Connect with us

Economy

Ottawa should follow Britain and tap the brakes on ‘net zero’

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

 

In a recent speech, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak put a dent in the façade of the global “net zero” greenhouse gas emission agenda—that is, the idea that countries will emit no more greenhouse gases (such as CO2 and methane) into the air than are taken back out and “sequestered” in some form that won’t increase atmospheric heating. The net zero framework has subsumed virtually all energy, environment and natural resource policies in many countries including Canada.

Sunak did not reject net zero, but he clearly took his foot off the gas and started tapping the brake, acknowledging that people are not happy with the way it’s playing out: “We seem to have defaulted to an approach which will impose unacceptable costs on hard-pressed British families. Costs that no one was ever told about, and which may not actually be necessary to deliver the emissions reduction that we need.”

And Sunak extended some timelines in the United Kingdom’s net zero program. His government increased the deadline for ceasing sales of new internal combustion vehicles from 2030 to 2035. And rather than phasing out the sale of all gas boilers by 2035, the U.K. will phase out 80 percent of them by that date. The government will also now not require homeowners and landlords to meet various energy efficiency guidelines. Small changes to a large program, but a pioneering move away from today’s net zero timelines.

Here at home, Canadians also labour under the economic impacts of the Trudeau government’s net zero zeal. Canada’s carbon tax, a key net zero pillar, slated to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030, will put the hurt on Canadian households well in excess of the rebates given out by Ottawa. And a $170-per tonne carbon tax will cause the economy to shrink by about 1.8 per cent, causing a permanent loss of nearly 185,000 jobs and reducing real incomes in every province.

Similarly, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 60 per cent of households in Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba—the four provinces where the federal carbon tax applies—will pay more in carbon taxes than they get in rebates. By 2030, 80 per cent of households in Ontario and Alberta will be worse off and 60 per cent will be worse off in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Of course, the cost impacts of Canada’s net zero plan will likely expand well beyond the carbon tax, with emission caps on Canada’s oil and gas sector, a net zero goal for Canadian waste management, ambitious (some would say impossible) mandates to electrify transportation in Canada, new “Clean Electricity Regulations” that will raise the cost of electricity, energy-efficient construction standards that can only further increase the already insane costs of housing and commercial property development in Canada, and possible restrictions on agricultural use of fertilizers that could raise Canadian food prices beyond even today’s outrageous levels.

Sunak’s net zero slowdown is not exactly the stuff of Brexit, but it may be a harbinger of things to come for other countries shaking under the weight of their own net zero ambitions. Most importantly, it’s a precedent other governments can invoke to justify adjusting their own destructive net zero programs. The Trudeau government would do well to follow Sunak’s lead and reduce net zero targets, soften timelines, remove regulatory burdens, and generally reform the policy before the full brunt of the economic impact throws more Canadian households into the red.

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

Business

Canada Hits the Brakes on Population

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

The population drops for the first time in years, exposing an economy built on temporary residents, tuition cash, and government debt rather than real productivity

Canadians have been told for years that population decline was unthinkable, that it was an economic death spiral, that only mass immigration could save us. That was the line. Now the numbers are in, and suddenly the people who said that are very quiet.

Statistics Canada reports that between July 1 and October 1, 2025, Canada’s population fell by 76,068 people, a decline of 0.2 percent, bringing the total population to 41,575,585. This is not a rounding error. It is not a model projection. It is an official quarterly population loss, outside the COVID period, confirmed by the federal government’s own data

The reason matters. This did not happen because Canadians suddenly stopped having children or because of a natural disaster. It happened because the number of non‑permanent residents dropped by 176,479 people in a single quarter, the largest quarterly decline since comparable records began in 1971. Permit expirations outpaced new permits by more than two to one. Outflows totaled 339,505, while inflows were just 163,026

That is the so‑called growth engine shutting down.

Permanent immigration continued at roughly the same pace as before. Canada admitted 102,867 permanent immigrants in the quarter, consistent with recent levels. Births minus deaths added another 17,600 people. None of that was enough to offset the collapse in temporary residency. Net international migration overall was negative, at minus 93,668

And here’s the part you’re not supposed to say out loud. For the Liberal‑NDP government, this is bad news. Their entire economic story has rested on population‑driven GDP growth, not productivity. Add more people, claim the economy is growing, borrow more money, and run the national credit card a little harder. When population growth reverses, that illusion collapses. GDP per capita does not magically improve. Housing shortages do not disappear. The math just stops working.

