Emission regulations harm Canadians in exchange for no environmental benefit

The PBO estimates that the CFR will decrease Canada’s economic output by up to 0.3 per cent—or approximately $9.0 billion—in 2030. For context, that’s more than the entire output of Prince Edward Island in 2024, so the effects are roughly equivalent to wiping out the economy of a whole province.

The Carney government recently announced changes to the Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR), signalling stricter carbon content rules for gasoline and diesel—though few details were provided. While the prime minister expressed confidence that the changes will strengthen the Canadian economy, in reality, the CFR is designed to increase fuel prices in exchange for negligible environmental benefits. If the government is serious about prioritizing the wellbeing of Canadians, it shouldn’t tinker with the CFR—it should eliminate it.

The CFR, which came into effect in July 2023, aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by requiring a gradual reduction in the carbon content of gasoline and diesel. By 2030, fuels must contain 15 per cent fewer GHG per unit of energy than in 2016. Those who don’t meet the target must buy compliance credits, which raises their costs. Ultimately, these costs are all passed on to Canadians at the pump.

According to a recent study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the CFR is expected to increase fuel prices by up to 17 cents per litre for gasoline and 16 cents for diesel by 2030. These costs will be added on top of already high, policy-driven fuel costs. In 2023, for example, the average price of gasoline in Canada was 157.3 Canadian cents per litre, compared to just 129.4 cents per litre in the United States—a 21 per cent difference, mainly the result of fuel taxes in Canada.

As fuel prices rise due to the CFR, the costs of running tractors, powering machinery, and producing and transporting goods and services will all increase, setting off ripple effects across our economy. The PBO estimates that the CFR will decrease Canada’s economic output by up to 0.3 per cent—or approximately $9.0 billion—in 2030. For context, that’s more than the entire output of Prince Edward Island in 2024, so the effects are roughly equivalent to wiping out the economy of a whole province.

Of course, increases in fuel prices also mean more pressure to household budgets. The PBO estimates that in 2030, the average Canadian household will incur $573 in additional costs because of the changes to the CFR, and lower-income households will bear a disproportionately larger burden because they spend more of their budget on energy.

The policy’s uneven impact across provinces is particularly significant for lower-income regions. For example, households in Nova Scotia and P.E.I.—two of the provinces with the lowest median household incomes—are expected to bear average annual costs of $635 and $569, respectively. In contrast, families in Ontario and British Columbia—two of the provinces with higher median household incomes—will pay less, $495 and $384 per year, respectively. Simply put, the CFR imposes more costs on those who make less.

To make matters worse, the expected environmental benefits of the CFR are negligible. Even if it delivers its full projected reduction of 26 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2030, that represents only “two weeks of greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian economy,” according to the federal government.

Given that GHG emissions cross all borders regardless of where they originate, in a broader perspective, that reduction represents just 0.04 per cent of projected global emissions by 2030. So, Canadians are being asked to pay a material price for a measure that will have virtually no environmental impact.

Toughening regulations on carbon content for gas and diesel won’t benefit Canadians, in fact, it will do the opposite. The CFR places a real financial burden on Canadian households while delivering no meaningful environmental benefit. When a policy’s costs vastly outweigh its benefits, the answer isn’t to adjust it, it’s to scrap it.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fr

Up Next

Quebecers want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun confiscation

Don't Miss

New report warns WHO health rules erode Canada’s democracy and Charter rights

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

Canada has fewer doctors, hospital beds, MRI machines—and longer wait times—than most other countries with universal health care

Alberta / 13 mins ago

Petition threatens independent school funding in Alberta

National / 26 mins ago

Politically Connected Canadian Weed Sellers Push Back in B.C. Court, Seek Distance from Convicted Heroin Trafficker

Business

Canada has fewer doctors, hospital beds, MRI machines—and longer wait times—than most other countries with universal health care

Published on October 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

Despite a relatively high level of spending, Canada has significantly fewer doctors, hospital beds, MRI machines and CT scanners compared to other countries with universal health care, finds a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“There’s a clear imbalance between the high cost of Canada’s health-care system and the actual care Canadians receive in return,” said Mackenzie Moir, senior policy
analyst at the Fraser Institute and author of Comparing Performance of Universal Health-Care Countries, 2025.

In 2023, the latest year of available comparable data, Canada spent more on health care (as a percentage of the economy/GDP, after adjusting for population age) than
most other high-income countries with universal health care (ranking 3rd out of 31 countries, which include the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands).
And yet, Canada ranked 27th (of 30 countries) for the availability of doctors and 25th (of 30) for the availability of hospital beds.

In 2022, the latest year of diagnostic technology data, Canada ranked 27th (of 31 countries) for the availability of MRI machines and 28th (of 31) for CT scanners.
And in 2023, among the nine countries with universal health-care systems included in the Commonwealth Fund’s International Health Policy Survey, Canada ranked last for the percentage of patients able to make same- or next-day appointments when sick (22 per cent) and had the highest percentage of patients (58 per cent) who waited two months or more for non-emergency surgery. For comparison, the Netherlands had much higher rates of same- or next-day appointments (47 per cent) and much lower waits of two months or more for non-emergency surgery (20 per cent).

