Federal Government Suddenly Reverses on Critical Minerals – Over Three Years Too Late – MP Greg McLean

Government in Full Reverse

Canada-U.S. Trade Relations is obviously the most pressing issue facing Canadians today.

It’s important to remember how we arrived at this point, but also to question the sincerity of the Liberal Ministers and leadership contenders who are now posing solutions, such as:

We need to diversify our resource trade
We need to build pipelines and infrastructure to get our exports to tidewater
We need to streamline our regulatory burden that stands in the way of development
We need to halt the escalating carbon tax
We need to reverse the capital gains tax increase

The Liberals are turning themselves inside out on the policy choices they have made over nine years, and put Canada in a precarious economic position vis-à-vis our trade position.

If you believe what they are saying now, these Liberal Ministers and leadership contenders are saying that Canada needs EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they have delivered over these past nine years.

I can’t comment on whether these NEW Liberal policy positions completely lack sincerity, or whether they are the result of a ‘deathbed conversion’, but nine years of moving in the exact opposite direction to their new words has led Canada to where it is today – and that is nine lost years for Canadians, our prosperity, and our role in a complex world.

Below is another example of a specific morphing of a Liberal policy – to the one I helped put forth – 3 ½ years ago – regarding Canada’s policy on critical minerals.

Minister Late to Critical Mineral Strategy

Here’s a gem of wisdom from December’s Fall Economic Statement:

Canada will work with the United States and other likeminded partners to address the impacts of non-market policies and practices that unduly distort critical mineral prices. This includes ensuring that market participants recognize the value of critical minerals produced responsibly, with due regard for high environmental standards and labour practices.

Then, on January 16^th, the following from Canada’s Natural Resource Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson:

During a panel discussion in Washington on Wednesday, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson proposed that enforcing a floor on metals prices could be “one of the centerpieces of the conversations we would then be having at the G7” summit later this year.

Western nations have long warned that China’s dominance in everything from nickel to lithium has let the country’s producers flood the market with supply, thereby keeping prices artificially low for competitors. Wilkinson has touted price floors as a way to combat that market control.

What a great idea!

Here’s the relevant excerpt from June, 2021, from a dissenting report on the Natural Resources Committee, when I served as my party’s critic, in contrast to the government’s critical minerals approach at that time:

Recommendation 4: Coordinate with our allies to establish a dedicated supply stock of critical minerals, possibly through a physical storage and floor pricing mechanism for visibility and pricing purposes.

Excerpt: Canada is too small of a market to undertake this effort on its own, but it can play a key role with its longstanding leadership as the mining jurisdiction of choice in the world. Canada’s pre-eminent role as a financing jurisdiction for international mining is well understood. Although we are at the early stages of losing this historical leadership to Australia, acting quickly to solidify Canada’s leadership will be a strong signal. Australia and Europe have already established critical mineral strategies to offset the dominance of the market that China has exerted. At the very least, Canada’s coordination needs to include the United States, and probably Mexico (through CUSMA), as the ongoing funding of a critical mineral supply may require backstopping developments with a price amelioration mechanism. In essence, a floor price to ensure the protection of critical mineral developments from manipulating price volatility – and which has held back developments, or caused the insolvency of several of these developments, due to non-transparent world market pricing mechanisms. … Establishing a steady supply of these critical minerals will lead to more value-added opportunities, in conjunction with our trade partners.

FULL REPORT

Conservative Dissenting Recommendations

My question to the Minister: ‘What took you so long?’

This approach was presented three and a half years ago – and the Government chose to ignore it then.

No surprise now, perhaps, as we’ve seen this Minister flip-flop on so many of the nonsense policies he’s put forth or acquiesced in at Cabinet:

The Clean Electricity Regulations (still opaque)
Canada’ role in shipping hydrocarbons to the world
Building energy infrastructure

To say nothing of the various Cabinet decisions he has been a part of that have led to Canada’s current weak negotiating position with our allies. We effectively have not had a Minister of Natural Resources under his tenure.

Nothing topped it off more succinctly than his speech at the World Petroleum Show, held in Calgary in September 2023, when his remarks on behalf of the Government of Canada left industry participants around the world questioning whether the Minister was ‘tone-deaf’ or if, in fact, he knew anything about natural resources.

It seems his move to the position I promoted – three and a half years ago – shows that he’s finally listening and learning (or un-learning his previous narratives, perhaps)– but it’s quite late in the day. Time and our future have been wasted.

