Dan McTeague
Trudeau is destroying the Canadian economy one regulation at a time

It is amazing, with ever increasing energy costs in Canada and throughout the world, that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to promote the extreme Green Agenda that will destroy Canada’s energy industry.
The latest example? Just the other week, the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) released a study that describes how the Trudeau government’s proposed Emissions Cap for the energy sector would “cost the Canadian economy between $44.8 billion and $79.3 billion a year” and would “cause substantial losses, without achieving any net reduction in global emission.” You can read the study here.
In case you’ve not heard about Trudeau’s new way to destroy our economy, let me take a step back and explain.
The Trudeau government is proposing an Emissions Cap to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. This policy is another piece in their larger, foolish plan to try to achieve “Net Zero” GHG emissions by 2050. Keep in mind Canada contributes only 1.5% of global emissions, so this plan, if even achievable, would reduce only 0.45% of global emissions.
One of the options proposed to achieve this “Net Zero” craziness is a cap-and-trade system. According to Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault “one of the advantages of a cap is emissions reduction certainty.”
Another certainty that Guilbeault failed to mention is that companies will think twice about investing their money in Canada.
Canadians need to consider that. The oil and gas sector is the single largest revenue provider for the Canadian government, generating $45 billion a year in annual economic activity, and contributes $170 billion a year to the GDP. The economic consequences of this plan are significant, and they will mean a dramatic drawback in social programs in this country. How are we going to pay for our hospitals, our education system? How are we going to pay for our roads and our infrastructure?
As the MEI study found, this emissions cap will result in “substantial losses without achieving any net reduction in global emissions.” Why? Because whether this government likes to admit it or not, there is an increasing global demand for oil and gas. We can either produce those resources here or get them from another country that has no environmental, much less labour standards, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.
And here’s the rub. This cap on emissions would apply only to the oil and gas sector. This emissions cap would not apply to the concrete industry, the automotive industry, or the mining industry. And it certainly won’t apply to the jet building industry in Montreal. These must have better lobbyists than the oil and gas industry.
For that reason, an emissions cap, layered on top of carbon taxes, layered on top of a Clean Fuel Standard, layered on top of pipeline blockages, layered on top of Bills C-48, C-69, preventing oil from being shipped from other parts of the world — is clearly a vendetta against the sector that provides over 500,000 jobs to Canadians and contributes billions to our economy. And it is ultimately a vendetta against our pocketbooks, the interests of our society, and the Canadian way of life.
Dan McTeague
’Net-Zero’ Carney’s going to build new pipelines? I’ll believe it when I see it!

By Dan McTeague
Ever since Mark Carney’s rise to power, people have been trying to sell me on the idea that he’s just what this country needs — a (supposedly) practical, no-nonsense businessman who can clean up the mess his highly-ideological predecessor, Justin Trudeau, left us in. To reinforce this claim, they point to the constant rumblings about Carney’s commitment to building new oil and gas pipelines in Canada.
I’m sorry, folks, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Now, building new pipelines is an understandably popular idea. Construction alone would be a serious job creator. New pipelines would enable us to further capitalize on our abundant natural resources. They would pump up the domestic oil and gas supply, bringing down the cost of energy for families and businesses alike, thereby invigorating our economy and fortifying the Loonie.
They would also reinforce national unity at a time when that is being sorely tested.
Green propaganda has created and increasingly widened ideological divides over the resource sector, still the backbone of our economy. Our thriving activist class are happy to exploit these divisions and to do whatever they can to kill new resource projects before they get off the ground. Over time, this has made it just plain easier to sell Canadian fossil fuels to the US, which has been happy to take them off our hands.
Make no mistake, if we made good use of this period of unfortunately high tensions with our cousins to the south, by beefing up our energy infrastructure and fortifying our economy, which would ultimately make us a more attractive trading partner, I’d be all for it.
That said, anyone who believes that Carney is fully committed to new pipelines should revisit what he’s actually said on the matter. They would discover that he has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on pipelines since the moment he stepped out from behind the curtain and publicly took the reins of the Liberal Party. He’s been purposely vague when talking to pipeline-sympathetic crowds out west, and explicitly reassuring when speaking to anti-pipeline crowds elsewhere, saying things like “I would never impose [a pipeline] on Quebec.”
Which should surprise no one! Mark Carney is still Mark Carney. From his banking career to his time at the megafirm Brookfield, from his role as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Leadership and Finance to founding the (now collapsed) Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), he has spent his entire career working towards a net-zero global economy, no matter how disastrous this would be for the world generally and Canada specifically.
Carney himself described his magnum opus, GFANZ, as being “relentlessly, ruthlessly, absolutely focused on the transition to net-zero.” The same could be said about Carney himself.
Which is to say, though he is more sophisticated, Carney is no less of a “Green” ideologue than Justin Trudeau.
“But, but, but!” I can hear people saying, “He saved us from the carbon tax!”
To which I answer: No, he did not. A longtime apostle of carbon taxation generally, and of Trudeau’s carbon tax specifically, Carney’s main issue with the carbon tax was that it had become “too divisive” — meaning we had noticed its effect on our lives and started complaining about it. To fix that, he used what amounted to an accounting trick to hide it from our view.
Meanwhile, he remains committed to all of his party’s environmentalist legislation and regulations, including the Clean Fuel Standard, which jacks up the ethanol content of our gasoline, while progressively raising the price per litre; Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which significantly reduces our ability to export our natural resources; Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental positives of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard; and the egregious Electric Vehicle mandate, which forces us to buy, starting next year, cars which are poorly suited for our climate, geography, and lifestyle, and for which we simply do not have the infrastructure.
And, most pertinent to this discussion, Mark Carney remains committed to Bill C-69, the “No More Pipelines Act,” which even the Supreme Court said overstepped the federal government’s constitutional authority.
So despite all of their advantages, Mark Carney’s decades of net-zero commitments make the chances of us actually getting a single new pipeline out of this government extremely remote, probably nonexistent.
I’d love to be wrong. I don’t think I am.
Dan McTeague
Time is running out, Mr. Carney…

By Dan McTeague
U.S. tariffs continue to threaten the Canadian economy. Meanwhile, Canada’s debt levels continue to grow. The obvious solution is to develop our oil and gas and become an energy superpower. However, time is running out for Prime Minister Carney to act.
He’s talked a big game but has failed to act as anti-energy Liberal laws continue to drive away investment. This week, TC Energy and Enbridge have indicated they’d prefer to make investments in the U.S. instead of Canada.
Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.
-
Automotive1 day ago
Canadians rejecting Liberal’s EV mandates because consumers are rational
-
Business2 days ago
Canada Is Sleepwalking Into A Cartel-Driven Security Crisis
-
C2C Journal22 hours ago
Canada’s Health-Care Monopoly is Killing Us
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Canadian gov’t claims privacy provision in online censorship bill was “accidentally” removed
-
Crime1 day ago
U.S. Missile Strike on Alleged Narco-Boat Tied to Maduro and Ohio Indictment of Chinese Firms Signal Dramatic Escalation in War on Fentanyl
-
Bruce Dowbiggin23 hours ago
Mic Drop: The Thought Police Are Coming To Take You Away
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days ago
Freedom Takes A Back Seat To Bureaucratic Convenience
-
Crime2 days ago
Rep. Luna suggests Epstein’s sex trafficking operation was ‘a lot bigger’ than expected