Connect with us

Economy

Canada’s flippant rejection of our generous natural resource inheritance

Published

8 minute read

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute

By David Polansky

The fanaticism of environmental elitists has made people unwilling to discuss the serious human and economic costs of poorly considered environmental policies.

Strategic energy resources have long been associated with some of the world’s most odious regimes. Above the surfaces that cover rich mineral and fossil fuel deposits one finds religious fanatics, brutal tyrants, and corrupt kleptocracies. And yet with one resource rich nation in particular we find not Wahhabism or gangsterism but Mounties and maple syrup.

Canada is the world’s second-largest country and its lands and territorial waters hold some of the world’s most substantial oil and gas reserves. Looking at its energy policies, one might think it was Belgium. Canada’s resource wealth would seem to be a case of the good guys winning for once. Why then does Canada flee in shame from its geological (and geopolitical) situation?

The answer is that Canada’s elites have long ceased to think in terms of its national interests or fiscal priorities but have adopted a naïve environmental dogmatism. Since it ratified the Paris Agreement in 2015, Canada has embraced an ambitious, top-down, international agenda to achieve “net-zero” emissions and limit global climate change.

But the fact is that, despite its size, In absolute terms, its output has risen marginally over the past half century, even as its population has nearly doubled. And embracing this climate agenda is hardly a perfunctory matter: it will continue to result in declining incomes for the average Canadian as well as a weakened trade balance for Canada as a whole. Canada’s economy is being sacrificed on the altar of elite preferences divorced from the realities of how Canadians actually heat our homes or put food on our tables.

An honest assessment of Canada’s flippant rejection of its generous natural resource inheritance looks more like serial masochism than virtue.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the global sanctions it triggered, The irony is that with so much of Russia’s supply coming offline, Canada could have had a remarkable opportunity to fill the vacuum with its own production capacity.

Despite being the world’s sixth-largest producer of natural gas, Canada lacks even a single export terminal for LNG. When critics of Canadian LNG production pointed to the unfeasibility of meeting overseas demand, despite the entreaties of the Germans and other Europeans, they were only technically correct. Canada couldn’t easily meet overseas demand because our regulatory regime has held up the construction of as many as 18 proposed LNG projects over the past decade, largely due to climate concerns.

Ironically, Germany—the continent’s greatest industrial power—needed to reactivate discontinued coal plants to meet its energy demands (hardly an ideal outcome from an environmental standpoint).

Much of the shortfall caused by sanctions on Russia was also made up by LNG contributions from Norway—whose leaders have maintained that reducing LNG output would only cede the market to authoritarian regimes with weaker regulatory controls around their energy industries from both environmental and human rights standpoints. Thankfully, Norway’s government moved forward with LNG production and export despite past pressure from environmentalist in the European Union that attempted to curtail its fossil fuel extraction.

Canada could have followed Norway’s level-headed approach and in that could have helped replace Russian oil in the aftermath of the Ukraine invasion. The curtailing of Canada’s energy infrastructure is not imposed by a physical limitation in the world, nor was it commanded from the heavens; it was ordered by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act of 2021, supplemented by ambitious plans promulgated by Ottawa to reshape the institutions and practices of the entire country in pursuit of this quixotic goal. Not just the oil-and-gas sector, but housing, construction, agriculture, etc. must bend before Net Zero.

One can already hear activist outrage that, “to oppose this agenda is to choose temporary profits over the preservation of human life and the planet that supports it.” This rhetoric has proven effective in advancing environmental policies but it is also a false dichotomy, as it treats the dilemma as one of “good vs. greed” rather than one of complex competing goods.

A society that has signed on to this sort of imposed austerity is one with less money for infrastructure, entrepreneurship, healthcare, and defense. A lack of investment in these sectors also brings serious and immediate human costs. And further, the real issue is not the value of environmental stewardship or of taking steps to moderate consumption—both of which are worthy goals in and of themselves—but of blindly adhering to preselected targets at all costs. These apparently unassailable commitments have deprived Canada of the kind of flexible management of strategic interests that prudent political leadership requires.

Indeed, the unrealism of these climate ideals has produced systemic dissembling across the country’s major institutions, given the pressure to comply regardless of the efficacy of their practices. In other words, the fanaticism of environmental elitists has made people unwilling to debate the issues at hand or to even discuss the serious human and economic costs of poorly considered environmental policies.

