The Stealth Tax: How Carney’s “Industrial” Carbon Price Still Lands on Your Bill

Mark Carney didn’t “axe the tax.” He moved it. The line on your gas bill is gone, sure. But the line in the Canada Gazette – specifically SOR/2025-107, the regulation that sets the federal fuel charge rates in Schedule 2 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act to zero after March 31, 2025 – is very much alive, and it now points straight at the factories, mills and plants that make everything you buy. The bill still ends up in your hands; Ottawa just made it harder for you to see it.

The Great Shell Game: Killing the Visible Tax, Supercharging the Hidden One

On March 22, 2025, Finance Canada quietly published what the spin doctors call a “backgrounder” and what any honest person would call a confession. The federal fuel charge – the so-called consumer carbon tax – was set to $0 as of April 1, 2025, and Ottawa scrapped the requirement for provinces to run a consumer-facing carbon price at all. That’s the part suburban families could actually see: higher fuel, higher home heating, then a Canada Carbon Rebate cheque in the mail to remind them who hurt them and who was pretending to make it better.

The same document makes one other thing crystal clear: the price on pollution for large emitters “will continue to be a pillar” of the plan, and the government intends to strengthen industrial carbon pricing by tightening the national benchmark. In other words, they killed the piece that was politically toxic and doubled down on the piece they can bury inside every price tag in the economy. Families get one last rebate in April 2025, then the household side of the system is wound down and turned off.

Environment and Climate Change Canada adds the key fine print: from April 1, 2025 onward, the fuel charge is $0, but the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) for large industry “remains in effect.” OBPS is a regulatory carbon market wrapped in bureaucratic language. Big facilities get an emissions limit per unit of output; if they go over, they owe the federal government in cash or credits, and if they emit less, they can bank or sell credits. That’s a tax by another name, with a trading desk attached.

Ottawa also quietly locked in the price path on the industrial side. Orders amending Schedule 4 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act push the excess emissions charge up every year until it hits $170 per tonne in 2030. And the Carney government’s new Climate Competitiveness Strategy proudly promises to “strengthen industrial carbon pricing” and fix a long-term benchmark that will shape provincial systems and the federal backstop for decades. The visible tax is gone; the rising industrial tax is now the spine of their climate plan.

Here’s the kicker: the old fuel charge, for all its flaws, at least sent money back to families. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s 2024 update shows that, on the fiscal side alone, the average household actually received more in Canada Carbon Rebates than they paid in fuel charge and GST, with the vast majority of fuel charge revenue paid by firms recycled to households. That’s the part Carney scrapped.

The “Corporate Absorption” Fairy Tale

The sales pitch from the climate-policy crowd is simple: don’t worry, this is an “industrial” tax, not a consumer tax. The Canadian Climate Institute’s own fact sheet brags that industrial carbon pricing has an impact of “around zero per cent” on household consumption in 2025, and will only trim consumption by a tenth of one per cent by 2030. They go further, insisting these large-emitter systems “cost next to nothing for Canadian consumers” and even pushing the Timbit analogy – a few cents per barrel here, a sliver of a percent there, nothing to see.

That number is not a bill; it’s a lab result. It comes out of a model that looks at one policy in isolation, compares it to a world where everything else stays put, averages it across every household in the country, and then reports the final fraction like it’s a law of physics. Real life doesn’t work that way. Nothing hits in isolation. Families are getting hammered at the same time by interest rates, housing costs, payroll taxes, electricity rates, and every other “small” policy Ottawa has layered on. Every one of those is “only” a fraction of a percent. They all land in the same wallet.

Worse, those neat little averages hide where the pain actually goes. That 0.1 per cent doesn’t tell you what happens to a family in Alberta or Saskatchewan whose entire local economy is wrapped around industries Ottawa has deliberately made more expensive. It doesn’t tell you what happens when a cement plant facing higher carbon costs pushes up the price of concrete, the builder passes that into the cost of a home, the landlord bakes it into rent, and the bank prices it into your mortgage risk. The model smooths all of that out into a clean national ratio; your bank account doesn’t.

And then there’s the obvious point every non-economist understands: corporations are not charities. When you increase the cost of steel, fertilizer, fuel, transport and industrial power, that doesn’t vanish inside the boardroom. It either gets passed forward into prices, pushed backward into wages and jobs, or both. A Leger poll for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation found that only a tiny minority of Canadians think businesses “eat” most of the industrial carbon tax. The overwhelming majority say it gets passed on. They’re right. Nobody living in the real economy believes their family’s exposure to a rising industrial carbon price is capped at a Timbit and some pocket change.

So when the Institute calls the impact “around zero,” they’re not describing your life; they’re describing their spreadsheet. The government then grabs that number and waves it around as proof this is a cost-free climate plan. Meanwhile, every tonne priced at the factory gate is feeding, in some proportion, into everything that factory helps produce – and by the time it’s moved through the supply chain and stacked on top of ten other “negligible” policies, the hit to a real household bears no resemblance to the tidy decimal in the report.

