Ottawa’s Regulatory Assault on the Extraction Sector and Its Impact on Investment

Business investment is a foundational requirement for a prosperous economy. It provides the resources to establish new companies, expand existing ones, and invest in new factories, machinery, and technologies. Business investment in Canada has declined markedly for over a decade. It is a major reason why Canadian living standards are stagnating in absolute terms and declining relative to many peer countries, particularly the United States.1

One factor behind declining business investment is the heavy regulatory burden imposed by the current federal government on the extraction sector, which includes: mining, quarrying, and oil and gas. Since 1990, this sector averaged 17.3 percent of total non-residential business investment, and reached as high as 28.7 percent of the total in 2013.2

The federal government has been particularly critical of the oil and gas sector. As an example of such sentiment, in a 2017 speech Prime Minister Trudeau said it would take time to “phase out” the oil sands, indicating the long-term goal of the federal government to eliminate the fossil fuel industry (Muzyka, 2017). The prime minister’s comments were followed by a number of new regulations that directly or indirectly targeted the oil and gas sector:

• In 2019, Bill C-69 amended and introduced federal acts to overhaul the governmental review process for approving major infrastructure projects (Parliament of Canada, 2018). The changes were heavily criticized for prolonging the already lengthy approval process, increasing uncertainty, and further politicizing the process (Green, 2019).

• In 2019, Bill C-48 changed regulations for vessels transporting oil to and from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and thus limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export (Parliament of Canada, 2019).

• Indications from the federal government that a mandatory hard cap on GHG emissions would eventually be introduced for the oil and gas sector. In 2023, such a cap was introduced (Kane and Orland, 2023), excluding other GHG emitting sectors of the economy (Watson, 2022).

• In early 2023, the government announced new fuel regulations, which will further increase the cost of fuels beyond the carbon tax (ECCC, 2023).

• In late 2023, with limited consultation with industry or the provinces, the Trudeau government announced major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production (Tasker, 2016).

The growing regulatory burden has a number of implications that impede or even prohibit oil and gas investment, by increasing costs and uncertainty, making it less attractive to invest in Canada. Both a 2022 survey of mining companies and a 2023 survey of petroleum companies identified the same three risks as inhibiting investment in Canadian provinces—uncertainty over disputed land claims, protected areas, and environmental regulations.3

It is also important to recognize that the Trudeau government introduced a carbon tax in 2016, which conceptually should replace regulations related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions such as those listed previously rather than be an additional policy lever used to manage GHG emissions.4

The regulations discussed above, as well as direct decisions by the federal government had tangible effects on the oil and gas sector:

• In late 2016, the Northern Gateway pipeline running from northern Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia was cancelled by the Trudeau government, further limiting the ability of firms in Alberta to get their products to export markets (Tasker, 2016).

• In 2017, TransCanada Corp. cancelled its $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline, which would have transported oil from Alberta to Saint John, New Brunswick. The project was cancelled in large measure due to changes in national policy regarding the approval of large infrastructure projects (Canadian Press, 2017).

• While the Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby, BC was approved, Kinder Morgan exited the project in 2018 due to uncertainties and questions about the economics of the project, forcing the Trudeau government to take the ownership. The cost of the project has since increased by more than four times the original estimate to $30.9 billion (Globe and Mail Editorial Board, 2023).

• In 2019, US-based Devon Energy announced plans to exit Canada’s oilsands to pursue more profitable opportunities in the United States (Healing, 2019).

• In 2020, Teck Resources abandoned its $20 billion Frontier oilsands mine in Alberta because of increasing regulatory uncertainty (Connolly, 2020).

• In 2020, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway decided not to invest $4 billion in Saguenay LNG, a liquified natural gas plant and pipeline, due to political and regulatory risks (CBC News, 2020).

The divestitures above are not an exhaustive list. Other companies including Norwegian Equinor (formerly Statoil), France’s TotalEnergies SE (formerly Total SA), US-based Murphy Oil, and ConocoPhillips have all reduced their investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector.

The government’s mounting regulations and hostilities towards the oil and gas sector did not go unnoticed outside of Canada. A 2018 article in The Economist listed the many failures to develop pipeline infrastructure in Canada to bring much-demanded oil and gas to market. Indeed, the piece called it a “three-ring circus” that risked “alienating foreign investors who are already pulling back from Canada” (Economist, 2018).

It is first important to acknowledge the overall decline in business investment in Canada since 2014. Overall, total non-residential business investment (inflation-adjusted) declined by 7.3 percent between 2014 and 2022.5, 6

The decline in business investment in the extractive sector (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas) is even more pronounced. Since 2014, business investment excluding residential structures and adjusted for inflation has declined from $101.9 billion to $49.7 billion in 2022, a reduction of 51.2 percent (figure 1).7

A similar decline in business investment of 52.1 percent is observed for conventional oil and gas, falling from $46.6 billion in 2014 to $22.3 billion in 2022 (inflation-adjusted) (figure 1). In percentage terms the decline in non-conventional oil extraction was even larger at 71.2 percent, falling from $37.3 billion in 2014 to $10.7 billion in 2022.8

Simply put, the declines in the extraction sector are larger than the total decline in overall non-residential business
investment between 2014 and 2022, indicating the magnitude of the overall effect of the decline in business investment in this sector.

