Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Carbon tariff proposal carries risks and consequences for Canada

Published

8 minute read

A carbon tariff—a policy that would impose fees on imported goods based on their carbon emissions—is built on the idea that Canada should penalize foreign producers for not adhering to stringent climate policies. While this may sound like a strong stance on climate action, the reality is that such a policy carries major risks for Canada’s economy. As a resource-rich nation that exports carbon-intensive products like oil, natural gas, and minerals, Canada stands to lose more than it gains from this approach.

Mark Carney, who is competing for the federal Liberal leadership, has made the introduction of a carbon tariff the number two promise in his 16-point industrial competitiveness strategy.

Key problems with a carbon tariff in Canada

1. Retaliation from other countries

A carbon tariff (also known as a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM) would not go unchallenged by Canada’s trading partners. Major exporters to Canada, such as the United States and China, are unlikely to accept this policy without a response. They could retaliate by imposing tariffs on Canadian goods, making it significantly harder for Canadian businesses to compete in international markets. This could be particularly damaging for key industries like oil and gas, mining, and manufacturing, which rely heavily on exports. A trade war over carbon tariffs could weaken the Canadian economy and lead to job losses across multiple sectors.

2. Canada is an exporting nation

Canada exports far more carbon-intensive goods than it imports. By introducing a carbon tariff on foreign products, Canada is effectively inviting other countries to do the same, targeting Canadian exports with similar carbon-based tariffs. This would make Canadian goods more expensive on the global market, reducing demand for them and harming the very industries that drive Canada’s economy. The result? A weaker economy, job losses, and higher costs for businesses that depend on trade.

3. Big business paying for consumers’ emissions

The Carney plan also proposes to make large businesses bear the cost of helping individual households lower their carbon emissions. While this may sound like a fair approach, in practice, these costs will be passed down to consumers. Businesses will need to offset these additional expenses, leading to higher prices on everyday goods and services. In the end, it is Canadian families who will bear the financial burden, facing increased living costs, higher taxes, and fewer job opportunities as businesses struggle to absorb the additional costs.

CBAM in context: implications for Canada

Has this been tried elsewhere?

The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is currently in effect. It entered its transitional phase on October 1, 2023, during which importers of certain carbon-intensive goods are required to report the embedded emissions of their imports without incurring financial liabilities. This phase is set to last until the end of 2025. The definitive regime, where importers will need to purchase CBAM certificates corresponding to the carbon emissions of their imported goods, is scheduled to begin in 2026.

However, Europe is not Canada’s largest trading partner—that is the United States. With Donald Trump back in the presidency, there is no chance that the U.S. will implement a CBAM of its own. If Canada were to move forward with a unilateral carbon tariff, if anyone prepared to argue that it would not face significant economic punishment from the Trump White House?

Moreover, with 91 percent of the world having no carbon tariff, other countries would impose countermeasures, leaving Canadian businesses struggling to remain competitive.

This raises the question: is the push for a carbon tariff in Canada more about political positioning than economic pragmatism? Given the unlikelihood of U.S. participation, a Canadian CBAM would amount to a unilateral economic sacrifice. While this may appeal to certain voter bases, the reality is that such a policy would carry immense risks without global coordination. Policymakers should carefully consider whether pursuing this path makes sense in a world where Canada’s largest trading partner is unlikely to follow suit.

Where do others stand?

Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister and current Liberal leadership candidate, has not explicitly detailed her stance on carbon tariffs. However, she has emphasized the importance of defending Canadian interests against U.S. economic nationalism, particularly in response to potential tariffs from the U.S.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is a vocal critic of carbon pricing mechanisms, including carbon taxes, and has pledged to repeal such measures if elected.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, has consistently advocated for strong environmental policies, including carbon pricing, but has not specifically addressed carbon tariffs in recent statements.

What it means to consumers

Here are some relatable examples of carbon-intensive exports and imports for the average Canadian:

Carbon-Intensive Exports from Canada

Oil & Gas – Canada is a major exporter of crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum products, particularly to the U.S. If a carbon tariff were applied to these products, it could make them more expensive and less competitive in global markets, affecting jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland.

Lumber & Pulp – Canada is a leading exporter of forestry products, including lumber, paper, and pulp, which require significant energy and emissions to produce. If tariffs are imposed on Canadian wood products, the forestry sector could suffer.

Agricultural Products – Fertilizers, beef, and grain production all have significant carbon footprints. If trading partners retaliate with tariffs, Canadian farmers may struggle to compete in global markets.

Carbon-Intensive Imports into Canada

Steel & Aluminum – Canada imports a large amount of steel, primarily from China and the U.S., which is essential for industries like construction, manufacturing, and automotive production. A carbon tariff would drive up costs for these industries.

Consumer Goods from China – Many everyday products (electronics, clothing, appliances) are imported from countries with high-carbon electricity grids. A carbon tariff could increase the price of these goods for Canadian consumers.

Food Products – Imported produce, meats, and packaged foods from countries like the U.S. and Mexico often have high transportation-related emissions. A carbon tariff could increase grocery bills.

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

The great policy challenge for governments in Canada in 2026

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

According to a recent study, living standards in Canada have declined over the past five years. And the country’s economic growth has been “ugly.” Crucially, all 10 provinces are experiencing this economic stagnation—there are no exceptions to Canada’s “ugly” growth record. In 2026, reversing this trend should be the top priority for the Carney government and provincial governments across the country.