The regional numbers make that clear. Ontario’s population fell by 0.4 percent in the quarter. British Columbia fell by 0.3 percent. Every province and territory lost population except Alberta and Nunavut, and even Alberta’s growth was just 0.2 percent, its weakest since the border‑closure period of 2021

Now watch who starts complaining first. Universities are already bracing for it. Study permit holders alone fell by 73,682 people in three months, with Ontario losing 47,511 and British Columbia losing 14,291. These are the provinces with the largest university systems and the highest dependence on international tuition revenue

You’re going to hear administrators and activists say this is a crisis. What they mean is that fewer students are paying international tuition to subsidize bloated campuses and programs that produce no measurable economic value. When the pool of non‑permanent residents shrinks, departments that exist purely because enrollment was artificially inflated start to disappear. That’s not mysterious. That’s arithmetic.

For years, Canadians were told that any slowdown in population growth was dangerous. The truth is more uncomfortable. What’s dangerous is building a national economic model on temporary residents, borrowed money, and headline GDP numbers while productivity stagnates. The latest StatsCan release doesn’t just show a population decline. It shows how fragile the story really was, and how quickly it unravels when the numbers stop being padded.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

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
Continue Reading

Business

White House declares inflation era OVER after shock report

Published on

MXM logo MxM News 

The White House on Thursday declared a decisive turn in the inflation fight, pointing to new data showing core inflation has fallen to its lowest level in nearly five years — a milestone the administration says validates President Donald Trump’s economic reset after inheriting what it calls a historic cost-of-living crisis from the Biden era. In a statement accompanying the report, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said inflation “came in far lower than market expectations,” drawing a sharp contrast with the 9 percent peak under President Joe Biden and arguing the numbers reflect sustained relief for American households. “Core inflation is at a new multi-year low, as prices for groceries, medicine, gas, airfare, car rentals, and hotels keep falling,” Leavitt said, adding that lower prices and rising paychecks are expected to continue into the new year.

According to the White House, core inflation — widely viewed by economists as the most reliable gauge because it strips out volatile food and energy costs — is now down roughly 70 percent from its Biden-era high. Officials noted that if inflation continues at the pace of the last two months, it would be running at an annualized rate of about 1.2 percent, well below the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target. The report also highlighted broad-based price moderation across consumer staples and services, with declines in groceries, dairy, fruits and vegetables, prescription drugs, clothing, airfares, natural gas, car and truck rentals, and hotel prices. Average gas prices have fallen to multi-year lows, while rent inflation has dropped to its lowest level since October 2021, a shift the administration attributes in part to tougher enforcement against illegal immigration and reduced pressure on housing demand.

Wages, the White House says, are rising alongside easing prices. Private-sector workers are on track to see real wages increase by about $1,300 in President Trump’s first full year back in office, clawing back purchasing power lost during the inflation surge of the previous administration. Gains are strongest among blue-collar workers, with annualized real earnings up roughly $1,800 for construction workers and $1,600 for manufacturing employees. Administration officials also took aim at critics who warned Trump’s tariff policies would reignite inflation, arguing the data shows no demonstrable inflationary impact despite repeated predictions from Wall Street and academic economists.

Even commentators across the media spectrum acknowledged the strength of the report. CNBC’s Steve Liesman called it “a very good number,” while CNN’s Matt Egan said it was “another step in the right direction.” Harvard economist Ken Rogoff described the reading as “a better number than anyone was expecting,” adding, “There’s no other way to spin it.” Bloomberg’s Chris Anstey noted the figure came in two-tenths below the lowest estimate in a survey of 62 economists, calling it “remarkable,” while The Washington Post’s Andrew Ackerman wrote that inflation “cooled unexpectedly,” easing pressure on household budgets.

For the White House, the message was blunt: the inflation era is over. Officials framed Thursday’s report as proof that Trump has followed through on his promise to defeat the cost-of-living crisis he inherited, laying what they called the groundwork for a strong year ahead. As the president told the nation this week, the administration insists the progress is real — and that, in his words, the best is yet to come.

Continue Reading

Trending

X