The importance of business investment to the health of an economy and the rising living standards of citizens cannot be overstated. One of the major challenges facing Canadian prosperity are regulatory barriers, particularly in the oil and gas sector.

In that light, much of the regulatory burden added over the last eight years to the oil and gas sector should simply be eliminated. In some ways this is already being forced on the federal government through court decisions. For instance, in October of 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that parts of Bill C-69 were unconstitutional as they infringed on areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, requiring revisions to the Act (Dryden, 2023).

A careful and clear analysis is needed of the costs and benefits of the regulatory measures imposed on the oil and gas sector, including Bill C-48, the recent methane regulations, and the emissions cap. Based on this analysis, the regulatory measures should be adjusted to help improve the ability of Canada’s energy sector to attract and retain investment.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Many Gen Z and millennial Canadians don’t believe in EV corporate welfare

Don't Miss

Federal government’s turbo-charged immigration helping drive housing demand

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

New Canadian bill would punish those who deny residential indigenous schools deaths claims

Health / 12 hours ago

RFK Jr. urges global health authorities to remove mercury from all vaccines

armed forces / 13 hours ago

The Liberal Government Just Betrayed Veterans. Again. Right Before Remembrance Day.

Business

Bill Gates Gets Mugged By Reality

Published on November 7, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.

For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.

Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.

AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.

What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.

Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”

I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.

(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.

(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.

(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.

I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.

Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.

If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.

Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.

Business

Carney budget doubles down on Trudeau-era policies

Published on November 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green and Elmira Aliakbari

The Carney government tabled its first budget, which includes major new spending initiatives to promote a so-called “green economy,” and maintains greenhouse gas (GHG)-emission extinction as a central operating principle of Canadian governance.

The budget leaves untouched most of the legislative dampers on Canada’s fossil fuel sector (oil, gas, coal) of the last 10 years, while pouring still more money into theoretically “green” projects such as additional (and speculative new types) of nuclear power, electrical transmission to service “green” energy production, continued tax credits for alternative fuels such as hydrogen, and more. Adding insult to injury, the budget discusses “enhancing” (read: likely increasing) the carbon tax on industrial emitters across Canada, and tightening controls over provinces to ensure they meet new federal tax targets.

Over the past decade, Ottawa introduced numerous regulations to restrict oil and gas development and again accelerate the growth of the green sector. Key initiatives include Ottawa’s arbitrary cap on GHG emissions for the oil and gas sector, which will restrict production; stricter regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas industry, which will also likely restrict production; “clean electricity” regulations that aim to decarbonize Canada’s electricity generation; Bill C-69 (which introduced subjective ill-defined criteria into the evaluation of energy projects); and Bill C-48, known as the oil tanker ban on the west coast, which limits Canadian exports to Asian and other non-U.S. markets.

At the same time, governments launched a wide range of spending initiatives, tax credits and regulations to promote the green economy, which basically includes industries and technologies that aim to reduce pollution and use cleaner energy sources. Between 2014/15 and 2024/25, federal spending on green initiatives (such as subsidizing renewable power, providing incentives for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, funding for building retrofits, and support for alternative fuels such as hydrogen, etc.) went from $0.6 billion to $23 billion—a 38-fold increase. Altogether, since 2014, Ottawa and provincial governments in the country’s four largest provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta) have spent and foregone revenues of at least $158 billion to promote the green sector.

Yet, despite the government’s massive spending and heavy regulation to constrain the fossil fuel industry and promote the green sector, the outcomes have been extremely disappointing. In 2014, the green sector accounted for 3.1 per cent of Canada’s economic output, and by 2023, that share had only slightly grown to 3.6 per cent. Put simply, despite massive spending, the sector’s contribution to Canada’s economy has barely changed. In addition, between 2014 and 2023, despite billions in government spending to promote the green sector, only 68,000 new jobs were added in this sector, many of them in already established fields such as waste management and hydroelectric power. The sector’s contribution to national employment remains small, representing only 2 per cent of total jobs in the country.

Not surprisingly, this combination of massive government spending and heavy-handed regulation have contributed to Canada’s economic stagnation in recent years. As documented by our colleagues, Canadian living standards—measured by per-person GDP—were lower in the second quarter of 2025 than six years earlier, suggesting we are poorer today than we were six years ago.

But for Prime Minister Carney, apparently, past failures do not temper future plans, as the budget either reaffirms or expands upon the failed plans of the past decade. No lessons appear to have even been considered, much less learned from past failures.

There had been some hope that Carney’s first budget would include some reflection of how badly the natural resource and energy policies of the Trudeau government have hurt Canada’s economy.

But other than some language obfuscation—“investment” vs. “spending,” “competitiveness” of GHG controls (not economy), and the “green” energy economy vs. the “conventional” energy economy—this is a Trudeau-continuance business-as-usual agenda on steroids. Yes, they will allow some slight deceptive rollbacks to proceed (such as rolling the consumer carbon tax into the industrial carbon tax rather than eliminating it), and may allow still more carbon taxes to render at least one onerous Trudeau-era regulation (the oil and gas cap) to be rendered moot, but that’s stunningly weak tea on policy reform.

The first Carney budget could and likely will, if passed, continue the economic stagnation plaguing Canada. That does not bode well for the future prosperity of Canadians.