Related Topics:#CriticalMinerals #EnergyNow.CA LiberalEnergyPolicy LiberalGovernment MPGregMcLean

Up Next

Kash Patel First Statement As FBI Director, Tells Media ‘Bring It On’

Don't Miss

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

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

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 9 hours ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 11 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Energy

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

Will direct tenure awards to First Nations unlock Montney gas?

By Nelson Bennett

In an attempt to open an area that producers have essentially been shut out of in northeastern B.C., the B.C. government directly awarded oil and gas tenure to the Halfway River First Nation, giving them greater control over how oil and gas extraction in the area might happen.

That tenure is now getting “farmed out” to companies like ARC Resources.

“The granting of the tenure by the B.C. government to the nation is new,” said Greg Kist, executive manager for Tsaa Dunne Za Energy, the Halfway River First Nation’s energy business.

*Greg Kist, former president of Pacific NorthWest LNG and current managing executive for Tsaa Dunne Ta Energy*, *THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh*.

Depending on the outcome of the experiment, it’s the kind of thing that might one day be showcased at a future Indigenous Partnership Success Showcase event.

For more than two decades, a large area in Halfway River First Nation traditional territory in northeastern B.C. has been off limits to industrial activities like logging and oil and gas exploration and extraction, due to treaty rights.

In 1999, the BC Supreme Court quashed a timber harvesting permit approved by the province for Canfor, based on Halfway River First Nation’s Treaty 8 rights.

An extraction moratorium of sorts was placed over core HRFN territory, which happens to be in the “fairway” of the Montney natural gas formation.

“All of the lands were deferred from any further development,” Kist said. “And that meant everything from logging it, to oil and gas activities.”

This “deferral” of industrial activities in the area has been one of the question marks hanging over the oil and gas-rich Montney formation in northeastern B.C.

The 2021 BC Supreme Court Yahey decision had also left Treaty 8 territory dotted with question marks.

In Yahey, the court ruled cumulative impacts of activities like oil and gas development constituted a breach of the treaty rights of the Blueberry River First Nation, one of eight B.C. signatories to Treaty 8.

These various treaty rights rulings in northeastern B.C. create a serious challenge: How can B.C. continue to benefit from an abundance of natural gas to feed a burgeoning LNG industry without infringing the rights of Treaty 8 First Nations?

In the case of Halfway River, the B.C. government, the First Nation and industry are taking an innovative approach, using oil and gas tenure.

Last year, the B.C. government and HRFN signed a treaty settlement agreement that grants the nation more control over land use and development. As part of the agreement, the B.C. government directly awarded HRFN oil and gas tenure over 34,000 hectares of land. It was the first time the province has directly awarded oil and gas tenure to a First Nation.

In turn, the HRFN is now farming out its tenure rights to companies like ARC Resources, whose existing land holdings in the Attachie play are directly adjacent to the HRFN tenure.

“The resource quality is comparable to ARC’s existing Attachie asset, further extending the development runway at one of ARC’s most profitable assets,” ARC said in its second quarter financials at the end of July.

The tenure awarded to HRFN through its energy business, Tsaa Dunne Ta Energy, encompasses prime Montney real estate that had been essentially sterilized from development for decades.

“That 34,000 hectares is right in the middle of the Montney fairway,” Kist said.

Under an “earning and development” agreement with Tsaa Dunne Za Energy, ARC Resources will gain access to 36 parcels of land contiguous with its existing land parcel in the Attachie play. This expands its Attachie holdings by 10%.

Green area denotes Halfway River First Nation tenure; blue represents ARC Resources tenure.

“Think of it as Tsaa Dunne farming that land out to ARC, and we have an agreement that benefits us financially,” Kist said.

“The tenure award and landscape planning pilot will help to ensure that oil and gas development in these areas is sustainable and managed in accordance with the values of the Halfway River First Nation,” Chief Darlene Hunter said last year with the signing of the treaty settlement agreement.

Kist notes that the agreement with ARC represents only 25% of the land tenure granted to HRFN. So 75% of the land tenure could be open to further agreements with other natural gas producers.

“There will likely be more deals over time as we look at the different opportunities that are out there,” Kist said.

Kist is the former president of Rockies LNG and, before that, president of Pacific Northwest LNG. He and Jim Stannard, a former Petronas executive, are now managers for Tsaa Dunne Za Energy.

The tenure award does not represent a transfer of subsurface rights. All subsurface rights to things like minerals, coal, and oil and gas belong to the Crown.

