeau is in retirement. History will debate his legacy, but taxpayers are already living with the bill of his decisions.

While political leaders continue to urge Canadians to come together, the reality on the ground looks very different. On WhatsApp groups, in community chats, and across informal networks, Canadians are not uniting—they are hardening into camps. Statements made in support of Pierre Poilievre are often framed as divisive, yet they are largely reactions to something deeper: unresolved frustration over policies that cost billions with little to show for it.

Take the EV mandate.

According to estimates from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, total government support—federal and provincial combined—tied to roughly **$46.1 billion** in announced private investments across the EV supply chain reached as high as **$52.5 billion**. Of that, the federal government alone carried up to **$31.4 billion**, nearly 60 percent of the total burden.

Then came the hard reality.

Stellantis alone reportedly took about $15 billion and exited. The supervising minister allegedly didn't read the contract they signed. The broader outcome? Tens of billions committed, minimal returns, and no enduring industrial payoff. Whatever one’s ideological position on climate policy, it is increasingly difficult to argue that this particular approach delivered value proportional to its cost. The EV mandate of Justin Trudeau has not had any significant impact on reducing emissions. It beggars belief what it was meant to achieve. The people who opposed these policies were called names. Today, rose voices have moved to support the scrapping of the EV mandate just as they praised JT for putting the policy in place. 

What makes this especially galling is not merely the failure of the policy—but the absence of accountability. The architect of the mandate has stepped away, while Canadians remain locked into the tax consequences of decisions they did not make and cannot undo. Should we allow the 7 police officers that have been charged for corruption in Toronto to retire and avoid accountability? 

Admitting that the EV mandate was a mistake should not be politically controversial. It should be seen as a baseline act of honesty. $46 billion is not a rounding error. It is transformative money or capital that could have reshaped healthcare access, housing supply, infrastructure, or productivity, had ideology not been prioritized over economic reality.

This is where leadership matters.

Acknowledging policy failure does not weaken a country; it strengthens it. An honest admission would lend credibility to the argument that Canada needs the political will to reverse or recalibrate costly policies that have delivered poor results. Many Canadian seem to not be willing to make this honest admission, which could explain why many Canadians are unreceptive to voices promising course correction—even if they do not agree with every position those voices hold. 

This is not about personal disagreement or partisan scoring. Different perspectives can coexist. But facts remain facts, and numbers do not bend to sentiment.

In the end, the bill does not belong to retired politicians or future historians. It belongs to you and me—paid in taxes, opportunity cost, and delayed progress.

Selah.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blurring the Lines: Can Professionalism and Activism Coexist?

Image
  The world is a complex tapestry woven with diverse threads - professionalism and activism being two of its most prominent. While both are crucial for a thriving society, their distinct roles often spark debate. Should their paths ever cross, or should they remain on opposite sides of an unyielding line? The traditional stance paints them as incompatible. Professionalism, with its emphasis on objectivity, neutrality, and adherence to established codes, thrives on distancing itself from the passionate, often subjective nature of activism. This separation, it's argued, safeguards the integrity and trust associated with various professions. However, the tide is shifting. The lines are blurring. We see passionate advocates appointed to professional positions, and established professionals taking up the mantle of activism. This raises critical questions: does their coexistence weaken or strengthen society? There are undeniable risks. Unchecked activism within professional spheres can l...
Read more

CALLING FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM IS NOT ANTI-IMMIGRANT

Image
In Canada today, we are witnessing a growing narrative that blames the increasing population for various social problems—rising housing costs, overburdened healthcare, and crumbling infrastructure. What’s more troubling is the subtle suggestion that these issues are the fault of immigrants, without outright saying so. This narrative has roots in long-standing tactics that rile people up against newcomers while avoiding direct confrontation with the values of diversity and inclusion that Canada upholds. While this perspective may resonate with some, it distorts the reality of what many Canadians are asking for when they call for immigration reform. It is a dangerous oversimplification to conflate critiques of the immigration system with anti-immigrant sentiment. The fact is, immigration has been—and continues to be—an essential driver of Canada's economic and social development. Our country’s prosperity has been significantly shaped by the talents, labor, and innovation that immigra...
Read more

Empathy, Sentiment, and Elbows Up: Why Canada Needs a Real Economic Policy

Image
In recent years, Canadian politics has become increasingly dominated by the language of empathy, sentiment, and — at times — confrontation. Leaders speak movingly about supporting struggling families, protecting workers, standing up to foreign adversaries, and defending Canadian values. These messages resonate emotionally, but they miss the mark where it matters most: the economy. Let us be clear: empathy is not a sustainable economic policy. Of course, we should care about our neighbours. Of course, government should support the vulnerable and ensure no one is left behind. But good intentions do not create jobs, attract investment, or raise productivity. Empathy without a plan leads only to mounting deficits, declining competitiveness, and a growing sense of frustration among the very people it claims to help. Sentiment is not a sustainable economic policy either. We often hear talk about “protecting Canadian industries” or “preserving Canadian identity” in the face of globalizat...
Read more