Burned cars remain after wildfires in Jasper, Alta. on July 26, 2024.Amber Bracken/Reuters
Martin Olszynski is an associate professor and chair in energy, resources and sustainability at the University of Calgary. Julien O. Beaulieu is a lawyer and doctoral researcher at Imperial College London.
After several bewildering months of aggression and antagonism from the President of the United States, Canadians from coast to coast to coast appear united in their determination to shore up Canada’s sovereignty and economic resilience. Recent polls suggest that many Canadians are also prepared to reconsider policies and infrastructure that previously seemed sacred or taboo, such as carbon pricing or interprovincial pipelines for oil and gas.
And Canada’s political and economic leadership have taken notice. Earlier this year, then Liberal-leadership hopeful and now Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to end the federal consumer carbon price, which he then did shortly after being sworn into office. Within days, Premier David Eby announced the end of the consumer carbon price in British Columbia, the province that gave birth to carbon pricing over 20 years ago. Most recently, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has not only demanded pipelines in every direction but is also calling for the total dismantling of federal climate law and policy: ceasing development of an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector and repealing the Clean Electricity Regulations and the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, to name but a few.
When considering these and other proposals for deregulation, Canadians would do well to keep in mind two commonsense principles. The first, which others have also recently noted, is that there is no such thing as a free lunch; there will be trade-offs with every decision. Second, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Take fossil fuels and climate change. From devastating wildfires to catastrophic floods, fossil-fueled climate change is proving to be every bit as expensive as predicted. The recent Los Angeles fires are already the costliest in U.S. history, with forecasted losses estimated between US$135-billion and as much as US$250-billion. In Canada, damage from natural disasters reached a record $8.5-billion in 2024. Indeed, a recent and sobering study by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (with emphasis on “actuaries”) estimated that the global economy could face a staggering 50-per-cent GDP loss between 2070 and 2090 unless governments adopt new and stronger climate policies.
Governments also clearly have a role to play in helping victims of extreme weather events and rebuild vital infrastructure, as British Columbia had to do when the town of Lytton burned to the ground in the wake of a record-breaking heat dome, and when the Trans-Canada highway was washed out by torrential rivers later that same year. That said, this kind of government intervention is also neither free nor unlimited.
Public spending on climate adaptation and compensation will increasingly strain public finances, and citizens will ultimately pay the price, whether through higher taxes, increased public debt, or reduced services. Meanwhile, after absorbing some of the initial costs, insurance companies have begun pulling out of certain regions and types of coverage. When they stay, severe weather-related claims are putting increasing pressure on premiums, so the costs of climate change are passed on to citizens.
These same commonsense principles apply equally to Canada’s land, air and water, where Canadians not only work but also hike, swim, fish and hunt, and which are home to iconic Canadian species such as polar bears, boreal caribou, and salmon. As recognized by the Alberta government over 15 years ago, these resources are not unlimited; increased resource development will further degrade and fragment them, and the increased competition between land users will inevitably lead to some conflict.
In this context, where Canadians do appear to favour increased development to mitigate the economic effects of U.S. tariffs, our regulatory regimes need to be stronger, not weaker. Canadian history is replete with examples of tragedy in the wake of weak regulation or deregulation, from the Giant Mine in the Northwest Territories to the Lac Megantic rail disaster in Quebec.
While we agree that there is room for improvement and that this task requires more effort and urgency than it has received in recent years, Canadians should be wary of calls to hastily dismantle environmental regulations to primarily further private interests at the expense of public ones.
Donald Trump’s presidency has forced Canada to come to terms with its nationhood. In responding to this threat, Canadians would do well to remember what it is that makes Canada the envy of the world, and not rush to liquidate it in some misguided race to the bottom.