“And at the end of the day, the B.C. government still gets its royalties,” Kist said. “But now the nation is very much in control of that activity.”

The recent agreement with ARC to develop 36 parcels adjacent to its Attachie lands is just the first one to be signed so far. There may be more such agreements in the future, Kist said.

Kist said the First Nation tenure model could end up being used elsewhere.

“I think the B.C. government’s going to look at these sorts of opportunities in areas where maybe there is a lack of development moving things forward,” he said.

“I think this could potentially be the model for development, with First Nations leading the way.”

Alberta

Canada’s heavy oil finds new fans as global demand rises

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

“The refining industry wants heavy oil. We are actually in a shortage of heavy oil globally right now, and you can see that in the prices”

Once priced at a steep discount to its lighter, sweeter counterparts, Canadian oil has earned growing admiration—and market share—among new customers in Asia.

Canada’s oil exports are primarily “heavy” oil from the Alberta oil sands, compared to oil from more conventional “light” plays like the Permian Basin in the U.S.

One way to think of it is that heavy oil is thick and does not flow easily, while light oil is thin and flows freely, like fudge compared to apple juice.

“The refining industry wants heavy oil. We are actually in a shortage of heavy oil globally right now, and you can see that in the prices,” said Susan Bell, senior vice-president of downstream research with Rystad Energy.

A narrowing price gap

Alberta’s heavy oil producers generally receive a lower price than light oil producers, partly a result of different crude quality but mainly because of the cost of transportation, according to S&P Global.

The “differential” between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) blew out to nearly US$50 per barrel in 2018 because of pipeline bottlenecks, forcing Alberta to step in and cut production.

So far this year, the differential has narrowed to as little as US$10 per barrel, averaging around US$12, according to GLJ Petroleum Consultants.

“The differential between WCS and WTI is the narrowest I’ve seen in three decades working in the industry,” Bell said.

Trans Mountain Expansion opens the door to Asia

Oil tanker docked at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, B.C. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

The price boost is thanks to the Trans Mountain expansion, which opened a new gateway to Asia in May 2024 by nearly tripling the pipeline’s capacity.

This helps fill the supply void left by other major regions that export heavy oil – Venezuela and Mexico – where production is declining or unsteady.

Canadian oil exports outside the United States reached a record 525,000 barrels per day in July 2025, the latest month of data available from the Canada Energy Regulator.

China leads Asian buyers since the expansion went into service, along with Japan, Brunei and Singapore, Bloomberg reports.

Asian refineries see opportunity in heavy oil

“What we are seeing now is a lot of refineries in the Asian market have been exposed long enough to WCS and now are comfortable with taking on regular shipments,” Bell said.

Kevin Birn, chief analyst for Canadian oil markets at S&P Global, said rising demand for heavier crude in Asia comes from refineries expanding capacity to process it and capture more value from lower-cost feedstocks.

“They’ve invested in capital improvements on the front end to convert heavier oils into more valuable refined products,” said Birn, who also heads S&P’s Center of Emissions Excellence.

Refiners in the U.S. Gulf Coast and Midwest made similar investments over the past 40 years to capitalize on supply from Latin America and the oil sands, he said.

While oil sands output has grown, supplies from Latin America have declined.

Mexico’s state oil company, Pemex, reports it produced roughly 1.6 million barrels per day in the second quarter of 2025, a steep drop from 2.3 million in 2015 and 2.6 million in 2010.

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s oil production, which was nearly 2.9 million barrels per day in 2010, was just 965,000 barrels per day this September, according to OPEC.

The case for more Canadian pipelines

Worker at an oil sands SAGD processing facility in northern Alberta. Photo courtesy Strathcona Resources

“The growth in heavy demand, and decline of other sources of heavy supply has contributed to a tighter market for heavy oil and narrower spreads,” Birn said.

Even the International Energy Agency, known for its bearish projections of future oil demand, sees rising global use of extra-heavy oil through 2050.

The chief impediments to Canada building new pipelines to meet the demand are political rather than market-based, said both Bell and Birn.

“There is absolutely a business case for a second pipeline to tidewater,” Bell said.

“The challenge is other hurdles limiting the growth in the industry, including legislation such as the tanker ban or the oil and gas emissions cap.”

A strategic choice for Canada

Because Alberta’s oil sands will continue a steady, reliable and low-cost supply of heavy oil into the future, Birn said policymakers and Canadians have options.

“Canada needs to ask itself whether to continue to expand pipeline capacity south to the United States or to access global markets itself, which would bring more competition for its products.”