OTTAWA — Ottawa’s fiscal watchdog says there’s a “low probability” that the Carney government will reach any of the three targets that it has referred to as its fiscal anchors, just months after establishing those key long-term benchmarks.

Jason Jacques, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), told a parliamentary committee Thursday that there’s only a 7.5 per cent chance that the government, for example, will hit its target of reducing Canada’s deficit-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio over each of the next few years.

“Based on the analysis we’ve conducted, there is a low probability of respecting the fiscal anchors the government has set out for itself,” Jacques told the House of Commons’ Government Operations and Estimates Committee, following a question from Conservative MP Philip Lawrence.

The Carney government had earlier established three fiscal targets or anchors: balancing the operating budget within three years, a declining deficit-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio over the next few years and a declining debt-to-GDP ratio over the next few years.

The government’s first budget, released on Nov. 4, dropped the third of those targets.

John Fragos, a spokesperson for Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne, said the government’s plan is to cut operational areas such as the public service, while increasing spending in pro-growth investments such as infrastructure for the energy, AI and critical mineral industries.

“The government’s fiscal anchors reflect the balance between fiscal prudence and the macroeconomic reality,” Fragos said in a statement.

Jacques’s comments are the latest to criticize the Carney government’s fiscal policy in recent months. In his first few weeks on the job, Jacques has described the government’s spending as “stupefying,” “shocking” and “unsustainable.”

The PBO, an independent officer who scrutinizes government raising and spending of tax dollars, also criticized the federal government last week in a report for using an “overly expansive” definition of investments that will help the Carney government hit its first fiscal target. That move, the PBO said, shifts about $94 billion in daily spending over the next five years to the more palatable capital side of the ledger.

Capital spending includes many items that are physical assets such as infrastructure, housing, military equipment and even software that are often seen as “investments.” Some capital spending, such as spending on ports, rail and other transportation routes that are designed to make exports more efficient, can boost productivity and the economy.

Jacques’s report said the government’s inclusion of such items as corporate income tax expenditures, investment tax credits and operating subsidies should not be considered capital spending. “The government’s definition of capital investment is too broad.”

The Carney government’s first budget marked the first time that Ottawa separated capital and operational or day-to-day spending. The accounting move has its defenders, but critics say it could lead to more spending.

The budget projected an average deficit of $64.3 billion between this fiscal year and 2029-30, more than double what was projected about a year ago in the 2024 fall economic statement. It also forecast a deficit this year of $78.3 billion, the third-highest in Canadian history and the largest ever in a non-pandemic year. The Carney government’s forecast calls for modest dips in the annual deficit over each of the next four years, although the cumulative effect will be another $320 million of new debt before the end of the decade.

Ottawa has now accumulated $1.27 trillion in debt, almost half of which has been added over the last five years. With the budget’s updated forecast for this fiscal year, the government is now on pace to amass $593.1 billion in debt over that five-year span, or 46.7 per cent of the total debt accumulated in Canadian history.

The federal government also said this week that it intends to hire a permanent PBO. Jacques, a veteran of the PBO office, has been filling the position on an interim basis since September.

National Post

• Feds to remove rule that companies must back up climate claims with ‘internationally recognized’ policy
• Debate around lifting oil tanker ban to be ‘contentious,’ warns Liberal MP, as Ottawa negotiates with Alberta

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

OTTAWA

— Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government is proposing to scrub the law targeting companies making environmental claims by removing the requirement that the evidence they present
must be based on “internationally recognized
” policy. 

Changes to the so-called greenwashing provisions introduced under former prime minister Justin Trudeau were announced in the Nov. 4 federal budget, with details about how outlined in the recently tabled budget bill.

The government said in the budget that changes were needed to address what it said was “investment uncertainty,” and comes as Carney looks to attract billions more in private sector investment through fast-tracking natural resource development.

Carney’s first budget promised to remove parts of changes made to the Competition Act, aimed at cracking down on the practice of companies making untrue or deceptive claims about the environmental benefits of a product or certain business activity 

— a style of marketing environmental groups have coined as “greenwashing.” 

The Liberals now propose to change the section specifically dealing with statements made by a company promoting its business as benefiting the environment and mitigating the effects of climate change.

Currently, the law prohibits companies from doing so should their claims not be rooted in “

adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.” 

The budget bill proposes scrubbing the words “internationally recognized methodology” from the law. It also seeks to disallow a private party from bringing a claim based on that rule directly to the Competition Tribunal, reversing the change made when the “greenwashing” measures were introduced.

