Medic Minutes With Greg September 2026

Building a Better at Home Community

I’m excited to announce that I have been meeting with the coordinator of a fantastic volunteer-based organization called Better At Home.

This group provides a variety of non-medical home support services to community members. There is no cost to use the service as it is funded by United Way and run by volunteers.

It is my hope that we can start a local Sayward Chapter of Better at Home and so I’m looking for volunteers!

Please consult the Better At Home information in this month’s edition of the Go Sayward Scoop to see if you’d be interested in helping with any of the activities listed.

You don’t need any particular set of skills, even just the willingness to sit with someone and visit for a while is very valuable.

If you are interested in learning more, please call, text or email me at:

250-201-7539

CP.Sayward@BCEHS.ca

Gregory Litschke

Heritage Hall Happenings September 2026

What’s going on in September 2026

Hello everyone! Here’s what’s happening at Heritage Hall this September— we’d love to see you.

Saturday Market: Every Saturday from 10am to 1pm. The kitchen will be open for grilled hotdogs, waffles and other yummy food! Table rental is just $5! Just show up and set up! VIHA rules apply for all vendors. Coordinator can provide copies of rules upon request.

Sayward Helping Hands: Every Tuesday at 10am. Bring your sewing, knitting, or other craft projects. Just $2 to drop-in, everyone welcome.

Monthly Meeting: October 13th at 7pm. All events are subject to change. Thanks for supporting Heritage Hall and our community, we hope to see you soon!

Location: 1257 Sayward Road
Phone Number: 250.282.0192
Email: Heritagehallscra@gmail.com

Local Business Highlight – Advanced Builders

Advanced Builders is a diversified construction and general contracting company serving residential and commercial projects locally and across the North Island.

The company offers services covering the construction process from pre-construction planning and contract administration to construction, renovation and restoration.

Advanced Builders says its approach allows clients to work with a coordinated team throughout a project, with a focus on timely completion, cost-effective execution and quality control.

The company brings together experienced professionals and specialized teams from across the construction industry, working collaboratively through the design and building process.

For Advanced Builders, construction is about more than the physical structure. The company emphasizes collaboration with employees, clients and local communities, viewing strong working relationships as an important part of every project.

Building trust is also a stated priority, with the company emphasizing honesty, safety and accountability in its relationships with clients and partners.

Advanced Builders also says it looks for intelligent and more sustainable approaches to construction wherever possible.

With experience spanning new construction, renovations and restoration, the company provides services for a range of residential, commercial and historical projects across the North Island.

For property owners, businesses and organizations in communities such as Sayward, the company offers a local option for managing construction projects from planning through completion.

Visit www.Advanced-Builders.ca for more info.

Campfire Ban Lifted Across Vancouver Island, But Some Local Restrictions Remain

VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C. — Campfires are once again permitted across the Coastal Fire Centre as wildfire conditions improve, but residents and visitors are being reminded that the lifting of the provincial ban does not necessarily mean every community has reopened outdoor burning.

The BC Wildfire Service lifted its Category 1 campfire prohibition at noon on Thursday, September 3, covering the entire Coastal Fire Centre, including Vancouver Island. The decision follows recent rainfall and cooler fall conditions that have reduced wildfire danger across much of the region.

The change will come as welcome news to campers and residents hoping to enjoy a late-season fire.

Campfires are allowed — but bigger fires aren’t

While Category 1 campfires are now permitted under the Coastal Fire Centre’s rules, Category 2 and Category 3 open fires remain prohibited throughout the region, with the exception of the Haida Gwaii Forest District.

Other prohibited activities and equipment include:

  • Fireworks

  • Binary exploding targets

  • Burn barrels and burn cages

  • Controlled-air incinerators

  • Air curtain burners

  • Carbonizers

The restrictions are intended to limit the potential for human-caused wildfires as B.C. moves into the fall season.

Local fire bans can still apply

The provincial announcement does not override restrictions imposed by individual municipalities, parks or other authorities.

That distinction is particularly important on Vancouver Island, where fire conditions can vary considerably from one community to another.

For example, Sooke’s campfire prohibition remains in effect despite the Coastal Fire Centre lifting its Category 1 restriction. The District says local fire danger remains high to extreme and that recent rainfall was not sufficient to reduce the risk enough to lift its municipal prohibition.

Metchosin has also kept its local campfire prohibition in place because of continued high to extreme fire danger.

