Anti-Tesla Agenda revealed by Canadian Liberal Government Decision

Anti-Tesla Agenda revealed by Canadian Liberal Government Decision

https: //

Not good news for Tesla entry level buyers. The competition will have a fiscal edge. The product is by far better, but people on a budget will have to make a choice between The Best EV of The Cheapest EV.

Sad day for Canadians

Neomaxizoomdweebie | April 17, 2019

Hopefully they realize its worth paying the "extra" 5000 for a Tesla over the EV garbage coming out of the other companies.

PECo CT | April 17, 2019

The Connecticut Automobile Retailer's Association did the same thing in Connecticut, in addition to prohibiting Tesla from selling cars in the state. Childish.

Seth.e.levine | April 17, 2019

Any EV is better than an APE.
(Awful Polluting Engine)

coleAK | April 17, 2019

I don’t think it’s anti Tesla. They are just trying to exclude luxury cars. Probably Based on the fact that the “rich” don’t need tha break to buy an EV. If it’s getting more people in an EV that wouldn’t get one anyway I’m all for it. Let’s face it Tesla is a luxury brand, if they want their cars to be included figure out a way to come in below the price cap.

bj | April 17, 2019

@coleAK - correct. It does irritate me that a lot of the time here people adopt the view that *everything* that happens is somehow deliberately directed towards Tesla, even if it impacts other parties as well. All part of a hidden agenda/conspiracy/paranoia. Seriously - it’s a symptom of a persecution complex.

This incentive is unavailable for *any* electric car costing more than $45k. Fred @ Electrek has in recent times seriously gone for the click-bait headlines, an even when the headline is wrong (Tesla is not “officially disqualified” from anything) he has no interest in correcting it and refuses to listen to any of the commentators BTL. He just sails on, impervious to any and all feedback.

The underlying philosophy is that people buying expensive cars do not need tax breaks. I am totally OK with that. The incentive could be phased out over a price range rather than fall off a cliff to $0 at a hard price point, but that is a different issue.

xtcTesla | April 17, 2019

Tesla needs to jack the destination delivery fee and lower the the end their still getting 53700 for the base model and gets people the 5000 rebate.
Why nit. Hyundai lowered their Kona EV by $600 to get under the 45,000 benchmark. By them accomplishing this, they still get to sell the Ultimate version at 54,000.
I was on the borderline if getting a Kona and then I realized what am I doing the M3 is slightly lower than the Kona.
Even if u could have gotten that 5000, I'll never regret ordering the M3, as the Kona has half baked features compared to the M3.

TexasBob | April 17, 2019

Have seen this before. Look to lobbying from the entrenched OEMs with plants in the country. FWIW, Texas has a $2,500 credit that covers pretty much every EV except Tesla (on the basis that they must be sold through a dealership and Tesla is not). It has made no difference. Tesla still far and away largest EV seller. It stinks though. Place money on GM's lobbyists steering the policy.

Hal Fisher | April 17, 2019

Or, they set the amount when tesla was selling the $35k car ($45k in canada?).

priit | April 17, 2019

It is kind of interesting to see people take it personally when the legislation excludes what they like. I suspect the line was drawn purely below that limit because the beanie's counted that if they include Tesla then looking at the number of cars Tesla makes that policy will take more cash out of their stores, so they put the line under it as the number of cars under the line will be considerably smaller, thus them not having to pay out as much while still maintaining the appearance of doing something that people have been asking.
Us here in Australia don't really get any incentives from the government. Some states have small incentives like reduced rego or such, but so far there is no policy that would give any tangible incentives, however people are still looking forward to the RHD model 3 to start being produced and sold here with or without incentives. EV-s only count for about 0.2% sales for last year here as the government has no stance on it.

EVolution | April 19, 2019

it made 2 person I know buy a Kona EV and Ioniq, it was more money wise for them and their budget with the 13,000$ incentive

finman100 | April 19, 2019

More EVs are great...but these owners of non-Tesla's will be sorely disappointed in traveling like they did with ye ol' gas car. just saying. There is more to this EV game than features and range. When a non-Tesla EV is able to traverse the US with worry-free charging and VERY fast charging...well, I just don't see that with this current crop of EVs. 200 plus miles is great as a second car, but hardly a revolution. Infrastructure. And I'm not talking the penalty VW crap Electrify America thing.

