
Ford's car-friendly cuts will boost gridlock, drain transit funds, experts warn
Premier Doug Ford is selling car-friendly tax and fee cuts announced on Tuesday as a win for Ontario drivers — but experts warn the lost revenue could drain funding for public transit, shift costs to taxpayers and set back climate goals by encouraging more driving.
Introducing his government's new legislation 'to help lower costs and fight gridlock,' Ford said the gas tax cut will save the average household around $115 annually, while removing tolls on the provincially-owned section of Highway 407 East starting in June could save some commuters more than $7,000 a year.
'It's frustrating to hear this kind of policy announcement, which we know is counterproductive,' said Albert Koehl, an environmental lawyer and author of Wheeling Through Toronto. 'Premier Ford talks a lot about reducing congestion, yet he continues to pursue the same failed policies of the past.'
Koehl argues the province is undermining its own transit investments by making driving cheaper and more attractive, which evidence shows increases traffic. 'This is a government using public money against the public interest.'
The cuts — first introduced in 2022 and set to expire in June — reduce the gasoline tax by 5.7 cents per litre and the diesel fuel tax by 5.3 cents per litre.
Ontario has not had its own carbon-pricing plan since the Ford government scrapped cap-and-trade in 2018. The province currently falls under the federal carbon tax, which Prime Minister Mark Carney removed. That move, along with Ford's gas tax cut, further distances Ontario from any pricing on pollution.
Koehl also raised concerns about the equity of the move, suggesting that the gas tax cuts and toll rollbacks disproportionately benefit drivers who are more likely to be higher-income. Meanwhile, those who rely on public transit — often lower-income residents — gain little from the changes.
The province currently falls under the federal carbon tax, which Prime Minister Mark Carney removed. That move, along with Ford's gas tax cut, further distances Ontario from any pricing on pollution.
Ontario's road transportation sector already accounts for 26 per cent of the province's emissions.
Evidence from other countries supports experts' concerns about the consequences of cutting fuel taxes, which tend to increase driving. In Germany's 2022 experiment, the government lowered fuel taxes while introducing a discounted public transit pass. Although transit use increased, researchers found that the cheaper fuel led to a significant rise in driving — offsetting some of the environmental benefits. Similarly, a 2024 UK study found that fuel duty cuts primarily benefitted higher-income drivers and drained funds that could have been invested in public transit and sustainable infrastructure.
Matti Siemiatycki, a University of Toronto professor and director of its Infrastructure Institute, says the policy will increase traffic and emissions while deepening Ontario's deficit.
'When you make driving cheaper, more people do it — and they drive farther,' Siemiatycki said. 'The short-term savings at the pump will be paid for in longer commutes, more congestion, and higher emissions.'
Siemiatycki told Canada's National Observer the province is shifting costs from drivers onto all taxpayers. The eastern extension of Highway 407 is one example — its long-term capital and operating costs were once covered by tolls, but will now be paid by all Ontarians, he added.
Although the government is investing in transit — particularly rapid transit — Siemiatycki pointed out that these projects take years to complete. In the meantime, the province has done little to fill the gap with cost-effective measures, like dedicated bus lanes or express services.
Siemiatycki said the lost revenue from tolls and fuel taxes will still need to be made up elsewhere. Ultimately, he argued, the province's financial obligations won't disappear, so with the province already running a deficit, the shortfall will likely be covered through general taxation or cuts.
Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner also questioned the province's transportation priorities, suggesting that if the government truly wanted to reduce congestion, it should focus on subsidizing truck tolls on Highway 407 to shift freight traffic off the overcrowded 401.
'The problem with cutting the gas tax is that it takes money away from funding transit operations in communities across the province,' Schreiner said. 'That makes it harder to provide affordable and reliable public transit. At a time when people are facing real affordability challenges, it would be far more helpful to invest in accessible, affordable transit options.'
But doing that requires provincial investment in transit operating costs — removing gas tax revenue makes it harder to do that, he added.
Schreiner said the Ford government's pattern of investment reveals a clear preference for cars over people.
'They continue to invest in highways and driving infrastructure, while neglecting more affordable, healthy, and sustainable options like public transit and bike lanes,' he said.
When it comes to sustainable solutions, Tim Gray, executive director of Environmental Defence, said the province should prioritize expanding public transit, especially within and between cities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region of southern Ontario.
