Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Given changes to U.S. policy under Trump, Canada needs to rethink its environmental policies

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

By reforming federal climate policy, Canadians could benefit from increased prosperity and increased competitiveness with the U.S., finds a new study published by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan public policy thinktank.

“As we approach 2030 with no prospect of meeting Canada’s Paris targets, instead of doubling down on costly and misguided policies that will result in continued failure, the federal government should embark on a new course that offers hope for modest climate successes without sacrificing living standards and prosperity,” said Ross McKitrick, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Reforming Canada’s Environment Ministry and Federal Environmental Policy.

The study finds that as a result of the new Trump administration quickly reforming U.S. climate policy, Canada risks a widening competitiveness gap with the U.S.

The study identifies five sensible reforms to Canadian climate policy that would improve competitiveness, achieve realistic emission reductions without compromising economic growth and prosperity:

1. Set realistic timelines for achievable improvements in emission intensity.
2. Eliminate the many costly intrusions of climate policy into unrelated policy areas, from banking to homebuilding to competition policy.
3. Make the federal environment ministry an effective and trustworthy source of unbiased, reliable data on Canada’s environment and climate.
4. Push back against the mission creep in multilateral organizations, especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
5. Extinguish in law all forms of climate liability in order to stop nuisance activist lawsuits.

“The federal government’s climate agenda has adversely affected Canadians’ living standards and the country’s prospects for future income growth,” McKitrick said. “Given all the changes occurring in the U.S., now is an appropriate time to reform federal climate policy to be more effective, and to better serve the needs of Canadians.”

Reforming Canada’s Environment Ministry and Federal Environmental Policy

  • With the start of a new Trump administration in the US and the prospects of a change in government in Canada, it is time for a reassessment of how Canada manages its environment and climate change portfolios.
  • The US has swung dramatically in the direction of promoting energy abundance and downplaying or setting aside climate goals. Canada risks a widening competitiveness gap with the US if we do not respond appropriately.
  • This study outlines key reforms to federal climate policy and the structure of the federal environment ministry, including:
    • Eliminating the current national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets and replacing them with more realistic ones that can be achieved without compromising economic growth and industrial competitiveness.
    • Eliminating the many costly regulatory intrusions of climate policy into unrelated areas, from banking to homebuilding to competition policy, and focusing solely on pursuing cost-effective GHG emissions reductions.
    • Transforming the federal environment ministry into an effective and trustworthy source of unbiased, reliable data on Canada’s environment and climate, rather than relying heavily on speculative climate models.
    • Pushing back against the mission creep in multilateral organizations, especially the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and working with other like-minded countries, such as the United States, to return these organizations to their historical mandates.
    • Extinguishing in law all forms of climate liability associated with greenhouse gas emissions to prevent activist-driven nuisance lawsuits.

Read the Full Study

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

2025 Federal Election

MEI-Ipsos poll: 56 per cent of Canadians support increasing access to non-governmental healthcare providers

Published on

 

  • Most believe private providers can deliver services faster than government-run hospitals

  • 77 per cent of Canadians say their provincial healthcare system is too bureaucratic

Canadians are increasingly in favour of breaking the government monopoly over health care by opening the door to independent providers and cross-border treatments, an MEI-Ipsos poll has revealed.

“Canadians from coast to coast are signalling they want to see more involvement from independent health providers in our health system,” explains Emmanuelle B. Faubert, economist at the MEI. “They understand that universal access doesn’t mean government-run, and that consistent failures to deliver timely care in government hospitals are a feature of the current system.”

Support for independent health care is on the rise, with 56 per cent of respondents in favour of allowing patients to access services provided by independent health entrepreneurs. Only 25 per cent oppose this.

In Quebec, support is especially strong, with 68 per cent endorsing this change.

Favourable views of accessing care through a mixed system are widespread, with three quarters of respondents stating that private entrepreneurs can deliver healthcare services faster than hospitals managed by the government. This is up four percentage points from last year.

Countries like Sweden and France combine universal coverage with independent providers and deliver faster, more accessible care. When informed about how these health systems run, nearly two in three Canadians favour adopting such models.

The poll also finds that 73 per cent of Canadians support allowing patients to receive treatment abroad with provincial coverage, which could help reduce long wait times at home.