A response for comment from Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, whose predecessor, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, played a role in the initial change, referred any comment to Industry Minister Melanie Joly’s office, which has not yet been returned.

Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada, which advocated for the Liberals to introduce the provisions, said removing the requirement for companies to substantiate climate claims using “

internationally recognized methodology” creates an opening for businesses to cite evidence that may not be “scientifically rigorous.” 

“The risk here is they’re going to let companies make up their own definitions and their own rules, and this is going to result in really weak standards,” he said.

Over the summer, the Competition Bureau released a series of guidelines on the provisions, following consultations after the changes were introduced.

It said the bureau would consider methodology to be “internationally recognized” should it be recognized “

in two or more countries.” 

The example it provided was of a hypothetical company promoting itself as reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, but lacking a clear plan to do so and being unable to substantiate that claim.

Keith Brooks, program director at Environmental Defence, an environmental advocacy organization, said he believes more time was needed to assess the impact of the proposed change, but said he welcomed the fact that Carney was prepared to keep the provisions in place and maintain the rule that substantiation of environmental claims was still required.

“We were concerned that they were going to be scrapping these rules altogether, and instead, I think that they are maintaining most of the substance of the intention of the rules while trying to make it a little bit easier for companies to comply,” he said.

Brooks added: “Does it push companies to back up the claims that they’re making?”

Pathways Alliance, a group of oilsands companies promoting the ability to reach net-zero emissions from oilsands production by 2025, scrubbed their website and social media feeds after the new “greenwashing” provisions were introduced. It now welcomes the change.

“Changes to the Competition Act are necessary and the proposed amendments are directionally positive. The current requirements have put Canadian companies at a disadvantage compared to their global counterparts by limiting their ability to speak freely about environmental work,” said Kendall Dilling, the group’s president. 

“

We will need to review the changes as they appear in the legislation before offering any further comment.”

The group is behind a proposed $16.5 billion carbon capture and storage network Carney has named as one of the possible nation-building projects his government wants to see developed.

Support for that project is also part of ongoing talks between Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who are negotiating the terms of a new approach to federal energy policy, which could include a path created to see a new bitumen pipeline built from Alberta to B.C.’s northern coast, as well as the undoing of a suite of environmental policies seen as hampering development.

Smith’s United Conservative Party government and others in the oil and gas industry had opposed the provisions soon after they were introduced.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who this week voted in support of the Liberals’ budget after Carney publicly pledged to respect the 2030 and 2035 Paris climate targets, said she was never in favour of adding specific “greenwashing” provisions to the federal competition law to begin with and believes measures that promote general truth in advertising would have been better.

“I can tell you the many more things that made it hard to vote for the budget,” she said.

National Post

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

OTTAWA — A free-market think tank is warning Canadian air travellers to expect higher ticket prices if proposed

changes to passenger compensation

rules are implemented.

Researchers with the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) say that the beefed up passenger protection rules may look good on paper but will just place more hardship on an already overregulated airline sector.

“Air travel in Canada is already unaffordable and inaccessible,” says Gabriel Giguère, senior public policy analyst at the MEI. “New rules that force airlines to cover costs they can’t control would only make a bad situation worse.”

Giguère is the author of a new research note analyzing proposed amendments to federal Air Passenger Protection Regulations released in late 2024.

He told National Post that the new rules could “upend airline operations” by putting commercial carriers on the hook for all travel interruptions outside of those created by “exceptional circumstances.”

“Now the air carrier is guilty until you can demonstrate that it is not, which will put tremendous pressure on the administrative costs,” said Giguère.

Under the prevailing rules, set in the 2019

air passenger bill of rights

, carriers need only compensate passengers in cases where a foreseeable error leads to a flight’s cancellation or a delay of more than three hours. The proposed changes could see airlines have to shell out up to $1,000 per passenger due to circumstances that are outside their control.

Giguère said the proposed definition of “exceptional circumstances” is far from exhaustive, creating even more uncertainty for carriers.

“For example, if it is very cold and de-icing the aircraft takes an unusually long time, does this qualify as an exceptional circumstance?” said Giguère.

The Canadian Transportation Agency estimates that new compensation rules will cost airlines about a

dollar per passenger per year

.

Giguère expects that the increased operational costs would have the biggest impact on low-traffic regional routes and service to remote and northern destinations.

“This new regulation risks being the final blow to regional air travel. Routes connecting smaller communities will be the first to disappear as costs rise and they become less profitable,” said Giguère.

