Congratulations are in order for Doug Ford, newly re-elected in Ontario to his third consecutive majority government. As a proud Ontarian myself, I wish Premier Ford great success, which will ultimately be measured not by how many votes he’s won, but by the quality of the policies he implements and how well he responds to the challenges which arise on his watch.
Of course, the two are related. Bad policy can instigate a crisis. And bad policy in the midst of one often transforms a challenge into a catastrophe. Just one instructive example: Remember that in the wake of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, President Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which, as John Robson recently observed on Twitter/X, helped turn “a painful short-term correction into an agonizing decade of misery.”
That is a moment in history our American friends would do well to remember just now. Though Donald Trump has been crowing about the economic benefits of tariffs for decades, the historical record tells a different story. And, more importantly for us, no matter how much damage Trump’s tariffs do to the American economy, they will be worse for Canada.
This is a moment in which our country is in desperate need of political leadership. That isn’t going to come from Ottawa, where the Trudeau Liberals and their accomplices in the NDP have shuttered parliament for months so that they can hold a coronation for their fellow Green Elitist, Mark Carney, who is all set to double-down on the disastrous net-zero policies of his predecessor.
So we are going to have to rely, at least in the near term, on our premiers to respond to this crisis. And so far very few of them – the notable exception being Danielle Smith – have shown the kind of ingenuity and resilience we need at this moment.
Ford himself has done everything he can to make himself the face of Canada’s response to the tariff threat. He’s made a great show of removing (already purchased) American-made products from LCBO.’s shelves, he has pledged to put a 25% export tax on energy, and he’s threatened to cut off Ontario’s energy exports to the United States entirely. In defense of the latter, Ford said, “They want to come at us hard, we’re going to come back twice as hard.”
That might sound impressive, but unfortunately Canada lacks the economic capacity to “come back twice as hard.” Years of mismanagement, on the federal, provincial, and even municipal levels, have left us in a terrible position to negotiate with the world’s largest economy. We have taken every opportunity to shoot ourselves in the foot, chasing foolish net-zero pipedreams which have succeeded only in squandering our capital, and smothering the oil and gas industry upon which our prosperity relies.
Justin Trudeau and his cronies deserve a lot of the blame for that, but the Ford government deserves its share as well. Ford long ago drank the net-zero kool-aid. He embraced the so-called “green energy transition” to such an extent that his government renamed its energy ministry the ‘Ministry of Energy and Electrification,’ a nod to the idea that we need to move away from fossil fuels and embrace electrically-powered everything. Neglecting to mention, of course, where that electricity is going to come from. (Hint: it’s not from expensive and inefficient wind and solar projects! Which, by the way, Ford has also invested heavily in.) And, relatedly, he’s stated that he will not be happy until Ontario achieves a 100% zero-carbon electricity grid, moving away from affordable and reliable natural gas as an energy source.
On top of that, Ford has gone “all in” on electric vehicles, teaming up with Trudeau to invest tens-of-billions of taxpayer dollars in a bid to attract EV manufacturing to his province. This investment wasn’t looking so hot before Trump’s election – remember when the Ford Motor Company scrapped their plan to build EVs at their plant in Oakville, Ont, due to “an unexpected slowdown” in demand for battery powered cars? And it has looked much worse since, once Trump got to work repealing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate.
Without that mandate, there will be a few hundred million fewer potential EV buyers in the world. People aren’t exactly lining up to buy EVs if they don’t have to. And though Trudeau’s 2035 EV mandate is still in place, even the Canadian market is softer than expected, especially after the federal program subsidizing the purchase of EVs – to the tune of $5,000 a piece – ran out of money and ended abruptly earlier this year.
But despite the changed environment, Ford doubled down on his commitment to EVs during the campaign. His platform read, “A re-elected PC government would continue to make these investments regardless of any decision by the U.S.,” and Ford continually reaffirmed his intention to continue to “invest in the sector.”
This is worse than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s closer to setting fire to the few lifeboats the ship actually has.
