Business
Doug Ford needs to ditch the net-zero pipedreams
Dan McTeague
Congratulations are in order for Doug Ford, newly re-elected in Ontario to his third consecutive majority government. As a proud Ontarian myself, I wish Premier Ford great success, which will ultimately be measured not by how many votes he’s won, but by the quality of the policies he implements and how well he responds to the challenges which arise on his watch.
Of course, the two are related. Bad policy can instigate a crisis. And bad policy in the midst of one often transforms a challenge into a catastrophe. Just one instructive example: Remember that in the wake of the Stock Market Crash of 1929, President Herbert Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which, as John Robson recently observed on Twitter/X, helped turn “a painful short-term correction into an agonizing decade of misery.”
That is a moment in history our American friends would do well to remember just now. Though Donald Trump has been crowing about the economic benefits of tariffs for decades, the historical record tells a different story. And, more importantly for us, no matter how much damage Trump’s tariffs do to the American economy, they will be worse for Canada.
This is a moment in which our country is in desperate need of political leadership. That isn’t going to come from Ottawa, where the Trudeau Liberals and their accomplices in the NDP have shuttered parliament for months so that they can hold a coronation for their fellow Green Elitist, Mark Carney, who is all set to double-down on the disastrous net-zero policies of his predecessor.
So we are going to have to rely, at least in the near term, on our premiers to respond to this crisis. And so far very few of them – the notable exception being Danielle Smith – have shown the kind of ingenuity and resilience we need at this moment.
Ford himself has done everything he can to make himself the face of Canada’s response to the tariff threat. He’s made a great show of removing (already purchased) American-made products from LCBO.’s shelves, he has pledged to put a 25% export tax on energy, and he’s threatened to cut off Ontario’s energy exports to the United States entirely. In defense of the latter, Ford said, “They want to come at us hard, we’re going to come back twice as hard.”
That might sound impressive, but unfortunately Canada lacks the economic capacity to “come back twice as hard.” Years of mismanagement, on the federal, provincial, and even municipal levels, have left us in a terrible position to negotiate with the world’s largest economy. We have taken every opportunity to shoot ourselves in the foot, chasing foolish net-zero pipedreams which have succeeded only in squandering our capital, and smothering the oil and gas industry upon which our prosperity relies.
Justin Trudeau and his cronies deserve a lot of the blame for that, but the Ford government deserves its share as well. Ford long ago drank the net-zero kool-aid. He embraced the so-called “green energy transition” to such an extent that his government renamed its energy ministry the ‘Ministry of Energy and Electrification,’ a nod to the idea that we need to move away from fossil fuels and embrace electrically-powered everything. Neglecting to mention, of course, where that electricity is going to come from. (Hint: it’s not from expensive and inefficient wind and solar projects! Which, by the way, Ford has also invested heavily in.) And, relatedly, he’s stated that he will not be happy until Ontario achieves a 100% zero-carbon electricity grid, moving away from affordable and reliable natural gas as an energy source.
On top of that, Ford has gone “all in” on electric vehicles, teaming up with Trudeau to invest tens-of-billions of taxpayer dollars in a bid to attract EV manufacturing to his province. This investment wasn’t looking so hot before Trump’s election – remember when the Ford Motor Company scrapped their plan to build EVs at their plant in Oakville, Ont, due to “an unexpected slowdown” in demand for battery powered cars? And it has looked much worse since, once Trump got to work repealing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate.
Without that mandate, there will be a few hundred million fewer potential EV buyers in the world. People aren’t exactly lining up to buy EVs if they don’t have to. And though Trudeau’s 2035 EV mandate is still in place, even the Canadian market is softer than expected, especially after the federal program subsidizing the purchase of EVs – to the tune of $5,000 a piece – ran out of money and ended abruptly earlier this year.
But despite the changed environment, Ford doubled down on his commitment to EVs during the campaign. His platform read, “A re-elected PC government would continue to make these investments regardless of any decision by the U.S.,” and Ford continually reaffirmed his intention to continue to “invest in the sector.”
This is worse than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It’s closer to setting fire to the few lifeboats the ship actually has.
Ontario’s voters have once again entrusted our province to Doug Ford. But if he doesn’t start taking this crisis seriously – by shoring up the province’s financial situation and increasing our competitiveness by changing course on EVs and kicking net-zero to the curb – he won’t be remembered as the first premier to win three consecutive majorities in over 60 years. Instead he’ll be remembered as the guy who took Ontario past the point of no return.
Dan McTeague is the president of Canadians for Affordable Energy and a former Liberal member of Parliament.