Tesla needs to stay in business all the while lowering the entrance fee AND fight off all the FUD and shorts and oil interests that constantly question and lie. It may look easy but, wow, so many want Tesla to fail. It isn't funny anymore.

calvin940 | April 19, 2019

There is absolutely no reason to limit a subsidy based on the base price. This is supposed to provide incentive to move people to. EV. Period. The government is essentially negating the very reason by offering only subsidies to inferior products. It's not a percentage of cost where higher priced cars get a greater benefit. It is a cappedz fixed value.

This isn't about being irritated that it doesn't apply to something we like, its about purposely excluding and he best EV offering out there.

I can tell you with certainty that anyone I have driven in my car would not buy any other EV on the market now other than Tesla, so essentially the government is undoing its misson as those people won't be buying an EV period.

It's just plain stupid.

cliffordsf | April 19, 2019

In many ways, the reason we now have choices is thanks to Tesla. Before Tesla came on the scene, EVs were few and far between, and many were awful looking cars. So while I get, and agree with, the sentiment of excluding luxury cars because those in the market don't need the tax break, I think a lot of Tesla sales will be lost because of the tax break. I don't know about you, but I had to decide if I could afford a Tesla and the incentives played a part in deciding I could.

EVolution | April 19, 2019

+100 calvin

Lonestar10_1999 | April 19, 2019

Agree with Cliffordsf 100%. There were two things that made the M3 fit my budget; the federal tax incentive ($3750), and my employer offers free recharging.

Without both incentives, I would have continued driving a Prius and be miserable.

EVolution | April 20, 2019

Now, the question is: Should Tesla play the same game as Hyundai did and get the price of the base model down and jack up the price of the delivery fees?

mmclean708 | April 20, 2019

We didn't benefit from the us tax break, doesn't do any good when we don't make enough to pay taxes. State of Maine was run by mini trump so nothing here either. Never considered any ev but tesla, if you want it you will find a way, government can help...or get out of the way!

bj | April 20, 2019

@calvin940 - “There is absolutely no reason to limit a subsidy based on the base price.”

Sure there is. Tax breaks, concessions, incentives etc are finite (no government has an unlimited amount of cash) so therefore they should not be directed towards people who don’t need them.

In this case, people who buy expensive cars do not need them. We need more bogans buying EVs, not more high-end professionals who will do it anyway.

In my country there used to be various incentives for first home buyers to help them get into the market. But there was a house price point at which a first home buyer would get nothing. Same concept.

msmith55 | April 21, 2019

What is not appreciated by Canadian gov is that Tesla is more expensive because they have a lot of battery management hardware and software to keep the battery from getting too cold or hot, which allows the battery to last up to 10 years with proper care, instead of 4 years as most other EV are designed, to be cheaper.

EVolution | April 21, 2019

Model 3 was announced in 2006 to be an affordable mass market EV. The reason for existence of any other EV available right now was the push Tesla made on competitors l. The fact they are not including it for the subsidy because of $2,700 is either because of misunderstanding of the ministers who took the decision or influenced by lobbying.

The base Model 3 should have been included.

coleAK | April 21, 2019

I’m sure with all the money Tesla spends on advertising and PR they spend almost as much on lobbying in Canada. Probably the intended to include the $35k model 3. A year so the Canadian dollar was 0.80 USD. Which would have put the $35k USD $43750 Can$

Mike83 | April 21, 2019

Fossil fuel interests have banked many politicians and they should be exposed and deposed. Hit them where it hurts, economically. We did our small part and canceled a vacation in Canada and instead spend our cash in California and Mexico. A trip to China and the EU might be in the cards. Prefer not to breathe carcinogenic fossil fuels and it's exhaust.

calvin940 | April 21, 2019


That argument would hold true if there was an actual luxury to non luxury pricing disparity. There isn't. The difference is small and Tesla (and wanna be Tesla owners) are penalized.

bj | April 21, 2019

@calvin940 - “Tesla (and wanna be Tesla owners) are penalized.”

