From Resource Works

“Canada is the largest G7 country in terms of landmass, and the smallest in terms of population. We are the only developed country our size physically and economically without a transportation strategy in place”

The concept of national energy corridors does seem straightforward enough, at first glance. It calls to mind a simple right-of-way that slices across Canada, the world’s second-largest landmass, containing pipelines, railways, telecommunications networks, and electricity grids.

Canadians have seen these sorts of physical infrastructure built before, such as the Canadian Pacific Railway during the Confederation era or the more modern Trans-Canada Highway. However, Garrett Kent Fellows will tell you that the true challenge of a national energy corridor is less about the laying of new steel, and more about the careful weaving of institutions to bind the country together.

An Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary, Fellows is also the Director of Graduate Programs at the School of Public Policy. He is also a Fellow-in-Residence at the prestigious C.D. Howe Institute, where he specializes in competition policy, energy, and infrastructure economics.

Fellows’ curriculum vitae speaks of a scholar whose expertise is routinely sought by politicians, the business community, and thought leaders both in Canada and internationally. He formerly served on Alberta’s Energy Diversification Advisory Committee in 2017, as well as the Economic Corridors Task Force in 2021, and has provided advice to officials from the European Union and the Canadian Senate on economic trade corridors.

At any rate, whenever Fellows has something to say about corridors, people with power and influence listen.

There is a great misunderstanding related to the idea of corridors, which results in an idealized, simplified vision that politicians tend to champion.

“We have a tendency to think about corridors first and foremost as a physical footprint. A right-of-way or area of the country where we are going to put linear infrastructure. That’s not wrong; corridors are that, but they are also an institution,” says Fellows. To him, a national corridor must involve more than simple geography.

A corridor’s success depends upon deep institutional cooperation between all levels of government, First Nations authorities, and the private sector. This is a reality that comes with more challenges than leaders in Ottawa or provincial capitals will care to admit.

Nonetheless, the need for corridors has taken on much greater urgency. The world economy is uncertain, and the threat of trade wars instigated by Donald Trump’s return to the White House has only exacerbated this. Trump’s aggressive tariff policy has revealed the shocking vulnerability of the Canadian economy, which depends on exports.

Fellows is quick to point out that Canada, being massive but sparsely populated, is uniquely exposed as the largest G7 country while having the smallest population and lacking adequate transportation strategies.

“Canada is the largest G7 country in terms of landmass, and the smallest in terms of population. We are the only developed country our size physically and economically without a transportation strategy in place,” Fellows says. This weakness has only strengthened the need for a better-coordinated infrastructure plan that goes beyond simply easing exports, but also increasing Canada’s national economic resilience.

Canada’s history has been marked by impressive infrastructure projects built during periods of hardship, often utilized to boost employment and add to the economic recovery effort. Fellows can see some parallels between the climate of 2025 and the boom in infrastructure construction during the Great Depression.

In the 1930s, projects like the Trans-Canada Highway were developed as part of the federal government’s policy of fiscal stimulus. However, Fellows cautions against simply moving forward with corridor projects as a means of boosting economic security and employment, and says that they are not quick-fix solutions.

“Properly implementing a corridor approach shouldn’t be seen as a shortcut. So it may not be productive to think about this project as shovel-ready.”

Fellows’ concerns are rooted in history, as regulatory uncertainty and rushed processes have contributed to setbacks in the energy sector, such as the cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, the tortured delays on the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and the death of the Energy East project.

Despite this, the potential of energy corridors remains a compelling and intriguing possibility. Fellows points out that investing in new infrastructure can provide an effective stimulus that remedies stagflationary pressures caused by world trade disputes. “Fiscal stimulus is a natural reaction to stagflation, and a logical one. But we should be thinking about a stimulus that will generate long-term benefits for the country.”

With this approach, stimulus borne of corridors is not just about economic recovery, but also ensuring that it leaves a permanent productive legacy for Canada that helps to secure long-term prosperity instead of temporary relief.