“To improve health care for Canadians, our policymakers should learn from other countries around the world with higher-performing universal health-care systems,”
said Nadeem Esmail, director of health policy at the Fraser Institute.

Comparing Performance of Universal Health Care Countries, 2025

Of the 31 high-income universal health-care countries, Canada ranks among the highest spenders, but ranks poorly on both the availability of most resources and access to services.
After adjustments for differences in the age of the population of these 31 countries, Canada ranked third highest for spending as a percentage of GDP in 2023 (the most recent year of comparable data).
Across 13 indictors measured, the availability of medical resources and timely access to medical services in Canada was generally below that of the average OECD country.
In 2023, Canada ranked 27th (of 30) for the relative availability of doctors and 25th (of 30) for hospital beds dedicated to physical care. In 2022, Canada ranked 27th (of 31) for the relative availability of Magnetic Resonance Im-aging (MRI) machines, and 28th (of 31) for CT scanners.
Canada ranked last (or close to last) on three of four indicators of timeliness of care.
Notably, among the nine countries for which comparable wait times measures are available, Canada ranked last for the percentage of patients reporting they were able to make a same- or next-day appointment when sick (22%).
Canada also ranked eighth worst for the percentage of patients who waited more than one month to see a specialist (65%), and reported the highest percentage of patients (58%) who waited two months or more for non-emergency surgery.
Clearly, there is an imbalance between what Canadians get in exchange for the money they spend on their health-care system.

Mackenzie Moir

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Petition threatens independent school funding in Alberta

Published on October 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

Recently, amid the backdrop of a teacher strike, an Alberta high school teacher began collecting signatures for a petition to end government funding of independent schools in the province. If she gets enough people to sign—10 per cent of the number of Albertans who voted in the last provincial election—Elections Alberta will consider launching a referendum about the issue.

In other words, the critical funding many Alberta families rely on for their children’s educational needs may be in jeopardy.

In Alberta, the provincial government partially funds independent schools and charter schools. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), whose members are currently on strike, opposes government funding of independent and charter schools.

But kids are not one-size-fits-all, and schools should reflect that reality, particularly in light of today’s increasing classroom complexity where different kids have different needs. Unlike government-run public schools, independent schools and charter schools have the flexibility to innovate and find creative ways to help students thrive.

And things aren’t going very well for all kids or teachers in government-run pubic school classrooms. According to the ATA, 93 per cent of teachers report encountering some form of aggression or violence at school, most often from students. Additionally, 85 per cent of unionized teachers face an increase in cognitive, social/emotional and behavioural issues in their classrooms. In 2020, one-quarter of students in Edmonton’s government-run public schools were just learning English, and immigration to Canada—and Alberta especially—has exploded since then. It’s not easy to teach a classroom of kids where a significant proportion do not speak English, many have learning disabilities or exceptional needs, and a few have severe behavioural problems.

Not surprisingly, demand for independent schools in Alberta is growing because many of these schools are designed for students with special needs, Autism, severe learning disabilities and ADHD. Some independent schools cater to students just learning English while others offer cultural focuses, expanded outdoor time, gifted learning and much more.

Which takes us back to the new petition—yet the latest attempt to defund independent schools in Alberta.

Wealthy families will always have school choice. But if the Alberta government wants low-income and middle-class kids to have the ability to access schools that fit them, too, it’s crucial to maintain—or better yet, increase—its support for independent and charter schools.

Consider a fictional Alberta family: the Millers. Their daughter, Lucy, is struggling at her local government-run public school. Her reading is below grade level and she’s being bullied. It’s affecting her self-esteem, her sleep and her overall wellbeing. The Millers pay their taxes. They don’t take vacations, they rent, and they haven’t upgraded their cars in many years. They can’t afford to pay full tuition for Lucy to attend an independent school that offers the approach to education she needs to succeed. However, because the Alberta government partially funds independent schools—which essentially means a portion of the Miller family’s tax dollars follow Lucy to the school of their choice—they’re able to afford the tuition.

The familiar refrain from opponents is that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for independent school tuition. But in fact, if you’re concerned about taxpayers, you should encourage school choice. If Lucy attends a government-run public school, taxpayers pay 100 per cent of her education costs. But if she attends an independent or charter school, taxpayers only pay a portion of the costs while her parents pay the rest. That’s why research shows that school choice saves tax dollars.

If you’re a parent with a child in a government-run public school in Alberta, you now must deal with another teacher strike. If you have a child in an independent or charter school, however, it’s business as usual. If Albertans are ever asked to vote on whether or not to end government funding for independent schools, they should remember that students are the most important stakeholder in education. And providing parents more choices in education is the solution, not the problem.