Residents should therefore check their local fire department or municipal website before starting a fire.

What about Campbell River and North Island communities?

In Campbell River, recreational fires are permitted subject to the city’s local regulations.

The city’s rules allow recreational fires for cooking or providing heat when they are contained in an approved permanent outdoor fireplace, barbecue or fire pit no larger than 60 centimetres (24 inches) in diameter, or in a fully enclosed burner or similar device. A fire must be supervised and appropriate extinguishing equipment must be readily available.

Category 2 and Category 3 open fires remain prohibited.

The same principle applies throughout the North Island: provincial restrictions are only part of the picture. Local governments can impose additional restrictions when conditions in their communities warrant them.

Fire safety remains important

The end of the campfire prohibition does not mean wildfire season is necessarily over.

BC Wildfire Service says the decline in fire danger is the result of a combination of recent rainfall, shorter days, longer nights and cooler temperatures. However, officials continue to encourage caution whenever people use an outdoor fire.

Anyone having a campfire should:

  • Never leave it unattended

  • Avoid having a fire during windy conditions

  • Keep water and firefighting tools nearby

  • Keep the fire contained

  • Completely extinguish it before leaving

  • Check for any local restrictions before lighting it

A fire should be completely out and cool to the touch before it is left unattended.

Significant penalties remain for prohibited fires

The consequences for violating an active fire prohibition can be substantial.

A person found contravening an open-burning prohibition can receive a $1,150 violation ticket and may face an administrative penalty of up to $10,000.

If the matter goes to court, a conviction can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and/or up to one year in jail. Anyone whose prohibited fire causes or contributes to a wildfire may also be ordered to pay firefighting and associated costs.

Check before you light

For people across Vancouver Island, the return of campfires is a welcome sign that conditions are beginning to shift toward fall.

But the rules can differ between communities, and conditions can change quickly.

Before lighting a fire, residents should check the latest BC Wildfire Service restrictions as well as local municipal or fire-department rules for their specific location.

Wildfires, unattended campfires and open-burning violations can be reported to 1-800-663-5555 or *5555 from a cellphone.

BC Tax Expansion Faces Growing Opposition as October 1st Deadline Nears

New Leger poll finds two-thirds of British Columbians want planned PST expansion cancelled, while businesses warn of higher costs and a legislative committee calls for repeal

British Columbia’s planned expansion of the provincial sales tax is facing mounting opposition from taxpayers, businesses, industry organizations and a multi-party legislative committee, with the new tax rules scheduled to take effect October 1.

A new Leger poll commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) found that 66 per cent of British Columbians want the provincial government to cancel the expansion, compared with 15 per cent who support proceeding with it. Another 19 per cent were undecided. Among respondents who expressed an opinion, 82 per cent favoured cancelling the changes.

The polling comes less than two months before the expanded tax is scheduled to take effect and shortly after the B.C. legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended that the government repeal the planned expansion.

Despite the recommendation, Finance Minister Brenda Bailey has said the government intends to proceed.

What is changing October 1?

The B.C. government’s 2026 budget expands the province’s 7 per cent PST to several professional and commercial services that have historically been exempt.

Beginning October 1, PST will generally apply to:

  • Accounting and bookkeeping services
  • Architectural services
  • Engineering and geoscience services
  • Security and private investigation services
  • Non-residential real estate services, including certain property and strata management services

There are special rules for architectural, engineering and geoscience services. Rather than applying the 7 per cent tax to the entire purchase price, PST generally applies to 30 per cent of the value, producing an effective tax rate of 2.1 per cent on those services.

The province is also removing or narrowing some existing exemptions affecting products and services including clothing repair materials, clothing and footwear-related services, basic cable television and landline telephone services.

The government says the changes bring B.C.’s tax treatment more closely into line with other provinces.

Poll shows broad opposition

The Leger survey commissioned by the CTF suggests opposition is not concentrated in one particular political, demographic or geographic group.

According to the CTF, opponents of the expansion form a majority across gender, age and regional categories.

Vancouver Island residents, women and British Columbians aged 55 and older recorded the strongest opposition, according to the organization’s release.

The headline results were:

ResponseBritish Columbians
Cancel the PST expansion66%
Proceed with the expansion15%
Unsure19%

Because the poll was commissioned by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the results should be understood as commissioned polling rather than a government survey. Nevertheless, the findings add another data point to a debate that has already generated significant opposition from business organizations.