Ontario’s voters have once again entrusted our province to Doug Ford. But if he doesn’t start taking this crisis seriously – by shoring up the province’s financial situation and increasing our competitiveness by changing course on EVs and kicking net-zero to the curb – he won’t be remembered as the first premier to win three consecutive majorities in over 60 years. Instead he’ll be remembered as the guy who took Ontario past the point of no return.
Dan McTeague is the president of Canadians for Affordable Energy and a former Liberal member of Parliament.
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.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
President Donald Trump said Thursday that changes are coming to his aggressive immigration policies after complaints from farmers and business owners.
“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” Trump wrote in a social media post Thursday morning. “In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!”
Later Thursday, Trump made it clear that businesses need workers.
“Our farmers are being hurt badly. They have very good workers – they’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be great. And we’re going to have to do something about that,” the president said.
He added: “We can’t take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don’t have, maybe, what they’re supposed to have.”
Just how Trump may change his approach to immigration enforcement remains unclear, but he said he wants to help farmers and business owners.
“You go into a farm and you look and people, they’ve been there for 20 or 25 years and they work great and the owner of the farm loves them and you’re supposed to throw them out. You know what happens? They end up hiring the criminals that have come in, the murderers from prisons and everything else,” Trump said.
Trump said changes would be coming soon, but gave little detail on how policies could change.
“So we’re going to have an order on that pretty soon – we can’t do that to our farmers and leisure too, hotels, we’re going to have to use a lot of common sense on that.”
In a later post on Truth Social, Trump said illegal immigration had destroyed American institutions.
“Biden let 21 Million Unvetted, Illegal Aliens flood into the Country from some of the most dangerous and dysfunctional Nations on Earth — Many of them Rapists, Murderers, and Terrorists. This tsunami of Illegals has destroyed Americans’ Public Schools, Hospitals, Parks, Community Resources, and Living Conditions,” the president wrote. “They have stolen American Jobs, consumed BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in Free Welfare, and turned once idyllic Communities, like Springfield, Ohio, into Third World Nightmares.”
He added that deportations would continue: “I campaigned on, and received a Historic Mandate for, the largest Mass Deportation Program in American History. Polling shows overwhelming Public Support for getting the Illegals out, and that is exactly what we will do. As Commander-in-Chief, I will always protect and defend the Heroes of ICE and Border Patrol, whose work has already resulted in the Most Secure Border in American History. Anyone who assaults or attacks an ICE or Border Agent will do hard time in jail. Those who are here illegally should either self deport using the CBP Home App or, ICE will find you and remove you. Saving America is not negotiable!”
For years, Canada’s political class sold us on the idea that carbon taxes were clever policy. Not just a tool to cut emissions, but a fair one – tax the polluters, then cycle the money back to regular folks, especially those with thinner wallets.
It wasn’t a perfect system. The focus-group-tested line embraced for years by the Trudeau Liberals made no sense at all: we’re taxing you so we can put more money back in your pocketbooks. What the hell? If you care so much about my taxes being low, just cut them already. Somehow, it took years and years of this line being repeated for its internal contradiction to become evident to all.
Yet, even many strategic conservative minds could see the thinking had internal logic. You could sell it at a town hall. As an editorial team member at an influential news organization when B.C. got its carbon tax in 2008, I bought into the concept too.
And now? That whole model has been thrown overboard, by the very parties had long defended it with a straight face and an arch tone. In both Ottawa and Victoria in 2025, progressive governments facing political survival abandoned the idea of climate policy as a matter of fairness, opting instead for tactical concessions meant to blunt the momentum of their foes.
The result: lower-income Canadians who had grown accustomed to carbon tax rebates as a dependable backstop are waking up to find the support gone. And higher earners? They just got a tidy little gift from the state.
The betrayal is worse in B.C.
This new chart from economist Ken Peacock tells the story. He shared it last week at the B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
What is shows is that scrapping the carbon tax means the poor are poorer. The treasury is emptier.
What about the rich?
Yup, you guessed it: richer.
Scrubbing the B.C. consumer carbon tax leaves the lowest earning 20 percent of households $830 per year poorer, while the top one-fifth gain $959.
“Climate leader” British Columbia’s approach was supposed to be the gold standard: a revenue-neutral carbon tax, accepted by industry, supported by voters, and engineered to send the right price signal without growing the size of government.
