Federal government’s environmental policies will do more harm than good

The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Through a variety of regulatory and spending initiatives, the Trudeau government is expanding its control over our lives, often in the name of climate change or other environmental objectives. For example, the government plans to force consumers to buy electric vehicles instead of conventional cars and has proposed or implemented plastics restrictions on consumers and businesses—everything from plastic drinking straws and plastic utensils to clothing material and food packages.

However, while evidence of the high costs to consumers continues to mount, evidence of the environmental benefits is notably absent. Indeed, many recent studies provide evidence that Ottawa’s restrictions on consumers may well cause net environmental harm. One reason is that the plastic products the federal government is so intent on restricting are more environmentally efficient than alternatives.

A study published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Science & Technology concludes, “15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.” The study covered grocery bags, food packaging, soft drink containers, furniture, t-shirts and other plastic products. In most cases, replacing plastics with alternatives causes greenhouse gas emissions to rise by 35 to 700 per cent.

Why? Because plastic generally takes less energy to manufacture and transport than the alternatives. In fact, many plastic products that are more environmentally friendly than non-plastic alternatives (according to the study) are products the Trudeau government wants to ban or curtail through regulation.

Other evidence shows plastic bans of the type imposed in Canada cause environmental ruin, contrary to the predictions of politicians. For example, research in New Jersey found after single-use plastic bags were banned in 2022, shoppers switched to the heavier reusable bags. “Owing to the larger carbon footprint of the heavier, non-woven polypropylene bags,” reported the Wall Street Journal, “greenhouse gas emissions rose 500%.”

Similarly, the New York Times reported that while California banned single-use plastic bags almost a decade ago, in 2023 “Californians threw away more plastic bags, by weight, than when the law first passed, according to figures from CalRecycle, California’s recycling agency.”

Also from the Wall Street Journal, analyses suggest electric vehicles often emit more particulate pollution (dust, dirt and soot) than conventional vehicles. That’s because most particulate pollution these days is not from the tailpipe but from tire wear. EVs are much heavier than conventional vehicles so their tires wear out faster, increasing particulate pollution. The firm Emissions Analytics compared a plug-in electric to a hybrid vehicle and found the plug-in electric, which weighed more, emitted about one-quarter more particulate matter than the hybrid as a result of tire wear.

Last year, the chair of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board noted that EVs manufactured by Ford, Volvo and Toyota were all about 33 per cent heavier than conventionally powered versions of those same vehicles. That’s a problem not only for the environment but also for driver safety—and yet more evidence that the Trudeau government’s EV mandates will harm Canadians.

When it comes to vehicles, plastic products and many other things, the Trudeau government should begin reducing its control over consumers. The harm to consumers is evident; the compensating benefits to the environment—if any—are not.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Are We Okay With Ovie As Hockey’s Greatest Goal Scorer?

Don't Miss

Trudeau gov’t launches new regulatory agency in case of ‘future pandemics’

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump’s trade war and what it means for Canada

Business / 2 hours ago

We’re paying the bills, why shouldn’t we have a say?

COVID-19 / 2 hours ago

Covid Response at Five Years: Conclusion

Business

Premiers Rally For Energy Infrastructure To Counter U.S. Tariff Threats

Published on March 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Maureen McCall

With U.S. tariffs looming, Premiers push for border security, pipelines, and interprovincial trade reform

After more than eight years of federal policies that have challenged the oil and gas industry, imagining Canadian energy policy in a post-Trudeau era is no easy task.

However, recent meetings addressing the threat of United States tariffs may offer hope for revisiting energy policies through provincial collaboration.

The January 2025 Council of the Federation meetings, attended by all 13 provincial and territorial premiers, produced several key value propositions.

After spending a week in Washington, D.C., meeting with Donald Trump and his administration, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith highlighted the provinces’ resource strengths.
British Columbia can leverage germanium—a critical mineral essential in defence applications that China will no longer export to the U.S.
Saskatchewan’s uranium supply offers an alternative to reliance on Kazakhstan and Russia.
Canadian provinces can provide resources that align with U.S. energy goals.

Any provincial initiatives must also address U.S. priorities, including tighter border security and increased defence spending.

To meet U.S. energy security needs, Canada must remove policy barriers hindering development. Policies like the Clean Energy Regulations (CER), the emissions cap, and the net-zero vehicle mandate (starting January 2026) are significant challenges. Provinces must collaborate to amend or remove these policies, ensuring they do not survive the next federal election. Alberta and Saskatchewan have already opposed the CER, and the proposed emissions cap remains under review.

The federal government acknowledges that these policies must be re-evaluated to avoid obstructing shared energy goals, including:

carbon pollution pricing
methane regulations
clean fuel standards
carbon capture incentives
emissions reduction funding
clean growth programs
best-in-class guidelines for new oil and gas projects under federal review.

The U.S.’s energy deficit—20 million barrels consumed daily versus 13 million produced—creates an opportunity for Canada. Achieving this requires dismantling interprovincial trade barriers and developing infrastructure projects from coast to coast. The Council meetings have initiated such collaboration, with ongoing bilateral discussions expected. Infrastructure projects like pipelines to the East and West coasts would enable Canada to supply the U.S. and other global markets, reducing reliance on hostile regimes.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey stated: “I see energy as Canada’s queen in the game of chess. We don’t need to expose our queen this early. The opposition needs to know that the queen exists, but they don’t need to know what we’re going to do with the queen.”

