News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6K     0 

Federal Government moves to limit how many vehicles Stellantis and GM can import to Canada tariff-free:

1761273289107.png

The federal government is firing back at Stellantis and General Motors by limiting the number of tariff-free vehicles the automakers can import from the U.S. to sell in Canada.

As CBC News first reported, the two multinational manufacturers will no longer be exempt from paying Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on as many U.S.-assembled vehicles as before.

The move is an attempt to put pressure on the companies to reinvest in Canadian production and workers to get this benefit back and avoid a big tariff bill.
In April, the federal government offered auto companies exemptions from Canada's 25 per cent retaliatory tariffs on the American auto sector.
But that benefit came with strings attached: The automakers had to continue making vehicles in Canada and complete the investments they’d already planned.

If companies broke that condition, the government warned it would limit how many tariff-free vehicles they could import from the U.S.
The ministers announced that effective immediately, the government is reducing the amount of American-assembled vehicles GM can import tariff-free by 24 per cent and cutting Stellantis's amount by 50 per cent.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-stellantis-gm-exemptions-american-imports-9.6950640
 
Watching today’s nuclear investment conference, it struck me how chummy Carney and Doug Ford seemed...

Carney’s been cozying up to Trump lately, which adds another layer…until...

Tonight, all US–Canada trade talks were abruptly shelved—apparently triggered by that Reagan-themed ad bankrolled by Ford’s government.

It’ll be fascinating to see how Carney’s calculated diplomacy collides with Doug’s impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip style.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
Federal Government moves to limit how many vehicles Stellantis and GM can import to Canada tariff-free:

View attachment 690598




https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-stellantis-gm-exemptions-american-imports-9.6950640
Good move, but what about Ford? Ford hasn't built any cars in Canada for the last couple of years. Ford scrapped EV plans for Oakville and is supposedly retooling for Ford F-250 heavy trucks, but how likely is that to materialize? Ford sold over 400K vehicles in Canada in 2024 despite not building any cars. I think Ford may have an engine plant in Canada, but that is it.
 
However, some folks (not on here) need a reality check. They see 'small' and 'modular' and leap to something the size of a seacan that can be plunked down In Iqaluit or Fort Severn to displace diesel. I've read nothing that suggests the technology is de-scalable to that extent.
ZEUS is working on it.

 
Good move, but what about Ford? Ford hasn't built any cars in Canada for the last couple of years. Ford scrapped EV plans for Oakville and is supposedly retooling for Ford F-250 heavy trucks, but how likely is that to materialize? Ford sold over 400K vehicles in Canada in 2024 despite not building any cars. I think Ford may have an engine plant in Canada, but that is it.
I wonder if Ford will delay its restart of the Oakville plant?

 
100k is very much still in the comfortable range for living in Ontario.
For a single person, perhaps, if we are considering the entire province. A family of three or four, living in Toronto on $100k, not so much.

A two bedroom apartment alone will set you back ~$3300/month. Make it a condo and your mortgage + condo fees will put you back about $4000+. So we're looking at minimum $39,000 for housing. Taxes on that $100000 will knock down your net income to about $70,000, leaving $31,000 after housing.

Food, for a family of four: $16,833/year

Daycare for kids up to age 5 has gotten cheaper, but for older kids (before and after-care for school aged kids) it's actually gone up in many places due to the province not providing enough subsidy to cover the under-6 kids. At $100k familial income, you don't functionally get any Ontario Child Care Fee Subsidy (unless your child care costs exceeds $76/day), so that kinda blows.

And because the school day is 6 hours long, that means parents either have to have jobs staggered outside of the normal 9-5, or resort to daycare.

And in case many weren't aware of it, in Ontario it is fully illegal to leave a kid under the age 16 at home unsupervised. Meaning, by law, and you don't want to risk having your kids taken away from you, you are expected to have your child in some kind of adult care until they're old enough to drive. That also means that kids must be enrolled in some kind of care program during times school is out (summer, march break, holidays, etc.)

At around $30/day per school-aged kid–assuming you can get into one of the cheaper city-run centres–plus some kind of summer camp or program, and you're looking around an additional $8000/year with just one kid. Two kids would leave you with almost nothing left over.

If you're lucky, you might be able to get into the YMCA's $25/day before-after care, but the number of available spots are quite limited.

So we're down to about $9000 left, and haven't yet factored in transportation, healthcare costs, etc.

Just insuring, maintaining, parking and paying for a car becomes impossible, so TTC passes for two adults is gonna knock $2800/year off that, leaving just over $6000.

