All sorts of carbon tax advocates – environmentalists, academics, political insiders – are saying the following: all those annoying little Canadians who are so vulgar and uneducated as to object to carbon taxes should shut up once and for all.
Their assertion is: the Supreme Court has decided that the federal government can tell the provinces what to do, so the subject is settled.
But no, that is not quite true. What is true, is that IF a federal government wants to impose a carbon tax, it can.
The SCC majority decision is written by a most Trudeau-esque Chief Justice Wagner. In the decision the Chief Justice writes – in a dramatic overreach beyond law to the realm of policy – that climate change is “an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world”. He then uses that as the basis for his affirmation of the federal government’s use of the Peace, Order and Good Government clause in the constitution.
Fine. We should all be troubled that the SCC has done this, but so be it. For my part, I thoroughly disagree with this decision, as I wrote in my previous blog post.
But the effect of the decision is not to bury the carbon tax issue, notwithstanding the arrogance and the climate alarmism of 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices.
What the SCC actually did is kick the carbon tax issue right back onto the front page of national politics.
What?
Yes, thanks to the SCC decision, we are all now once again talking about the carbon tax.
The fact that the Trudeau government has been told it can impose a carbon tax, does not mean that any successor federal government must impose a carbon tax.
Canadians do believe in climate change. I do.
And all of us are told constantly by many – from the likes of Greta Thunberg, and Justin Trudeau (and now) the Chief Justice of the SCC – that climate change is an existential threat. And now we are told that it must be addressed by carbon taxes.
Well … no, actually.
That isn’t a logical sequencing of things. A belief in climate change doesn’t require a belief in it being an existential threat nor does it require an embrace of carbon taxes.
Making that point is hard, in the midst of all the noise.
But politicians with the courage to stand up for Canadians can make this point.
Politicians who care about the issue of affordable energy can, and should, make the case against carbon taxes.
The anti-carbon tax fight requires a pushback against the establishment interests who have a platform in mainstream media and elsewhere. It requires a pushback against the slew of policy wonks who like to say “carbon taxes just make so much sense.” And it requires a pushback against the many people who insult everyday Canadians who are sick and tired of watching their taxes go up.
If politicians of conviction have the courage to mount such a pushback, if they are prepared to listen to Canadians instead of trying to shut them down, they have a shot to articulate an alternative vision that is in the interests of Canadians’ long-term economic well-being.
In an upcoming blog, I will offer some suggestions for that alternative vision.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.
Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.
Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.
On the heels of his first federal budget, which promises more spending to promote a “green economy,” Prime Minister Carney will soon fly to Brazil for COP30, the 30th United Nations climate summit. Like the former Trudeau government, the Carney government has pledged to achieve “net-zero” emissions in Canada—and compel other countries to pursue net-zero—by 2050. To achieve a net-zero world, it’s necessary to phase out fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, coal—or offset their CO2 emissions with technologies such as “carbon capture” or large-scale tree planting.
But after trillions of dollars spent in pursuit of that goal, it appears more unrealistic than ever. It’s time for world leaders, including Canada’s policymakers, to face reality and be honest about the costly commitments they make on behalf of their citizens.
For starters, carbon capture—the process of trapping and storing carbon dioxide so it’s unable to affect the atmosphere—is a developing technology not yet capable of large-scale deployment. And planting enough trees to offset global emissions would require vast amounts of land, take decades to absorb significant CO2 and risk unpredictable losses from wildfires and drought. Due to these constraints, in their net-zero quest governments and private investors have poured significant resources into “clean energy” such as wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), from 2015 to 2024, the world’s public and private investment in clean energy totalled and estimated US$14.6 trillion (inflation-adjusted). Yet from 1995 (the first COP year) to 2024, global fossil fuel consumption increased by more than 64 per cent. Specifically, oil consumption grew by 39 per cent, natural gas by 96 per cent and coal by 76 per cent. As of 2024, fossil fuels accounted for 80.6 per cent of global energy consumption, slightly lower than the 85.6 per cent in 1995.
The Canadian case shows an even greater mismatch between Ottawa’s COP commitments and its actual results. Despite billions spent by the federal government on the low-carbon economy (electric vehicle subsidies, tax credits to corporations, etc.), fossil fuel consumption in our country has increased by 23 per cent between 1995 and 2024. Over the same period, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy consumption climbed from 62.0 to 66.3 per cent.