'We should be prioritizing buses in urban spaces, like creating dedicated bus lanes,' Gray said. 'The provincial government should be supporting public transit operations, as well as the construction of new lines.'
The government should be supporting housing construction within cities, instead of pushing development onto distant farmland, he added.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
8 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Could Buying Tesla Stock Today Set You Up for Life?
For many investors, buying Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has already set them up for life, but will that be true for anyone newly buying into the stock now? Here's a look at what you need to know before buying the stock. Understanding the investment thesis for Tesla stock Tesla is an unusual stock, known to most investors primarily as the leading electric vehicle (EV) company, but that isn't the primary value driver of the stock. Indeed, if you look at Tesla solely as a car company, you would likely avoid the stock. Let's put it this way: Tesla currently trades at a price-to-earnings multiple of 192, compared to single-digit multiples at car companies like Ford Motor Company and General Motors. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » The valuation discrepancy doesn't stem from Tesla's superior profit margins or its leading position in the electric vehicle market. Instead, it comes down to Tesla being able to do something that rival car companies haven't yet done or have abandoned trying to do: launch a robotaxi service. General Motors has already abandoned robotaxi development, and Ford (which had planned to have a robotaxi service in place by 2021) ended its investment (alongside Volkswagen) in robotaxi company Argo AI in 2022. Volkswagen plans to launch its robotaxi service in 2026. So, if Tesla's valuation isn't justified in terms of being a highly successful electric vehicle company, then how should it be viewed? The following key points apply, and they make Tesla a highly attractive stock for the speculative end of your portfolio: The value in Tesla lies in its robotaxi business; this is not purely a car company stock, or even an electric vehicle stock, and its valuation reflects that. The reliance on robotaxi/full self-driving (FSD) makes it a speculative growth stock. Tesla's installed base of vehicles gives it significant advantages over Waymo and others. Tesla is not your average speculative growth stock; it holds significant advantages over typical growth stocks. Why robotaxis matter and why Tesla isn't your average growth stock The robotaxi concept and the FSD that powers it are potentially a huge earnings driver for Tesla. One of Tesla's most vocal and visible supporters, Cathie Wood's Ark Invest, which expected a valuation of $2,600 per share for Tesla in 2029, relies on a model that prescribes 88% of the company's value from robotaxis, compared to just 9% from EVs. The opportunity to earn recurring revenue from selling unsupervised FSD subscriptions to Tesla owners wanting to use their vehicles as robotaxis is massive, as is the potential to generate recurring revenue on a ride-per-mile basis from robotaxis. Moreover, Tesla plans to mass-produce its dedicated robotaxi vehicle, Cybercab, next year. A speculative growth stock That said, the robotaxi launch hasn't even taken place yet (it's scheduled for June 12 in Austin), and it will only be on a small scale initially. As such, Tesla is a speculative growth stock, an observation that suggests Tesla stock should be filed on a long list of highly speculative investments to consider on a rainy day. Why Tesla deserves a place in a balanced portfolio However, there are differences -- in fact, many differences -- between Tesla and typical growth stocks. First, speculative growth stocks are usually not established leaders in the core business that underpins their growth. The Model Y is not only the best-selling electric vehicle (EV) in the world, but it's also the best-selling car in the world. In other words, Tesla already has a compelling brand and is the market leader in the growth area of the auto market. Second, this is not a struggling small-cap stock desperately trying to establish brand recognition and promote its new technology to a sceptical marketplace. Waymo has offered a robotaxi service since 2018, and there is little doubt that consumers want to use robotaxis. Third, Tesla isn't a growth stock struggling with its finances and seeking a larger partner to invest, which would dilute existing shareholders' claims on future cash flows. A quick look at its most recent balance sheet reveals $37 billion in cash and equivalents, alongside $7.5 billion in debt and finance leases, resulting in a net cash position of $29.5 billion. Finally, Tesla's position as a cost-effective automaker with the capacity and scale to ramp up production and the vehicles on the road means it can produce robotaxis (whether Cybercab or existing Tesla models) to support growth, and it has a vast bank of data from Tesla vehicles to use to improve its FSD capability. All told, Tesla is speculative because its robotaxis haven't even been launched yet, there's a lot more certainty around the company than in most growth stocks. That makes it worth buying for the risk-seeking end of a portfolio. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $367,516!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $38,712!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $669,517!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join Stock Advisor, and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon. See the 3 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025


National Observer
10 hours ago
- National Observer
Two communities seeking better roads in Ring of Fire, reject new mining law
