From Energy Now

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

It is high time that Canadians discuss and understand Mark Carney’s avowed plan to re-align capital with global Net Zero goals.

Mark Carney’s economic vision for Canada, one that spans energy, housing and defence, rests on an unspoken, largely undisclosed, linchpin: Climate Finance – one that promises a Net Zero future for Canada but which masks a radical economic overhaul.

Regrettably, Carney’s potential approach to a Net Zero future remains largely unexamined in this election. As the former chair of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), Carney has proposed new policies, offices, agencies,  and bureaus required to achieve these goals.. Pieced together from his presentations, discussions, testimonies and book, Carney’s approach to climate finance appears to have four pillars: mandatory climate disclosures, mandatory transition plans, centralized data sharing via the United Nations’ Net Zero Data Public Utility (NZDPU) and compliance with voluntary carbon markets (VCMs). There are serious issues for Canada’s economy if these principles were to form the core values for policies under a potential Liberal government.

About the first pillar Carney has been unequivocal: “Achieving net zero requires a whole economy transition.”  This would require a restructuring energy and financial systems to shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy with Carney insisting repeatedly in his book that “every financial [and business] decision takes climate change into account.” Climate finance, unlike broader sustainable finance with its Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) focus would channel capital into sectors aligned with a 2050 Net Zero trajectory. Carney states: “Companies, and those who invest in them…who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those lagging behind…will be punished.”  In other words, capital would flow to compliant firms but be withheld from so-called “high emitters”.

How will investors, banks and insurers distinguish solution from problem? Mandatory climate disclosures, aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), would compel firms to report emissions and outline their Net Zero strategies. Canada’s Sustainability Standards Board has adopted these methodologies, despite concerns they would disadvantage Canadian businesses. Here, Carney repeatedly emphasizes disclosures as the cornerstone to track emissions data required to shift capital away from “high emitters”. Without this, he claims, large institutional investors lack the data on supply chains to make informed decisions to shift capital to businesses that are Net Zero compliant.

The second pillar, Mandatory Transition Plans would require companies to map a 2050 Net Zero trajectory for emission reduction targets. Failure to meet those targets would invite pressure from investors, banks, or activists, who may pursue litigation for non-compliance. The UK’s Transition Plan Task Force, now part of ISSB, provides this standardized framework. Carney, while at GFANZ, advocated using transition plans for a “managed phase-out” of high-emitting assets like coal, oil and gas, not just through divestment but by financing emissions reductions. “As part of their transition planning, [GFANZ] members should establish and apply financing policies to phase out and align carbon-intensive sectors and activities, such as thermal coal, oil and gas and deforestation, not only through asset divestment but also through transition finance that reduces real world emissions. To assist with these efforts GFANZ will continue to develop and implement a framework for the Managed Phase-out of high-emitting assets.” Clearly, the purpose of this is to ensure companies either decarbonize or face capital withdrawal.

The third pillar is the United Nations’ Net Zero Data Public Utility (NZDPU), a centralized platform for emissions and transition data. Carney insists these data be freely accessible, enabling investors, banks and insurers to judge companies’ progress to Net Zero. As Carney noted in 2021: “Private finance is judging…banks, pension funds and asset managers have to show where they are in the transition to Net Zero.” Hence, compliant firms would receive investment; laggards would face divestment.

Finally, voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) allow companies to offset emissions by purchasing credits from projects like reforestation. Carney, who launched the Taskforce on Scaling VCMs in 2020, has insisted on monitoring, verification and lifecycle tracking.  At a 2024 Beijing conference, he suggested major jurisdictions could establish VCMs by COP 30 (planned for 2025 in Brazil) to create a global market. If Canada mandates VCMs, businesses especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) would face much higher compliance costs with credits available only to those that demonstrate progress with transition plans.