Businesses have been warning about higher prices

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted its own survey earlier this year involving 439 B.C. business owners.

The February survey found that 80 per cent of respondents opposed expanding the 7 per cent PST to professional services.

Even more significantly, 72 per cent said they were likely to pass some or all of the additional tax costs on to customers.

The CFIB said accounting and bookkeeping services were identified as the professional services most likely to negatively affect small businesses, followed by property management, security and architectural, engineering and geoscience services.

The implication is straightforward: while the tax may technically be charged to a business purchasing a service, the eventual economic cost can be distributed through the broader economy.

A business paying PST on accounting, security, engineering or property-management services may incorporate those additional expenses into its operating costs, potentially affecting prices charged to customers.

Security services become taxable

The inclusion of security services has generated particular criticism from businesses in communities dealing with property crime.

The Business Improvement Areas of B.C. has argued that the expansion effectively taxes businesses for purchasing security services they increasingly consider necessary to protect employees, customers and property.

In Kelowna, local business representatives told Global News that businesses were already spending heavily on security because of repeated property crime and other safety concerns.

That creates an unusual policy tension: governments and communities encourage businesses to invest in security, while the provincial tax system is simultaneously adding a 7 per cent tax to many of those services.

The issue has become one of the central arguments made by opponents of the expansion.

Business groups launch “Stop the Squeeze” campaign

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has organized a campaign called Stop the Squeeze, arguing that the tax expansion will increase the cost of doing business at a time when B.C. companies are already facing high operating costs.

The organization says the expanded PST could affect the cost of building homes, operating businesses, maintaining security and attracting investment.

The campaign has attracted support from a wider coalition of business organizations.

The Business Council of British Columbia has also called for the expansion to be scrapped, arguing that the tax increases input costs and could weaken B.C.’s competitive position.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has taken a similar position, while advocating for a longer-term move toward a value-added tax system rather than expanding the existing PST.

Why businesses object to the PST structure

One of the more technical arguments against the expansion involves the way B.C.’s PST works.

Unlike a value-added tax such as the GST/HST, the PST generally does not provide businesses with broad input-tax credits.

That means taxes paid on business inputs can become part of the cost of producing another good or service.

The Business Council of B.C. argues this can cause taxation to compound through supply chains and contribute to higher effective costs for investment.

The B.C. Chamber has made a similar argument, saying the province should consider moving toward a value-added tax with input tax credits rather than expanding the current PST.

The distinction is important because opponents aren’t necessarily arguing that sales taxes should never apply to professional services.

Some are instead arguing that the structure of the tax is the problem.

Accountants warn of implementation complications

The accounting profession has also raised concerns about how the new rules will work.

The Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia says the final regulations released in July provided additional clarity regarding issues such as multi-jurisdictional work, corporate-group services and resale arrangements.

Under the new rules, accounting services performed in B.C. will generally become subject to the 7 per cent PST unless a specific exemption applies.

CPABC has advocated for longer-term sales-tax modernization, including consideration of a value-added tax model with general input tax credits.

That position is significant because it demonstrates that opposition to the government’s approach extends beyond organizations that simply oppose taxation.

Some professional organizations are instead arguing for a different tax structure that they believe would be less distortive.

Housing industry joins the opposition

The B.C. real estate industry has also warned that expanding the PST could work against the province’s housing objectives.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association recommended that the province not proceed with the PST expansion, arguing that taxation policy can affect the financial viability of development projects and ultimately the pace at which new housing reaches the market.

This adds another dimension to the debate.

The province is simultaneously attempting to increase housing supply while imposing additional taxes on some of the professional services involved in developing and managing that housing.

Architects, engineers, property managers and other professionals can all play a role in construction and development projects.

Critics argue that additional taxes on those inputs could ultimately become another cost incorporated into development budgets.

Legislative committee calls for repeal

Perhaps the most politically significant development came from the B.C. legislature’s Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Following its 2027 budget consultation, the multi-party committee recommended that the provincial government repeal the planned PST expansion to professional services.

The committee’s recommendation was framed partly around simplifying and streamlining the province’s taxation system.

The committee includes MLAs from government and opposition parties, making the recommendation notable even though it does not itself force the government to change policy.

The recommendation was welcomed by organizations including the CFIB and Greater Vancouver Board of Trade.

Ottawa isn’t responsible for this tax

The debate is entirely provincial.

The PST is administered by the Government of British Columbia, not Ottawa.