Two First Nations that signed deals with the provincial government to improve access to the Ring of Fire are speaking out against a new Ontario law that seeks to ease mineral extraction in the northern region. Aroland First Nation Chief Sonny Gagnon said his community objects to the law known as Bill 5, which seeks to speed up development in the face of pressure from the United States. The legislation passed last week and allows Ontario to suspend provincial and municipal laws by creating so-called special economic zones for certain projects it chooses, such as new mines. "We do not stand with Ontario in support of Bill 5," Gagnon said in a statement. "We do stand in support of the other First Nations in Ontario who are opposed to Bill 5 and working to have it thrown out." Ontario intends to name the mineral-rich Ring of Fire as the first such zone, but the law has created a firestorm of anger among many First Nations. They say they want to be involved in development, but that the new law violates their treaty rights and ignores their concerns. Aroland signed a shared-prosperity agreement with the province in January for major upgrades to roads that lead to the proposed roads to the Ring of Fire, a 5,000-sq-km region about 450 kilometres north of Thunder Bay, Ont. Two First Nations that signed deals with the provincial government to improve access to the Ring of Fire are speaking out against a new Ontario law that seeks to ease mineral extraction in the northern region. Aroland sits outside the Ring of Fire region with access to the provincial highway system that ends near its territory. Premier Doug Ford has trotted out Gagnon's name at least five times in recent weeks in defense of Bill 5. Ford also often points to Marten Falls First Nation and Webequie First Nation, which are the lead proponents for three roads that will connect their remote communities to the provincial highway system. One of them would connect the Eagle's Nest site in the Ring of Fire, a proposed mine owned by Australian mining giant Wyloo, to the other two roads. "There's going to be a group that doesn't want anything done," Ford said last week. "Well, good, don't do it then. There's going to be another group in the middle that says, 'Boy, let's see what happens.' And then there's the progressive group that's saying, 'Let's get it done,' like Chief Sonny from Aroland — and Webequie and Marten Falls." Gagnon said Aroland has never consented to mining the Ring of Fire. Rather, part of the agreement was designed to give road access to its neighbouring First Nation, Marten Falls. Marten Falls and Webequie First Nation are fly-in communities that have a month or so of winter road access. "Aroland has never said Marten Falls cannot build a road so that it is no longer remote; if they want to have road access to the highway system like we do, they should be able to," Gagnon said. "But that has to be done right – with proper assessment and protection measures and Aroland involvement and consent. The agreement with Ontario is about that, and some necessary electrical power to our community. We were to get funding to support that initiative and so far we have received nothing and instead have spent our own dollars trying to ensure our community has basic services.' Aroland does not consent to that road being used for mining companies, he added. "We have consistently in writing indicated that no such decision on what happens to the Ring of Fire should be made until the regional assessment being conducted now and being co-led by many First Nations, including Aroland, is complete, and indicates that mining in this sensitive and vulnerable peatlands region is safe for humanity, for us, for wildlife, climate and water," Gagnon said. "We don't yet know that. More important – Ontario does not yet know that." Ford took issue with Gagnon's comments. "Does he want the $200 million electricity deal that we handed over to him? Does he want to get off diesel because they live on diesel? Does he want a road that they can actually leave their community and drive? Does he want a community centre? Does he want a hockey arena inside that community centre? The answer is 1,000 per cent yes," Ford said Monday at Intersect/25, an event hosted by The Globe and Mail. Ford said he will be speaking to Gagnon shortly. "Mark my words in this room, he will be moving forward with us, not because of me, not because of pressuring me, because he's a smart man, and he understands his community needs to prosper," Ford said. Marten Falls First Nation also has an agreement with the province on roads, and its chief says he cannot support the law as it is written — though he hopes Ontario can correct course with consultation. Chief Bruce Achneepineskum said he is feeling conflicted. "I'm not OK with this bill," he told The Canadian Press in an interview. On the one hand, he and his community want road access built so they do not have to rely on winter roads. Last year, the frozen road only lasted a month as the winter road season keeps shrinking, he said. Marten Falls also wants to be in the driver's seat for any development in its territory, Achneepineskum said. "Our intent is to take the lead on development in our area and with that we're still in discussions with government on how to move forward," he said. "We don't agree with everything that government says and does. So we're taking it on an approach that's based on a negotiation." Marten Falls First Nation has been working on environmental assessments for the roads. One of the assessments has been in development for going on six years, though about half that time was lost due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Achneepineskum said. "Sometimes, you think to yourself, that is a really long time," he said. Ford, Indigenous Affairs Minister Greg Rickford and Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce have said the province will consult First Nations on the new law throughout the summer. Achneepineskum said he is willing to listen to the province and give them time to get Bill 5 right, but, like many other First Nations have said, he wanted the province to consult with them on the language in the legislation rather than starting those conversations after it is already law. "I have to support Aboriginal and treaty rights that other First Nations are talking about because, in principle, that's what we're fighting for also: to have our rights and interests in our traditional area — and that includes the Ring of Fire — recognized," Achneepineskum said. Webequie's chief was not available to talk, as he continues to deal with a wildfire that has forced the evacuation of his entire community to southern Ontario.