These potential mandatory disclosures and transition plans would burden Canadian businesses with material costs and legal risks that constitute an economic gamble which few may recognize but all should weigh. Do Canadians truly want a government that has an undisclosed climate finance agenda that would be subservient to an opaque globalized Net Zero agenda?

Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based strategic energy analyst. Ron Wallace is an executive fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and the Canada West Foundation.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

Pope Francis’s careless genocide comment gave activists the fuel they needed, and Parliament rushed to judgment without examining the facts

Many Catholics will grieve the death of Pope Francis. But not all.

That’s because Francis was arguably the most political Pope in recent memory. Depending on your definition, he was either a socialist or a communist. There wasn’t a leftist leader or cause he didn’t embrace, and few conservative ones he supported. He regularly weighed in on progressive issues like climate change and offered political opinions, even when he seemed to lack a full understanding of the topic.

One such issue was Canadian history.

In 2021, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation announced that ground-penetrating radar had detected anomalies near the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, interpreted by some as possible unmarked graves of children. The claim made international headlines and sparked widespread outrage, although no remains have ever been unearthed.

During a late-night flight, the ailing octogenarian Pope, seemingly charmed by a young reporter, described Canada’s residential schools as “genocide,” a departure from his earlier, carefully prepared statement, which made no such accusation and echoed apologies offered by his predecessors. Those statements expressed regret for harm done but also acknowledged the good work of countless priests and nuns who dedicated their lives to educating Indigenous children.

In a moment of startling informality, Pope Francis appeared to accept the now-disputed Kamloops story as fact, effectively accusing thousands of priests, nuns, teachers and support workers—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—of committing genocide. He appeared to accept at face value the now-disputed Kamloops story of secret burials and sinister deaths. In doing so, he didn’t just slander individuals—he changed Canadian history.

“Yes, it’s a technical word, genocide. I didn’t use it because it didn’t come to mind. But yes, I described it. Yes, it’s a genocide,” Francis said in July.

Indigenous activists wasted no time. They realized those words were exactly what they needed. Their initial genocide motion in Parliament—based on the Kamloops claim of 215 hidden graves—had failed. But with the Pope’s remarks, the political climate shifted.

NDP MP Leah Gazan led the charge. She had introduced a motion after the Kamloops claim first surfaced. She returned the following year with the same proposal, and this time, the Pope’s comments gave it new weight.

The motion declared Canada’s treatment of Indigenous children in residential schools as genocide—a declaration that, while not legally binding, carries moral and political weight. It passed quickly and without debate.

The irony? The very same activists who had earlier promoted deeply anti-Catholic conspiracy theories about atrocities committed by priests and nuns—stories that fuelled church burnings across Canada—were now treating every word from the Pope’s mouth as gospel. Non-believers appeared to be embracing some version of papal infallibility (a Catholic doctrine that, in specific cases, the Pope’s declarations are considered free from error)—if only when it suited them.

Meanwhile, Parliament failed to do its homework. Elected representatives never seriously investigated the many holes in the Kamloops story. Despite the global headlines, no excavations at the Kamloops site have confirmed the presence of remains. Multiple independent experts have raised concerns about the methodology and public interpretation of the findings.

Yet MPs allowed themselves to be swayed. Incredibly, they spent just 47 seconds debating and approving a motion that condemned their own country for genocide.

Much has been written about the lack of evidence behind the Kamloops claim. Suffice it to say, the “remains of 215 children” turned out to be an old sewage trench. Think about that—our nation was convicted of genocide based on a sewage trench.

Earlier popes took a more thoughtful approach. They acknowledged that wrongs were committed, that abuse occurred, and that some individuals within the system failed. But they also recognized that the goal of educating Indigenous children was legitimate, and that many students gained literacy and language skills that served them for life.

Those are the papal perspectives worth remembering.

Pope Francis did much good in his life, and many will reflect fondly on his legacy. But when it comes to Canada, his careless and misinformed comments on genocide did real harm. Let’s hope the next Pope is more careful with his late-night musings.

Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.