Economy
Ottawa must end disastrous energy policies to keep pace with U.S.
From the Fraser Institute
By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade.
During last night’s Liberal leadership debate, there was a lot of talk about Donald Trump. But whatever your views on President Trump, one thing is certain—he’s revitalized his country’s energy sector. Through a set of executive orders, Trump instructed agency heads to identify “actions that impose an undue burden on the identification, development, or use of domestic energy source” and “exercise any lawful emergency authorities available” to facilitate energy production and transportation. In other words, let’s become an energy superpower.
Clearly, to avoid falling further behind, Canada must swiftly end policies that unduly restrict oil and gas production and discourage investment. Change can’t come soon enough.
Before Trump’s inauguration, red tape was already hindering Canada’s oil and gas sector, which was less attractive for investment compared to the United States. According to a survey conducted in 2023, , 68 per cent of oil and gas investors said uncertainty about environmental regulations deterred investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector compared to 41 per cent in the U.S. Similarly, 54 per cent said Canada’s regulatory duplication and inconsistencies deterred investment compared to only 34 per cent for the U.S. And 55 per cent of respondents said that uncertainty regarding the enforcement of existing regulations in Canada deterred investment compared to only 37 per cent of respondents for the U.S.
This negative perception of Canada’s regulatory environment is hardly a surprise, given Ottawa’s policies over the last decade. For example, one year after taking office, in 2016 the Trudeau government cancelled the previously approved $7.9 billion Northern Gateway pipeline, which was designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast, expanding Canada’s access to Asian markets.
In 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau undermined the long-term confidence in the sector by vowing to “phase out” fossil fuels in Canada.
In 2019, the Trudeau government passed Bill C-69, introducing subjective criteria including the “gender implications” of energy investment into the evaluation process of major energy projects, causing massive uncertainty around the development of new projects.
Also that year, the government enacted Bill C-48, which bans large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast, limiting Canadian exports to Asia.
In 2023, the Trudeau government announced plans to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—an arbitrary measure considering GHG emissions from other sectors in the economy were left untouched. According to a recent report, to comply with the cap, Canadian firms must severely curtail oil and gas production. As one might expect, these policies come at a cost. Over the last decade, investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector has collapsed by 56 per cent, from $84.0 billion in 2014 to $37.2 billion in 2023 (inflation adjusted). Less investment means less funding for new energy projects, technologies and infrastructure, and fewer job opportunities and economic opportunities for Canadians nationwide.
The energy gap between the U.S. and Canada is set to grow wider during President Trump’s second term. While Trump wants to attract investment to the American oil and gas industry by streamlining processes and cutting costs, Canada is driving investment away with costly and often arbitrary measures. If Ottawa continues on its current path, Canada’s leading industry—and its largest source of exports—will lose more ground to the U.S. When Parliament reconvenes, policymakers must move quickly to eliminate harmful policies hindering our energy sector.
Julio Mejía
Policy Analyst
Elmira Aliakbari
Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Audrey Streb
Iran is reportedly weighing blocking a key commercial choke point known as the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could drive up energy costs in the U.S. and across the globe, according to energy sector experts who spoke with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Israel began to bombard Iran to eliminate the Islamic Republic’s ability to build a nuclear weapon on June 13, and the U.S. carried out “Operation Midnight Hammer” on Saturday night, bombing three of Iran’s nuclear facilities. While Iran’s parliament has reportedly voted to close the Strait of Hormuz in a retaliatory move to choke the world’s oil supply in response to the American strikes, the U.S. is well-positioned to combat the inevitable energy cost spike that would follow if Iran succeeds, sector experts told the DCNF.
“The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel is already putting upward pressure on oil and natural gas prices—and that pressure will intensify if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked,” Trisha Curtis, an economist at the American Energy Institute, told the DCNF. “This kind of disruption would send global prices higher and tighten supply chains. Fortunately, the U.S. is well-positioned to respond — our domestic production strength and growing export infrastructure make American oil and natural gas increasingly indispensable to global markets.”
Iran does not have the legal authority to halt traffic through the strait, meaning it would need to usurp control through force or the threat of force, according to legal scholars and multiple reports. The Iranian parliament’s reported move to block the Strait on Sunday awaits final approval by Iran’s Supreme Council, according to Iran’s Press TV.
