Mizoram CM convenes online meeting of High Level Task Force on North East Economic Corridor
As the Convener of the Task Force, Chief Minister Lalduhoma welcomed all participants and expressed his gratitude for their commitment to the region's development.
He outlined key challenges and priorities, particularly underscoring the urgent need for infrastructure development in the North East.
He noted that Mizoram's road density remains significantly below the national average and that other critical infrastructure sectors also require focused attention.
The Mizoram Chief Minister stressed that improved infrastructure will enhance regional connectivity and strengthen cross-border trade with neighbouring Asian countries, creating substantial employment opportunities in the process.
He also conveyed his appreciation to Union DoNER Minister Pu Jyotiraditya Scindia for his continued leadership and proactive role in advancing development in the North East.
Lalmalsawma Pachuau, Secretary of the Planning & Programme Implementation Department, Government of Mizoram, presented a report summarising key points from the first meeting consultations and inputs received from member states.
A detailed discussion of the findings and recommendations followed.
The meeting was attended by Jyotiraditya Scindia, Union Minister of DoNER; Conrad Sangma, Chief Minister of Meghalaya; Chandra Mohan Patowary, Minister from Assam; PK Singh, Chief Secretary of Manipur; V. Umashankar, Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH); and senior officials from the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), among others.
Participants shared their perspectives and proposals, reaffirming their commitment to holding follow-up consultations to achieve a collective and coordinated approach to the corridor's development.
The Ministry of DoNER constituted the High-Level Task Force to identify key interventions and formulate actionable short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies for the integrated development of the North East Economic Corridor. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
a day ago
- CBC
Third Place Studio aims to revitalize Ottawa's downtown community
A new creative studio space in Centretown aims to revitalize the area and provide a 'third place' to foster community and connection.
CBC
a day ago
- CBC
Can the ZEV mandate survive political pressure and industry objections?
Social Sharing With the federal carbon tax dead and gone, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has found a new target among the Liberal government's climate policies — the electric vehicle availability standard, otherwise known as the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate. "We will legalize, into the future, your right to drive a gas or diesel-powered truck or car by repealing the Liberal EV mandate," Poilievre said last week, while restating his desire to see a number of Liberal policies repealed. In a Conservative fundraising email in June, Poilievre's deputy leader, Melissa Lantsman, put the issue in even more bracing terms, writing that the "radical Liberals" were planning to make gas-powered vehicles "illegal" and "force" people to buy "expensive" EVs. Appealing to supporters in rural areas — where EVs might be less practical at the moment — Lantsman added that "Liberals in Ottawa and in busy downtown cores think they know better than you." On Thursday, Poilievre announced that Conservatives would be launching a " nationwide campaign" to stop the mandate. The Conservative leader is smart enough to know he is pushing against a policy that is already under pressure. But that may set up the ZEV mandate as a test of the ability of Mark Carney's government to defend and meaningfully advance climate policy — a test Justin Trudeau's government arguably failed on the carbon tax. Whether or not the Charter can be read to give Canadians the "right" to own an internal-combustion engine, it's not quite the case that gas-powered vehicles will be made illegal. More specifically, the ZEV mandate establishes a series of escalating light-duty vehicle sales targets for auto manufacturers and importers, starting at 20 per cent in 2026 and reaching 100 per cent in 2035. Companies have some flexibility if they are unable or unwilling to meet the annual target — they can buy credits from other sellers or invest in charging infrastructure. The debate over EV policy Advocates of action to fight climate change have supported mandates as a way to guarantee a predictable supply of EVs and accelerate adoption — British Columbia and Quebec have each had ZEV mandates for several years. But North American automakers have bristled at the prospect of additional regulation and would prefer to stick with less-prescriptive regulations aimed at emissions from passenger vehicles. Though those "tailpipe" standards have typically been harmonized with the United States and the Trump administration is currently intent on repealing its regulations. Automakers have called on Carney's government to change or scrap the mandate. Against the backdrop of a trade war, the government seems willing to hear them out — Industry Minister Mélanie Joly told the Globe and Mail in July that the government was working with industry to "find what would be that right level." WATCH | Automakers want EV mandate removed: Automakers push Ottawa to drop EV mandates 1 month ago In arguing against the mandate, the auto industry also now points to a recent slump in EV sales in Canada. But auto executives themselves have said the recent slump is a " direct response" to changes in the rebates offered by federal and provincial governments. The federal government's EV incentive ended in January, Quebec's incentive was temporarily paused in February and British Columbia halted its rebate program in May. The Carney government has said it's working on a new rebate, but that promise might be pushing prospective buyers to wait. Joanna Kyriazis, director of public affairs at Clean Energy Canada, says the Liberal government should broadly stay the course with its mandate, but there are compromises it could