Canada’s Green Policies Jeopardize Economic and Societal Needs

Last month, Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced that the federal government would no longer be funding any “major” road projects in an effort to decrease emissions from cars. 

In an address to transit advocates in early February, Guilbeault said that the federal government had done their own analysis and found that the current road “network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have.” Canada aims to reach net zero by 2050 and has created rigorous regulation to support its goal. Cars have been a focal point for Guilbeault. 

This announcement highlights a pattern of top-down governance whereby Guilbeault’s environmental regulation comes before the best interest of Canadians. First, Canada's roads are already lacking, and this move stops needed improvements. Second, it limits how people can move and work, ignoring basic urban planning needs. Third, with more immigrants coming, we need more roads to support new housing and avoid worsening the housing crisis. Canada’s environmental strategies should serve as a warning to US policymakers: top-down approaches to environmental regulations risk overlooking the needs of citizens and the economic costs.

Guilbeault’s environment-first strategy recalls what Friedrich Hayek called the ‘man of system.’ A ‘man of system’ is someone who “seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.” Just as the ‘man of system’ seeks to impose his ideal plan of government “without any regard … to the great interests,” so Canada attempts to limit emissions by any means possible — in this case, by cutting all funding for roads. 

The announcement adds to a mounting list of climate change initiatives the federal government has prescribed, including the carbon taxes, fuel standard regulations, vehicle emission intensity regulations, and mandated minimum sales of electric vehicles. Now, the end of federal road building. 

Guilbeault’s ambitious environmental vision trumps the basic mobility needs of Canadians, and his desire to stop funding roads shows his undervaluation of urban planning and transportation.  

Roads are important and Canada’s highway system is underdeveloped. Father Raymond de Souza pointed out in a recent op-ed that compared to its peers, Canada lacks adequate road infrastructure. The capacity of highways in eastern Ontario, including the 401, falls short of American or European standards, often featuring just two lanes in each direction. In contrast, Quebec's Autoroute 20, transitioning from the 401, has traffic lights and urban crossings. Further, many U.S. cities have comprehensive ring road systems to bypass urban centers while only a handful of Canadian cities feature these. 

Father Raymond de Souza highlights how Canada's roads fall short, leading us to Alain Bertaud's insights on why good roads matter so much. Bertaud shows how limited roads affect our jobs, economy, and daily life. Bertaud, a former principal urban planner at the World Bank, explains in his book Order without Design that when mobility is decreased, workers have fewer choices amounting to the potential jobs available, and firms have fewer choices when recruiting workers. In places where mobility is costly and time consuming, the labor market tends to fragment into smaller, less productive ones. This can lead to lower salaries and an increase in consumer prices due to lack of competition. Remote areas of Canada — and there are many — would suffer from the effects of fragmentation if federal road funding halted. 

Bertaud acknowledges that although mobility generates costs such as congestion, pollution, noise, and accidents, it is “an urban necessity that must be encouraged, not curtailed.” Mobility restriction limits the economic potential of existing towns and cities and promotes an attitude of deindustrialization. 

This cut to road funding also seems misaligned with the growing demands on Canada’s housing market with immigration continuing to grow. The federal government is planning to welcome an influx of 1.5 million immigrants through 2026, impacting residential development in every major city.

Safeguarding the nation’s status as environment-friendly should not come at the cost of Canada’s economic and societal needs. Rather than limit Canadians’ mobility, Minister Guilbeault ought to establish policies that allow communities to face climate challenges locally, fostering innovation and adaptability. 

As the United States observes these developments, it should heed the cautionary tale unfolding in the north: Top-down environmental policy tends to prioritize the goals of the federal government over the needs of its citizens. In crafting environmental policies, we must remember that citizens are not chess pieces to be moved at will.

Lucy Gay is a Young Voices Contributor and a graduate student studying economics at George Mason University.