Business
Mark Carney’s Climate Competitiveness Pitch Falls Flat

As Canada loses 50,000 manufacturing jobs, Carney talks climate buzzwords and Joly pushes EV imports, while Brookfield invests in pipelines abroad. Who is Ottawa really working for?
Prime Minister Mark Carney was in St. John’s to hand out money — $80 million of his new billion-dollar “regional tariff response fund” for small and medium businesses in Atlantic Canada. Which, let’s be honest, sure sounds a lot like an election pitch.
But then a reporter stood up and asked the real question: how does Canada plan to meet its climate targets for 2030 and 2035? Now, keep in mind, unemployment in this country is at seven percent—the highest in years—families are losing jobs, farmers are being hammered by tariffs, and this is what the press corps is worried about. Climate targets. Eye roll.
So how did Carney respond? With a brand-new slogan cooked up by a taxpayer-funded focus group: “climate competitiveness.” That’s the phrase. Climate competitiveness. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Like there’s a scoreboard somewhere, and Canada is going to “compete” to be the greenest.
But we have to ask the serious question, ‘compete’ against whom, exactly?
Lets look at China China? You know, the country that supplies about fifteen percent of Canada’s total imports. You know the country that supplies almost all of the goods in Canadian tire. Canada imported $62 billion (USD) worth in 2024 alone. Yeah, that China. The one that also happens to be the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, responsible for about thirty percent of all global CO2 emissions. Eleven to twelve billion metric tons every single year, which is more than twice the United States.
So is that who Mark Carney thinks we’re competing with? Beijing? The same country where your solar panels, your EV batteries, your “green tech” all get churned out by factories powered with coal?
Let’s be real for a second. Almost everything you buy comes from there. Open Amazon right now, cheap electronics, kitchen gadgets, plastic junk that breaks in a week — all made in China. Walk into Canadian Tire, Walmart, Dollarama, it’s the same story. Try, seriously try, to find a sock not made in China. You can’t.
And here’s the kicker. You might think, okay, maybe Ottawa has a plan. Maybe, just maybe, someone in Mark Carney’s office has thought: “Wait a second, all these goods from Amazon, all the crap piled high at Canadian Tire, maybe we should tax the carbon embedded in them, so we can actually build a Canada-first, Canada-strong economy.”
Seems obvious, right? Put tariffs on dirty imports. Level the playing field. Protect Canadian workers.
Nope. Not happening. Elbows down, Ottawa doesn’t tax a single ton of Chinese carbon. Not one. Thats right Beijing carbon heavy manufacturing gets a free ride.
Our carbon taxes? They apply only to you. The farmer in Moose Jaw filling up his tractor. The commuter in Moncton just trying to get to work. The family in Thunder Bay who wants to heat their home through a Canadian winter. They pay. You pay. Everyone here pays. But China? The country that floods us with billions in imports, all made in coal-fired factories? Nothing.
I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.
Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines
So let’s be crystal clear: the carbon tax isn’t about saving the planet. It’s about punishing Canadians for living in Canada. And giving Beijing an even bigger advantage while we kneecap our own economy and call it… “climate competitiveness.”
So maybe we’re not competing with China, Mark Carney would say. Maybe it’s India.
India!!! Don’t make me laugh! This is a country that’s made it perfectly clear it is not going to strangle its own economy in the name of “climate commitments.” They’ve said it over and over again. Yes, they’ll get to net-zero… by 2070. Fifty years from now. By then, most of us will be dead. But don’t worry, they’ll be green in the afterlife.
And the actions back it up. Just this summer, July 2025, India scrapped its sulphur dioxide rules for coal plants. For a decade, they had mandated clean-air technology, scrubbers; on coal-fired plants. Expensive, sure, about $30 billion worth. But at least it kept the air breathable. And what did they do? They reversed it.
Now, if a coal plant is scheduled to retire before 2030, it doesn’t need the technology at all. If the plant isn’t near a dense population center, same deal, pollute away. Fire up the stacks. Pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.
And remember, coal already powers most of India’s energy needs. They’re building, expanding, doubling down. Because India’s priority isn’t climate sermons, it’s economic development and energy security. They want cheap, reliable power. And they’re not going to apologize for it.
So let’s recap: China is the world’s biggest polluter, building coal plants like Starbucks opens coffee shops. India has flat-out said, “We’ll clean up in 50 years.” And Mark Carney thinks Canada, with 40 million people, is “competing” with them by taxing farmers, commuters, and families into oblivion while handing foreign polluters a free pass.