He estimates that the cancellation of one flight from Montreal to Saguenay, Qc. would result in a hit of approximately $33,000 to the carrier, a monetary sum that would take 61 incident-free flights to recoup.

Regional air travel has already taken a massive hit since the COVID pandemic, with

multiple small and medium-sized airports

reporting double-digit losses in passenger traffic since 2019.

Alberta’s Fort McMurray airport, for example, saw a 60 per cent decline between 2019 and 2024.

Air passenger rights advocate Gábor Lukács says he doesn’t share this gloomy view of the proposed regulations, adding that, if anything, they go too easy on air carriers.

“Saying (the regulations) don’t go far enough is probably a very polite way to put it,” said Lukács, noting that the regulations would increase the number of disruptions carriers are liable for by

just two per cent

.

Lukács added that he rejected the notion of an inherent tradeoff between protecting passengers and affordability, pointing to “gold standard” air passenger protections

adopted by the European Union

two decades ago.

A recent study found that the EU regulations led to a

five per cent increase

in on-time arrivals without substantially affecting the cost of travel.

National Post

rmohamed@postmedia.com

• CTA proposes option to fine airline passengers who go public with complaint resolutions
• Supreme Court upholds rules on passenger compensation in win for air travellers

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Would you rather sip drinks poolside in Palm Beach, Fla., or trudge through the snow of Alberta?

Last week, the leader of the Republican Party of Alberta, Cameron Davies, didn’t have to choose: he did both — hobnobbing with U.S. Republicans at Mar-a-Lago before returning to his beloved province, the one he hopes will soon declare independence from Canada.

Rubbing elbows with American conservatives like former North Carolina representative Madison Cawthorn and Trump administration official Kari Lake, Davies made the rounds in Florida following meetings at the White House with undersecretary-level officials and in New York with Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly.

He says his educational conversations “plant seeds” that will help American support grow for Alberta’s independence. The aim?

“Upon Albertans choosing independence, one of the greatest things that the United States could ever provide for an independent Alberta would be immediate international recognition.”

But Davies’s cross-border advocacy for an Alberta Republic is doing more than courting U.S. recognition. Back home, it’s raising questions about the prospect of foreign influence and the internal coherence of the separatist movement. This coincides with a court hearing this week on whether Albertans can soon be asked: “Do you agree that Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province of Canada?”

Trade and recognition

Davies says he is careful with how he presents his ideas, stressing the need for further discussions should Alberta achieve independence. But he has discussed how free trade between an Alberta republic and the United States would look — tariff-free — and how that would benefit both countries.

“There’s some knowledge (among U.S. Republicans) that there’s an independence movement, but there isn’t a lot of understanding as far as how far along it is and what that actually means for the United States’ energy security, foreign policy, and future trading partners,” Davies explained.

He has also discussed the potential for freedom of movement between the province and the United States, much like citizens of the European Union enjoy.

But critics chalk Davies’s U.S. outreach up to little more than grandstanding.

“(Davies) just obviously felt like he needed attention,” said Jeffrey Rath, cofounder of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP) — the organization that posed the referendum question the court is reviewing — noting that the Republican Party of Alberta “represents the smallest part of our movement.”

“We appreciate the work that anybody in favour of independence does to advance independence,” he added, but said that “Davies is sort of on the fringe of everything that’s going on.”

Adrienne Davidson, assistant professor of political science at McMaster University, thinks Davies may be courting American favour because the political process of Premier Danielle Smith holding Alberta Next panels has “taken the wind out of the sails” of the separatist movement in recent months.

“He’s trying to reignite or inflame or create some more momentum behind this movement,” she said, noting that he may be going south because domestic enthusiasm is waning.

“One way to do that is by rattling the pots and pans south of the border to gain a little bit more cachet or interest … as a way to restart this conversation.”

Rath would disagree that enthusiasm is dipping. He says 70 per cent of the United Conservative Party favours independence — an Angus Reid poll earlier this year showed 36 per cent support for sovereignty amongst Albertans, and a whopping 65 per cent amongst UCP voters.

“As far as we’re concerned, the UCP is the separatist party. The majority of its membership is in favour of independence,” Rath said.

Davies’ RPA, on the other hand, has a brand that is “somewhat toxic,” Rath said, because people associate it with the Alberta51 movement, a group pushing for Alberta to leave Canada and join the U.S. as its 51st state. This, despite the fact that Davies has publicly stated he is not interested in Alberta statehood.