That pact broke somewhere along the way.
Instead of returning the money, the provincial government slowly transformed the tax into a $2 billion annual cash cow. And when Mark Carney won the federal election, B.C. Premier David Eby, boxed in by his own pledge, scrapped the tax like a man dropping ballast from a sinking balloon. Gone. No replacement. No protections for those who need them most.
Filling the gas tank, on the other hand, is noticeably cheaper. Of course, if you can’t afford a car that might not be apparent.
Spare a thought for the climate activists who spent 15 years flogging this policy, only to watch it get tossed aside like a stack of briefing notes on a Friday afternoon.
Who could not conclude that the environmental left has been played. For a political movement that prides itself on idealism, it’s a brutal lesson in realpolitik: when power’s on the line, principles are negotiable.
But here’s the thing: maybe the carbon tax model deserved a rethink. Maybe it’s time for a grown-up look at what actually works
With B.C. now reviewing its CleanBC policies, here’s a basic question: what’s working, and what’s not?
A lot of emission reductions in this province didn’t come from government fiat. They were the result of business-led innovation: more efficient technology, cleaner fuels, and capital discipline.
That, plus a hefty dose of offshoring. We’ve pushed our industrial emissions onto other jurisdictions, then shipped the finished goods back without attaching any climate cost. This contradiction particularly helped to fuel the push to dump carbon pricing as a failed solution.
The progressives’ choice was made once the anti-tax arguments could no longer be refuted: to limit losses it would be necessary to deep six an unpopular strand of the overall carbon strategy. This, to save the rest. That’s why policies like the federal emissions cap haven’t also been abandoned.
To give another example, it’s also why British Columbia’s aviation sector is in a flap over the issue of sustainable aviation fuel. Despite years of aspirational policy, low emissions jet fuel blends remain more scarce than a long-haul cabin upgrade. The policy’s designers correctly anticipated that refiners would never be able to meet the imposed demand, and so as an alternative they provided a complex carbon credit trading scheme that will make the cost of flying more expensive. For those with a choice, nearby airport hubs in the United States where these policies do not apply will become an attractive alternative, while remote communities that have no choice in the matter will simply have to eat the cost. (Needless to say, if emissions reduction is your goal this policy isn’t needed anyways, since the decisions that matter in reducing global aviation emissions aren’t made in B.C. and never will be.)
I’m not showing up to bash those who have been genuinely trying to figure things out, and found themselves in a world of policy that is more complicated and unpredictable than they realized. Simply put, the chapter is closing on an era of energy policy naïveté.
The brutally honest action by Eby and Carney to eject carbon taxes for their own political survival could be read as a signal that it’s now okay to have an honest public conversation. Let’s insist on that. For years now, debate has been constrained in part by a particular form of linguistic tyranny, awash in terminology designed to cow the questioner into silence. “So you have an issue with clean policies, do you? What kind of dirty reprobate are you?” “Only a monster doesn’t want their aviation fuel to be sustainable.” Etc. Now is the moment to move on from that, and widen the field of discourse.
Ditching bad policy is also a signal that just maybe a better approach is to start by embracing a robust sense of the possibilities for energy to improve lives and empower all of the solutions needed for tomorrow’s problems. Because that’s the only way the conversation will ever get real.
Slogans, wildly aspirational goal setting and the habit of refusing to acknowledge how the world really works have been getting us nowhere. Petroleum products will continue to obey Yergin’s Law: oil always gets to market. China and India will grow their economies using reliable energy they can afford, having recently approved the construction of the most new coal power plants in a decade amid energy security concerns. Japan, which has practically worn itself out pleading for natural gas from Canada, isn’t waiting for the help of last-finishing nice guys to guarantee energy security: today, they are buying 8% of their LNG imports from the evil Putin regime.
Meanwhile, we’re in the worst of both worlds: our courageous carbon tax policy that was positioned as trailblazing not just for B.C. residents but for the world as a whole – climate leadership! – is gone, the poorest are puzzling over why things feel even more expensive, and nobody knows what comes next.
Ken-Peacock- B.C. Chamber of Commerce annual gathering in Nanaimo.