The upcoming changes were included in B.C.’s 2026 budget and are being implemented through provincial tax legislation and regulations.

That distinction matters because the argument over the expansion is ultimately about how the B.C. government chooses to raise revenue and structure its tax system.

The government’s case

The B.C. government has defended the expansion as part of its broader approach to taxation and public services.

The province says expanding PST to professional services generally brings B.C. more closely into line with how other provinces treat those services.

The government is also dealing with a significant fiscal challenge.

B.C.’s 2026 budget projected a $13.3-billion deficit for 2026-27, while the new tax measures are expected to generate approximately $1.4 billion over three years, according to government figures reported in connection with the budget.

The government’s argument is that additional revenue is necessary to help maintain core public services, including health care and education.

Finance Minister Brenda Bailey has indicated that the government is not planning to reverse the expansion, despite the legislative committee’s recommendation.

That puts the government directly at odds with both the committee recommendation and several major business organizations.

A $1.5-billion tax question

The CTF estimates that the PST expansion will cost British Columbians nearly $1.5 billion over three years, while government budget reporting has put the expected revenue at approximately $1.4 billion over the same period.

The difference illustrates one of the fundamental disagreements in the debate.

The province views the expansion primarily as a source of revenue.

Opponents view it as a cost that will be absorbed by businesses, consumers and the broader economy.

Both can occur simultaneously: government can collect additional revenue while businesses and households bear additional costs.

The economic question is therefore what happens to that money after it moves through the tax system—and whether the resulting public-service benefits outweigh the economic costs associated with higher prices and business inputs.

October 1 deadline approaches

With the implementation date now less than a month away, businesses providing or purchasing affected services are preparing for the changes.

The province has released detailed guidance covering accounting, architectural, engineering and geoscience, security and non-residential real estate services.

Businesses affected by the changes may need to determine whether they must register for PST, collect the tax, remit it to the province or self-assess tax on certain purchases.

That makes the issue more than a political debate.

For affected businesses, the October 1 date represents a concrete change to invoices, accounting systems and operating costs.

The larger issue: how should B.C. tax business?

The disagreement over the PST expansion ultimately goes beyond the individual services being taxed.

It raises a broader question about how British Columbia should structure its tax system while attempting to improve productivity, increase housing supply, attract investment and maintain public services.

The CTF says the answer is to cancel the expansion.

Business groups have called for its repeal and, in some cases, a longer-term transition toward a value-added tax.

The B.C. government argues the expansion broadens the tax base and provides revenue for essential public services.

Meanwhile, the province’s own multi-party finance committee has recommended that the expansion be repealed.

And according to the new Leger poll commissioned by the CTF, 66 per cent of British Columbians surveyed want the government to cancel the changes, compared with 15 per cent who want them to proceed.

Unless the government changes course, however, the new rules remain scheduled to take effect October 1, 2026.

For British Columbians, the debate is now moving from whether the tax expansion is a good idea to a much more immediate question:

Will the province proceed with a tax increase that its own legislative finance committee has recommended cancelling, despite growing opposition from taxpayers and the business community?

Industrial Carbon Pricing Becomes New Flashpoint in Canada’s Competitiveness Debate

Ontario Premier Doug Ford and business leaders are calling for changes as Ottawa prepares to reshape Canada’s industrial carbon-pricing system

A growing debate over Canada’s industrial carbon-pricing system is putting Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government under pressure to reconsider how large industrial emitters are charged for greenhouse-gas emissions.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has called on Ottawa to eliminate the industrial carbon tax, arguing that Canadian companies already facing U.S. tariffs should not be carrying additional regulatory costs that their American competitors do not face.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has joined Ford in calling for the federal government to scrap the system, while executives in Canada’s oil and gas sector have also warned that industrial carbon costs could weaken the country’s ability to compete for investment.

The issue is becoming increasingly significant as Canada attempts to attract new investment, expand resource exports and respond to a more protectionist American trading environment.

Ford calls for Ottawa to eliminate the industrial levy

Ford’s latest call came as Canada confronts increased trade pressure from the United States.

The Ontario premier argued that Ottawa should eliminate the industrial carbon tax and other federal measures that increase costs for Canadian manufacturers and resource companies.

“We need to help our businesses compete and close the gap created by these new tariffs,” Ford said.

He has also called for exemptions from federal emissions requirements for sectors affected by U.S. tariffs.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation subsequently urged Carney to act on Ford’s recommendation.