Still, when it comes to Davies’s outreach in Mar-a-Lago and Washington, Rath said, “I don’t think that Cam Davies and his Republican brand (are) particularly helpful to the independence movement.”

Running interference

Some have questioned whether wooing American Republican support for Alberta independence is inviting foreign interference into a domestic political process, but Davies pushes back on this notion.

“Alberta Republicans having conversations with American Republicans is somehow beyond the pale, which is just laughable to me,” Davies said, noting that there seems to be a leftist “derangement syndrome” over such matters.

“They seem totally fine with sending their political activists over to the U.K. to actively work on Labour and Lib Dem campaigns,” Davies said, vowing to continue to have conversations abroad that advocate for Alberta independence.

“We’re not going to apologize for that.”

In fact, next month, Davies plans to attend America Fest in Phoenix, Ariz., the annual conference of Charlie Kirk’s organization, Turning Point. Davies said he had a Zoom call with Kirk just days before he was killed in September. While he’s not currently planning to speak on stage at the three-day event, Davies said he is looking forward to having conversations about Alberta independence with influential American Republicans.

Davies also flipped the script on foreign interference, noting that the separatists will also be on the lookout for its use against them.

“There is going to be forces at work from the Canadian government, who will attempt to infiltrate and derail the independence movement,” Davies said. “They willingly turned a blind eye to the Communist Party of China interfering in several nominations and elections of members of Parliament.”

“There seems to be, from the Canadian government, a willingness to use foreign interference when it suits them,” Davies added.

Ottawa has faced criticism for its handling of foreign interference in Canadian elections by Beijing, despite a public inquiry finding only a “very small number of isolated cases” of interference.

Davidson noted that “the dynamic of concern is the opposite” of what Davies highlighted. “The concern here is the invitation of foreign interference into Canadian electoral dynamics and provincial campaigns.”

While it may not be appropriate for the U.K. to be soliciting Canadian support or political partisans, Davidson pointed out, that’s happening in the U.K., not in Canada.

“The concern here is whether these types of invocations or requests for support interfere with Canadian domestic electoral affairs in ways that are problematic.”

Referendum calling

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta begins weighing the constitutionality of the APP’s sovereignty question on Wednesday, and Rath said the judge involved has promised a decision prior to the judicial Christmas break.

While Rath expects the bid to be successful, he said the APP is also prepared to push Smith to call for a vote under the Referendum Act if need be.

He fears that the premier will try to lump the sovereignty question in with other issues raised through her summer Alberta Next panels, but noted that the Referendum Act requires that the referendum question be a standalone.

“It’s political game playing by her and Rob Anderson to try to confuse the issue … around independence,” he said.

Rath expects a robust discussion — in other words, fireworks — about all of this at the UCP’s annual general meeting in two weeks.

“A lot of those divisions are going to burst into the open during the AGM.”

Whatever happens there and in court, Rath is adamant that there will be a referendum on Alberta independence sometime in 2026.

“We’re not going to be denied,” Rath said. “We represent a movement of over a million people.”

National Post

• Despite Trump’s cane sugar activism, Canadian Coke drinkers should get used to high-fructose corn syrup
• Another Alberta separatist leader is courting U.S. conservatives in Washington and Mar-a-Lago

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

OTTAWA

— A Liberal MP and former Trudeau-era cabinet minister says the oil tanker ban the party imposed off British Columbia’s northern coast was out of “huge public demand” and predicts that the debate around the possibility of lifting it will be controversial. 

Karina Gould spoke to reporters on her way into the Liberals’ weekly caucus meeting, while Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith look to finalize the terms of a new relationship surrounding energy policy. Smith is pushing for a path for a new bitumen pipeline to run from her province to B.C.’s northwest coast, which would require an outright lifting or carve-out of the federal moratorium on tanker traffic.

“It was something we put in place because there was a huge public demand for it and it’s important for us to be able to ensure we’re protecting, you know, really delicate ecosystems, so I think this is an important conversation to be had,” Gould, who represents the more progressive wing of the party, said of the policy on Wednesday.

She said the idea of amending the ban needs to be a “national conversation,” with the most important voices being those living in the communities along B.C’s coast.

“Over the last 10 years, we’ve heard consistently from Canadians that this is something that matters and is important and is something that they want,” Gould said, adding, “I think this is a dialogue that will be a contentious one.”

