Fixing the Trudeau – Guilbeault Policy Mess May Take Longer Than We’d Like – Here’s Why

By spring 2024 it was pretty clear the Liberal government was headed for palliative care. A Leger poll on May 25 and an Abacus poll June 10 showed the Conservatives with a 20 point lead over the Liberals.

As the likelihood of their imminent defeat increased, the Trudeau Liberals stepped up the implementation of legislation and regulations inimical to the gas and petroleum industries. Their efforts in 2024 included legislation limiting freedom of speech for companies and individuals who publicize environmental progress in the oil and gas sector (aka Bill C-59). The speech-muzzling measure became law on June 21.

Around the same time, Environment and Climate Change Minister, Steven Guilbeault was busy shepherding two particularly ominous regulatory packages through to finalization. One set of regulations supported Canada’s Clean Electricity Regulations—intended to eliminate the use of coal and natural gas in the production of electricity with staged decommissioning deadlines between 2035 and 2050. The second package finalized the rules for the natural gas and oil industries emissions cap intended to restrict production and growth in those industries, to take effect in 2026.

The regulations weren’t finalized until the month before the House shut down for the holidays, just weeks before Justin Trudeau’s political career was put on life support.

The green policy stampede extended to the international stage. Never mind deficits and debt, the Liberals found plenty of cash to enhance their status as world class environmental luminaries.

At November’s COP29* conference at Baku, Azerbaijan, Guilbeault and Canada’s Ambassador for Climate Change (who knew we had one?), Catherine Stewart signed us on to 15 pledges to take action on fighting climate change. Around half of the promises were merely motherhood and apple pie statements, concessions to the environmentally woke who attend these sorts of international conferences.

But several of the commitments made on our behalf came with price tags. I’m still unclear on exactly which line item in a federal budget, legislative authority or policy statement authorized the spending.

Canada’s COP29 delegation launched the $2 billion GAIA project. Apparently we are cost sharing the project with Mitsubishi. The official government report on the conference doesn’t indicate how much of the $2 billion Canada is kicking in.

Canada also showcased its green bona fides by contributing to the effort to finance the green transition and climate change adaptation in poor countries—a task expected to require developed countries to collectively spend $110 billion to $300 billion per year by 2035. Our delegation announced Canada would lead by example, making a $1billion donation to the effort.

Guilbeault and Stewart gave $10 million to Conservation International’s “Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area” project. They “invested” another $2.5 million in the World Wildlife Fund’s “Building Resilient Communities through Marine Conservation in Madagascar” project.

Guilbeault may indeed be angling for that UN job I mentioned in my last EnergyNow column. Read it Here Canada made a $1.25 million payment directly to the office of UN Secretary General, António Guterres. The donation is supposed to assist Guterres in his efforts to encourage countries to get their “Nationally Determined Contributions” handed in on time.

In a podcast conversation with Jordan Peterson several months ago, Danielle Smith noted the accelerated pace of the Liberal government’s announcement and implementation of new environmental policies detrimental to Alberta’s oil and gas sectors and the economies of both Alberta and Canada.

Smith said one of the effects of enacting so many new environmental measures would be to make it extremely difficult for the next government to reverse them all in its first term. This probably was one of the reasons behind the rush to get so much done this past year.

Peterson added a psychological dimension to the discussion. He suggested Guilbeault and Trudeau were behaving like wounded narcissists. They were acting like egomaniacs who recognized their time in office was coming to an end and wanted to do as much as possible in the time they had left to pad their reputations as “do or die” climate warriors. They were striving to guarantee their legacies as planet-saving heroes.

They are probably both right. But Smith’s assessment speaks more directly to the practical challenges a new Conservative government will confront while trying to unwind the morass of legislation and regulations needlessly hampering the growth of environmentally responsible resource development in the west. It is an effort by the outgoing government to make their anti-oil legacy tamper proof.

Simply wading through the legislative quagmire and assessing where reform is most urgent and readily achievable will take time and effort. The wheels of parliament can turn slowly. No doubt some of the bureaucrats employed by the Liberals are true believers—frightened of the “impending climate apocalypse” and unlikely to expedite changes to environmental legislation and regulations. And, there could be multi-year contracts with consultants and other suppliers and long-term funding arrangements with companies and NGOs that will be difficult to unwind.