Gage Haubrich, the organization’s Prairie director, argued that industrial carbon costs make it more difficult for Canadian companies to compete with businesses operating in jurisdictions without comparable national carbon-pricing requirements.

Canada does not have one single industrial carbon tax

The terminology surrounding the issue can be confusing.

Canada’s consumer-facing federal fuel charge was eliminated earlier this year, but industrial carbon pricing remains in place.

The federal government describes its industrial system as the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS). Provinces and territories can operate their own systems as long as they meet federal minimum standards.

Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, for example, operate provincial industrial carbon-pricing systems, while the federal OBPS applies in several other jurisdictions. Quebec operates a cap-and-trade system.

Under an output-based system, facilities are generally measured against emissions-intensity standards rather than simply paying a tax on every tonne of emissions.

Facilities that perform better than their applicable standard can generate credits, while facilities that exceed the standard face compliance costs.

Ottawa says the system is deliberately structured this way to reduce the risk that businesses move production to countries with weaker environmental requirements—a phenomenon known as carbon leakage.

Ottawa is actually planning a higher industrial carbon-price trajectory

The debate comes at an important moment because the federal government recently changed the long-term industrial carbon-price trajectory.

As of May 15, 2026, Ottawa’s headline trajectory is:

  • $95 per tonne in 2026
  • $100 in 2027
  • $100 in 2028
  • $100 in 2029
  • $115 in 2030
  • $130 in 2035
  • $140 by 2040

The government says the longer-term trajectory is intended to provide businesses with greater certainty for major decarbonization investments.

That creates a central point of disagreement.

Critics see the increasing carbon price as an additional cost that can discourage investment in Canada.

The federal government argues that predictable carbon markets encourage companies to invest in lower-emission technologies while protecting them from the much larger risk of losing markets or investment to jurisdictions with weaker climate policies.

Energy executives say competitiveness is already a problem

The concern isn’t limited to taxpayer advocates or politicians.

In April, Canadian oil and gas executives publicly criticized industrial carbon pricing at the 2026 BMO CAPP Energy Symposium.

Lisa Baiton, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, argued that Canada is imposing costs on producers at a time when global energy security is becoming increasingly important.

Cenovus Energy CEO Jon McKenzie was even more direct, arguing that the industrial levy represents an incremental cost that makes Canadian production less competitive internationally.

McKenzie said the policy could ultimately encourage production to come from countries outside Canada rather than encouraging additional Canadian investment.

The concerns come as Canada is simultaneously attempting to increase energy exports and develop additional pipeline capacity to reach markets outside the United States.

A Fraser Institute study raises similar concerns

A June study from the Fraser Institute examined the competitiveness of Alberta’s energy sector relative to U.S. jurisdictions.

The study, authored by University of Calgary economist Jack Mintz, examined the impact of industrial carbon policies and carbon-capture requirements on the cost of producing oil, natural gas and electricity.

It concluded that the combination of the policies could increase Alberta’s marginal production costs and make the province less attractive for investment compared with energy-producing U.S. states.

The Fraser Institute has also argued more broadly that Canada needs to remove policies that discourage private-sector investment if it wants to improve productivity, job creation and living standards.

Those conclusions are consistent with the broader competitiveness concerns being raised by industry groups, although the Fraser Institute is a policy think tank rather than a government regulator.

But not every industry wants the system scrapped

There is an important counterpoint.

The Canadian Cement Association, representing a highly emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industry, told a House of Commons committee in April that it supports well-designed industrial carbon pricing.

The association nevertheless said the existing system isn’t working as well as it should.

One of its biggest concerns is fragmentation.

Canadian industrial operators can face different carbon-pricing regimes depending on the province where they operate. The Cement Association said its members operate under five different provincial pricing regimes, each with different rules, benchmarks and compliance markets.

That suggests the debate isn’t necessarily as simple as “carbon tax versus no carbon tax.”

For some businesses, the greater concern may be how the system is designed, how predictable it is and whether Canadian companies face comparable costs to international competitors.

Fertilizer industry warns of billions in carbon costs

Canada’s fertilizer industry has raised similar competitiveness concerns.

Nadine Frost of Fertilizer Canada told the House environment committee that fertilizer producers face a disproportionate regulatory burden because they are both emissions-intensive and heavily exposed to international competition.

A Fertilizer Canada study conducted with PwC estimated that the industry’s cumulative carbon-pricing costs could reach $1.32 billion between 2025 and 2030.