make. The Liberals could, for instance, build in additional flexabilities or adjust some of the near-term targets. It could even adjust the ultimate target of 2035. "If this idea of a 100 per cent sales target is really polarizing and really scary to Canadians, then bring it down to 95 per cent — show that there's room for the niche applications or niche situations where in 10 years EVs still might not work," Kyriazis says, though adding that she thinks the technology will have advanced enough by then that such an allowance won't be necessary. Such changes might have the effect of watering down the initial policy without deviating from the larger goal — significantly increasing the use of non-gas-powered vehicles for the sake of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. "[The current sales targets are] in line with where the rest of the world is going," Kyriazis argues. "North America is on a little detour right now, but in the rest of the world, EV sales keep on rising." Worldwide, electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids accounted for 22 per cent of all new car sales in 2024, according to data from the International Energy Agency. In Canada, according to the IEA, EVs accounted for 17 per cent of all sales (Statistics Canada says it was 14 per cent). In the U.K. — where a Conservative government introduced a ZEV mandate in 2024, which was then amended by a Labour government — EVs accounted for 28 per cent of all new cars sold last year. In France, they accounted for 24 per cent. "If you look at jurisdictions that have high levels of EV adoption, it's because they have put in place the conditions to create strong consumer demand. So you have incentives … and you have a much more effective charging infrastructure rollout," says Brian Kingston, president of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, which represents Ford, General Motors and Stellantis. Beyond the question of which type of regulations make more sense, that argument might make the case for governments putting even more money toward building charging infrastructure, alongside reintroducing rebates for consumers. The politics of EVs In the meantime, there will be a political fight — and it will apparently be waged in terms of a culture war. In a video posted in June, Poilievre said the mandate was not about reducing emissions, but about "imposing elite ideology on the common people." The last time a federal climate policy came under this much concentrated pressure, the carbon tax suffered from both the surging inflation that followed the pandemic and the falling popularity of the prime minister who introduced it. The Trudeau government then undercut its own policy with a carve-out aimed at voters in one region of the country. Appearing before a Senate committee not long after the Trudeau government made that move, Mark Carney said that "if something is going to be changed, then something at least as good is put in its place. Ideally, if you're going to change something, you put in place something better that still has that credibility and predictability that has the power that drives investment." That stated principle might hang over whatever the Carney government is considering now. Ultimately — for Carney and Poilievre, for Canadians in urban and rural communities — there is the unforgiving math of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is currently aiming to reduce its total national emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The federal government is further aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The transportation sector accounted for 156.6 megatonnes of emissions in 2023 — 22.6 per cent of Canada's total emissions. Specifically, passenger cars and light trucks for 91.5 megatonnes — 13.2 per cent of the national total.
Globe and Mail
2 days ago
- Globe and Mail
Worried about market turmoil, do Estelle, 62, and Blake, 54, need to work longer than planned?
Estelle is planning to retire from her management job in December, 2026, when she will turn 63. Blake, her husband, is 54 and plans to continue working for a few more years at his small business. Estelle is earning $108,000 a year plus a bonus of $16,500, bringing her total pre-tax income to $124,500. Blake earns about $60,000 a year working remotely. While Estelle participates in some group savings plans at work, neither she nor Blake has a defined benefit pension plan. So with all her savings tied to financial market performance, she is worried about potential market turmoil fuelled by U.S. tariff policies. 'Should I delay my retirement so as not to have to risk withdrawing funds at a loss?' she writes in an e-mail. Now with $4-million, what's the best way for Mike and Miriam to deal with their capital gains? How can Seth, 53, and Maeve, 54, reach their goal of spending $120,000 a year in retirement? Their retirement spending goal is $100,000 a year after tax. 'Is it feasible?' she asks. We asked Barbara Knoblach, a certified financial planner at Money Coaches Canada in Edmonton, to look at Blake and Estelle's situation. Blake and Estelle live in Toronto, where they own a small, mortgage-free house, Ms. Knoblach says. They have no children and no plans to leave an inheritance. After she retires, they plan to stay in their home and spend about six months each year living abroad. 