Let’s not forget the inevitable legal challenges that will threaten to hold up the reform process. Environmental groups and other special interests can be expected to use the courts to block efforts to reverse Liberal government policy. Ideally, the new government will cut off funding support for anti-oil environmental groups. Then at least supporters of the gas and petroleum sectors won’t be sued by activists funded with our tax dollars.

Then there are all the other important things governments are required to do and a limited amount of time to do them—drafting fiscally responsible budgets and dealing with the possibility of US tariffs on our exports come to mind as things near the top of the to-do list.

The highly anticipated Poilievre government may not be able to move as far and fast in reversing the Trudeau-Guilbeault legacy as we might like. They will face immense challenges and should be given a fair bit of slack if they can’t fix everything early in their first term.

*COP stands for Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The framework was adopted by the countries attending the UN sponsored Rio Earth Summit held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992. The number in COP29 indicates it is the 29th annual post-Rio conference of the parties.

Related Topics:#CleanElectricityRegulations #EnergyNow.CA #JimWarren #PierrePoilievre COP29 TrudeauGuilbeaultEnergyPolicy

Up Next

Biden goes after Facebook for eliminating ‘fact-checkers’: ‘Really shameful’

Don't Miss

Undemocratic tax hike will kill Canadian jobs: Taxpayers Federation

Todayville

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

Looks like the Liberals don’t support their own Pipeline MOU

Alberta / 3 hours ago

They never wanted a pipeline! – Deputy Conservative Leader Melissa Lantsman

Business / 3 hours ago

Canada Can Finally Profit From LNG If Ottawa Stops Dragging Its Feet

Business

Canada Can Finally Profit From LNG If Ottawa Stops Dragging Its Feet

Published on December 9, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Canada’s growing LNG exports are opening global markets and reducing dependence on U.S. prices, if Ottawa allows the pipelines and export facilities needed to reach those markets

Canada’s LNG advantage is clear, but federal bottlenecks still risk turning a rare opening into another missed opportunity

Canada is finally in a position to profit from global LNG demand. But that opportunity will slip away unless Ottawa supports the pipelines and export capacity needed to reach those markets.

Most major LNG and pipeline projects still need federal impact assessments and approvals, which means Ottawa can delay or block them even when provincial and Indigenous governments are onside. Several major projects are already moving ahead, which makes Ottawa’s role even more important.

The Ksi Lisims floating liquefaction and export facility near Prince Rupert, British Columbia, along with the LNG Canada terminal at Kitimat, B.C., Cedar LNG and a likely expansion of LNG Canada, are all increasing Canada’s export capacity. For the first time, Canada will be able to sell natural gas to overseas buyers instead of relying solely on the U.S. market and its lower prices.

These projects give the northeast B.C. and northwest Alberta Montney region a long-needed outlet for its natural gas. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing made it possible to tap these reserves at scale. Until 2025, producers had no choice but to sell into the saturated U.S. market at whatever price American buyers offered. Gaining access to world markets marks one of the most significant changes for an industry long tied to U.S. pricing.

According to an International Gas Union report, “Global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade grew by 2.4 per cent in 2024 to 411.24 million tonnes, connecting 22 exporting markets with 48 importing markets.” LNG still represents a small share of global natural gas production, but it opens the door to buyers willing to pay more than U.S. markets.

LNG Canada is expected to export a meaningful share of Canada’s natural gas when fully operational. Statistics Canada reports that Canada already contributes to global LNG exports, and that contribution is poised to rise as new facilities come online.

Higher returns have encouraged more development in the Montney region, which produces more than half of Canada’s natural gas. A growing share now goes directly to LNG Canada.

Canadian LNG projects have lower estimated break-even costs than several U.S. or Mexican facilities. That gives Canada a cost advantage in Asia, where LNG demand continues to grow.

Asian LNG prices are higher because major buyers such as Japan and South Korea lack domestic natural gas and rely heavily on imports tied to global price benchmarks. In June 2025, LNG in East Asia sold well above Canadian break-even levels. This price difference, combined with Canada’s competitive costs, gives exporters strong margins compared with sales into North American markets.

The International Energy Agency expects global LNG exports to rise significantly by 2030 as Europe replaces Russian pipeline gas and Asian economies increase their LNG use. Canada is entering the global market at the right time, which strengthens the case for expanding LNG capacity.

As Canadian and U.S. LNG exports grow, North American supply will tighten and local prices will rise. Higher domestic prices will raise revenues and shrink the discount that drains billions from Canada’s economy.

