Feds move target for net-zero grid back 15 years. Western provinces say it’s not of their business

“These latest measures fail to recognize provinces have jurisdiction over the development and management of electricity. The federal regulations are duplicative, inefficient, and add to costs.”

The federal government has clarified its clean-energy goal for a net-zero power grid.

Its final Clean Electricity Regulations target a net-zero grid across the country by 2050. But didn’t Ottawa previously, in August 2023, set a goal of 2035?

Certainly, one leading environmental group declared: “The federal government has committed to achieving zero-emissions electricity by 2035.”

And a law firm that analyses energy matters told followers in August 2023: “Government of Canada releases draft Clean Electricity Regulations aimed at achieving net-zero emissions from Canada’s electricity grid by 2035.”

What Ottawa said in August 2023 was this: “The proposed regulations would set performance standards that would ensure that the sector achieves significant transformation by 2035, so that a robust foundation of clean electricity is available to power the electric technologies (e.g., electric transportation) needed to support Canada’s transition to a net-zero GHG emissions economy by 2050.”

Announcing that 2035 goal was a case of fuzzy wording, according to Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. He said Ottawa could have been more precise in its language and context around what exactly the 2035 target referred to.

He now says: “2035 was really having a plan as to how you were going to reduce emissions to be able to get to a net-zero economy by 2050… Perhaps we were not as precise with our language as we should have been.”

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault issued an update in February 2024: “All G7 countries, including Canada and the United States, have committed to transitioning to a net-zero electricity grid as a foundational measure to help achieve low-carbon economies by 2050.”

And he now says: “We knew from the get-go, from where we are to where we need to be, we couldn’t get there in 10 years… It was always our intention that we want to see things happening before 2035. But that we wouldn’t be able to get to a decarbonized grid before 2050.”

Whatever they said, meant, clarified, updated, and/or corrected, the new regulations face opposition and a court challenge from Alberta, for one.

Premier Danielle Smith criticized the latest regulations as unconstitutional, arguing they seek to regulate an area of provincial jurisdiction.

“After years of watching the federal government gaslight Canadians about the feasibility of achieving a net-zero power grid by 2030, we are gratified to see Ottawa finally admit that the Government of Alberta’s plan to achieve a carbon-neutral power grid by 2050 is a more responsible, affordable, and realistic target.

“That said, the federal government’s finalized electricity regulations remain entirely unconstitutional as they seek to regulate in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. They also require generators to meet unreasonable and unattainable federally mandated interim targets beginning in 2035, which will still make electricity unaffordable for Canadian families.

“Alberta will therefore be preparing an immediate court challenge of these electricity regulations.”

Saskatchewan’s government said in a news release that it will simply not comply with the new regulations.

“Our government unequivocally rejects federal intrusion into our exclusive provincial jurisdiction over the electricity system.

“Saskatchewan will prioritize maintaining an affordable and reliable electricity grid to support our regional needs and growth. The federal Clean Electricity Regulations are unconstitutional, unaffordable, unachievable, and Saskatchewan cannot, and will not, comply with them.”

The Business Council of BC slammed the new federal regulations on multiple grounds: constitutionality, jeopardizing the reliability of electricity delivery, higher costs for businesses and households, limiting investment, regional inequities, technological limitations, and risks to greenhouse-gas management.

“These latest measures fail to recognize provinces have jurisdiction over the development and management of electricity. The federal regulations are duplicative, inefficient, and add to costs.”

And: “It is important to recognize that Canada’s combined electricity systems are already 84% non-emitting, and that electricity represents less than 10% of Canada’s total emissions. The sector has made more progress in reducing emissions than any other sector in the country over the past two decades.

“We urge the government to set aside these new regulations and work collaboratively with the electricity sector to develop a more balanced approach that respects provincial roles and will not risk undermining investment and driving up costs. The path to a cleaner energy system requires cooperation, not regulation.”

The latest announcement from Ottawa includes these statements:

“Federal analyses find that the Regulations have no impact on electricity rates for the vast majority of Canadians, and in some cases, will even have a slightly positive impact on rates. Independent third-party expert modelling substantiates federal analysis that the Regulations are feasible.
“To ensure rates are affordable for Canadian families over the coming decade, the federal government is investing $60 billion to support the electricity sector.
“The adoption of efficient electric appliances, vehicles, and heat pumps presents an enormous opportunity for families to save money on their energy bills.
“In the shift to clean electricity, 84% of households are expected to spend less on their monthly energy costs, when accounting for the over $60 billion in federal clean electricity incentives. This could lead to $15 billion in total energy-related savings for Canadians by 2035.”

All subject to clarification, updating, and/or correction—and Alberta’s promised court case.

Related Topics:#CleanEnergyRegulations #ElectricalGrid #ResourceWorks NetZeroGrid ProvicialJurisdiction ZeroEmissionsElectricity

Up Next

Alberta government can deliver tax cut by ending corporate welfare

Don't Miss

Justin Trudeau’s legacy—record-high spending and massive debt

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

Alberta judge sides with LGBT activists, allows ‘gender transitions’ for kids to continue

Business / 6 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Crime / 7 hours ago

Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho

Business

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

It’s now more than four years since the federal Liberal government pledged $30 billion in spending over five years for $10-per-day national child care, and more than three years since Ontario’s Progressive Conservative government signed a $13.2 billion deal with the federal government to deliver this child-care plan.

