Jaydee

Both Trump and Biden loom large over Trudeau and Ford’s big EV bet "America First" industrial policies from Biden or Trump pose significant risks to Canada's subsidized EV sector Last week, the Trudeau government and the Ford government announced a new multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded subsidy for Honda to expand its Alliston, Ontario plant to manufacture electric vehicles (EV) and host a large EV battery plant. Eventually, the direct and indirect subsidies could total $10 billion from the two governments. The Honda announcement follows earlier deals with Northvolt, Stellantis, and Volkswagen to build and operate EV battery and auto assembly plants in Ontario. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, these three deals may total $50.7 billion after accounting for the cost of government borrowing to finance the subsidies and foregone corporate tax revenue from tax abatements tied to production. Clearly, if future taxpayers across the country (not just in Ontario) are to avoid a huge additional tax burden or suffer reductions in government services, a lot needs to go right for Canada’s EV industry. In particular, there must emerge sufficient market demand for EVs so these “investments” in the EV auto sector will be fully paid for by future tax revenues from corporate and personal income taxes levied on companies and workers in the EV sector. During their joint announcement of the Honda deal, both Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford ignored this elephant in the room while claiming that the Honda deal would mean 240,000 vehicles a year manufactured at the site and 4,200 jobs preserved while adding another 1,000 jobs. By way of perspective, in 2023 around 185,000 EV vehicles were sold in Canada—about 11 percent of all new cars sold in Canada that year. This is considerably less than the target capacity of the Honda complex and the total expected production capacity of Canada’s EV sector once all the various announced subsidized production facilities are in operation. In contrast, 1.2 million EVs were sold in the United States. The demand for EVs in Canada will likely grow over time, especially given the increased incentive the federal government now has to ensure, through legislation or regulation, that Canadians retire their gas-powered vehicles and replace them with EVs. However, the long-run financial health of Canada’s EV sector requires continued access to the much larger U.S. market. Indeed, Honda’s CEO said his company chose Canada as the site for their first EV assembly plant in part because of Canada’s access to the U.S. market. But political developments in the U.S. over the past few years have substantially increased the risk of any investment that relies on unrestricted access to the U.S. market. The trade protectionist bent of Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in the upcoming presidential election, is well known and he reportedly plans to impose a broad 10 percent tariff on all manufactured imports to the U.S. if elected. Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau look over a vehicle along an assembly line at an event announcing plans for a Honda electric vehicle battery plant in Alliston, Ont. on Thursday, April 25, 2024. Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press. While the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement ostensibly gives Canadian-based EV producers tariff-free access to the U.S. market, Trump could terminate the treaty or at least insist on major changes in specific Canadian trade policies that he criticized during his first term, including supply management programs for dairy products. The trade agreement is up for trilateral review in 2025, which would allow a new Trump administration to demand political concessions such as increased Canadian spending on defence, in addition to trade concessions. Nor would the re-election of President Joe Biden immunize Canada from protectionist risks. Biden has been a full-throated supporter of unionized U.S. auto workers and has staked his administration’s legacy on the successful electrification of the U.S. transportation sector through domestic production. Given his government’s financial commitment to growing a domestic EV sector, Biden might well impose trade restrictions on Canada if Canadian exports start to displace domestic production in the U.S. In short, Canadian politicians, most notably Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford, have staked the future of Canada’s heavily subsidized domestic EV sector on the vagaries of the U.S. political process, which is increasingly embracing “America First” industrial policies. This may turn out to be a very costly gamble for Canadian taxpayers. https://thehub.ca/2024-05-01/steven-globerman-u-s-politics-looms-over-trudeau-and-fords-electric-vehicle-gamble/

