Canadian policymakers should quickly rethink our energy and climate policies

In the wee hours of Nov. 6, Donald Trump provided a subtle but clear signal about the direction he will pursue as president regarding climate policies. In his victory speech he gave a nod to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to join forces with MAGA saying, “He wants to do some things, and we’re gonna let him go to it. I just said, but Bobby, leave the oil to me. We have more liquid gold, oil and gas. We have more liquid gold than any country in the world. More than Saudi Arabia. We have more than Russia. Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold.”

People need to understand that Trump 2.0 is a different entity. He did not build his comeback movement by pandering or watering down his priorities. He reached out and either won people over to his side or sent them packing. A major example of this was Elon Musk, who during the first Trump administration resigned from the White House business advisory council to protest Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty. Now Musk is all-in on MAGA and is set to play a lead role in a major downsizing of the administration.

When Trump secured the endorsement of Bobby Kennedy it was based on issues on which they could find agreement, including anti-corruption efforts and addressing the chronic disease burden. But Kennedy had to leave his environmentalism at the door, at least the climate activist part of it.

Trump’s remarks about energy during the campaign were unmistakeable. When he made the quip about wanting to be dictator for a day it was to close the border and “drill drill drill.” When asked how he would reduce the cost of living he said he would rapidly expand energy production with a target of cutting energy costs by at least 50 per cent. And on election night he reiterated: the United States has the oil, the liquid gold, and they’re going to use it.

U.S. climate policy will soon no longer be a thing. The Biden administration chose to focus on extravagant green energy subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act. They were easy to bring in and will be just as easy for Trump to eliminate, especially the ones targeted at Democrat special interest groups. The incoming Trump administration will not settle simply for stalling on new climate action, it’s more likely to try to dismantle the entire climate bureaucracy.

In 2016 Trump did not understand the Washington bureaucracy and its ability to thwart a president’s plans. He learned many hard lessons merely trying to survive lawfare, resistance and open insubordination. It took three years for him to get a few people installed in senior positions in the climate area who could begin to push back against the vast regulatory machinery. But they simply did not have the time nor the capacity to get anything done.

This time should be different. Trump’s team has spent years developing legal and regulatory strategies to bring full executive authority back to the Oval Office so it can execute on plans quickly and efficiently. His top priority is hydrocarbon development and his team is in no mood for compromise. As to the climate issue, Trump recently remarked “Who the hell cares?”

That’s the reality. Now policymakers in Canada must decide what will be appropriate to ask of Canadians in terms of shouldering the costs of climate policies.

There’s one legal issue that Trump has thus far not addressed but that his administration will need to confront if it wants to drill drill drill. There has been an explosion of climate liability lawsuits in U.S. courts, where states, municipalities and activist groups sue major players in the fossil fuel industry demanding massive financial damages for alleged climate harms. There’s even a new branch of climate science called Extreme Event Attribution, which was explicitly developed to promote flimsy and arbitrary statistical analyses that support climate liability cases. Such cases are also popping up in Canada, including the Mathur case in Ontario, which the appellate court recently brought back from defeat.

Both Canada and the U.S. must act at the legislative level to extinguish climate liability in law. There is no good argument for letting this play out in the courts. The cases are prima facie preposterous: the emitters of carbon dioxide are the fuel users, not the producers, so liability—if it exists—should be attached to consumers. But then we would have an unworkable situation where everyone is liable to everyone, each person equally a victim and a tortfeasor. Climate policy belongs in the legislature not the courts and the “climate liability” movement is simply a massive waste of time and resources. It must be stopped.

Canada was already out of step with the U.S. in its mad pursuit of the federal Emission Reduction Plan. While the carbon tax is top of mind for voters, it’s but a small part of a larger and costlier regulatory onslaught, most recently supplemented by a new emissions cap on the western oil and gas sector. With the U.S. poised to sharply change direction, Canada now needs a complete rethink of our own energy and climate policies.

Author:

Ross McKitrick

Professor of Economics, University of Guelph

Up Next

Federal bureaucrats spend $76,000 a month renting art taxpayers have already bought

Don't Miss

CBC continues to push unproven unmarked graves claim, implies ‘denialism’ should be criminalized

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

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 2 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 2 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.