Connect with us

Economy

Wanted—a federal leader who will be honest about ‘climate’ policy

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

Poilievre’s anti-carbon tax rallies are popular, but what happens after we axe the tax? If he plans to replace it with regulatory measures aimed at achieving the same emission cuts he should tell his rally-goers that what he has in mind will hit them even harder than the tax they’re so keen to scrap.

Pierre Poilievre is leading anti-carbon tax rallies around the country, ginning up support for an old-fashioned tax revolt. In response, Justin Trudeau went to Calgary and trumpeted—what’s this?—his love of free markets. Contrasting the economic logic of using a carbon tax instead of regulatory approaches for reducing greenhouse gases, the prime minister slammed the latter: “But they all involve the heavy hand of government. I prefer a cleaner solution, a market-based solution and that is, if you’re behaving in a way that causes pollution, you should pay.” He added that the Conservatives would instead rely on the “heavy hand of government through regulation and subsidies to pick winners and losers in the economy as opposed to trusting the market.”

Amen to that. But someone should tell Trudeau that his own government’s Emission Reduction Plan mainly consists of heavy-handed regulations, subsidies, mandates and winner-picking grants. Within its 240 pages one finds, yes, a carbon tax. But also 139 additional policies including Clean Fuels Regulations, an electric vehicle mandate that will ban gasoline cars by 2035, aggressive fuel economy standards that will hike their cost in the meantime, costly new emission targets specifically for the oil and gas, agriculture, heavy industry and waste management sectors, onerous new energy efficiency requirements both for new buildings and renovations of existing buildings, new electricity grid requirements, and page upon page of subsidy funds for “clean technology” firms and other would-be winners in the sunlit uplands of the new green economy.

Does Trudeau oppose any of that? Hardly. But if he does, he could prove his bona fides regarding carbon pricing by admitting that the economic logic only applies to a carbon tax when used on its own. He doesn’t get to boast of the elegance of market mechanisms on behalf of a policy package that starts with a price signal then destroys it with a massive regulatory apparatus.

Trudeau also tried to warm his Alberta audience up to the carbon tax by invoking the menace of mild weather and forest fires. In fairness it was an unusual February in Calgary (which is obviously a sign of the climate emergency because we never used to get those). The month began with a week of above-zero temperatures hitting 5 degrees Celsius at one point, then there was a brief cold snap before Valentine’s Day, then the daytime highs soared to the low teens for nine days and the month finished with soupy above zero conditions. Weird.

Oops, that was 1981.

This year was weirder—February highs were above zero for 25 out of 28 days, 8 of which were even above 10 degrees C.

Oops again, that was 1991. Granted, February 2024 also had its mild patches, but not like the old days.

Of course, back then warm weather was just weather. Now it’s a climate emergency and Canadians demand action. Except they don’t want to pay for it, which is the main problem for politicians when trying to come up with a climate policy that’s both effective and affordable. You only get to pick one, and in practice we typically end up zero for two. You can claim your policy will yield deep decarbonization while boosting the economy, which almost every politician in every western country has spent decades doing, but it’s not true. With current technology, affordable policies yield only small temporary emission reductions. Population and economic growth swamp their effects over time, which is why mainstream economists have long argued that while we can eliminate some low-value emissions, for the most part we will just have to live with climate change because trying to stop it would cost far more than it’s worth.

Meanwhile the policy pantomime continues. Poilievre’s anti-carbon tax rallies are popular, but what happens after we axe the tax? If he plans to replace it with regulatory measures aimed at achieving the same emission cuts he should tell his rally-goers that what he has in mind will hit them even harder than the tax they’re so keen to scrap.

But maybe he has the courage to do the sensible thing and follow the mainstream economics advice. If he wants to be honest with Canadians, he must explain that the affordable options will not get us to the Paris target, let alone net-zero, and even if they did, what Canada does will have no effect on the global climate because we’re such small players. Maybe new technologies will appear over the next decade that change the economics, but until that day we’re better off fixing our growth problems, getting the cost of living down and continuing to be resilient to all the weather variations Canadians have always faced.

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

Business

Carney government should retire misleading ‘G7’ talking point on economic growth

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Milagros Palacios

If you use the more appropriate measure for measuring economic wellbeing and living standards—growth in per-person GDP—the happy narrative about Canada’s performance simply falls apart.

Tuesday, Nov. 4, the Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget. Don’t be surprised if it mentions Canada’s economic performance relative to peer countries in the G7.

In the past, this talking point was frequently used by prime ministers Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau and their senior cabinet officials. And it’s apparently survived the transition to the Carney government, as the finance minister earlier this year triumphantly tweeted that Canada’s economic growth was “among the strongest in the G7.”

But here’s the problem. Canada’s rate of economic growth relative to the rest of the G7 is almost completely irrelevant as an indicator of economic strength because it’s heavily influenced by Canada’s much faster rate of population growth. In other words, Canada’s faster pace of overall economic growth (measured by GDP) compared to most other developed countries has not been due to Canadians becoming more productive and generating more income for their families, but rather primarily because there are more people in Canada working and producing things.