As are wannabe Jaguar i-Pace owners, and wannabe Porsche Taycan owners, and wannabe BMW i3 owners, and...

Those wannabe owners don’t need tax breaks either. To make the most difference, we need more lower-cost EVs and more people who are not wealthy buying those lower-cost EVs. That makes any incentive program necessarily more expensive and hence must be targeted else governments go broke. Means testing might be a better metric than vehicle list price, but they’re similar concepts.

And the article could easily have been headlined “Jaguar officially disqualified” or “Porsche officially disqualifed” but those would have been equally wrong, and gosh, isn’t it interesting that Fred went for “Tesla officially disqualified” even though he repeatedly protests that Electrek is *not* a Tesla-specific site?

So no, Tesla is not being singled out. All that’s been singled out is Tesla’s persecution complex among some of its followers.

calvin940 | April 21, 2019


That argument would hold true if there was an actual luxury to non luxury pricing disparity. There isn't. The difference is small and Tesla (and wanna be Tesla owners) are penalized.

It doesn't matter the brand. If the price disparity is such that it is insignificant, the classification is irrelevant. The prices of the current EVs that qualify and the lowest cost Tesla Model 3 is such that it doesn't make sense to draw that line.

howard | April 21, 2019

bj is accurately stating the obvious. Everything is not about Tesla. A budget was negotiated that included a reasonable cutoff point. Period. At least Canada is moving in the right direction with helping promote/subsidize EV ownership which is a good thing.

coleAK | April 21, 2019

Overall thw Canadian government seems more methodical than us in the USA. Well most of the time excluding the whole new assisted opening knife across the boarder ban... I can’t carry my ZT flipper but a 4” fixed is ok eh?

Anyway they probably just looked at averages and quartile’s and drew the line at $45k can$ as the luxury vehicle line in the snow.

EVolution | April 22, 2019

but they subsidize up to $55k if base model is under $45k
you subsidize a premier interior or a non luxury EV but not a base version of a luxury one that would be under $55k?

xtcTesla | April 22, 2019

Good one , you don't want to breathe Fossil fuels but your going to China.

coleAK | April 22, 2019

@mike83. Is Mexico more environmentaly minded than Canada...? CA and Mexico cleaner air than Canada?

Funny but probably would have been better to not pick the state with the worst air quality and, well Mexico.

calvin940 | April 22, 2019


This is the kind of thing that others appear to be oblivious of when talking about the subject.

Mike83 | April 22, 2019

Depends whee you go in China and Mexico. Every city has its problems but they are working on it. We also have the BioHazard system which works great to remove pollution.

Smart owners in Portugal don't give a shit about fossil fuel shortages.

calvin940 | May 1, 2019

Yay. Tesla counteracts the gov't Tesla screwover by changing the base pricing structure for people to be able to buy the best EV and qualify for the incentive.

lbowroom | May 1, 2019

I wonder how much the mileage unlock upgrade will be

calvin940 | May 1, 2019


I suspect that adding it as an option will then bring it back to it's natural price (if you do it at purchase time). The idea was to affect the base price to meet that requirement. Then your total with optionsl has to be less than $55,000, so they can add that unlock back in as an option. Very clever.

Roger1 | May 2, 2019

Check the government website.
Model 3 SR and SR+ are eligible for the $5,000 incentive. The maximum price for the SR+ is $55,000 not including the delivery fees.
Check for information on Canadian pricing for the SR and SR+.

NEKEV | May 2, 2019

Incentives are designed to influence buying behavior. With limited funds (tax payer dollars) they most likely made the decision to structure the incentives to get the most people they could into an electric vehicle with the funds available. They also most likely determined that a $5k incentive did little to change the behavior of those who could afford a >$45k vehicle (a category many other car makes fall into, not just Tesla). I.e. most were going to buy it anyway. It’s a matter of bang for the buck with tax dollars, not something targeted at Tesla.

EVolution | May 2, 2019

just go the Norvegian way, 50% taxes on ICEs
no tax on EVs

what else is to be understood