Dan McTeague

Well, we are in quite the pickle.

In nine plus years as prime minister, Justin Trudeau has waged a multi-front war on the consumption and production of hydrocarbon energy, and, with that, on our economy, our quality of life, and our cost of living.

Trudeau zealously pursued and implemented anti-energy policies, most infamously the consumer Carbon Tax, but let’s not forget his so-called ”Clean Fuel” regulations; his Industrial Carbon Tax; his proposed emissions caps; his Electric Vehicle subsidies and mandates; Bill C-59, which bans businesses from touting the environmental positives of their work if it doesn’t meet a government-approved standard; and various other pieces of legislation which make the construction of new pipelines nearly impossible and significantly reduces our ability to sell our oil and gas overseas.

Every one of these policies can be traced back to the pernicious Net Zero ideology which informs them, and in which Trudeau and his bosom buddies — Gerald Butts, Steven Guilbeault, Mark Carney, etc — remain true believers.

And yet, despite those policies contributing to his party’s collapsing poll numbers and Trudeau’s unceremonious ouster, the Liberals are on the verge of naming as his replacement Mark Carney, one of the very Trudeau consiglieri who got us into this mess in the first place!

Now, Carney is currently doing everything in his power to downplay and dance around those aspects of his career which voters might find objectionable. He’s making quite a habit of it, in fact. And on the energy file, he’s being especially misleading, walking back his long-time support of the Carbon Tax — he’s said it has “served a purpose up until now” — and claiming that he intends to repeal it, while finding other ways to “make polluters pay.”

This is nonsense. In fact, Carney is a Carbon Tax superfan, and, if you listen to him closely, his actual critique of the Trudeau tax isn’t that it has made it more expensive to heat our homes, gas up our cars, and pay for our groceries (which it has.) It’s that it is too visible to voters. His vow to “make polluters pay” means, in fact, that he intends to “beef up” Trudeau’s less discussed Industrial Carbon Tax, targeting businesses, which will ultimately pass the cost down to consumers.

He’s even discussed enacting a Carbon tariff, which would apply to trade with countries which don’t adopt the onerous Net Zero policies which he wants to force on Canada.

That’s just who Mark Carney is.

And, unfortunately, Donald Trump’s tariff threats have provoked a “rally round the flag” sentiment, enabling the Liberals to close the polling gap with the Conservatives, with some polls currently showing them neck-and-neck. Which is to say, there is a possibility that, whenever we get around to having an election, anti-American animus could keep the Liberals in power, and propel Carney to the top job in our government.

This is, in a word, madness.

Let us not forget that it was the Liberals’ policies — especially their assault on our “golden goose,” the natural resource sector — which left us in such a precarious fiscal state that Trudeau felt the need to fly to Mar-a-Lago and tell the newly elected president that a tariff would “kill” our economy. That’s what provoked Trump’s “51st state” crack in the first place.

Access to U.S. markets will always be important for Canadian prosperity — they, by leaps and bounds, are our largest trading partner, after all — but without the Net Zero nonsense, we could have been an energy superpower, providing an alternative source of oil and natural gas for those countries leary about relying for energy on less-environmentally conscious, human-rights-abusing petrostates. We could have filled the void created by Russia, when they made themselves a pariah state in Europe by invading Ukraine.

In short, we might have been set up to negotiate with the Trump Administration from a position of strength. Instead, we’re proposing to double-down on Net Zero, pledging allegiance to a program which will make us less competitive and more likely to be steamrolled by major powers, including the U.S. but also (and less frequently mentioned) China.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! And all in the name of nationalism.

Here’s hoping we wise up and change course while there’s still time. Because, in the words of America’s greatest philosopher, Yogi Berra, “It’s getting late early.”

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!

Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.

Donate Now

From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

According to Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative government would permit First Nations to directly receive tax revenues from resource development on their ancestral territories. Political leaders of all parties should commit to such direct taxation. Because time is short.

Faced with the prospect of tariffs and other hostile American actions, Canada must build new energy infrastructure, mine critical minerals and diversify trade.

First Nations participation is critical to these plans. But too often, proposed infrastructure and resource projects on their territories become mired in lengthy negotiations that benefit only bureaucrats and lawyers. The First Nations Resource Charge (FNRC), a brainchild of the First Nations Tax Commission, could help cut through some of that red tape.

Currently, First Nations, the federal government and businesses negotiate agreements through a variety of mechanisms that establish the financial, environmental and cultural terms for a proposed development. As part of any agreement, Ottawa collects tax revenue from the project, then remits a portion of that revenue to the First Nation. The process is bureaucratic, time-consuming and paternalistic.

Under one version of the proposed charge, the First Nation would directly collect a portion of the federal corporate tax from the developer. The federal government, in turn, would issue the corporation an equivalent tax credit.

In effect, Ottawa would transfer tax points to First Nations.

“The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high,” said Chief Darren Blaney of B.C’s Homalco First Nation, when the Conservatives first laid out the proposal last year. “It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want.”

Poilievre referenced the proposed tax transfer in his Feb. 15 rally when he vowed to remove regulatory obstacles to fast-track resource development projects.

“We will incentivize Indigenous leaders to support these projects by letting companies pay a share of their federal corporate taxes to local First Nations,” he declared. “I want the First Nations people of Canada to be the richest people in the world.”

The First Nations Tax Commission first came up with the idea. Poilievre’s federal Conservatives are the first political party to embrace it. But there’s no reason why support for resource charges could not be bipartisan.

Mark Carney, the frontrunning candidate to succeed Justin Trudeau as Liberal Leader and prime minister, has vowed to use “all of the powers of the federal government… to accelerate the major projects that we need.” Supporting the FNRC would further that goal.

That said, resistance has already emerged.

“Most Indigenous leaders would see right through (what Poilievre said) because we’ve been around that corner a few times,” Dawn Martin-Hill, professor emeritus of Indigenous Studies at McMaster University, told the Canadian Press. “Selling your soul to have what other Canadians have, which is access to clean drinking water coming out of your tap, is highly problematic.”

But Prof. Martin-Hill inadvertently makes the case for the FNRC. Municipal governments raise funds by taxing the property of individuals and businesses and using the revenue to, among other things, provide clean drinking water. A First Nation that taxed a business operating on its territory, and used the revenue to provide clean drinking water for people on reserve, would simply be doing what governments are supposed to do.

Existing agreements, though cumbersome, have brought major new revenues to some reserves. The FNRC could increase revenues and First Nations autonomy.

Given the complexities of the tax code, and the limited administrative capacity of some First Nations, some agreements might see the federal government continuing to collect taxes and then remitting the First Nation’s portion to that government. The goal would be to ensure that revenues streams are transparent, predictable and support the greatest possible autonomy for each First Nation.

Any government committed to implementing the FNRC should convene a working group of First Nations leaders, private-sector executives and government officials to work out a framework agreement.

If the Conservatives win the next election, the working group could be part of a task force on tax reform that Poilievre said he intends to establish.

The FNRC would be voluntary. Communities could opt in or opt out. Provincial governments might also participate, sharing a portion of their taxes with First Nations.

If it works, a First Nations Resource Charge could speed the approval of lumber, mining, pipelines and other resource-related projects on the traditional lands of First Nations. It could provide reserves with stable and autonomous funding.

It’s an idea worth trying, regardless of which party forms the next government.

John Ibbitson