From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”)

The Eby government has left the door (slightly) open to Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the British Columbia’s northern coast. Premier David Eby said he isn’t opposed to a new pipeline that would expand access to Asian markets—but he does not want government to pay for it. That’s a fair condition. But to attract private investment for pipelines and other projects, both the Eby government and the Carney government must reform the regulatory environment.

First, some background.

Trump’s tariffs against Canadian products underscore the risks of heavily relying on the United States as the primary destination for our oil and gas—Canada’s main exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. Clearly, Canada must diversify our energy export markets. Expanded pipelines to transport oil and gas, mostly produced in the Prairies, to coastal terminals would allow Canada’s energy sector to find new customers in Asia and Europe and become less reliant on the U.S. In fact, following the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion between Alberta and B.C. in May 2024, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent.

However, Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory environment continues to create uncertainty and deter investment in the energy sector. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment in Canada compared to only 41 per cent of respondents for the U.S. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deters investment compared to 42 per cent in the U.S.

When looking at B.C. specifically, investor perceptions are even worse. Nearly 93 per cent of respondents for the province said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment while 92 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over protected lands deters investment. Among all Canadian jurisdictions included in the survey, investors said B.C. has the greatest barriers to investment.

How can policymakers help make B.C. more attractive to investment?

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”), Bill C-48 (which effectively banned large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast, limiting access to Asian markets), and the proposed cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector (which will likely lead to a reduction in oil and gas production, decreasing the need for new infrastructure and, in turn, deterring investment in the energy sector).

At the provincial level, the Eby government should abandon its latest GHG reduction targets, which discourage investment in the energy sector. Indeed, in 2023 provincial regulators rejected a proposal from FortisBC, the province’s main natural gas provider, because it did not align with the Eby government’s emission-reduction targets.

Premier Eby is right—private investment should develop energy infrastructure. But to attract that investment, the province must have clear, predictable and competitive regulations, which balance environmental protection with the need for investment, jobs and widespread prosperity. To make B.C. and Canada a more appealing destination for investment, both federal and provincial governments must remove the regulatory barriers that keep capital away.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute