Ontario Premier Criticizes Canada–China EV Tariff Deal

Ontario Premier Doug Ford sharply criticized the new Canada–China electric vehicle tariff deal. He said the agreement gives China a “foothold” in Canada’s auto market. Ford warned that lowering EV tariffs could hurt Canadian workers and even risk U.S. market access.

Canada and China Reach Trade Agreement

The federal government reached a new deal with China on EV tariffs and agricultural exports. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called it “preliminary but landmark.” He said it will reduce trade barriers and strengthen Canada–China economic ties.

The agreement is part of a broader strategic partnership that aims to boost bilateral trade and investment.

Electric Vehicle Tariffs Cut

Under the deal, Canada will lower its tariff on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 per cent to 6.1 per cent for up to 49,000 vehicles per year. Carney said this could make some EVs more affordable for Canadians.

By 2030, about half of these imported EVs could cost less than $35,000, making them more accessible to middle-class buyers.

Agricultural Benefits for Canada

China will also reduce tariffs on key Canadian agricultural exports. Duties on canola seed will drop from 84 per cent to 15 per cent by March. Other products, including canola meal, lobsters, crabs, and peas, will also face fewer restrictions.

These changes could unlock billions in Canadian agricultural exports and help farmers diversify markets.

Political Debate and Economic Implications

While Carney emphasizes trade growth, Premier Ford says the agreement threatens domestic manufacturing jobs. He called for federal support for Ontario’s auto sector and urged re-evaluating EV sales mandates and federal fees.

Analysts note the deal may improve market access and consumer choice. However, long-term success depends on enforcement, trust, and balancing economic interests.

B.C. ends drug decriminalization pilot, won’t renew federal exemption

British Columbia will end its three-year pilot that decriminalized personal possession of small amounts of illicit drugs. The province will not seek a renewal of the federal exemption that allowed the program.

Health Minister Josie Osborne announced the decision Wednesday in Victoria. She said the pilot aimed to reduce stigma and make it easier for people to seek help. She added the program did not deliver the results the province hoped to see.

The exemption, granted by Health Canada under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, allowed adults to possess up to 2.5 grams total of certain drugs. It covered opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA. The exemption took effect on Jan. 31, 2023, and expires at the end of this month.

What the pilot was designed to do

When the pilot launched, provincial and federal officials argued decriminalization could shift drug use from a justice issue to a health issue. They said it could reduce stigma, encourage people to access services, and help prevent deaths.

However, critics later said officials oversold what decriminalization could achieve on its own. Some observers warned that expectations set the program up for backlash.

Public drug use complaints reshaped the debate

After the pilot began, complaints grew about public drug use and street disorder. Police said the policy limited enforcement options, especially early on, because it placed few restrictions on where people could consume drugs.

The B.C. Conservatives highlighted reports of paraphernalia found in parks, beaches, and playgrounds. Other jurisdictions watched closely. Toronto sought a similar exemption but did not receive one as criticism of B.C.’s pilot increased. Alberta also pointed to B.C.’s experience while taking a more treatment-focused approach.

B.C. later tightened the rules multiple times. The most recent changes largely limited permitted possession to private residences and some shelters.

Osborne cites limited measurable impact

Osborne faced repeated questions about what outcomes fell short. She said the province did not see major increases in self-referrals to care or expanded use of certain services. She also pointed to gaps in public understanding that would support the policy’s goals.

The province plans to compile a final report using data submitted to Health Canada. Osborne also acknowledged that public safety concerns influenced the decision.

Evidence and expert views remain mixed

Outside assessments of the pilot have differed. One peer-reviewed study published in 2025 reported fewer police-reported drug possession incidents after decriminalization. However, it did not find evidence that decriminalization alone reduced overdose harms.

Some researchers and advocates argue that critique misunderstands the policy’s scope. SFU professor Kora DeBeck said decriminalization is a limited intervention. She said it mainly reduces harms linked to criminalization and police interactions. She also argued that goals like boosting treatment entry were overstated without supports like housing and services.

Provincial health officer disappointed by decision

Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry said she felt disappointed but not surprised. She has supported decriminalization for years and described it as sound policy. However, she said implementation became politically charged and hard to communicate.

Henry said the policy aimed to reduce cycles of criminalization linked to addiction. She added that benefits like service referrals can be difficult to measure. She also noted the program arrived during a period of intense public concern about safety.

What happens next

With the exemption ending, B.C. will return to the previous legal framework for personal possession. The province says it will continue working on broader responses to addiction and the toxic drug supply.

The debate now shifts to what replaces the pilot. Critics want clearer enforcement and public-order tools. Supporters want stronger health and housing supports, plus safer supply options. Both sides agree the crisis continues.

Trump Threatens to Use Insurrection Act in Minneapolis

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to end protests in Minneapolis.
He made the statement after days of unrest linked to federal immigration enforcement actions.
Trump warned that he could deploy U.S. troops if local leaders fail to restore order.

The Insurrection Act allows a president to use the military inside the country.
Presidents rarely use this law.
Trump said the protests had turned violent and endangered federal officers.

What Sparked the Protests

Tensions escalated after a fatal shooting involving a federal immigration officer.
The incident angered local residents and activist groups.
Protests quickly spread across parts of Minneapolis.

In recent days, police reported clashes between protesters and federal agents.
Some demonstrators threw fireworks and objects.
Officers used crowd-control measures in response.

Trump Targets Local Leadership

Trump accused Minnesota’s leaders of losing control.
He described protesters as “agitators” and “lawbreakers.”
He said federal action may be necessary to protect officers and property.

The comments echoed Trump’s earlier stance on domestic unrest.
He has previously supported military involvement during protests.

State and City Leaders Push Back

Minnesota officials rejected Trump’s claims.
They said local police remain capable of handling the situation.
City leaders urged peaceful protest and dialogue.

The governor warned that federal escalation could worsen tensions.
Officials stressed the importance of constitutional rights.
They emphasized lawful demonstrations.

Legal and Political Concerns

Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is controversial.
The law sets a high threshold for military deployment.
Using it without state approval could trigger court challenges.

Civil rights groups warned against using troops on civilians.
They fear escalation and long-term damage to public trust.

A Divided National Response

The threat has fueled national debate.
Some Americans support strong federal action.
Others see it as an abuse of executive power.

The situation in Minneapolis remains tense.
All eyes are now on whether the threat becomes action.