Simply put, despite trillions invested in the energy transition, the world is more dependent on fossil fuels today than when the United Nations launched its first COP. No wonder that ahead of COP30, leading voices of the net-zero-by-2050 agenda, including Bill Gates, are acknowledging both the vital role of fossil fuels on the planet and the failure of efforts to cut them.
Why has this massive effort, which includes many countries and trillions of dollars, failed to transition humanity away from fossil fuels?
As renowned scholar Vaclav Smil explains, it can take centuries—not decades—for an energy source to become globally predominant. For thousands of years, humanity relied on wood, charcoal, dried dung and other traditional biomass fuels for heating and cooking, with coal only becoming a major energy source around 1900. It took oil 150 years after its introduction into energy markets to account for one-quarter of global fossil fuel consumption, a milestone reached only in the 1950s. And for natural gas, it took about 130 years after its commercial development to reach 25 per cent of global fossil fuel consumption at the end of the 20th century.
Yet, coal, oil and natural gas didn’t completely replace traditional biomass to meet the surging energy demand as the modern world developed. As of 2020, nearly three billion people in developing countries still relied on charcoal, straw and dried dung to supply their basic energy needs. In light of these facts, the most vocal proponents of the global energy transition seem, at the very least, out of touch.
The world’s continued reliance on fossil fuels should prompt world leaders at COP30 to exercise caution before pushing the same unrealistic commitments of the past. And Prime Minister Carney, in particular, should be careful not to keep leading Canadians into costly ventures that lead nowhere near their intended results.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Based on the rhetoric, the Carney government’s first budget was a “transformative” new plan that will meet and overcome the “generational” challenges facing Canada. Of course, in reality this budget is nothing new, and delivers the same approach to fiscal and economic policy that has been tried and failed for the last decade.
First, let’s dispel the idea that the Carney government plans to manage its finances any differently than its predecessor. According to the budget, the Carney government plans to spend more, borrow more, and accumulate more debt than the Trudeau government had planned. Keep in mind, the Trudeau government was known for its recklessly high spending, borrowing and debt accumulation.
While the Carney government has tried to use different rhetoric and a new accounting framework to obscure this continued fiscal mismanagement, it’s also relied on an overused and misleading talking point about Canada’s debt as justification for higher spending and continued deficits. The talking point goes something like, “Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7” and this “strong fiscal position” gives the government the “space” to spend more and run larger deficits.
Technically, the government is correct—Canada’s net debt (total debt minus financial assets) is the lowest among G7 countries (which include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) when measured as a share of the overall economy (GDP). The latest estimates put Canada’s net debt at 13 per cent of GDP, while net debt in the next lowest country (Germany) is 49 per cent of GDP.
But here’s the problem. This measure assumes Canada can use all of its financial assets to offset debt—which is not the case.
When economists measure Canada’s net debt, they include the assets of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which were valued at a combined $890 billion as of mid-2025. But obviously Canada cannot use CPP and QPP assets to pay off government debt without compromising the benefits of current and future pensioners. And we’re one of the only industrialized countries where pension assets are accounted in such a way that it reduces net debt. Simply put, by falsely assuming CPP and QPP assets could pay off debt, Canada appears to have a stronger fiscal position than is actually the case.
A more accurate measure of Canada’s indebtedness is to look at the total level of debt.
Based on the latest estimates, Canada’s total debt (as a share of the economy) ranked 5th-highest among G7 countries at 113 per cent of GDP. That’s higher than the total debt burden in the U.K. (103 per cent) and Germany (64 per cent), and close behind France (117 per cent). And over the last decade Canada’s total debt burden has grown faster than any other G7 country, rising by 25 percentage points. Next closest, France, grew by 17 percentage points. Keep in mind, G7 countries are already among the most indebted, and continue to take on some of the most debt, in the industrialized world.
In other words, looking at Canada’s total debt burden reveals a much weaker fiscal position than the government claims, and one that will likely only get worse under the Carney government.
Prior to the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised Canadians he will “always be straight about the challenges we face and the choices that we must make.” If he wants to keep that promise, his government must stop using a misleading measure of Canada’s indebtedness to justify high spending and persistent deficits.