Indeed, demographic and economic data across the country tell a remarkably similar story over the past five years. While there has been some overall economic growth in almost every province, in many cases provincial populations, fuelled by record-high levels of immigration, have grown almost as quickly. Although the total amount of economic production and income has increased from coast to coast, there are more people to divide that income between. Therefore, after we account for inflation and population growth, the data show Canadians are not better off than they were before.

Let’s dive into the numbers (adjusted for inflation) for each province. In British Columbia, the economy has grown by 13.7 per cent over the past five years but the population has grown by 11.0 per cent, which means the vast majority of the increase in the size of the economy is likely due to population growth—not improvements in productivity or living standards. In fact, per-person GDP, a key indicator of living standards, averaged only 0.5 per cent per year over the last five years, which is a miserable result by historic standards.

A similar story holds in other provinces. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan all experienced some economic growth over the past five years but their populations grew at almost exactly the same rate. As a result, living standards have barely budged. In the remaining provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta), population growth has outstripped economic growth, which means that even though the economy grew, living standards actually declined.

This coast-to-coast stagnation of living standards is unique in Canadian history. Historically, there’s usually variation in economic performance across the country—when one region struggles, better performance elsewhere helps drive national economic growth. For example, in the early 2010s while the Ontario and Quebec economies recovered slowly from the 2008/09 recession, Alberta and other resource-rich provinces experienced much stronger growth. Over the past five years, however, there has not been a “good news” story anywhere in the country when it comes to per-person economic growth and living standards.

In reality, Canada’s recent record-high levels of immigration and population growth have helped mask the country’s economic weakness. With more people to buy and sell goods and services, the overall economy is growing but living standards have barely budged. To craft policies to help raise living standards for Canadian families, policymakers in Ottawa and every provincial capital should remove regulatory barriers, reduce taxes and responsibly manage government finances. This is the great policy challenge for governments across the country in 2026 and beyond.

Ben Eisen

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

How convenient: Minnesota day care reports break-in, records gone

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

A Minneapolis day care run by Somali immigrants is claiming that a mysterious break-in wiped out its most sensitive records, even as police say officers were never told that anything was actually stolen — a discrepancy that’s drawing sharp attention amid Minnesota’s spiraling child care fraud scandal.

According to the center’s manager, Nasrulah Mohamed, someone forced their way into Nakomis Day Care Center earlier this week by entering through a rear kitchen area, damaging a wall and accessing the office. Mohamed told reporters the intruder made off with “important documentation,” including children’s enrollment records, employee files, and checkbooks tied to the facility’s operations.

But a preliminary report from the Minneapolis Police Department tells a different story. Police say no loss was reported to officers at the time of the call. While the department confirmed the center later contacted police with additional information, an updated report was not immediately available.

Video released by the day care purporting to show damage from the incident depicts a hole punched through drywall inside what appears to be a utility closet, with stacks of cinder blocks visible just behind the wall — imagery that has only fueled skepticism as investigators continue to unravel what authorities have described as one of the largest fraud schemes ever tied to Minnesota’s human services programs.

Mohamed blamed the alleged break-in on fallout from a viral investigation by YouTuber Nick Shirley, who recently toured nearly a dozen Minnesota day care sites while questioning whether they were legitimately operating. Shirley’s video has racked up more than 110 million views. Mohamed insisted the coverage unfairly targeted Somali operators and said his center has since received what he described as hateful and threatening messages.

“This is devastating news, and we don’t know why this is targeting our Somali community,” Mohamed said, calling Shirley’s reporting false. Nakomis Day Care Center was not among the facilities featured in the video.

The break-in claim surfaced as law enforcement and federal officials continue to expose a massive fraud network centered in Minneapolis, involving food assistance, housing, and child care payments. Authorities say at least $1 billion has already been identified as fraudulent, with federal prosecutors warning the total could climb as high as $9 billion. Ninety-two people have been charged so far, 80 of them Somali immigrants.

Late Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it was freezing all federal child care payments to Minnesota unless the state can prove the funds are being used lawfully. The payments totaled roughly $185 million in 2025 alone.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, under intensifying scrutiny for allowing fraud to metastasize for years, responded by attacking the Trump administration rather than addressing the substance of the findings. “This is Trump’s long game,” Walz wrote on X Tuesday night, claiming the administration was politicizing fraud enforcement to defund programs — despite federal officials pointing to documented abuse and ongoing criminal cases.

Meanwhile, questions continue to swirl around facilities already flagged by investigators. Reporters visiting several sites highlighted in Shirley’s video found at least one — Quality “Learing” Center — operating with children inside despite state officials previously saying it had been shut down. The Minnesota Department of Children, Youth, and Families later issued a confusing clarification, saying the center initially reported it would close but later claimed it would remain open.

As Minnesota scrambles to respond to the funding freeze and mounting arrests, the conflicting accounts surrounding the Nakomis Day Care incident underscore a broader problem confronting state leaders: a system so riddled with gaps and contradictions that even basic facts — like whether records were actually stolen — are now in dispute, while taxpayers are left holding the bill.

Continue Reading

Trending

X