Common in the European Union, this “cross-border directive” enabled 450,000 patients to access elective surgeries in 2022, with costs reimbursed as if they had been treated in their home country.

There’s a growing consensus that provincial healthcare systems are overly bureaucratic, with the strongest agreement in Alberta, B.C., and Quebec. The proportion of Canadians holding this view has risen by 16 percentage points since 2020.

Nor do Canadians see more spending as being a solution: over half say the current pace of healthcare spending in their province is unsustainable.

“Governments shouldn’t keep doubling down on what isn’t working. Instead, they should look at what works abroad,” says Ms. Faubert. “Canadians have made it clear they want to shift gears; now it’s up to policymakers to show they’re listening.”

A sample of 1,164 Canadians aged 18 and older was polled between March 24th and March 28th, 2025. The margin of error is ±3.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Education

Schools should focus on falling math and reading skills—not environmental activism

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Michael Zwaagstra

In 2019 Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustees passed a “climate emergency” resolution and promised to develop a climate action plan. Not only does the TDSB now have an entire department in their central office focused on this goal, but it also publishes an annual climate action report.

Imagine you were to ask a random group of Canadian parents to describe the primary mission of schools. Most parents would say something along the lines of ensuring that all students learn basic academic skills such as reading, writing and mathematics.

Fewer parents are likely to say that schools should focus on reducing their environmental footprints, push students to engage in environmental activism, or lobby for Canada to meet the 2016 Paris Agreement’s emission-reduction targets.

And yet, plenty of school boards across Canada are doing exactly that. For example, the Seven Oaks School Division in Winnipeg is currently conducting a comprehensive audit of its environmental footprint and intends to develop a climate action plan to reduce its footprint. Not only does Seven Oaks have a senior administrator assigned to this responsibility, but each of its 28 schools has a designated climate action leader.

Other school boards have gone even further. In 2019 Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustees passed a “climate emergency” resolution and promised to develop a climate action plan. Not only does the TDSB now have an entire department in their central office focused on this goal, but it also publishes an annual climate action report. The most recent report is 58 pages long and covers everything from promoting electric school buses to encouraging schools to gain EcoSchools certification.

Not to be outdone, the Vancouver School District (VSD) recently published its Environmental Sustainability Plan, which highlights the many green initiatives in its schools. This plan states that the VSD should be the “greenest, most sustainable school district in North America.”

Some trustees want to go even further. Earlier this year, the British Columbia School Trustees Association released its Climate Action Working Group report that calls on all B.C. school districts to “prioritize climate change mitigation and adopt sustainable, impactful strategies.” It also says that taking climate action must be a “core part” of school board governance in every one of these districts.

Apparently, many trustees and school board administrators think that engaging in climate action is more important than providing students with a solid academic education. This is an unfortunate example of misplaced priorities.

There’s an old saying that when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. Organizations have finite resources and can only do a limited number of things. When schools focus on carbon footprint audits, climate action plans and EcoSchools certification, they invariably spend less time on the nuts and bolts of academic instruction.

This might be less of a concern if the academic basics were already understood by students. But they aren’t. According to the most recent data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the math skills of Ontario students declined by the equivalent of nearly two grade levels over the last 20 years while reading skills went down by about half a grade level. The downward trajectory was even sharper in B.C., with a more than two grade level decline in math skills and a full grade level decline in reading skills.

If any school board wants to declare an emergency, it should declare an academic emergency and then take concrete steps to rectify it. The core mandate of school boards must be the education of their students.

For starters, school boards should promote instructional methods that improve student academic achievement. This includes using phonics to teach reading, requiring all students to memorize basic math facts such as the times table, and encouraging teachers to immerse students in a knowledge-rich learning environment.

School boards should also crack down on student violence and enforce strict behaviour codes. Instead of kicking police officers out of schools for ideological reasons, school boards should establish productive partnerships with the police. No significant learning will take place in a school where students and teachers are unsafe.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with school boards ensuring that their buildings are energy efficient or teachers encouraging students to take care of the environment. The problem arises when trustees, administrators and teachers lose sight of their primary mission. In the end, schools should focus on academics, not environmental activism.

Michael Zwaagstra

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X