Ford just reported a massive loss on every electric vehicle it sold Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to US $1.3 billion, or US$132,000 for each of the 10,000 vehicles it sold in the first three months of the year, helping to drag down earnings for the company overall. Ford, like most automakers, has announced plans to shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to EVs in coming years. But it is the only traditional automaker to break out results of its retail EV sales. And the results it reported Wednesday show another sign of the profit pressures on the EV business at Ford and other automakers. The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20 per cent from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84 per cent to about US$100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the US$1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit. The losses go far beyond the cost of building and selling those 10,000 cars, according to Ford. Instead the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off. And that means this is not the end of the losses in the unit - Ford said it expects Model e will have EBIT losses of US$5 billion for the full year. The company said it is its “intention” to be have EV pricing cover the actual costs of building each EV, rather than covering all the research and development costs, within the next 12 months. But a price war among EVs for about a year and a half has made even that measure of profitability very difficult said Ford CFO John Lawler. He said while Ford has removed about US$5,000 in cost on each Mustang Mach-E, “revenue is dropping faster than we can take out the cost.” In 2023, Ford Model e reported a full-year EBIT loss of US$4.7 billion on sales of 116,000 EVs, or an average of US$40,525 per vehicle, just more than a third of the first quarter loss. Model e doesn’t handle all of the company’s electric vehicle sales. Some are also sold in its Ford Pro unit, which handles fleet sales to businesses and government buyers. And Ford said it had strong demands for electric vehicle sales in that unit, including an order for 9,250 E-Transit vans from the US Postal Service, which are to be delivered through the end of this year, and an order for more than 1,000 of its F-150 Lightning pickups and Mustang Mach-E SUVs from Ecolab, a global sustainability company. Despite the EV losses, Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a call with investors the company is making changes in its EV business, and that the company’s planned next generation of EVs will allow it to be profitable on that business in the near future. Ford Pro, which primarily sells traditional internal combustion vehicles, was the primary profit driver for Ford in the quarter, posting EBIT of $3 billion, or more than double what it made a year ago, as revenue from the unit rose 36 per cent to US$18 billion. The number of vehicles sold by Ford Pro was up 21 per cent to 409,000. But Ford Blue, which handles sales of gasoline-powered cars to consumers, reported that sales fell 11 per cent to 626,000, and revenue dropped 13 per cent to US$21 billion. That resulted in EBIT in those traditional sales falling by nearly two-thirds to US$905 million. Together Ford Blue and Ford Pro produced roughly the same level of profits as a year earlier, but the increased losses at the Model e unit meant that Ford’s overall net income fell 20 per cent to US$1.3 billion, while its adjusted earnings per share fell to 49 cents, down 21 per cent from a year earlier, but slightly better than analyst forecasts of 44 cents a share.Ford rival General Motors reported earlier this week that it remains on track to have its North American EV business turn profitable in the second half of this year, while Stellantis, which makes cars and trucks in North America under the Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler brands, said its European EV business was already profitable last year. On Tuesday Tesla, the world’s largest EV maker, reported that its adjusted earnings plunged 48 per cent in the first quarter as revenue fell 9 per cent, after it reported the first year-over-year drop in sales since the pandemic. https://www.ctvnews.ca/autos/ford-just-reported-a-massive-loss-on-every-electric-vehicle-it-sold-1.6861922#:~:text=Ford's electric vehicle unit reported,earnings for the company overall.

