Submit Article

Gary Schwartz

CEO | President

Canada’s EV strategy ignores how Canadians use cars

Ottawa should formally define vehicle subscriptions in law, rather than forcing them into categories designed for ownership, leasing, or simple rentals.

Published in The Hill Times | March 16, 2026

Abstract: The article argues that Canada’s EV strategy is too focused on manufacturing, trade, and infrastructure and not focused enough on how Canadians actually access and pay for vehicles. It contends that as car subscription models, short-term access arrangements, and other flexible usage options slowly gain traction, especially among urban consumers, newcomers, and drivers wary of long-term EV commitments, Canadian law and regulation still rely on an outdated assumption built around ownership, leases, or simple rentals. The piece calls on Ottawa to formally define vehicle subscriptions in law and require plain-language disclosures so that consumers, insurers, lenders, and regulators have a clearer framework, ultimately supporting both consumer protection and a more practical EV transition.

This month’s federal auto announcement, including new infrastructure funding tied to Canada’s electric vehicle strategy, signals this country’s seriousness about EV transition. But it also reveals a gap in how Ottawa is thinking about the future of transportation. While the federal government focuses on trade and supply chains, it is paying far less attention to how Canadians access and pay for cars.

That gap matters, especially as the debate over Chinese electric vehicles intensifies. Much of the public discussion, amplified by talk of “spy cars,” has centred on national security, and on whether Chinese-made EVs should be allowed into the Canadian market at all. These are legitimate questions. But they don’t tell the whole story.


Beneath the trade and security debate, a shift is underway in Canada’s auto economy. The most important change is not only where vehicles are manufactured, but how Canadians are accessing and paying for them. While policymakers remain preoccupied with tariffs and industrial policy, the way Canadians use vehicles is itself evolving, and federal rules have not kept pace.

Over the past decade, alternative forms of car access have grown steadily. Car ownership is still dominant in Canada and will be for the foreseeable future, but car-sharing, short-term leasing, and subscription-style arrangements are beginning to serve a small but meaningful segment of drivers. One in five millennials in 2024 said they had used a car subscription model in the last 18 months.

These models are not replacing ownership by any means, but they are reshaping expectations among people for whom traditional ownership has become expensive, or inflexible.

New Canadians navigating unfamiliar financial systems, urban residents who work from home, and EV enthusiasts wary of locking themselves into long-term debt for evolving technology are all more likely to seek flexible access.

These arrangements expand participation in the regulated auto market. But they also reveal a growing mismatch between how vehicles are used and how they are regulated. The problem is that Canadian law still rests on a simple and longstanding model: one person owns one vehicle, finances it through a loan or lease, and insures it in their own name. That model shapes underwriting standards, insurance rules, and consumer protections across the country.

But this model does not always work for a new era of Canadian drivers. When novel forms of car access are forced into legal categories that were designed for ownership or short-term rentals, the rules no longer line up with how many people actually use and pay for their vehicles. In practice, this can leave consumers in a stressful situation: unclear about what protections apply, what responsibilities they carry, or what happens if their circumstances change.

This is where federal policy has an opportunity to act. Ottawa should formally define vehicle subscriptions in law, rather than forcing them into categories designed for ownership, leasing, or simple rentals. Clear definitions would help ensure that consumers, insurers, lenders, and regulators share a common understanding of how these arrangements work and who is responsible when issues arise.

Ottawa should also require standardized, plain-language disclosures for subscription-style vehicle access. These arrangements often bundle the cost of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, and other services into a single monthly price. Clear disclosures would spell out how long a commitment lasts, what happens if someone wants to exit early, and what insurance coverage is included, making choices easier to understand and compare.

These issues may not make for dramatic headlines, but they matter deeply in the daily lives of Canadian consumers, and for the success of this country’s EV transition. After all, electric vehicles are often expensive and difficult to value over long periods. Flexible access can reduce risk for consumers, but only if the rules governing that access are clear and consistent.

If Canada continues to regulate vehicle access as though ownership were the only model that matters, affordability will suffer and EV policy goals will be harder to achieve, regardless of where vehicles are manufactured. The EV debate should push Ottawa to reckon not only with who builds the cars of the future, but with how Canadians will use them.

5 key points

  1. Canada’s EV policy debate is too narrow.
    It focuses heavily on supply chains, tariffs, and industrial strategy, while paying less attention to how consumers actually use and finance vehicles.

  2. Vehicle access models are changing.
    Car subscriptions, short-term leasing, and flexible-use arrangements are emerging as meaningful alternatives for some Canadians, even if ownership remains dominant.

  3. Current rules do not fit new realities.
    Canadian legal and regulatory frameworks are still built around traditional ownership, loans, leases, and rentals, creating a mismatch for newer models.

  4. Consumers need clearer protections.
    When subscription-style vehicle access is forced into old legal categories, consumers may not fully understand their obligations, coverage, exit terms, or protections.

  5. Better rules could support EV adoption.
    Formal legal definitions and standardized disclosures for vehicle subscriptions would make flexible access easier to understand and could reduce risk for consumers considering EVs.

Sign up for the CLA Finance Summit Series


 

All Op-Eds