And if you think it’s just China and India, think again. Let’s take a quick tour.
Brazil? They talk a good game at climate summits, but they’re still torching the Amazon to make room for cattle and soybeans. Net-zero slogans on one hand, bulldozers on the other.
Vietnam? Their economy is powered by coal too, and they’re one of the fastest-growing importers of Canadian coal. Yes, we ship them coal so they can burn it. But don’t worry, we’ll slap a carbon tax on a Saskatchewan farmer for planting wheat.
And Russia… Well, Russia doesn’t even pretend. They drill, they mine, they pipe gas straight into Europe, and they laugh at the idea of “climate competitiveness.” They’re too busy selling oil to fund their wars.
So that’s the global competition Mark Carney thinks we’re in. Countries that are either doubling down on coal, clear-cutting rainforests, or weaponizing oil and gas, while Canada is told to spend a million dollars to move an anthill before we can build a mine.
Mélanie Joly Talks Climate Targets as Manufacturing Jobs Disappear
And speaking of “climate competitiveness,” Mélanie Joly shows up in Montreal, standing in front of aluminum executives, at the exact moment Canada has lost more than 50,000 manufacturing jobs since January. Fifty thousand. Gone. Families ruined, paycheques wiped out. And what does she talk about? Not jobs. Not tariffs. Not survival. No, she talks about climate targets. EV mandates. “Competing” with Chinese electric cars.
Yes, while Canadian auto workers are staring down layoffs, her big idea is to import more EVs from Asia and call it competition.
That’s not a joke… she actually said that.
Canada set a goal: by 2026, 20% of new car sales should be EVs. You know where we are today? Eight percent. Less than half. Why? Because the government pulled subsidies, sales collapsed, and now automakers are being squeezed with 25% tariffs from the U.S. and penalties at home if they don’t hit EV targets. It’s like being forced to sprint while someone nails your shoes to the floor.
So what’s Joly’s solution? Not to fix the tariffs. Not to protect Canadian auto workers in Cambridge, Alliston, Hamilton, Brampton. No… she wants to “compete with China’s EVs” by importing them from Asia and Europe. Think about that: Canada loses tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, and her answer is. Wait for it…
Import more foreign cars. That’s her industrial strategy.
And then she promises, with a straight face, that Canada will still “follow our goals” for 2030 and 2035. Never mind that when those targets were set, Donald Trump wasn’t back in the White House, the Inflation Reduction Act was still in place, and Canada wasn’t facing a trade war. But hey details.
This is the Liberal Party’s version of economic leadership: brag about climate targets nobody believes in, while your auto sector bleeds out, while aluminum workers sit in a room wondering if they’ll even have jobs next year. And she’s smiling the whole time.
Final Thoughts
Look, I’m not anti-green. Nobody’s against cleaner air or smarter technology. But I’m also not stupid. And when you actually listen to these people. Mark Carney, Mélanie Joly, the whole Liberal bunch, you realize pretty quickly what’s going on. They’re snake-oil salesmen. Selling a grift to unassuming Liberal voters, to suburban women who want to feel virtuous, to boomers who want to believe they’re “part of the solution.” And the pitch is always the same: don’t worry, we’ve got a plan.
But the truth is, the plan is a scam. While Carney lectures Canadians about “climate competitiveness,” his company Brookfield has been buying pipelines. Not small ones. Big ones.
In Canada, Brookfield swallowed Inter Pipeline—Cold Lake, Polaris, Corridor— hundreds of kilometers of pipe moving nearly a million barrels a day out of Alberta. And just this year? They went bigger. Colonial Pipeline in the United States. Five-thousand five-hundred miles of pipe, three million barrels of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel flowing every day from Texas to New Jersey. Brookfield owns it. Mark Carney’s company owns it.
So here’s the question: if pipelines are evil, if oil and gas are killing the planet, why is Mark Carney investing billions in them? Why is he making money hand over fist off the very industry he’s suffocating here at home?
Because it’s a shell game. They’ve brainwashed you into thinking they’re virtuous while they cripple your income, your children’s prosperity, your country’s future. They make it impossible to build here, then they offshore it to China, and sell it back to you at a premium. And if you tried to produce the same thing in Canada? Carney and his GFANZ banker friends would wag their climate-virtuous fingers and shut it down.
It’s all fake. A grift. These people are liars, pure and simple.