We're down to roughly 500 extra dollars a month of truly disposable income. That's not all that much.

"Comfortable" to me means not scraping by. It means having enough money to put something into RESPs for your kids and an RRSP for yourself, taking an annual family vacation, going out to dinner once in a while and having a rainy day fund. $500/month doesn't cover anywhere close to that. And because $100k used to be a lot of money, many still think it is. It's well beyond what many think should be eligible for subsidies, and yet it's really not what it was (which is in part why means testing is BS).

$100k is no longer "comfortable" in this city.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Ford will delay its restart of the Oakville plant?

Ford recently said their plans to retool the Oakville plant are still on track and slated to be completed in Summer 2026. But, as we know, things can change on a dime.

1761314801472.png


https://www.insidehalton.com/news/f...cle_63561d19-5aa8-5061-ad07-0e9847c752f7.html
 
For a single person, perhaps, if we are considering the entire province. A family of three or four, living in Toronto on $100k, not so much.

A two bedroom apartment alone will set you back ~$3300/month. Make it a condo and your mortgage + condo fees will put you back about $4000+. So we're looking at minimum $39,000 for housing. Taxes on that $100000 will knock down your net income to about $70,000, leaving $31,000 after housing.

Food, for a family of four: $16,833/year

Daycare for kids up to age 5 has gotten cheaper, but for older kids (before and after-care for school aged kids) it's actually gone up in many places due to the province not providing enough subsidy to cover the under-6 kids. At $100k familial income, you don't functionally get any Ontario Child Care Fee Subsidy (unless your child care costs exceeds $76/day), so that kinda blows.

And because the school day is 6 hours long, that means parents either have to have jobs staggered outside of the normal 9-5, or resort to daycare.

And in case many weren't aware of it, in Ontario it is fully illegal to leave a kid under the age 16 at home unsupervised. Meaning, by law, and you don't want to risk having your kids taken away from you, you are expected to have your child in some kind of adult care until they're old enough to drive. That also means that kids must be enrolled in some kind of care program during times school is out (summer, march break, holidays, etc.)

At around $30/day per school-aged kid–assuming you can get into one of the cheaper city-run centres–plus some kind of summer camp or program, and you're looking around an additional $8000/year with just one kid. Two kids would leave you with almost nothing left over.

If you're lucky, you might be able to get into the YMCA's $25/day before-after care, but the number of available spots are quite limited.

So we're down to about $9000 left, and haven't yet factored in transportation, healthcare costs, etc.

Just insuring, maintaining, parking and paying for a car becomes impossible, so TTC passes for two adults is gonna knock $2800/year off that, leaving just over $6000.

We're down to roughly 500 extra dollars a month of truly disposable income. That's not all that much.

"Comfortable" to me means not scraping by. It means having enough money to put something into RESPs for your kids and an RRSP for yourself, taking an annual family vacation, going out to dinner once in a while and having a rainy day fund. $500/month doesn't cover anywhere close to that. And because $100k used to be a lot of money, many still think it is. It's well beyond what many think should be eligible for subsidies, and yet it's really not what it was (which is in part why means testing is BS).

$100k is no longer "comfortable" in this city.

The OAS isn't intended to support a family of 4.

AoD
 
Watching today’s nuclear investment conference, it struck me how chummy Carney and Doug Ford seemed...

Carney’s been cozying up to Trump lately, which adds another layer…until...

Tonight, all US–Canada trade talks were abruptly shelved—apparently triggered by that Reagan-themed ad bankrolled by Ford’s government.

It’ll be fascinating to see how Carney’s calculated diplomacy collides with Doug’s impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip style.
Put no stock in what Trump says. He lies constantly and turns on a dime when convenient.
 
The OAS isn't intended to support a family of 4.

AoD
Indeed. OAS is meant to be a portion of the retirement income for an individual or couple. The fact that people are justifying giving what is essentially welfare for old people to people with incomes over $100k is wild. If you have a retirement income over $100k, you are doing much better than the vast majority of Canadians.
 
I kind of question how small and modular these SMRs are. I think the intent with the technology is to have more of a centralized assembly line with very little work needed to be done in the field at the deployment site. These reactors are still quite large. Standardization is still a good thing, which is partly why France was so successful in deploying nuclear.

Indeed, and I question whether it makes sense in this case to build them as SMRs at Darlington (with 4 basically equal to the output of one regular reactor).

AoD
 

Back
Top