From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade.

During last night’s Liberal leadership debate, there was a lot of talk about Donald Trump. But whatever your views on President Trump, one thing is certain—he’s revitalized his country’s energy sector. Through a set of executive orders, Trump instructed agency heads to identify “actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy source” and “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available” to facilitate energy production and transportation. In other words, let’s become an energy superpower.

Clearly, to avoid falling further behind, Canada must swiftly end policies that unduly restrict oil and gas production and discourage investment. Change can’t come soon enough.

Before Trump’s inauguration, red tape was already hindering Canada’s oil and gas sector, which was less attractive for investment compared to the United States. According to a survey conducted in 2023, , 68 per cent of oil and gas investors said uncertainty about environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector compared to 41 per cent in the U.S. Similarly, 54 per cent said Canada’s regulatory duplication and inconsistencies deterred investment compared to only 34 per cent for the U.S. And 55 per cent of respondents said that uncertainty regarding the enforcement of existing regulations in Canada deterred investment compared to only 37 per cent of respondents for the U.S.

This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade. For example, one year after taking office, in 2016 the Trudeau government cancelled the previously approved $7.9 billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which was designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, expanding Canada’s access to Asian markets.

In 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau undermined the long-term confidence in the sector by vowing to “phase out” fossil fuels in Canada.

In 2019, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-69, introducing subjective criteria including the “gender implications” of energy investment into the evaluation process of major energy projects, causing massive uncertainty around the development of new projects.

Also that year, the government enacted Bill C-48, which bans large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast, limiting Canadian exports to Asia.

In 2023, the Trudeau government announced plans to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—an arbitrary measure considering GHG emissions from other sectors in the economy were left untouched. According to a recent report, to comply with the cap, Canadian firms must severely curtail oil and gas production. As one might expect, these policies come at a cost. Over the last decade, investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector has collapsed by 56 per cent, from $84.0 billion in 2014 to $37.2 billion in 2023 (inflation adjusted). Less investment means less funding for new energy projects, technologies and infrastructure, and fewer job opportunities and economic opportunities for Canadians nationwide.

The energy gap between the U.S. and Canada is set to grow wider during President Trump’s second term. While Trump wants to attract investment to the American oil and gas industry by streamlining processes and cutting costs, Canada is driving investment away with costly and often arbitrary measures. If Ottawa continues on its current path, Canada’s leading industry—and its largest source of exports—will lose more ground to the U.S. When Parliament reconvenes, policymakers must move quickly to eliminate harmful policies hindering our energy sector.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

From the Fraser Institute

APPEARED IN THE FINANCIAL POST

By: Bjørn Lomborg

Canada’s chattering classes claim that climate change is one of the country’s pre-eminent threats. This is extraordinary. Canada is experiencing a productivity slowdown, the worst decline in living standards in 40 years, and growth rates that lag most developed economies. Geopolitical threats loom, the healthcare system is under stress and education is faltering. Yet the federal government has spent or committed more than $160 billion on climate initiatives since 2015, and is funneling $5.3 billion to help poor countries respond to climate change.

Like most nations, Canada faces tough decisions in coming decades. Resources spent on climate will not be not available for health, education, security or boosting prosperity.

Global warming is a real problem. Science has shown quite clearly that more CO₂, mostly from fossil fuel use, increases global temperatures. Climate economics has shown how this brings both problems and benefits (for instance, more deaths caused by heat, fewer by cold) but, overall, more problems than benefits. More CO₂ means higher social costs, so reducing CO₂ does have real benefits.

But climate policies also have costs. They force families and businesses to use more expensive energy, which slows economic growth. You might have heard otherwise but if the new ways really were cheaper, no regulations or mandates would be needed.

If climate change were treated like any other political issue, we would openly recognize these trade-offs and try to balance them to get the most climate benefits for the least cost, recognizing that climate policies need to compete against many other worthy policies.

But in two important ways the climate conversation has gone off the rails.

First, people say — wrongly — that global warming is an existential challenge, risking the end of mankind. Of course, if the world is about to end, it follows that any spending is justified. After all, if a world-obliterating meteor is hurtling towards us, we don’t ask about the costs of avoiding it.

Second, it is also often claimed — somewhat contradictorily — that the green transition will make energy cheaper, societies safer and everyone richer. In this “rainbows and unicorns” scenario, there are no trade-offs and we can afford climate policy and everything else.

Both claims are repeated ad nauseam by Canadian politicians and activists and spread by media hooked on selling climate catastrophes and green utopias. But both are quite untrue.

That is why I’m writing this series. I will outline how many of the most sensationalist, scary climate stories are misleading or wrong and ignore the best climate science. Being data-driven, I will show you this with the best peer-reviewed data and numbers.

So: Is climate change the world’s all-encompassing problem today? One way to test this is to look at extreme weather, which we constantly hear is having an ever-larger impact on our societies. But the data paint a very different picture (see chart).

We have good evidence for the number of people killed in climate-related disasters, i.e., floods, storms, droughts, and fires. (We’ll look at temperature deaths next week.) A century ago, such disasters routinely killed hundreds of thousands, even millions of people in a single disaster. On average, about half a million people a year died in such disasters. Since then, the death toll has declined precipitously. The last decade saw an average of fewer than 10,000 deaths per year, a decline of more than 97 per cent.

Of course, over the past century the world’s population has quadrupled, which means the risk per person has dropped even more, and is now down by more than 99 per cent. Why this great success story? Because richer, more resilient societies with better technology and forecasting are much better able to protect their citizens. That doesn’t mean there is no climate signal at all, but rather that technology and adaptation entirely swamp its impact.

In the same way, climate’s impact on overall human welfare is also quite small. In proportion to the total economy, the cost of climate-related disasters has been declining since 1990. Looking to the future, the best estimates of the total economic impact of climate change come from two major meta-studies by two of the most respected climate economists. Each shows that end-of-century GDP, instead of being 350 per cent higher, will only be 335 per cent higher.

“Only” becoming 335 per cent richer is a problem, to be sure, but not an existential threat. Despite that, as this series will show, many of the most draconian climate policy proposals so casually tossed around these days will do little to fix climate but could dramatically lower future growth and the opportunities of future generations.

We need to get smart on climate. This series will map out how.

Bjørn Lomborg