Here’s the reality: real progress doesn’t come from more red tape and taxes. It comes from innovation. Twenty years ago a light bulb was 100 watts. Today, the LED equivalent is 13.5 watts. That’s how you build, by making things better, faster, more efficient. Businesses already want that. Efficiency is savings, savings is profit. You don’t need a Liberal lecture for that.
And that’s the choice in the next election. Do we keep letting grifters in Ottawa sell us out to China while pretending they’re saving the planet or do we take our country back?
Canada was built by farmers who fed the world, by workers who laid the tracks, by families who braved the cold because they believed this country was worth it. They didn’t wait for permission from bankers and bureaucrats. They just built.
It’s time we did the same. Build it strong. Truly build Canada first.
This country doesn’t belong to the Laurentian elite.
It doesn’t belong to the lobbyists in Ottawa.
And it sure as hell doesn’t belong to Mark Carney.
It belongs to us… the people who built it, who work it, who love it. True North, strong and free.
I’m an independent Canadian journalist exposing corruption, delivering unfiltered truths and untold stories.
Join me on Substack for fearless reporting that goes beyond headlines
Business
Canada Post is broken beyond repair

This article supplied by Troy Media.
Canada Post is bleeding money and losing relevance. It’s time to open it up to competition
Canada Post is broken. With billions in losses, declining relevance and taxpayer bailouts keeping it afloat, the time has come for serious reform. Germany faced the same challenge and fixed it. Canada should do the same: break the monopoly, open the market and bring the postal service into the modern era.
The numbers are staggering, and getting worse. In 2024, Canada Post posted an $841-million pre-tax deficit. This year, it’s on track to lose even more. In just the second quarter of 2025, the corporation reported a record $407-million loss—its largest ever. Internal forecasts suggest the 2025 deficit will surpass last year’s and set a new record.
That’s a growing burden on taxpayers’ backs, and all it’s buying is slower service, fewer delivery days and higher stamp prices.
Other countries have faced similar breakdowns, and found better solutions. Germany, for instance, transformed its outdated public monopoly into a competitive, efficient system. Canada could follow the same path.
At the heart of Canada’s problem is a business model stuck in the past. Canada Post holds a legal monopoly over first-class mail, meaning only it
can deliver regular letters. But that market has collapsed.
In 2006, Canadians sent a record 5.5 billion letters. Last year, fewer than two billion. Meanwhile, the parcel business is booming; but Canada Post’s market share has plunged from 62 per cent in 2019 to just 24 per cent in 2023.
Germany’s state-run Deutsche Post saw similar declines in relevance and rising inefficiencies in the late 1980s. It tried to cope by hiking stamp prices year after year. Consumers paid more while service continued to deteriorate. Recognizing the model was broken, Germany acted. The government opened parts of the postal market to competition and gradually privatized Deutsche Post, selling off shares over time. By 2008, its monopoly was gone. Today, the German government holds just 16.99 per cent of the company.
The results are striking. German consumers are served by nearly 400 companies offering full postal services, and more than 11,000 offering partial ones. Deutsche Post still leads in letter mail, but competitors keep it sharp. Adjusted for inflation, sending a letter in Germany now costs 10 per cent less than in 1989. In Canada, it costs nearly 50 per cent more. And Germany consistently ranks among Europe’s best in delivery speed.
There’s no reason Canada couldn’t achieve the same results if we’re willing to follow the same playbook. Ottawa could open up Canada Post to investment, allowing workers and Canadians to become shareholders. Postal employees with a stake in the company would be more motivated to root out inefficiencies, because they’d directly benefit from any savings.
At the same time, the government should eliminate Canada Post’s monopoly over letter mail. Letting new competitors enter would drive innovation, improve service and reduce prices. Consumers and small businesses would benefit most.
The world has changed. Canadians no longer rely on letter mail the way they once did. But they still need reliable, affordable delivery. To meet that need—and stop pouring public money into a failing structure—Canada Post must adapt. Market reform isn’t radical. It’s long overdue.
Gabriel Giguère is a senior policy analyst at the Montreal Economic Institute.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Business
Canada can’t allow so many people to say ‘no’ to energy projects

From the Fraser Institute
By Alex Whalen and Matthew D. Mitchell
In a nod to the importance of the energy industry, both the Liberals and Conservatives made promises in the recent election to cut red tape and speed the approval of major energy projects. To that end, the Carney government recently enacted Bill C-5, which gives the prime minister sweeping powers to override existing laws and regulations that might stand in the way of new projects.