The promise of the corridor also includes the potential of untangling the web of regulations and other complexities that dog new projects. This can be accomplished by improving pre-planning and the environmental assessment process, which can prevent cold feet from investors. Fellows emphasizes that building a better regulatory environment requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders and due diligence.

Fellows is frank about the risk involved, such as stranded capital and white elephants left to rust when market conditions or political priorities change. “As with any infrastructure-based program, there is a risk of stranded capital. We can’t simply take the view that ‘if we build it, they will come.’”

However, he remains firm in his belief that the benefits justify the careful, purposeful efforts required. One of his most interesting insights is that the corridors themselves should not be solely defined as “energy corridors.” Rather, Fellows argues that the model has to bring together diverse infrastructure, telecommunications, transportation, renewable energy transmission, and critical mineral supply chains.

“To maximize the benefits of the corridor approach, we need to be thinking beyond just ‘energy corridors’ and think more broadly about economic corridors.” The rewards of this more holistic vision would lift domestic and international trade and create a foundation for Canada to build a more diversified and resilient economy.

Fellows also hammers home that the idea of corridors lends itself to idealism, but they still demand that people think realistically and be prepared for hard-headed analysis. Corridors are challenging, full of details, bureaucratic, institutional, and diplomatic—hardly an easy task. “Shortcuts make for long delays.”

Being aware of past failures in this regard is important, but Fellows says this makes the difference between accomplishing goals and spouting political rhetoric.

“Realization of any corridor is going to be hard work, but it will be worth it.”

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Although Parliament is set to return next week for the first time in more than five months, Canadians are being asked for even more patience when it comes to a federal budget.

Last week, after conflicting messages from his finance minister, Prime Minister Mark Carney said his government will table a budget in the fall. While this is better than the government’s original plan to punt the budget into 2026, it’s still a long time to wait. Past federal governments have been able to quickly turn around a budget following an election. There’s no simply no reason why the government can’t deliver a budget within the next few months. Clearly, fiscal transparency and accountability are not high priorities for the Carney government.

While the federal government is not legislatively required to release a budget in the spring—spending is functionally approved in Parliament through periodic votes (the next vote is scheduled for June)—the budget provides a comprehensive and accessible outline of federal spending, taxing and borrowing plans now and for the coming years. In other words, an annual budget is a critically important financial and democratic document that informs Canadians on their government’s fiscal plan.

Budgets also help the public hold the government accountable to its campaign commitments. Without a budget, it’s virtually impossible for Canadians to know whether or not the government is actually staying true to its promises. For instance, the Carney government could run bigger deficits and accumulate more debt than promised, but Canadians would have little way of knowing. This only adds to the uncertainty around the government’s plan for certain key areas of policy—contradicting Prime Minister Carney’s promise of an “action-oriented” government that moves quickly.

The budget also allows parliamentarians to understand how the estimates and policies they vote on will impact the state of federal finances. For instance, the Carney government plans to cut income taxes, which will have a big impact on government finances. But without a timely budget, parliamentarians may not have the necessary information to make informed decisions on behalf of their constituents. Incidentally, the Trudeau government delayed the release of important fiscal documents to push off bad news until it garners less attention from the media and the public, and there’s reason to believe the Carney government is doing the same thing now.

The Liberal election platform—which currently provides the only indication of the new government’s fiscal plan—promises higher spending, larger deficits and more debt than the Trudeau government had planned in its last fiscal update. This flies in the face of Prime Minister Carney’s promise of a “very different approach” to fiscal policy. The Carney government also plans to split federal spending into two separate budgets: an operating budget and capital budget. This will further reduce government transparency by making it more difficult to identify the actual size of the deficit, while also giving the government leeway to get creative with its accounting.

Prime Minister Carney promised a new responsible approach to government finances. However, he’s off to a poor start on delivering this promise.