Owning an electric vehicle is madness and I regret ever buying one Recently, all EV owners in my building received notice that we would no longer be allowed to plug in at all Canadians have repeatedly been told that electric vehicles (EVs) are the future. The Trudeau government has even mandated that all new vehicles sold in Canada must be electric by 2035 (and 60 per cent by 2030, which is just around the corner). There’s only one problem: to loosely quote Jerry Maguire, “Show me the infrastructure.” My own vehicle is a short-range plug-in, for which I paid a premium, after clearing with my strata (condo association) that I’d be allowed to charge it. First, I was granted permission to use an extension cord, which I had purchased. Later, we were told that extension cords were no longer allowed due to safety concerns expressed by the fire department. Fair enough. I managed to trade spots with a neighbour. But recently, all EV owners in my building received notice that we would no longer be allowed to plug in at all. At least, not until actual Level 2 chargers are installed. When this joyous event might happen is anybody’s guess. All I know is that the idea was brought up at least three years ago, was seriously discussed and no action was taken. Meanwhile, there are a number of owners who will no longer be able to charge their vehicles at home. Just not enough of them to have any say, since other owners who have gas vehicles, understandably, are not as eager to shoulder the cost of adding chargers. As for the safety concerns, my vehicle was sold with the assumption that it would be plugged into a regular socket. That was a key selling point. And presumably it had passed safety tests to ensure it could be operated in such a way. In fact, a study by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency found that EVs are 20 times less likely to catch fire than petrol and diesel vehicles. There’s also a debate over which vehicles pollute more. Opponents of EVs point to the environmental costs of battery disposal and mining for the materials required to make them. Proponents argue that EVs makes us less reliant on oil, that our ability to safely dispose of or recycle batteries is only going to improve and that EVs significantly decrease urban air pollution. They are also more fun to drive, with faster acceleration and no noise. Naturally, there’s much debate about which type of vehicle is more enjoyable and we’ll never fully settle that particular dilemma. The problem is that while the government is pushing for EVs to dominate the market, it avoids a simple reality: EVs are currently only feasible for those who have financial resources. The cost of charging is often on par with filling a gas tank, but takes significantly longer — that is, if you even manage to find an available charger nearby. So, for most people, charging at home is the practical option. But when you’ve got stratas that can cut off their residents at any moment, this becomes an option only for those who own their own homes, or have moved into condos with sufficient charging infrastructure. Some cities, such as Vancouver, are now requiring that all new condo buildings provide Level 2 charging stations in every parking spot. But anyone who has bought into an older building has no such assurances. Given the prohibitively high cost of real estate in Canada, personal charging stations will remain out of reach of many Canadians. Simply legislating that all vehicles sold by 2035 must be electric doesn’t guarantee that there will be options that are as affordable as the gas vehicles that are currently on the market. While I support innovation, and appreciate EVs, there’s something deeply elitist in the government policies that surround them. Firstly, these should be vehicles that people should want to choose, rather than be forced to. And second, forcing EVs on people without encouraging or building sufficient infrastructure in advance is bound to lead to trouble ahead. There are some changes coming in certain jurisdictions. In British Columbia, for example, strata corporations will be required to obtain electrical planning reports, which will provide them with information on their electrical systems and expected demand increases due to EV charging and heat pumps. But these won’t be required in Vancouver until 2026 — and as late as 2028 in some parts of the province. And installing new EV infrastructure will still require a majority vote by the strata corporation. In my current situation, I can’t help but feel like I was misled. I was actively encouraged to buy an EV and the government even provided incentives to do so. But there were no guardrails put into place when my strata decided to cut off my power (without making an alternative option available). Without proper infrastructure, 100 per cent EVs by 2035 is just a pipe-dream — or a nightmare. National Post

Pilotless Airplane??