While Prime Minister Carney, who continues to say he wants Canada to become an “energy superpower,” has properly diagnosed the problem (i.e. red tape in the approval process), but Bill C-5 is not the solution.
Let’s begin with the problem. In terms of living standards, despite its abundant natural resources and well-educated workforce, Canada has failed to keep up with its peer countries, in part because business investment has collapsed over the past decade due to bad policy including high regulatory burdens in the energy sector.
These regulatory burdens are steep because too many entities have the power to say no to new projects. It’s a tragedy of the anticommons. (The more familiar “tragedy of the commons” arises when too many people can access a commonly owned resource such as a fishery or a forest. Too much access to common resources can lead to overexploitation.)
In contrast, a tragedy of the anticommons arises when too many people can stop others from accessing a resource such as a market. With too many people wielding veto power, resources may be underutilized.
Across Canada, a long list of natural resource projects remain stalled or cancelled. They include pipelines headed west and east, natural gas developments, export terminals and mining opportunities. Again, the problem is that too many groups can say no and scuttle any one project.
For example, the Energy East pipeline. The idea of a west-east pipeline rose to prominence in the early 2010s after the U.S. government put the Keystone XL pipeline on hold. Rather than selling oil at a discount to the Americans, the thought was that oil-producing western provinces could ship oil across the country by pipeline to refineries on the east coast, which are currently forced to import most of their oil from foreign countries due to a lack of pipeline and rail capacity in that part of Canada. But while a west-east pipeline seemed like a no-brainer, several opponents including First Nations and environmental groups urged the federal government and several provincial governments to kill the project. In the midst of this uncertainty, the TransCanada Corporation cancelled the project in 2017.
Fast-forward to today. As Trump’s trade war threatens Canada’s ability to rely on U.S. energy products including oil, the idea of reviving Energy East may be gaining steam. But proponents must first eliminate the tragedy of the anticommons that killed the project eight years ago.
Here’s how the tragedy unfolds. For starters, the project’s proponents must satisfy conditions of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, the federal government’s energy regulator, unless the government uses Bill C-5 to override those conditions. The last time around (under the former National Energy Board), the process was fraught with setbacks.
Second, assuming the project gets past the federal review, it may or may not need the approval of many Indigenous groups. While the Supreme Court has repeatedly said the “duty to consult” these groups does not give them a veto, leading scholars such as Tom Flanagan argue that the power conferred on these groups to delay and create uncertainty creates an effective veto. With Energy East set to cross the traditional territories of approximately 180 different Indigenous groups, any approval process requiring unanimity will kill the project. The Trudeau government’s decision to enshrine the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law in 2021 (and a later federal court decision to apply UNDRIP to the interpretation of Indigenous rights vis-a-vis the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) further complicate the matter.
Third, in addition to the official federal regulatory process and Indigenous consultation, provinces, municipalities and vocal environmental groups can each apply their own brakes.
Writing in the industry publication Energy Regulation Quarterly, researcher Ron Wallace summarized the situation: “When a federation dissolves into narrow definitions of federal, provincial and local government interests, the number of hands in the pot increases the complexity of issues for everyone… The result is a complex, often contradictory and competing web of legislative and regulatory tools whose resolution cannot reasonably be achieved by continuous references to federal courts.”
In a free and democratic society, each of these stakeholders has the right to voice their concerns. But to the extent that these voices become vetoes, they represent an impossible burden for any project to overcome.
Unfortunately, Bill C-5 doesn’t address this problem. Instead of eliminating all veto points, it allows the prime minister to pick and choose which veto points to override and which to enforce. This level of unilateral power courts favouritism and corruption.
If Canada is to truly become an energy superpower it must solve the tragedy of the anticommons. And to do that, it must eliminate all overlapping veto points for all projects. This will be a massive task requiring stern political will. But Canada’s future relies on its ability to produce and transport its own energy.

Matthew D. Mitchell
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Canadian gov’t claims privacy provision in online censorship bill was “accidentally” removed
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
Mic Drop: The Thought Police Are Coming To Take You Away
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Freedom of speech under threat on university campuses in Canada
-
Business2 days ago
Carney engaging in Orwellian doublethink with federal budget rhetoric
-
Business1 day ago
Court’s ‘Aboriginal title’ ruling further damages B.C.’s investment climate
-
Business1 day ago
Manitoba Must Act Now To Develop Its Northern Ports
-
Alberta1 day ago
Ottawa’s destructive federal energy policies and Premier Danielle Smith’s three part solution
-
Crime1 day ago
A Murder That Says So Much About U.S.