Atlantic provinces should focus on growth—despite Carney’s transfer policies

In his election platform, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised there will be no cuts to federal transfers for the duration of the his government’s term. Nowhere is this pledge more relevant than in Atlantic Canada. As of last year, federal transfers represented 33.4 per cent to 38.7 per cent of provincial revenues in the Maritimes (the highest levels in Canada), and 19.0 per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why? Mainly because of Canada’s equalization program, which (to paraphrase) redistributes federal funds to poorer provinces to help them maintain comparable service levels.

Setting aside the various issues of the equalization program, self-sufficiency and economic growth has been thrust to the forefront in Atlantic Canada recently, due in part to President Trump’s destructive economic policies, and perhaps also due to the prospect of policy change at the federal level. Premier Tim Houston has talked explicitly about the need for Nova Scotia to be more self-reliant, while the Council of Atlantic Premiers has emphasized the need for collaboration, removal of regional barriers and the imperative to strengthen the economy.

In a region with a long history of being dominated by government, there’s a risk that Carney’s policy to maintain federal transfers, or a stabilization in Canada-U.S. relations, may reduce the perceived importance of the newfound emphasis on growth. This would be a mistake.

In fact, creating the policy conditions for stronger growth, and therefore reducing reliance on federal transfers, should be a top priority for all four governments in Atlantic Canada, regardless of Trump or Carney’s policies. So, what can be done?

Nova Scotia’s recent policy shift to emphasize natural resource development—including removing bans on uranium mining and fracking for natural gas—is a good start. New Brunswick’s new government has also emphasized the importance of increased mining activity to grow its economy. Natural resource development attracts much-needed investment and jobs that pay well above average wages. However, the industry faces a large regulatory burden and governments must be laser-focused on improving competitiveness. Secondly, governments in the region should restrain spending and redirect those funds to lower their crushing tax burdens. The four Atlantic provinces have among the highest personal income and business income taxes in North America, both of which hurt growth by making the region relatively less attractive for people and capital.

More government does not work. Some provincial governments such as British Columbia and Ontario have used the economic situation spurred by President Trump to open up provincial spending taps, which is a costly approach. Again, Atlantic Canada is the most government-dominated region in the country, and an extensive body of research has connected excessively large government with slower growth.

The newfound emphasis on growth and self-sufficiency among Atlantic Canada’s premiers is a welcome development. Growing incomes and improving living standards should be a top priority for all governments in the region. Higher levels of economic growth would mean lower federal transfers, which would better position the region for any fluctuations ahead. Carney’s transfer policy must not breed complacency among Atlantic premiers.

Related Topics:#AlexWhalen #FraserInstitute AtlanticCanadaEconomy AtlanticCanadaEqualization

Up Next

Canada Treats Energy As A Liability. The World Sees It As Power

Don't Miss

Carney’s Throne Speech lacked moral leadership

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

Canada’s critical minerals are key to negotiating with Trump

Economy / 6 hours ago

Ottawa’s muddy energy policy leaves more questions than answers

International / 10 hours ago

Trump puts new price tag on Canada joining “Golden Dome”

Economy

Ottawa’s muddy energy policy leaves more questions than answers

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Based on the recent throne speech (delivered by a King, no less) and subsequent periodic statements from Prime Minister Carney, the new federal government seems stuck in an ambiguous and ill-defined state of energy policy, leaving much open to question.

After meeting with the premiers earlier this month, the prime minister talked about “decarbonized barrels” of oil, which didn’t clarify matters much. We also have a stated goal of making Canada the world’s “leading energy superpower” in both clean and conventional energy. If “conventional energy” includes oil and gas (although we’re not sure), this could represent a reversal of the Trudeau government’s plan to phase-out fossil fuel use in Canada over the next few decades. Of course, if it only refers to hydro and nuclear (also forms of conventional energy) it might not.

According to the throne speech, the Carney government will work “closely with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples to identify and catalyse projects of national significance. Projects that will connect Canada, that will deepen Canada’s ties with the world, and that will create high-paying jobs for generations.” That could mean more oil and gas pipelines, but then again, it might not—it might only refer to power transmission infrastructure for wind and solar power. Again, the government hasn’t been specific.

The throne speech was a bit more specific on the topic of regulatory reform and the federal impact assessment process for energy projects. Per the speech, a new “Major Federal Project Office” will ensure the time needed to approve projects will be reduced from the currently statutory limit of five years to two. Also, the government will strike cooperation agreements with interested provinces and territories within six months to establish a review standard of “one project, one review.” All of this, of course, is to take place while “upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.” However, what types of projects are likely to be approved is not discussed. Could be oil and gas, could be only wind and solar.

Potentially good stuff, but ill-defined, and without reference to the hard roadblocks the Trudeau government erected over the last decade that might thwart this vision.

For example, in 2019 the Trudeau government enacted Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the “Tanker Ban Bill”), which changed regulations for large oil transports coming and going from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export to non-U.S. markets. Scrapping C-48 would remove one obstacle from the government’s agenda.

In 2023, the Trudeau government introduced a cap on Canadian oil and gas-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in 2024, adopted major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production. Removing these regulatory burdens from Canada’s energy sector would also help Canada achieve energy superpower status.

Finally, in 2024, the Trudeau government instituted new electricity regulations that will likely drive electricity rates through the roof, while ushering in an age of less-reliable electricity supply: a two-handed slap to Canadian energy consumers. Remember, the throne speech also called for building a more “affordable” Canada—eliminating these onerous regulations would help.

In summation, while the waters remain somewhat muddy, the Carney government appears to have some good ideas for Canadian energy policy. But it must act and enact some hard legislative and regulatory reforms to realize the positive promises of good policy.

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.