They did it to themselves

Israel’s military has told residents they no longer need to remain near safe places, a sign that the acute danger from Iran’s unprecedented Saturday night direct attack appears to have passed. Israel Defense Forces said it had identified “a small number of hits,” including at a military base in the south of the country, which caused minor infrastructure damage. Israeli emergency services reported that a 10-year-old girl was seriously injured in a Bedouin community in the country’s south. Sirens also sounded three times on Israel’s northern border, the latest just before 5:30 a.m., as Israel’s military warned about dozens of projectiles launched from Lebanon. U.S. President Joe Biden has promised a “united diplomatic response” to Iran’s attack on Israel, an indication that the White House is seeking to prevent military escalation. “Israel demonstrated a remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks – sending a clear message to its foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel,” Mr. Biden’s office said in a statement, after the president spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The statement noted that the Iran attack was aimed at Israeli military targets. Mr. Biden, in an earlier statement, said the U.S. “commitment to Israel’s security against threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad.” Israel has vowed to defend itself, and Iran has also warned of escalation. “Should the Israeli regime commit any military aggression again, Iran’s response will assuredly and decisively be stronger, and more resolute,” the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations wrote in a Saturday evening letter for circulation to the UN Security Council. The United Nations Security Council has also scheduled a meeting on Sunday. For Israel – and a world that fears a major new conflict -- the single most important question now is what kind of military response Israel will make. “We are prepared for any further threats, and are determined to defend our citizens,” Israel defence minister Yoav Gallant wrote on social media Sunday morning, following a call with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. Iran dispatched waves of drones and missiles for Israel late Saturday night, nearly two weeks after an Iranian diplomatic building in Syria was hit by an air strike, killing seven members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – two of them generals. The attack saw more than 300 drones and missiles fired upon Israel. Shortly after midnight, GPS jamming began to take effect across Israel, with phones in Tel Aviv reporting their location as the airport in Beirut. “The defence and offence systems of the Israeli Air Force are on alert, and dozens of planes are in the skies – prepared and ready,” Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, a spokesman for the Israeli’s military, said in a statement. As the attack began, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon closed their airspace. Israeli soon followed, with carrier El Al ordering jets already bound for Ben Gurion Airport to turn back. U.S. President Joe Biden cut short a weekend trip to meet with national security officials as the Pentagon, in a statement, pledged “full U.S. support to defend Israel against any attacks by Iran and its regional proxies.” “President Biden has been clear: our support for Israel’s security is ironclad. The United States will stand with the people of Israel and support their defence against these threats from Iran,” the White House said in a statement. Additional attacks were launched from Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, while rocket sirens also sounded in northern Israel, near the regions of south Lebanon where Hezbollah, another Iranian proxy, maintains a potent arsenal. Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a video statement released Saturday night, warned that “whoever hurts us, we will hurt them. We will defend ourselves from any threat and we will do so calmly and with determination.” “Together we stand, and with God’s help, together we will overcome all of our enemies,” he added. Israel cancelled schools on Sunday, while universities in the country said they would postpone exams. Earlier Saturday, Iranian commandos seized a container ship near the Strait of Hormuz. The Portuguese-flagged MSC Aries operated by a company linked with Israeli billionaire Eyal Ofer. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemned the Iranian attack as “reckless,” saying the air strikes “risk inflaming tensions and destabilizing the region. Iran has once again demonstrated that it is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard.” The Iranian attack came in the midst of a lengthening period of calm for Israel, in its six-month war in Gaza. That war has become a more distant reality in Israeli cities, which had largely returned to the mundanities of life, with enforcement officers issuing parking tickets and popular restaurants demanding reservations. The spectre of war with Iran, however, had created a mounting anxiety. Iran had vowed revenge on Israel for April 1 attack in Syria, although Israel never claimed responsibility. “The whole nation is waiting to see when and where the Iranian missiles will hit,” Ben Caspit, an author and writer for Al-Monitor, said Friday. “It’s terrible and funny at the same time.” On Saturday night, news of Iran launching its attack reached Israelis many hours before the drones could reach their targets – offering time for both preparation and black humour. Orders for emergency supplies began to pour in to supermarkets across the country moments after news of the attack began to circulate. At one in Jerusalem, workers lined an aisle with toilet paper and bottles of water. “It’s crazy,” said an employee, as delivery drivers in motorcycle helmets sought to locate their orders.

When you wonder why it’s now unsafe to wander the streets, remember this video and the legal systems reaction to it.