Competitive Leakage in a Trump Tariff World

Industrial carbon pricing would be painful enough in a vacuum. Canada does not live in a vacuum. It lives next door to Donald Trump’s tariff wall, with over three-quarters of Canadian exports going to the United States and no other single country taking even five per cent of our goods. That’s not a diversified portfolio; that’s dependence.

In 2025, the Trump administration rolled out wave after wave of tariffs on imports, including a sweeping tariff on non-CUSMA-compliant Canadian goods, a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminum, and a 25 per cent tariff on all cars and trucks not built in the U.S. These aren’t theoretical talking points; they are active taxes on the sectors Canada leans on for jobs and export revenue. Ottawa’s own briefings now warn openly about the toll these tariffs are taking on metals, autos and lumber, and about how exposed Canada will be going into the 2026 USMCA review.

So stack the two realities. On one side of the border, U.S. producers are shielded by tariffs and not facing a national industrial carbon price. On the other side, Carney is proudly “strengthening industrial carbon pricing” and tightening the benchmark that defines how hard Ottawa leans on trade-exposed sectors. A Canadian steel mill, fertilizer plant or oil sands operator now competes against American rivals who are taxed at the border but not taxed the same way at home – while Carney taxes them at home and leaves them to run that gauntlet abroad.

When you do that to a business, there are only two options that matter in the real world. You raise prices to survive, feeding inflation in everything from cars to groceries. Or you cut somewhere else – wages, hours, jobs, investment – to keep your costs low enough to stay in the game. Either path ends at the same loser: the Canadian household who either pays more at the checkout or has less income coming in to pay those higher prices. The Carney government calls this “climate competitiveness.” From the perspective of the people who actually make and buy things in this country, it looks a lot more like a slow-motion offshoring plan.

Carney’s “Climate Competitiveness” Smoke Screen

The genius of the new system – politically, not economically – is that it moves the tax upstream and the blame downstream. In his Climate Competitiveness Strategy, Carney wraps this in high-gloss language about “betting on ourselves,” “mobilising capital” and “building the strongest economy in the G7.” The concrete bullet, buried in the middle of the release, is simple: the strategy is about strengthening industrial carbon pricing and using federal benchmarks and backstops to force every province onto a tougher path.

Finance Canada reinforces the same theme in its March backgrounder: Ottawa is “refocusing” carbon pricing standards on “a broad range of greenhouse gas emissions from industry” and intends to strengthen Canada’s approach to carbon pricing for industry by raising the bar for provincial systems. Environment Canada, for its part, makes clear where the proceeds go. OBPS revenues in “backstop” provinces are sent back to the jurisdiction for industrial emissions-cutting projects and new cleaner technologies, not to households. The household-side Canada Carbon Rebate is being phased out; the industrial-side proceeds fund is being locked in.

This is not an accident; it’s a shield. When prices go up on cars, appliances, building materials or anything else with a heavy industrial footprint, Carney and his ministers will point the finger at “corporate greed,” supply chains, or Trump’s tariffs. In reality, Ottawa has deliberately jammed a rising compliance cost into the bottom of those supply chains and then turned around and told the public that the impact is “around zero per cent.” The architects know exactly what they’re doing – the same climate-policy insiders they quote call these large-emitter systems Canada’s most important policy lever for cutting emissions and warn against weakening them, precisely because they bite hardest at the industrial core of the economy.

The Receipt Is Still in Your Name

Strip away the jargon and it comes to this: there is no such thing as a cost-free climate plan, and the Carney government knows it. Whether you tax emissions at the pump, at the smokestack or somewhere in between, the cost has to land on someone.

Under the old system, the Parliamentary Budget Officer could at least say, with a straight face, that most households got more in rebates than they paid in fuel charge, on the fiscal side. Under the new system, households get no rebate at all from the industrial carbon price; they get higher embedded costs and a federal government that insists the impact is “negligible.” Finance Canada is explicit that the consumer-facing charge is gone and the refunds with it, while the industrial pricing pillar is being “strengthened.” That is not climate policy for free; it is climate policy with deniability.

Alberta and the rest of resource-heavy Canada are being sold a comforting lie: that you can keep ratcheting up the industrial carbon price, survive a tariff war with your only real export market, and somehow protect affordability for families. In the real economy, there is only one payer of last resort. It’s not the federal cabinet, not the bureaucrats who design the benchmarks, and not the consultants cashing emissions-credit contracts. It’s the person standing at the till, wondering why everything from rent to a new fridge costs more while the government insists they “removed the consumer carbon price.”

You don’t need a PhD to see what’s happening. Ottawa didn’t stop taxing carbon; it just stopped admitting that you’re the one paying.

Sources & Reference Material
Share the Post:

Explore More