In reality, if you use the more appropriate measure for measuring economic wellbeing and living standards—growth in per-person GDP—the happy narrative about Canada’s performance simply falls apart.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, if you simply look at total economic growth in the G7 in recent years (2020-24) without reference to population, Canada does indeed look good. Canada’s economy has had the second-most total economic growth in the G7 behind only the United States.

However, if you make a simple adjustment for differences in population change over this same time, a completely different picture emerges. Canada’s per-person GDP actually declined by 2 per cent from 2020 to 2024. This is the worst five-year decline since the Great Depression nearly a century ago. And on this much more important measure of wellbeing, Canada goes from second in the G7 to dead last.

Due to Canada’s rapid population growth in recent years, fuelled by record-high levels of immigration, aggregate GDP growth is quite simply a misleading economic indicator for comparing our performance to other countries that aren’t experiencing similar increases in the size of their labour markets. As such, it’s long past time for politicians to retire misleading talking points about Canada’s “strong” growth performance in the G7.

After making a simple adjustment to account for Canada’s rapidly growing population, it becomes clear that the government has nothing to brag about. In fact, Canada is a growth laggard and has been for a long time, with living standards that have actually declined appreciably over the last half-decade.

Ben Eisen

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Milagros Palacios

Director, Addington Centre for Measurement, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Sylvain Charlebois

 

Defiant messaging may play well at home, but abroad it fuels mistrust, higher tariffs and a steady erosion of Canada’s agri-food exports

The real threat to Canadian exporters isn’t U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, it’s Ottawa and Queen’s Park’s reckless diplomacy.

The latest tariff hike, whether triggered by Ontario’s anti-tariff ad campaign or not, is only a symptom. The deeper problem is Canada’s escalating loss of credibility at the trade table. Washington’s move to raise duties from 35 per cent to 45 per cent on nonCUSMA imports (goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, the successor to NAFTA) reflects a diplomatic climate that is quickly souring, with very real consequences for Canadian exporters.

Some analysts argue that a 10-point tariff increase is inconsequential. It is not. The issue isn’t just what is being tariffed; it is the tone of the relationship. Canada is increasingly seen as erratic and reactive, negotiating from emotion rather than strategy. That kind of reputation is dangerous when dealing with the U.S., which remains Canada’s most important trade partner by a wide margin.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s stand up to America messaging, complete with a nostalgic Ronald Reagan cameo, may have been rooted in genuine conviction. Many Canadians share his instinct to defend the country’s interests with bold language. But in diplomacy, tone often outweighs intent. What plays well domestically can sound defiant abroad, and the consequences are already being felt in boardrooms and warehouses across the country.

Ford’s public criticisms of companies such as Crown Royal, accused of abandoning Ontario, and Stellantis, which recently announced it will shift production of its Jeep Compass from Brampton to Illinois as part of a US$13 billion U.S. investment, may appeal to voters who like to see politicians get tough. But those theatrics reinforce the impression that Canada is hostile to
international investors. At a time when global capital can move freely, that perception is damaging. Collaboration, not confrontation, is what’s needed most to secure investment in Canada’s economy.

Such rhetoric fuels uncertainty on both sides of the border. The results are clear: higher tariffs, weaker investor confidence and American partners quietly pivoting away from Canadian suppliers.

Many Canadian food exporters are already losing U.S. accounts, not because of trade rules but because of eroding trust. Executives in the agri-food sector are beginning to wonder whether Canada can still be counted on as a reliable partner, and some have already shifted contracts southward.

Ford’s political campaigns may win applause locally, but Washington’s retaliatory measures do not distinguish between provinces. They hit all exporters, including Canada’s food manufacturers that rely heavily on the U.S. market, which purchases more than half of Canada’s agri-food exports. That means farmers, processors and transportation companies across the country are caught in the crossfire.

Those who believe the new 45 per cent rate will have little effect are mistaken. Some Canadian importers now face steeper duties than competitors in Vietnam, Laos or even Myanmar. And while tariffs matter, perception matters more. Right now, the optics for Canada’s agri-food sector are poor, and once confidence is lost, it is difficult to regain.

While many Canadians dismiss Trump as unpredictable, the deeper question is what happened to Canada’s once-cohesive Team Canada approach to trade. The agri-food industry depends on stability and predictability. Alienating our largest customer, representing 34 per cent of the global consumer market and millions of Canadian jobs tied to trade, is not just short-sighted, it’s economically reckless.

There is no trade war. What we are witnessing is an American recalibration of domestic fiscal policy with global consequences. Canada must adapt with prudence, not posturing.

The lesson is simple: reckless rhetoric is costing Canada far more than tariffs. It’s time to change course, especially at Queen’s Park.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Trending

X