The Strait is only 35 to 60 miles wide and connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, flowing past Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. The thoroughfare is vital for global trade, as tankers carried one fifth of the world’s oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024 and the first quarter of 2025, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Roughly 20 million barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis, Curtis noted. Some liquified natural gas (LNG) exports would also be blocked if the Strait of Hormuz were closed, she said.
Iran has reportedly been warning that it could close the strait for weeks, with one Iranian lawmaker and a member of the parliament’s National Security Committee presidium both quoted as saying that Iran could respond to enemy attacks by disturbing the West’s oil supply. Maritime agencies and the U.K. Navy have advised ships to avoid the Strait in recent weeks, given the potential threat.
Other energy experts pointed to how the Russia-Ukraine war led to a worldwide spike in energy costs.
“Energy markets do not like war — they particularly do not like war in the Middle East,” Marc Morano, author and the head of Climate Depot told the DCNF. Morano noted that the impact of the war did not immediately spike energy costs in the U.S. and abroad, though further escalation could spike them — especially Iran moving to block the Strait. “Even rumors of a blockade could instill fear into energy markets and drive prices up,” Morano said.
Despite the threat of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz being blocked, the U.S. has some cushion, given that it is a net exporter of oil and gas, according to energy sector experts.
President Donald Trump has promoted a pro-energy-growth agenda that paves the way for domestic oil and gas expansion, which positions the U.S. to withstand intense conflict escalations or even the closure of the Strait, energy sector experts told the DCNF.
Such a blockage would make US oil and gas exports more important. It underscores the importance of Trump’s agenda — to open Alaska and other areas to energy production, to speed up infrastructure permitting, and to increase exports to our allies,” director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment Diana Furchtgott-Roth told the DCNF.
Though the U.S. still imports oil from some nations in the Middle East, including those that use the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. has the capacity to become the dominant oil producer, energy sector experts told the DCNF.
If Iran were to close the Strait it would amount to “economic suicide” as the nation’s economy is reliant on Hormuz, both Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in interviews on Sunday.
James Taylor, president of the Heartland Institute, told the DCNF that any disruption in the oil markets would lead to price increases, which only highlights the need for pro-energy policies domestically.
“It is very important for American policymakers to support rather than impede American oil production because America, as a dominant energy producer, will be largely immune to such political crises,” Taylor said. “In fact, if America is a dominant oil producer and Iran takes steps to shock the oil markets, America would benefit and Iran’s nefarious plan would backfire.”
Business
Outrageous government spending: Canadians losing over 1 billion a week to interest payments
By Franco Terrazzano
Massive borrowing, soaring interest charges unacceptable
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the federal government to cut spending following Thursday’s Parliamentary Budget Officer report showing debt interest charges cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2024-25.
“The PBO report shows debt interest charges cost taxpayers more than $1 billion every week,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Massive deficits mean interest charges cost taxpayers more than the feds send to the provinces in health transfers.”
The PBO projects the federal government’s deficit to be $46 billion in 2024-25.
Interest charges on the federal debt cost taxpayers $54 billion in 2024, according to the PBO’s Economic and Fiscal Monitor. For comparison, the federal government spent $52 billion through the Canada Health Transfer in 2024, according to the Fall Economic Statement. That means the government spent more money on debt interest payments than it sent to the provinces in health-care transfers.
A separate PBO report projects debt interest charges will reach $70 billion by 2029.
A recent Leger poll shows Canadians want the federal government to cut spending (45 per cent) instead of increasing spending (20 per cent) or maintaining current spending levels (19 per cent).
“Borrowing tens of billions of dollars every year is unaffordable and unacceptable,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians want
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
Ottawa Slams Eby Government Over Chinese Shipyard Deal, Citing Security and Sovereignty Risks
Carney’s exercise in stupidity
Unified message for Ottawa: Premier Danielle Smith and Premier Scott Moe call for change to federal policies
-
Business2 days ago
Ottawa Slams Eby Government Over Chinese Shipyard Deal, Citing Security and Sovereignty Risks
-
Automotive2 days ago
Carney’s exercise in stupidity
-
National21 hours agoPreston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?
-
Energy24 hours agoEnergy Policies Based on Reality, Not Ideology, are Needed to Attract Canadian ‘Superpower’ Level Investment – Ron Wallace
-
Business1 day agoHigh Taxes Hobble Canadian NHL Teams In Race For Top Players
-
International21 hours agoTrump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis
-
Alberta2 days agoHigh costs, low returns – Canada’s wildly expensive emissions cap
-
armed forces22 hours agoHow Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?