From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Business investment in the extraction sector (again, excluding residential structures and adjusted for inflation) has declined from $101.9 billion to $49.7 billion, a reduction of 51.2 per cent

Canada has a business investment problem, and it’s serious. Total business investment (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) declined by 7.3 per cent between 2014 and 2022. The decline in business investment in the extractive sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) is even more pronounced.

During that period, business investment in the extraction sector (again, excluding residential structures and adjusted for inflation) has declined from $101.9 billion to $49.7 billion, a reduction of 51.2 per cent. In fact, from 2014 to 2022, declines in the extraction sector are larger than the total decline in overall non-residential business investment.

That’s very bad. Now why is this happening?

One factor is the heavy regulatory burden imposed on Canadian business, particularly in the extraction sector. How do we know that proliferating regulations, and concerns over regulatory uncertainty, deter investment in the mining, quarrying and oil and gas sectors? Because senior executives in these industries tell us virtually every year in a survey, which helps us understand the investment attractiveness of jurisdictions across Canada.

And Canada has seen an onslaught of investment-repelling regulations over the past decade, particularly in the oil and gas sector. For example, the Trudeau government in 2019 gave us Bill C-69, also known as the “no new pipelines” bill, which amended and introduced federal acts to overhaul the governmental review process for approving major infrastructure projects. The changes were heavily criticized for prolonging the already lengthy approval process, increasing uncertainty, and further politicizing the process.

In 2019, Ottawa also gave us Bill C-48, the “no tankers” bill, which changed regulations for vessels transporting oil to and from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and thus limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export. More recently, the government has introduced a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions coming from the oil and gas sector, and new fuel regulations that will drive up fuel costs.

And last year, with limited consultation with industry or the provinces, the Trudeau government announced major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production.

Clearly, Canada badly needs regulatory reform to stem the flood of ever more onerous new regulations on our businesses, to trim back gratuitous regulations from previous generations of regulators, and lower the regulatory burden that has Canada’s economy labouring.

One approach to regulatory reform could be to impose “regulatory cap and trade” on regulators. This approach would establish a declining cap on the number of regulations that government can promulgate each year, with a requirement that new regulations be “traded” for existing regulations that impose similar economic burdens on the regulated community. Regulatory cap-and-trade of this sort showed success at paring regulations in a 2001 regulatory reform effort in B.C.

The urgency of regulatory reform in Canada can only be heightened by the recent United States Supreme Court decision to overturn what was called “Chevron Deference,” which gave regulators powers to regulate well beyond the express intent of Congressional legislation. Removing Chevron Deterrence will likely send a lot of U.S. regulations back to the drawing board, as lawsuits pour in challenging their legitimacy. This will impose regulatory reform in and of itself, and will likely make the U.S. regulatory system even more competitive than Canada.

If policymakers want to make Canada more competitive and unshackle our economy, they must cut the red tape, and quickly.