Frost said almost 60 per cent of the industry’s carbon-pricing burden comes from indirect costs associated with energy, electricity and transportation inputs.

For an industry selling into global commodity markets, the concern is that Canadian producers have limited ability to simply raise prices to recover those costs.

The government’s argument: industrial pricing is different from the old consumer carbon charge

Ottawa rejects the idea that industrial carbon pricing is simply another consumer tax.

The federal government says its industrial system is specifically designed to protect competitiveness.

Under the OBPS, companies are not required to pay the headline carbon price on every tonne they emit. Instead, facilities are assessed against emissions-intensity standards, with credits and compliance mechanisms designed to reward better-performing facilities.

The government also says money collected through federal industrial carbon pricing is returned to the provinces and territories where it was collected, with proceeds supporting emissions reductions and clean-technology investments.

The Canadian Climate Institute makes a similar argument, saying industrial carbon pricing can reduce emissions while having little effect on household consumption.

Its research estimates that industrial carbon pricing had an impact of approximately zero per cent on household consumption in 2025.

Other researchers say the system needs fixing—not necessarily eliminating

The C.D. Howe Institute has taken a different position from both the government’s defence of the existing system and calls for its abolition.

A March 2026 analysis argued that Canada’s industrial carbon-pricing benchmark has weaknesses involving transparency, consistency and the operation of provincial credit markets.

The institute proposed a minimum price floor for carbon credits as one possible way of creating greater certainty while maintaining industrial carbon pricing.

A separate review commissioned by the International Institute for Sustainable Development reached a similar broad conclusion: Canada’s industrial carbon-pricing systems have helped reduce emissions and attract decarbonization investment, but several systems have experienced credit oversupply and other design problems that can weaken incentives for investment.

That puts another option on the table—reforming the system rather than eliminating it outright.

The Alberta pipeline question

The industrial carbon debate is also becoming intertwined with Canada’s effort to build new energy infrastructure.

The federal government and Alberta have agreed to a framework for a proposed new West Coast pipeline, while Alberta has been seeking changes to the regulatory and economic conditions surrounding energy development.

The economics of that project remain closely connected to the ability of Canadian producers to increase output and compete for investment.

Cenovus CEO Jon McKenzie has warned that Canada’s regulatory framework and industrial carbon costs could make the proposed pipeline difficult to finance privately unless production economics improve. Reuters reported in June that McKenzie described the proposed one-million-barrel-per-day pipeline as currently “unfinanceable” under the existing regulatory regime.

The argument from industry is straightforward: building export infrastructure only makes sense if companies believe they can produce enough additional energy profitably to use it.

A competitiveness debate with no easy answer

The argument over industrial carbon pricing increasingly reflects two competing economic priorities.

Critics argue Canada cannot afford to impose additional costs on industries competing directly with producers in the United States and other countries that have different environmental requirements.

They point to oil and gas, steel, fertilizer, mining and manufacturing as industries where investment can move across borders.

The federal government and supporters of industrial carbon pricing argue that abandoning the system could undermine emissions-reduction efforts and make Canada less competitive in a global economy increasingly influenced by carbon standards and border measures.

They also argue that properly designed industrial pricing systems can encourage companies to reduce emissions while limiting the costs imposed on trade-exposed industries.

The question facing Carney

For Prime Minister Mark Carney, the challenge is balancing two objectives that are increasingly difficult to separate: making Canada a more attractive place to invest while continuing to push industrial emissions downward.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Ford want Ottawa to eliminate industrial carbon pricing.

Industry groups such as the Canadian Cement Association are calling for a system that works better across provincial boundaries.

Economists and policy researchers have proposed reforms to make carbon markets more predictable and functional.

And the federal government maintains that industrial carbon pricing is an important part of Canada’s economic and environmental strategy.

With Canada’s trade relationship with the United States under pressure and Ottawa attempting to accelerate major resource and infrastructure projects, the issue is unlikely to disappear.

The debate is now less about whether Canada needs to address industrial emissions and increasingly about how much those efforts should cost Canadian businesses—and whether the current system is helping or hurting the country’s ability to compete.


Sources and additional reading

Editorial note: The article distinguishes between the positions of advocacy organizations, industry groups, researchers and the federal government. Claims about the economic effects of industrial carbon pricing are attributed to the organizations or studies making them rather than presented as settled fact.