Canada loses more than $20 billion a year because of an estimated $20-per-barrel discount on oil and about $2 per gigajoule on natural gas, according to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy’s energy discount tracker. Those losses appear directly in public budgets. Higher natural gas revenues help fund provincial services, health care, infrastructure and Indigenous revenue-sharing agreements that rely on resource income.

Canada is already seeing early gains from selling more natural gas into global markets. Government support for more pipelines and LNG export capacity would build on those gains and lift GDP and incomes. Ottawa’s job is straightforward. Let the industry reach the markets willing to pay.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Economy

Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman, Joel Emes and Austin Thompson

According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city

The dream of homeownership is alive, but not well. Nearly nine in ten young Canadians (aged 18-29) aspire to own a home—but share a similar worry about the current state of housing in Canada.

Of course, those worries are justified. According to our new study, in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), typical homes on the market were unaffordable for families earning the local median income in every major Canadian city. It’s not just Vancouver and Toronto—housing affordability has eroded nationwide.

Aspiring homeowners face two distinct challenges—saving enough for a downpayment and keeping up with mortgage payments. Both have become harder in recent years.

For example, in 2014, across 36 of Canada’s largest cities, a 20 per cent downpayment for a typical home—detached house, townhouse, condo—cost the equivalent of 14.1 months (on average) of after-tax income for families earning the median income. By 2023, that figure had grown to 22.0 months—a 56 per cent increase. During the same period for those same families, a mortgage payment for a typical home increased (as a share of after-tax incomes) from 29.9 per cent to 56.6 per cent.

No major city has been spared. Between 2014 and 2023, the price of a typical home rose faster than the growth of median after-tax family income in 32 out of 36 of Canada’s largest cities. And in all 36 cities, the monthly mortgage payment on a typical home grew (again, as a share of median after-tax family income), reflecting rising house prices and higher mortgage rates.

While the housing affordability crisis is national in scope, the challenge differs between cities.

In 2023, a median-income-earning family in Fredericton, the most affordable large city for homeownership in Canada, had save the equivalent of 10.6 months of after-tax income ($56,240) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home—and the monthly mortgage payment ($1,445) required 27.2 per cent of that family’s after-tax income. Meanwhile, a median-income-earning family in Vancouver, Canada’s least affordable city, had to spend the equivalent of 43.7 months of after-tax income ($235,520) for a 20 per cent downpayment on a typical home with a monthly mortgage ($6,052) that required 112.3 per cent of its after-tax income—a financial impossibility unless the family could rely on support from family or friends.

The financial barriers to homeownership are clearly greater in Vancouver. But, crucially, neither city is truly “affordable.” In Fredericton and Vancouver, as in every other major Canadian city, buying a typical home with the median income produces a debt burden beyond what’s advisable. Recent house price declines in cities such as Vancouver and Toronto have provided some relief, but homeownership remains far beyond the reach of many families—and a sharp slowdown in homebuilding threatens to limit further gains in affordability.

For families priced out of homeownership, renting doesn’t offer much relief, as rent affordability has also declined in nearly every city. In 2014, rental rates for the median-priced rental unit required 19.8 per cent of median after-tax family income, on average across major cities. By 2023, that figure had risen to 23.5 per cent. And in the least affordable cities for renters, Toronto and Vancouver, a median-priced rental required more than 30 per cent of median after-tax family income. That’s a heavy burden for Canada’s renters who typically earn less than homeowners. It’s also an added financial barrier to homeownership— many Canadian families rent for years before buying their first home, and higher rents make it harder to save for a downpayment.

In light of these realities, Canadians should ask—why have house prices and rental rates outpaced income growth?

Poor public policy has played a key role. Local regulations, lengthy municipal approval processes, and costly taxes and fees all combine to hinder housing development. And the federal government allowed a historic surge in immigration that greatly outpaced new home construction. It’s simple supply and demand—when more people chase a limited (and restricted) supply of homes, prices rise. Meanwhile, after-tax incomes aren’t keeping pace, as government policies that discourage investment and economic growth also discourage wage growth.

Canadians still want to own homes, but a decade of deteriorating affordability has made that a distant prospect for many families. Reversing the trend will require accelerated homebuilding, better-paced immigration and policies that grow wages while limiting tax bills for Canadians—changes governments routinely promise but rarely deliver.