The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) model has had the effect of placing certain questions effectively beyond the reach of politics. But questions of policy—as environmental and energy questions surely are—are by their nature political; they have inevitable tradeoffs that should be a matter of debate with an eye to our collective interests.

Instead, we have an intolerant environmental elitism that obstructs the open and honest public deliberation that is the hallmark of democratic politics. A more truthful and practical approach wouldn’t necessarily promote any one policy, but it would allow for public discussion that recognizes the genuine toll that environmental policy takes on Canada’s domestic well-being and our standing in the world.

David Polansky is a Toronto-based writer and political theorist. Read him at strangefrequencies.co or find him on X @polanskydj.

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

Business

Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder

Published on

Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada

A shift in ambition

A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, Senior Director of Marine Development at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.

“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”

With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”

Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”

At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”

Fixing the system to move forward

Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”

He argued that governments have come to view regulation as a “free good,” without acknowledging its economic consequences. “Over the past decade, we’ve seen policy focus almost exclusively on environmental and reconciliation objectives,” he said. “Those are vital, but the public interest extends well beyond that — to include security, economic welfare, the rule of law, transparency, and democratic participation.”

Davies said good policy should not need to be bypassed to get projects built. “I applaud the creation of a Major Projects Office, but it’s a disgrace that we have to end run the system,” he said. “We need to fix it.”

He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”

Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”

Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”

He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”

Continue Reading

Business

Canada is still paying the price for Trudeau’s fiscal delusions

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy MediaBy Lee Harding

Trudeau’s reckless spending has left Canadians with record debt, poorer services and no path back to a balanced budget

Justin Trudeau may be gone, but the economic consequences of his fiscal approach—chronic deficits, rising debt costs and stagnating growth—are still weighing heavily on Canada

Before becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau famously said, “The budget will balance itself.” He argued that if expenditures stayed the same, economic growth would drive higher tax revenues and eventually outpace spending. Voila–balance!

But while the theory may have been sound, Trudeau had no real intention of pursuing a balanced budget. In 2015, he campaigned on intentionally overspending and borrowing heavily to build infrastructure, arguing that low interest rates made
it the right time to run deficits.

This argument, weak in its concept, proved even more flawed in practice. Postpandemic deficits have been horrendous, far exceeding the modest overspending initially promised. The budgetary deficit was $327.7 billion in 2020–21, $90.3 billion the year following, and between $35.3 billion and $61.9 billion in the years since.

Those formerly historically low interest rates are also gone now, partly because the federal government has spent so much. The original excuse for deficits has vanished, but the red ink and Canada’s infrastructure deficit remain.

For two decades, interest payments on federal debt steadily declined, falling from 24.6 per cent of government revenues in 1999–2000 to just 5.9 per cent in 2021–22—thanks largely to falling interest rates and prior fiscal restraint. But that trend has reversed. By 2023–24, payments surged past 10 per cent for the first time in over a decade, as rising interest rates collided with record federal debt built up under Trudeau.

Rising debt costs are only part of the story. Federal revenues aren’t what they could have been because Canada’s economy has stagnated. High immigration, which drives productivity down, is the only thing masking our lacklustre GDP growth. Altogether, Canada was 35th among 38 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for per capita GDP growth from 2014 to 2022 at just 0.2 per cent. By comparison, Ireland led at 45.2 per cent, followed by the U.S. at 20.8 per cent.

Why should a country like Canada, so blessed with natural resources and knowhow, do so poorly? Capital investment has fled because our government has made onerous regulations, especially hindering our energy industry. In theory, there’s now a remedy. Thanks to new legislation, the Carney government can extend its magic sceptre to those who align with its agenda to fast-track major projects and bypass the labyrinth it created. But unless you’re onside, the red tape still strangles you.

But as the private sector withers under red tape, Ottawa’s civil service keeps ballooning. Some trimming has begun, rattling public sector unions. Still, Canada will be left with at least five times as many federal tax employees per capita as the U.S.

Canada also needs to ease its hell-bent pursuit of net-zero carbon emissions. Hydrocarbons still power the Canadian economy—from vehicles to home heating—and aren’t practically replaceable. Canada has already proven that chasing net zero leads to near-zero per capita growth. Despite high immigration, the OECD projects Canada to have the lowest overall GDP growth between 2021 and 2060.

The Nov. 4 release of the federal budget is better late than never. So would be a plan to grow the economy, slash red tape and eliminate the deficit. But we’re unlikely to get one.

Trudeau may be gone, but his legacy of fiscal recklessness is alive and well.

Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that  strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Continue Reading

Trending

X