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith have rejected measures that would affect Canada’s energy exports to the U.S.

“When you look at the pipeline system, how oil is actually transported into the U.S. and back into Canada,” Moe said, “it would be very difficult, and I think impossible operationally to even consider.” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew emphasized the importance of national unity, stating that energy decisions must not fracture the country. Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that tariffs could cost Ontario 500,000 jobs, while P.E.I. Premier Dennis King noted that tariffs could cost 25 per cent of P.E.I.’s GDP and 14,000 jobs—a catastrophic loss for the province.

The Council meetings highlighted three key priorities:

Demonstrate Canada’s commitment to border security and meet its two per cent GDP NATO target.
Build oil and gas pipelines east and west to diversify markets and remove interprovincial trade barriers, enabling a stronger national economy.
Secure provincial consent before imposing export tariffs or restrictions that could harm individual provinces.

This emerging consensus underscores that Canada’s energy future depends on proactive, constructive diplomacy with U.S. lawmakers, supported by a unified provincial front and practical energy policies that benefit both nations.

Maureen McCall is an energy business analyst and Fellow at the Frontier Center for Public Policy. She writes on energy issues for EnergyNow and the BOE Report. She has 20 years of experience as a business analyst for national and international energy companies in Canada.

Economy

Here’s how First Nations can access a reliable source of revenue

Published on March 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

According to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative government would permit First Nations to directly receive tax revenues from resource development on their ancestral territories. Political leaders of all parties should commit to such direct taxation. Because time is short.

Faced with the prospect of tariffs and other hostile American actions, Canada must build new energy infrastructure, mine critical minerals and diversify trade.

First Nations participation is critical to these plans. But too often, proposed infrastructure and resource projects on their territories become mired in lengthy negotiations that benefit only bureaucrats and lawyers. The First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC), a brainchild of the First Nations Tax Commission, could help cut through some of that red tape.

Currently, First Nations, the federal government and businesses negotiate agreements through a variety of mechanisms that establish the financial, environmental and cultural terms for a proposed development. As part of any agreement, Ottawa collects tax revenue from the project, then remits a portion of that revenue to the First Nation. The process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and paternalistic.

Under one version of the proposed charge, the First Nation would directly collect a portion of the federal corporate tax from the developer. The federal government, in turn, would issue the corporation an equivalent tax credit.

In effect, Ottawa would transfer tax points to First Nations.

“The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high,” said Chief Darren Blaney of B.C’s Homalco First Nation, when the Conservatives first laid out the proposal last year. “It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want.”

Poilievre referenced the proposed tax transfer in his Feb. 15 rally when he vowed to remove regulatory obstacles to fast-track resource development projects.

“We will incentivize Indigenous leaders to support these projects by letting companies pay a share of their federal corporate taxes to local First Nations,” he declared. “I want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world.”

The First Nations Tax Commission first came up with the idea. Poilievre’s federal Conservatives are the first political party to embrace it. But there’s no reason why support for resource charges could not be bipartisan.

Mark Carney, the frontrunning candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau as Liberal Leader and prime minister, has vowed to use “all of the powers of the federal government… to accelerate the major projects that we need.” Supporting the FNRC would further that goal.

That said, resistance has already emerged.

“Most Indigenous leaders would see right through (what Poilievre said) because we’ve been around that corner a few times,” Dawn Martin-Hill, professor emeritus of Indigenous Studies at McMaster University, told the Canadian Press. “Selling your soul to have what other Canadians have, which is access to clean drinking water coming out of your tap, is highly problematic.”

But Prof. Martin-Hill inadvertently makes the case for the FNRC. Municipal governments raise funds by taxing the property of individuals and businesses and using the revenue to, among other things, provide clean drinking water. A First Nation that taxed a business operating on its territory, and used the revenue to provide clean drinking water for people on reserve, would simply be doing what governments are supposed to do.

Existing agreements, though cumbersome, have brought major new revenues to some reserves. The FNRC could increase revenues and First Nations autonomy.

Given the complexities of the tax code, and the limited administrative capacity of some First Nations, some agreements might see the federal government continuing to collect taxes and then remitting the First Nation’s portion to that government. The goal would be to ensure that revenues streams are transparent, predictable and support the greatest possible autonomy for each First Nation.

Any government committed to implementing the FNRC should convene a working group of First Nations leaders, private-sector executives and government officials to work out a framework agreement.

If the Conservatives win the next election, the working group could be part of a task force on tax reform that Poilievre said he intends to establish.

The FNRC would be voluntary. Communities could opt in or opt out. Provincial governments might also participate, sharing a portion of their taxes with First Nations.

If it works, a First Nations Resource Charge could speed the approval of lumber, mining, pipelines and other resource-related projects on the traditional lands of First Nations. It could provide reserves with stable and autonomous funding.

It’s an idea worth trying, regardless of which party forms the next government.