Global News
13 hours ago
- Global News
Public divided on Bill 5 but say Indigenous rights are more important than speed: poll
Public sentiment is divided on the Ford government's controversial new mining law, according to fresh polling, which indicates people are in favour of speeding up projects but not at the expense of First Nation rights or labour laws. New polling from Liason Strategies for the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada gauged the mood of Ontarians as the government passed Bill 5 into law. The legislation makes a number of changes, among them is the power for the government to create so-called special economic zones, where municipal, environmental or labour laws could be bypassed. The government has indicated the Ring of Fire will be one such area, potentially along with Highway 401 and Ontario's fleet of nuclear power stations. The law's passage at Queen's Park last week sparked a storm of protests and backlash from First Nations leaders, who fear it will infringe on their rights and labour unions, who worry about workers' rights. Story continues below advertisement First Nations groups, in particular, have promised a summer of disruption in response to the legislation — potentially blocking railways, highways and mines in the north. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Liaison's polling shows public opinion on the legislation itself is evenly split. About half of those polled (49 per cent) said they were following the legislation somewhat or very closely as it passed through the legislature. Opinion of its value was also split. Forty-four per cent of those polled said they were in favour of it, while 41 per cent said they were opposed. Fifteen per cent of people said they were unsure. 'Given the poll's margin of error, this is a pretty close result,' David Valentin, principal at Liason Strategies, said in an interview on Focus Ontario. 'It's not probably where the premier wants to see it, which is somewhere closer to 60 or 65 per cent, but it's also not where the opposition would like to see it, with overwhelming opposition. So, we've got a sort of mixed result.' The poll also asked people to rank various issues against the importance of fast-tracking key construction projects. Sixty-three per cent of respondents said fast-tracking was more important than municipal bylaws, and 58 per cent favoured speeding up projects over following environmental regulations. Story continues below advertisement On the other hand, 64 per cent of people said respecting Indigenous rights was more important than speeding up projects, and 56 per cent of those polled said it was more important to follow labour laws than to speed up projects. The polling points to public opinion sitting behind two groups who have been most vocal in their opposition to Bill 5. 'It shows you that when it comes to Indigenous leaders and labour leaders, they've gotten their message out, their message has resonated, and Ontarians agree with them: Yeah, you can speed up the process, but you're not going to suspend labour laws,' Valentin said. Last week, Bill 5 received Royal Assent and became law, with Ontario Premier Doug Ford saying he wants to designate the Ring of Fire as a special economic zone 'as quickly as possible.' At the same time, the government is promising to consult with First Nations leaders before any major changes are made using the new powers. Valentin said the lack of examples for what a special economic zone will be was potentially making it harder for people to form a strong opinion in favour or against the legislation. 'What does it actually mean? Which regulations, which laws are going to be suspended? Which groups are ultimately going to be impacted?' he said. 'They've written the law so they can do a lot of things — OK, what are the specifics of that going to be? I think that might be why people perhaps have a hard time understanding what the ultimate effects of the bill are.'