EPA issues landmark rules to curb auto emissions, bolster EVs The EPA has finalized the rules limiting auto tailpipe emissions from cars, SUVs and pickups, as part of a push to accelerate the U.S. transition to electric vehicles. Why it matters: Transportation is the largest source of domestic greenhouse gas emissions, with light duty vehicles being the largest source within this category. Driving the news: The new rules follow a proposal issued in April, and come as challenges to Biden administration auto standards are already underway. They set emissions rules for light-duty vehicles including cars, SUVs and light trucks for model years 2027-2032 In some ways, it is less stringent than the initial plan. Biden administration officials told reporters the final rule provides more flexibility, including a slower ratcheting up of emissions limits, but gets to the same end goal as the proposal after feedback the EPA received to the proposed rule. Between the lines: The rules do not mandate that automakers transition their fleets over to sell more EVs by a certain date. But with tighter emissions curbs, manufacturers are likely to favor more EVs to comply with the rule. The new rule allows manufacturers to include hybrid EVs and plug-in hybrids for meeting the requirements, in addition to battery powered EVs. A fact sheet given to reporters shows that during 2030-2032 manufacturing years, carmakers may choose to produce 30% to 56% of new light duty vehicle sales as battery electric vehicles, with the rest consisting of a mix of other clean vehicle technologies. The rule would still allow for the production and sale of gasoline-powered vehicles. By the numbers: The original proposal did not include plug-in hybrids, and would have allowed carmakers to produce up to 67% of the light and medium-duty vehicle fleets during the 2030-2032 period as battery electric cars. In finalizing the rule, EPA and the White House are touting the health and climate benefits. EPA calculates that over its lifetime, the rule would cut 7 billion tons of carbon emissions, and provide $100 billion of annual net benefits to society, including $13 billion in annual health benefits. Estimates show that consumers would save money by buying a new vehicle based on lower maintenance costs and avoided gas purchases. Yes, but: The rule comes as EV sales growth appears to have slowed, with consumers opting for cheaper hybrids and plug-in models. Zoom out: It also lands in the midst of a presidential campaign in which EVs have become a contested issue, with former President Donald Trump's campaign criticizing a Biden EV "mandate." In general, opponents of the rule portray it as restricting consumer choice to vehicles the public does not want to buy. The rule, a centerpiece of the Biden administration's climate goals, is likely to be immediately challenged in Congress, and end up in litigation. What they're saying: "Moderating the pace of EV adoption in 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 was the right call because it prioritizes more reasonable electrification targets in the next few (very critical) years of the EV transition," said John Bozzella, President and CEO, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, in a statement. "These adjusted EV targets – still a stretch goal – should give the market and supply chains a chance to catch up," he said. "It buys some time for more public charging to come online, and the industrial incentives and policies of the Inflation Reduction Act to do their thing." National climate advisor Ali Zaidi touted increasing customer choices when it comes to lower emissions vehicles. "From plug-in hybrids to fuel cells to fully electric, drivers have more choices today," he said in a statement. "Since 2021, sales of these vehicles have quadrupled and prices continue to come down. This growth means jobs, and it means we are moving faster and faster to take on the climate crisis." What's next: In the next few weeks, the Department of Transportation is expected to finalize new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles such as buses and freight-carrying trucks. https://www.axios.com/2024/03/20/epa-emissions-electric-vehicles?stream=top&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts_all