Jonathan Wilkinson, a B.C. Liberal MP, who served as both environment and energy minister under Justin Trudeau, said “there’s a bunch of things” the Carney government would first have to do when it comes to the question of lifting the ban, even partially, for a new pipeline, namely, find support among coastal First Nations and B.C. Premier David Eby.

He said there would have to be “significant support” among impacted First Nations.

“At present, I don’t think there is,” Wilkinson said.

Trudeau legislated the ban on oil tanker traffic extending from Vancouver Island’s northernmost point along the B.C. mainland to the Canada-U.S. boundary with Alaska, back in 2019.

It followed a commitment Trudeau made during the 2015 election, which brought the Liberals to power. Shortly after the election, he instructed his then-transport minister to move ahead with the ban.

In 2016, Trudeau rejected Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline, which would have run from Alberta to Kitimat, B.C.

After years of acrimony under Trudeau, Carney is trying to chart a new path with Smith, the roadmap of which is expected to be outlined in a memorandum of understanding being negotiated behind closed doors.

The high-level talks have involved direct conversations between both leaders, with Carney saying at an announcement in B.C. last week that discussions were

 “going well,” with the expectation of reaching an agreement in the “coming weeks.” 

While Smith pushes for an undoing of a suite of environmental policies that she criticizes as hampering oil and gas development, such as the oil tanker ban and proposed emissions gap, Carney’s government is looking to secure commitments from Alberta to strengthen its industrial carbon price and show a willingness to build out a proposed carbon capture and storage project.

Sam Blackett, a spokesman for Smith, said in a statement last week that Alberta wants the “

removal, carve out or overhaul of several damaging laws,” which includes “an agreement to work towards ultimate approval of a bitumen pipeline to Asian markets.”

“We are currently in the final stages of this negotiation and will have more to say soon,” Blackett said on Wednesday. 

Reached for comment, a spokesman for Energy and Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson referred to earlier comments the minister made in an interview with National Post, where he said Alberta’s pipeline proposal was “hypothetical” and would be evaluated using the same criteria as other projects the Carney government has designated as being in the national interest. The criteria includes Indigenous participation and support from impacted jurisdictions.

Liberal MPs from B.C. pointed to those comments on Wednesday, downplaying any openness the federal government may have to outright lifting the ban.

“We’ve made it very clear what our position is going to be. There has to be Indigenous consent, there has to be consent from the provinces that are impacted. My constituents believe very, very strongly in those two principles,” said Taleeb Noormohamed, who chairs the B.C. Liberal caucus.

Eby has said he opposes Alberta’s pipeline pitch and believes the federal government should uphold the tanker ban. His NDP government also points to the ban as being essential to having the buy-in to develop its liquefied natural gas sector in the region.

A group of coastal First Nations has also called on Carney to maintain the ban.

Conservative MP Brad Vis, who represents the B.C. riding of Mission-Matsqui-Abbotsford, said on Wednesday that “Mr. Eby needs to wake up,” arguing the province has not seen the economic growth it ought to have.

The federal Conservatives have long supported more pipeline development. Carney came to power on a promise to transform Canada into an “energy superpower,” which has raised the hopes of Western premiers like Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe.

Will Greaves, Liberal MP for Victoria, said on Wednesday that his constituents have expressed that they feel “skeptical” about Alberta’s proposal and any lifting of the tanker ban.

“People in my community are proud of the coast, proud of our coastal economy and committed to protecting it. That’s the legacy of my predecessors in the riding, that’s the legacy of many, many years of leadership in British Columbia, and that’s what the people in my community want to see the government uphold.”

Calgary Liberal MP Cory Hogan said he would need to see the “whole picture” of what Alberta and Ottawa were considering when asked whether he supports any lifting of the ban.

“We need to make sure that we are pairing any economic action with environmental action.”

Bloc Québécois MP Patrick Bonin, who serves as the party’s critic for the environment and climate change, said in a statement in French that the Liberals were foregoing environmental regulations, saying the talks with Alberta showed “their only ambition is for the development of oil and gas industries.”

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who voted for the Liberals’ budget this week after asking Carney to commit publicly to respecting the 2030 and 2035 Paris climate targets, told National Post that resistance to lifting the tanker ban in B.C.  remains strong.

“That’s not just barking up the wrong tree, that’s barking up the wrong forest. We’re immovable.”

National Post, with a file from Catherine Levesque

• Coast guard patrol ships to be pulled from service ‘sooner than expected,’ amid pressures from new security mandate
• Top official advised Carney reset with India should require ‘public commitment’ on accountability that never arrived

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.