Business
Budget 2025: Ottawa Fakes a Pivot and Still Spends Like Trudeau
It finally happened. Canada received a federal budget earlier this month, after more than a year without one. It’s far from a budget that’s great. It’s far from what many expected and distant from what the country needs. But it still passed.
With the budget vote drama now behind us, there may be space for some general observations beyond the details of the concerning deficits and debt. What kind of budget did Canada get?
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
For a government that built its political identity on social-program expansion and moralized spending, Budget 2025 arrives wearing borrowed clothing. It speaks in the language of productivity, infrastructure, and capital formation, the diction of grown-up economics, yet keeps the full spending reflex of the Trudeau era. The result feels like a cabinet trying to change its fiscal costume without changing the character inside it. Time will tell, to be fair, but it feels like more rhetoric, and we have seen this same rhetoric before lead to nothing. So, I remain skeptical of what they say and how they say it.
The government insists it has found a new path, one where public investment leads private growth. That sounds bold. However, it is more a rebranding than a reform. It is a shift in vocabulary, not in discipline.
A comparison with past eras makes this clear.
Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin did not flirt with restraint; they executed it. Their budgets were cut deeply, restored credibility, and revived Canada’s fiscal health when it was most needed. The Chrétien years were unsentimental. Political capital was spent so financial capital could return. Ottawa shrank so the country could grow. Budget 2025 tries to invoke their spirit but not their actions. Nothing in this plan resembles the structural surgery of the mid 1990s.
Stephen Harper, by contrast, treated balanced budgets as policy and principle. Even during the global financial crisis, his government used stimulus as a bridge, not a way of life. It cut taxes widely and consistently, limited public service growth, and placed the long-term burden on restraint rather than rhetoric. Budget 2025 nods toward Harper’s focus on productivity and capital assets, yet it rejects the tax relief and spending controls that made his budgets coherent.
Then there is Justin Trudeau, the high tide of redistribution, vacuous identity politics, and deficit-as-virtue posturing. Ottawa expanded into an ideological planner for everything, including housing, climate, childcare, inclusion portfolios, and every new identity category. Much of that ideological scaffolding consisted of mere words, weakening the principle of equality under the law and encouraging the government to referee culture rather than administer policy.
Budget 2025 is the first hint of retreat from that style. The identity program fireworks are dimmer, though they have not disappeared. The social policy boosterism is quieter. Perhaps fiscal gravity has begun to whisper in the prime minister’s ear.
However, one cannot confuse tone for transformation.
Spending is still vast. Deficits grew. The new fiscal anchor, balancing only the operating budget, is weaker than the one it replaced. The budget relies on the hopeful assumption that Ottawa’s capital spending will attract private investment on a scale that economists politely describe as ambitious.
The housing file illustrates the contradiction. The budget announces new funding for the construction of purpose-built rentals and a larger federal role in modular and subsidized housing builds. These are presented as productivity measures, yet they continue the Trudeau-era instinct to centralize housing policy rather than fix the levers that matter. Permitting delays, zoning rigidity, municipal approvals, and labour shortages continue to slow actual construction. Ottawa spends, but the foundations still cure at the same pace.
Defence spending tells the same story. Budget 2025 offers incremental funding and some procurement gestures, but it avoids the core problem: Canada’s procurement system is broken. Delays stretch across decades. Projects become obsolete before contracts are signed. The system cannot buy a ship, an aircraft, or an armoured vehicle without cost overruns and missed timelines. Spending more through this machinery will waste time and money. It adds motion, not capability.
Most importantly, the structural problems remain untouched: no regulatory reform for major projects, no tax competitiveness agenda, no strategy for shrinking a federal bureaucracy that has grown faster than the economy it governs. Ottawa presides over a low-productivity country but insists that a new accounting framework will solve what decades of overregulation and policy clutter have created. More bluster.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From an Alberta vantage, the pivot is welcome but inadequate. The economy that pays for Confederation, energy, mining, agriculture, and transportation receives more rhetorical respect in Budget 2025, yet the same regulatory thicket that blocks pipelines and mines remains intact. The government praises capital formation but still undermines the key sectors that generate it.
Budget 2025 tries to walk like Chrétien and talk like Harper while spending like Trudeau. That is not a transformation; it is a costume change. The country needed a budget that prioritized growth rooted in tangible assets and real productivity. What it got instead is a rhetorical turn without the courage to cut, streamline, or reform.
Canada does not require a new budgeting vocabulary. It requires a government willing to govern in the best interest of the country.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
Help us bring you more quality research and commentary.