Guilbeault's EV fantasy crashes into reality Late last year, when Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the Liberals’ plan to eliminate the sale of cars with internal combustion engines by 2035, a number of people, myself included, rolled their eyes at the government’s interference in the free market. Little did we know how fast the free market would slap the electric vehicle mandate back to reality, while Canadian taxpayers continue to subsidize green fantasies. The signs were already there in late 2023, before our environment minister proudly announced he would jettison capitalist principles and create a dirigiste Canadian automobile economy. First, in September 2023, Volkswagen announced it was cutting EV output due to low demand. Then, in November, Ford announced that it too would be scaling back EV battery production due to lacklustre demand. The new year has not changed the story. If anything, the pace of automakers turning their backs on EVs has accelerated. General Motors is struggling with production woes, Mercedes Benz has delayed its EV goals and even Tesla has warned that EV sales could be significantly lower than predicted. In response to sagging demand, automakers like Tesla have cut the price of their vehicles, which in turn has cratered the resale value of their cars. The CEO of Hertz stepped down last Friday, after his bets on EVs went awry when their resale value plummeted. Consumers everywhere have taken note. While automakers are not totally abandoning their long-term electrification goals, they are all recognizing that the internal combustion engine will not be disappearing overnight. It will be around for a good long while. This reality has always been a key sticking point in the energy transition. It was no doubt a dream of Guilbeault’s to stand at a podium and announce his green fantasy to the world. But his refusal to balance priorities and his reliance on government dictates rather than consumer choice to drive the market make his dreams unrealistic. The inability to understand this has resulted in more waste from the government, which has proven time and again that it is utterly incompetent at picking winners and losers in business. Bad business ideas need money from somewhere, but if, like our government, you don’t particularly care about returns on your investment, the opportunities to throw money around never end. Cue the Liberals opening the money spigot to help their ideology along. So far, Canada has committed to subsidize EV battery plants to the tune of more than $40 billion over the next decade. And this comes at almost the exact same time as automakers are pulling back from their EV production commitments, due to poor sales and low profitability. Well done, guys. Nice job. At the time they were announced, the break-even points for the subsidy deals were estimated to be between 11 and 23 years. With the drop in EV production commitments, it would be interesting to see revised timelines for these already long payback periods. While such deals and the transition to EVs is complex at the best of times, the government always finds ways to make the situation worse. This is mainly because, despite ample evidence to the contrary, it continues to think it knows better than the companies themselves and the market forces to which they are subjected. Consumers are currently sending a very loud and very clear message to both companies and governments: “We don’t want EVs.” The companies have heard it and adjusted their strategies, because they are responsible to shareholders and care about catering to consumer desires. They also are exceptionally well placed to respond to the real-time sales data they are receiving. Ford, GM, Mercedes, VW and Tesla all know consumers aren’t adopting EVs quickly and have reacted accordingly. Yet the government refuses to budge in the face of verifiable consumer data. The result is continuous policy decisions that place politics over productivity, to our collective detriment. Sadly, our government remains obstinate. Minister Guilbeault and company don’t seem to care. In response to EV reality, they have taken an approach that’s diametrically opposed to market efficiency: sticking their heads in the sand. Perhaps, though, we shouldn’t be surprised — a flightless bird that lays enormous eggs is a decent metaphor for Guilbeault and his party at the moment. National Post

13 grandkids in all, but the ones that will use these are between 8 - 12, and all are already proficient with normal bikes.

Just picked 2 of these up used for the grandkids

Trouble at Flair Airlines exposes Trudeau government's massive incompetence Company owes millions to feds over GST non-payment that the Trudeau government doesn't want to talk about. The Trudeau government let more than $67 million in GST go uncollected from a start-up airlines over the past several years. Now the red-faced government is looking to sweep the matter under the rug, claiming privacy concerns. In November, the Federal Court in Ottawa ordered all “real properties and immovables” of Flair Airlines be seized and sold to recoup $67,174,123 in back taxes. When the story broke in January, the company tried to dismiss concerns about the payments as relating to import duties, except airplanes aren’t subject to import duties. There is however a requirement to pay 5% GST at time of import, something Flair appears not to have done as they brought 20 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft over the past several years. The amount owed by Flair matches the GST due on the aircraft but neither the government nor Flair is willing to say much. On Feb. 20, that writ of seizure was quietly rescinded after the government and Flair came to an agreement on paying back the money. The agreement comes after months of high-powered lobbying of several ministries and the prime minister’s office by Liberal insiders. “We don’t comment on client matters,” wrote Andrew Steele, of Strategy Corp, when asked about the 48 meetings he had with government about Flair, including four with the PMO. Flair didn’t respond directly to questions about how they were able to import the planes without paying the GST, but they did maintain they are in full compliance with the law. Regarding the amount in question, Flair refrains from commenting on the specifics of tax credits or their utilization. We maintain rigorous compliance with Canadian tax regulations and regularly seek professional advice to ensure adherence to all legal requirements,” Flair’s Chief Financial Officer Joseph Lee said in a statement to the Sun via email. That may be technically true now given that Flair has obviously entered into a repayment agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency, but something was clearly amiss last fall when the order to seize and sell the airline’s property to recoup the money was issued. Courts are not in the habit of giving the government the power to seize the assets of a company and liquidate them without a valid legal reason. As for repaying a sum that large, it’s not clear how Flair will be able to do so since there is good reason to believe the company is struggling. Last March, four of Flair’s planes were seized by the company that was leasing them to the airline – the reason given, non-payment. At the time, Flair launched legal action and claimed the demand for payment was “baseless.” While the court will decide who is right, the dispute raises questions about Flair. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trouble-at-flair-airlines-exposes-trudeau-governments-massive-incompetence

Inevitable Alberta to tax electric vehicles at the same rate as fuel tax https://tnc.news/2024/02/29/alberta-to-tax-evs-same-rate-as-fuel-tax/

The Drive to James Bay Proves Full-Scale Electrification is as Elusive as Ever

The next election will solve all Canadas ills. Don’t panic yet.

Liberals’ “online hate” bill contains $70K fines for speech and life imprisonment for hate crimes In a move aimed at curbing the spread of what it terms “online hate,” the Liberal government of Canada has revealed its plan, including hefty fines for online speech and stringent punishment including up to life imprisonment for hate crimes. The centrepiece of this initiative is the proposed Online Harms Act, details of which were unveiled during a technical briefing released to reporters on Monday. Among the categories of harmful content identified in the act are materials that incite violent extremism or terrorism, promote violence, or foment hatred. The bill will include amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at addressing hate crimes more effectively. The Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63 was tabled by Liberal Minister of Justice Arif Virani in the House of Commons on the same day. These amendments include the introduction of a standalone hate crime offence applicable across all criminal offences, with penalties extending up to life imprisonment. Maximum punishments for existing hate propaganda offences are also set to be increased substantially. New standalone hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament, allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself,” the technical briefing explained. The bill would also raise “the maximum punishments for the four hate propaganda offences from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment.” Also, the bill would add a definition of “hatred” based on the past decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the Criminal Code. The text of the bill defines “content that foments hatred” as any content “content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.” “For greater certainty and for the purposes of the definition content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends,” adds the government. Additionally, private messaging and communications like WhatsApp and other platforms are excluded from the scope of the legislation. Anybody will also be able to file complaints against others for “posting hate speech online” that is discriminatory against protected categories such as gender, race, disability and others. Amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act will let anybody file complaints against persons posting so-called hate speech with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can order those found to violate the government’s definition of hatred with fines up to $70,000 and takedown orders for content. According to the text of the bill, the Tribunal has the power to order payments of up to $20,000 for victims of so-called online hate, as well as an order to pay the government $50,000 “if the member panel considers it appropriate.” In 2014, a similar provision under the Act dealing with online hate messages was repealed by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper after it was found to have violated the freedom of expression rights of Canadians. The Liberals have pledged to reintroduce Section 13 which deals with “communication of hate speech” over the internet. “It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals based on a prohibited ground of discrimination,” Bill C-63’s text reads. The Tribunal will also have powers to hide the identity of those who bring complaints against anybody whom they deem to have posted online hate speech. Additionally, it can compel those who face complaints to not reveal the identity of those involved upon discovery. “The Commission may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 without disclosing, to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person, the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals that has filed the complaint or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint,” Bill C-63 reads. To enforce rules surrounding harmful online content, including materials that sexually victimize children and deepfakes, the government plans to establish a new organization. This body, comprising the Digital Safety Commission, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, will work to ensure compliance with regulations and protect users from online harm. Meanwhile, the role of the digital safety ombudsperson will extend to advocating for users’ rights and interests in the digital realm, serving as a watchdog for online safety issues. Prior to the bill’s unveiling, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said he would oppose the law, accusing the government of using the issue to legislate censorship and infringe Canadians’ free speech. “We will oppose Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on freedom of expression,” Poilievre responded to a question from True North’s Andrew Lawton last week. “What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the worst hate speech? He means speech he hates.” https://tnc.news/2024/02/26/online-hate-bill-70k-fines-speech-and-life-imprisonment/

Typical LEFTISTS, talking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. One week they want to “PROTECT” young people from online harm, and in the next breath they vote down age limitations on viewing porn on the internet. They are nothing but a bunch of sickos trying to run YOUR lives for you. ita all about POWER. WAKE UP !