Not surprisingly, with massive government funding came massive government control. While demand for child care has increased due to the government subsidies and lower out-of-pocket costs for parents, the plan significantly restricts how child-care centres operate (including what items participating centres may purchase), and crucially, caps the proportion of government funds available to private for-profit providers.

What have families and taxpayers got for this enormous government effort? Widespread child-care shortages across Ontario.

For example, according to the City of Ottawa, the number of children (aged 0 to 5 years) on child-care waitlists has ballooned by more than 300 per cent since 2019, there are significant disparities in affordable child-care access “with nearly half of neighbourhoods underserved, and limited access in suburban and rural areas,” and families face “significantly higher” costs for before-and-after-school care for school-age children.

In addition, Ottawa families find the system “complex and difficult to navigate” and “fewer child care options exist for children with special needs.” And while 42 per cent of surveyed parents need flexible child care (weekends, evenings, part-time care), only one per cent of child-care centres offer these flexible options. These are clearly not encouraging statistics, and show that a government-knows-best approach does not properly anticipate the diverse needs of diverse families.

Moreover, according to the Peel Region’s 2025 pre-budget submission to the federal government (essentially, a list of asks and recommendations), it “has maximized its for-profit allocation, leaving 1,460 for-profit spaces on a waitlist.” In other words, families can’t access $10-per-day child care—the central promise of the plan—because the government has capped the number of for-profit centres.

Similarly, according to Halton Region’s pre-budget submission to the provincial government, “no additional families can be supported with affordable child care” because, under current provincial rules, government funding can only be used to reduce child-care fees for families already in the program.

And according to a March 2025 Oxford County report, the municipality is experiencing a shortage of child-care staff and access challenges for low-income families and children with special needs. The report includes a grim bureaucratic predication that “provincial expansion targets do not reflect anticipated child care demand.”

Child-care access is also a problem provincewide. In Stratford, which has a population of roughly 33,000, the municipal government reports that more than 1,000 children are on a child-care waitlist. Similarly in Port Colborne (population 20,000), the city’s chief administrative officer told city council in April 2025 there were almost 500 children on daycare waitlists at the beginning of the school term. As of the end of last year, Guelph and Wellington County reportedly had a total of 2,569 full-day child-care spaces for children up to age four, versus a waitlist of 4,559 children—in other words, nearly two times as many children on a waitlist compared to the number of child-care spaces.

More examples. In Prince Edward County, population around 26,000, there are more than 400 children waitlisted for licensed daycare. In Kawartha Lakes and Haliburton County, the child-care waitlist is about 1,500 children long and the average wait time is four years. And in St. Mary’s, there are more than 600 children waitlisted for child care, but in recent years town staff have only been able to move 25 to 30 children off the wait list annually.

The numbers speak for themselves. Massive government spending and control over child care has created havoc for Ontario families and made child-care access worse. This cannot be a surprise. Quebec’s child-care system has been largely government controlled for decades, with poor results. Why would Ontario be any different? And how long will Premier Ford allow this debacle to continue before he asks the new prime minister to rethink the child-care policy of his predecessor?

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump

Published on June 30, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Canada caved to President Donald Trump demands by pulling its digital services tax hours before it was to go into effect on Monday.

Trump said Friday that he was ending all trade talks with Canada over the digital services tax, which he called a direct attack on the U.S. and American tech firms. The DST required foreign and domestic businesses to pay taxes on some revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada.

“Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,” the president said. “We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.”

By Sunday, Canada relented in an effort to resume trade talks with the U.S., it’s largest trading partner.

“To support those negotiations, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,” according to a statement from Canada’s Department of Finance.

Canada’s Department of Finance said that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump agreed to resume negotiations, aiming to reach a deal by July 21.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Monday that the digital services tax would hurt the U.S.

“Thank you Canada for removing your Digital Services Tax which was intended to stifle American innovation and would have been a deal breaker for any trade deal with America,” he wrote on X.

Earlier this month, the two nations seemed close to striking a deal.

Trump said he and Carney had different concepts for trade between the two neighboring countries during a meeting at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, in the Canadian Rockies.

Asked what was holding up a trade deal between the two nations at that time, Trump said they had different concepts for what that would look like.

“It’s not so much holding up, I think we have different concepts, I have a tariff concept, Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like, but we’re going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.”

Shortly after taking office in January, Trump hit Canada and Mexico with 25% tariffs for allowing fentanyl and migrants to cross their borders into the U.S. Trump later applied those 25% tariffs only to goods that fall outside the free-trade agreement between the three nations, called the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump put a 10% tariff on non-USMCA compliant potash and energy products. A 50% tariff on aluminum and steel imports from all countries into the U.S. has been in effect since June 4. Trump also put a 25% tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S.

Economists, businesses and some publicly traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from U.S. families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods paid by the person or company that imports them. The importer can absorb the cost of the tariffs or try to pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices.

Trump’s tariffs give U.S.-produced goods a price advantage over imported goods, generating revenue for the federal government.