'Since Blake's work is remote, he can operate as a digital nomad,' the planner says. Around the time Estelle retires, they plan to take a dream vacation expected to cost $60,000 to $65,000. Estelle participates in three employer-sponsored group plans, a defined contribution pension plan, a non-registered employee savings plan and an employee profit-sharing plan. She contributes 7.8 per cent of her base salary to the pension plan, with a matching 11.7-per-cent employer contribution. She contributes 5.8 per cent of her base salary to the employee savings plan. And her employer contributes 2.9 per cent to the profit-sharing plan. In total, around $30,500 is set aside each year across these plans. Both Estelle and Blake make long-term personal investments. They maximize their tax-free savings accounts annually. She contributes about $10,000 annually to a spousal RRSP for Blake, while he contributes $3,300 per year to his own RRSP and occasionally tops it up with surplus funds. Are they on track if she retires as planned and he works until age 60? If not, how much longer does he need to work? Does she need to work part-time? Ms. Knoblach modelled several potential retirement scenarios. They assume a 2.1-per-cent inflation rate, a 5.5-per-cent rate of return on their investments and that their funds last till he reaches age 95, after which they would still have the equity in their house. Scenario 1: Estelle retires at the end of 2026; Blake retires at age 60 in 2032. Assuming registered account contributions have already been made for 2025, they will add $13,300 to RRSPs and $14,000 to their TFSAs in 2026. From 2027 onward, their household income will drop, and no further registered contributions will be made. Blake's business income will cover household cash flow. The projection shows that they could support an after-tax, inflation-adjusted spending level of $96,500 per year, just under their $100,000 goal. 'This scenario therefore projects slight underfunding and feels financially tight,' Ms. Knoblach says. Regarding the upcoming dream trip, their travel account holds about $34,500 but isn't being consistently funded and has been used for smaller trips. To fully fund the trip, they'll likely need to dip into retirement investments such as Estelle's non-registered savings plan, which would further reduce their retirement income potential, the planner says. Scenario 2: Blake works to the traditional retirement age of 65 and retires in 2037. With Estelle retired and Blake working until the end of the year in which he turns 65, they could reach an annual retirement income of $104,000 starting in 2027 – even without further contributions to registered accounts after 2026. Scenario 3: Estelle retires in 2026 but does part-time freelance work. If she earns about $20,000 a year in freelance income for two years starting in 2027, their annual spending power would reach $98,200. 'This is still slightly underfunded,' the planner says. Scenario 4: Estelle delays retirement until the end of 2028. By staying in her career job until then, she could continue earning and contributing roughly $30,000 annually to her group plans, Ms. Knoblach says. The couple could also continue contributing to their own registered accounts through 2028. In this scenario, they would achieve retirement income of $104,000 per year – even if Blake retires at 60. This approach would also allow them to retire around the same time, rather than several years apart. 'Estelle and Blake have not yet fully secured their desired retirement income,' the planner says. 'To meet their goal comfortably – and to leave room for unexpected expenses like home repairs or vehicle replacement – they should look for ways to extend their income-generating years.' Estelle expressed concern about retiring during a period of volatile financial markets, fearing she might have to sell investments at a loss, Ms. Knoblach says. 'This is a valid concern: Sequence of returns risk arises when markets decline early in retirement, forcing early withdrawals and reducing long-term portfolio growth,' she says. 'This risk is particularly relevant for portfolios heavily weighted toward equities, which is the case for Estelle and Blake. Her concern is therefore justified.' Although Estelle and Blake may want to avoid drawing down their investments in the next year or two, they should prepare for doing so regardless of market conditions. 'Before retiring, they should undergo a drawdown analysis to determine the optimal order of fund withdrawals,' the planner says. The accounts they plan to draw from (e.g., RRSPs) should hold several years' worth of required income in secure, low-volatility securities such as guaranteed investment certificates or short-term deposits. 'This will protect them from having to sell equities during market downturns.' Another way to reduce market exposure is to ensure their essential expenses (e.g., housing, groceries) are covered by reliable income streams. Although they don't have defined benefit pensions, they could consider converting Estelle's defined contribution pension into a life annuity, Ms. Knoblach says. 'Combined with government benefits, this would allow them to ride out market turbulence without having to touch their equities.' Lowering portfolio risk and maintaining liquid, or easily cashable, reserves should be done regardless of how the markets are behaving around the time of retirement, Ms. Knoblach says. Retiring during a market high can be riskier than retiring in a down market because pullbacks are more likely. 'Estelle and Blake should avoid being swayed by emotion or geopolitical events and instead focus on building a robust, resilient plan.' The people: Estelle, 62 going on 63, and Blake, 54. The problem: Will Estelle's retirement plan be derailed by volatile financial markets? How much longer should she and Blake work? The plan: Scenario 4, in which Estelle works another couple of years, offers the best financial security. Make sure they have cash holdings in the accounts they plan to draw from. Consider buying an annuity. Monthly net income: $10,755. Assets: Cash $10,385; other $49,090; her TFSA $124,770; his TFSA $151,845; her RRSP $357,700; his RRSP $295,230; her employer savings and DC pension plan $164,140; residence $1,200,000. Total: $2.35-million. Monthly outlays: Property tax $500; water, sewer, garbage $90; home insurance $110; electricity $140; heating $80; security $35; maintenance, garden $325; transportation $605; groceries $740; clothing $300; gifts, charity $150; vacation, travel $2,500; dining, drinks, entertainment $1,000; personal care $200; gym, club membership $600; sports, hobbies $300; subscriptions $70; health care $480; phones, TV, internet $255; monthly RRSPs $960; TFSAs $1,250. Total: $10,690 Liabilities: None. Want a free financial facelift? E-mail finfacelift@ Some details may be changed to protect the privacy of the persons profiled.
