Connect with us

Economy

Next federal government should discard harmful energy policies—tariffs notwithstanding

Published

10 months ago

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets

While the full extent of the damage from President Trump’s trade war remains unknowns, Canadians should understand that, with a federal election looming, shortsighted policies here at home have left Canada in a vulnerable position.

Oil and gas are Canada’s main exports and the U.S. is their primary destination. In 2023, nearly 97 per cent of Canada’s oil exports went to our southern neighbour, and the U.S. is our sole foreign market for our natural gas. This concentration of exports to a single destination has given the U.S. significant leverage. For example, Canada exports natural gas at discounted prices—up to 60 per cent lower than what American producers receive in U.S. markets. Similarly, our oil has been sold for less than what U.S. producers receive, with price differences exceeding 40 per cent in recent years. Selling our energy at discounted prices to the U.S. has cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars in lost revenues.

And yet, over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets. To unleash Canada’s oil and gas sector, the next government must reverse a whole set of harmful energy policies.

For example, the Northern Gateway pipeline designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast. In 2016, one year after taking office, the Trudeau government cancelled this previously approved $7.9 billion project, which would have greatly expanded Canada’s access to Asian markets.

Then there’s the Energy East and Eastern Mainline pipelines from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the east coast. The Trudeau government effectively made the project economically unfeasible by introducing new regulatory hurdles, ultimately forcing the TransCanada energy company to withdraw from the project, which would have expanded access to European markets.

The record is equally bleak for liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities, which could open access to overseas markets. Regulatory barriers and long approval timelines under the Trudeau government significantly hindered the development of the Énergie Saguenay LNG project in Quebec, the Repsol LNG plant in New Brunswick and the Pacific NorthWest LNG facility in B.C.

And when opportunity knocked to diversify our trading partners, the government failed to seize it. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, political leaders from Latvia, Ukraine, Germany, Greece and Poland turned to Canada seeking new LNG supply, but Trudeau insisted there was “no business case for LNG” and missed the chance to open new markets.

Finally, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-69 created massive uncertainty in project reviews and approvals by introducing vague assessment criteria including “gender implications” for major energy projects including pipelines and LNG export facilities. In fact, according to a recent report, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, almost every project submission remained stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process, underscoring the inefficiency of the review process.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-48 restricts Canadian exports to Asia by banning large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast. And its targeted emissions cap, which requires only the oil and gas sector to cut greenhouse gases by 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030, is designed to curtail energy production, further limiting Canada’s ability to meet global energy demands.

During the upcoming election campaign, Canadians should demand to hear how (or if) each party will remove barriers that hinder the development of energy projects and streamline approvals to unlock Canada’s untapped potential. Tariffs or not, Canada can’t afford to keep undermining its key export sector with regulatory barriers.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 2 hours ago

“History in the making”: Venezuelans in Florida flood streets after Maduro’s capture

COVID-19 / 10 hours ago

A new study proves, yet again, that the mRNA Covid jabs should NEVER have been approved for young people.

Opinion / 10 hours ago

Hell freezes over, CTV’s fabrication of fake news and our 2026 forecast is still searching for sunshine

Business

The great policy challenge for governments in Canada in 2026

Published on January 1, 2026

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

According to a recent study, living standards in Canada have declined over the past five years. And the country’s economic growth has been “ugly.” Crucially, all 10 provinces are experiencing this economic stagnation—there are no exceptions to Canada’s “ugly” growth record. In 2026, reversing this trend should be the top priority for the Carney government and provincial governments across the country.

Indeed, demographic and economic data across the country tell a remarkably similar story over the past five years. While there has been some overall economic growth in almost every province, in many cases provincial populations, fuelled by record-high levels of immigration, have grown almost as quickly. Although the total amount of economic production and income has increased from coast to coast, there are more people to divide that income between. Therefore, after we account for inflation and population growth, the data show Canadians are not better off than they were before.

Let’s dive into the numbers (adjusted for inflation) for each province. In British Columbia, the economy has grown by 13.7 per cent over the past five years but the population has grown by 11.0 per cent, which means the vast majority of the increase in the size of the economy is likely due to population growth—not improvements in productivity or living standards. In fact, per-person GDP, a key indicator of living standards, averaged only 0.5 per cent per year over the last five years, which is a miserable result by historic standards.

A similar story holds in other provinces. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan all experienced some economic growth over the past five years but their populations grew at almost exactly the same rate. As a result, living standards have barely budged. In the remaining provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta), population growth has outstripped economic growth, which means that even though the economy grew, living standards actually declined.

This coast-to-coast stagnation of living standards is unique in Canadian history. Historically, there’s usually variation in economic performance across the country—when one region struggles, better performance elsewhere helps drive national economic growth. For example, in the early 2010s while the Ontario and Quebec economies recovered slowly from the 2008/09 recession, Alberta and other resource-rich provinces experienced much stronger growth. Over the past five years, however, there has not been a “good news” story anywhere in the country when it comes to per-person economic growth and living standards.

In reality, Canada’s recent record-high levels of immigration and population growth have helped mask the country’s economic weakness. With more people to buy and sell goods and services, the overall economy is growing but living standards have barely budged. To craft policies to help raise living standards for Canadian families, policymakers in Ottawa and every provincial capital should remove regulatory barriers, reduce taxes and responsibly manage government finances. This is the great policy challenge for governments across the country in 2026 and beyond.

Ben Eisen

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on December 31, 2025

By

By Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X