Business
Large-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream
I view the recent announcements by the Government of Canada as window dressing, and not addressing the fundamental issue which is that projects are drowning in bureaucratic red tape and regulatory overburden. We don’t need them picking winners and losers, a fool’s errand in my opinion, but rather make it easier to do business within Canada and stop the hemorrhaging of Foreign Direct Investment from this country.
Thanks for reading William’s Substack!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Changes are afoot—reportedly, carve-outs and tweaks to federal regulations that would help attract investment in a new oil pipeline from Alberta. But any private proponent to come out of this deal will presumably be handpicked to advance through the narrow Bill C-5 window, aided by one-off fixes and exemptions.
That approach can only move us so far. It doesn’t address the underlying problem.
Anyone in the investment world will tell you a patchwork of adjustments is nowhere near enough to unlock the large-scale energy investment this country needs. And from that investor’s perspective, the horizon stretches far beyond a single political cycle. Even if this government promises clarity today in the much-anticipated memorandum of understanding (MOU), who knows whether it will be around by the time any major proposal actually moves forward.
With all of the talk of “nation-building” projects, I have often been asked what my thoughts are about what we must see from the federal government.
The energy sector is the file the feds have to get right. It is by far the largest component of Canadian exports, with oil accounting for $147 billion in 2024 (20 percent of all exports), and energy as a whole accounting for $227 billion of exports (30 percent of all exports).
Furthermore, we are home to some of the largest resource reserves in the world, including oil (third-largest in proven reserves) and natural gas (ninth-largest). Canada needs to wholeheartedly embrace that. Natural resource exceptionalism is exactly what Canada is, and we should be proud of it.
One of the most important factors that drives investment is commodity prices. But that is set by market forces.
Beyond that, I have always said that the two most important things one considers before looking at a project are the rule of law and regulatory certainty.
The Liberal government has been obtuse when it comes to whether it will continue the West Coast tanker ban (Bill C-48) or lift it to make way for a pipeline. But nobody will propose a pipeline without the regulatory and legal certainty that they will not be seriously hindered should they propose to build one.
Meanwhile, the proposed emissions cap is something that sets an incredibly negative tone, a sentiment that is the most influential factor in ensuring funds flow. Finally, the Impact Assessment Act, often referred to as the “no more pipelines bill” (Bill C-69), has started to blur the lines between provincial and federal authority.
All three are supposedly on the table for tweaks or carve-outs. But that may not be enough.
It is interesting that Norway—a country that built its wealth on oil and natural gas—has adopted the mantra that as long as oil is a part of the global economy, it will be the last producer standing. It does so while marrying conventional energy with lower-carbon standards. We should be more like Norway.
Rather than constantly speaking down to the sector, the Canadian government should embrace the wealth that this represents and adopt a similar narrative.
The sector isn’t looking for handouts. Rather, it is looking for certainty, and a government proud of the work that they do and is willing to say so to Canada and the rest of the world. Foreign direct investment outflows have been a huge issue for Canada, and one of the bigger drags on our economy.
Almost all of the major project announcements Prime Minister Mark Carney has made to date have been about existing projects, often decades in the making, which are not really “additive” to the economy and are reflective of the regulatory overburden that industry faces en masse.
I have always said governments are about setting the rules of the game, while it is up to businesses to decide whether they wish to participate or to pick up the ball and look elsewhere.
Capital is mobile and will pursue the best risk-adjusted returns it can find. But the flow of capital from our country proves that Canada is viewed as just too risky for investors.
The government’s job is not to try to pick winners and losers. History has shown that governments are horrible at that. Rather, it should create a risk-appropriate environment with stable and capital-attractive rules in place, and then get out of the way and see where the chips fall.
Link to The Hub article: Large-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream
Formerly the head of institutional equity research at FirstEnergy Capital Corp and ATB Capital Markets. I have been involved in the energy sector in either the sell side or corporately for over 25 years
Thanks for reading William’s Substack!
Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
-
Health17 hours agoTens of thousands are dying on waiting lists following decades of media reluctance to debate healthcare
-
Business2 days agoI Was Hired To Root Out Bias At NIH. The Nation’s Health Research Agency Is Still Sick
-
Carbon Tax21 hours agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Business17 hours agoBudget 2025: Ottawa Fakes a Pivot and Still Spends Like Trudeau
-
Opinion12 hours agoLandmark 2025 Study Says Near-Death Experiences Can’t Be Explained Away
-
International1 day agoCanada’s lost decade in foreign policy
-
armed forces1 day agoCanada At Risk Of Losing Control Of Its Northern Territories
-
Business2 days agoLarge-scale energy investments remain a pipe dream




