Next federal government should discard harmful energy policies—tariffs notwithstanding

Over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets

While the full extent of the damage from President Trump’s trade war remains unknowns, Canadians should understand that, with a federal election looming, shortsighted policies here at home have left Canada in a vulnerable position.

Oil and gas are Canada’s main exports and the U.S. is their primary destination. In 2023, nearly 97 per cent of Canada’s oil exports went to our southern neighbour, and the U.S. is our sole foreign market for our natural gas. This concentration of exports to a single destination has given the U.S. significant leverage. For example, Canada exports natural gas at discounted prices—up to 60 per cent lower than what American producers receive in U.S. markets. Similarly, our oil has been sold for less than what U.S. producers receive, with price differences exceeding 40 per cent in recent years. Selling our energy at discounted prices to the U.S. has cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars in lost revenues.

And yet, over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets. To unleash Canada’s oil and gas sector, the next government must reverse a whole set of harmful energy policies.

For example, the Northern Gateway pipeline designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast. In 2016, one year after taking office, the Trudeau government cancelled this previously approved $7.9 billion project, which would have greatly expanded Canada’s access to Asian markets.

Then there’s the Energy East and Eastern Mainline pipelines from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the east coast. The Trudeau government effectively made the project economically unfeasible by introducing new regulatory hurdles, ultimately forcing the TransCanada energy company to withdraw from the project, which would have expanded access to European markets.

The record is equally bleak for liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities, which could open access to overseas markets. Regulatory barriers and long approval timelines under the Trudeau government significantly hindered the development of the Énergie Saguenay LNG project in Quebec, the Repsol LNG plant in New Brunswick and the Pacific NorthWest LNG facility in B.C.

And when opportunity knocked to diversify our trading partners, the government failed to seize it. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, political leaders from Latvia, Ukraine, Germany, Greece and Poland turned to Canada seeking new LNG supply, but Trudeau insisted there was “no business case for LNG” and missed the chance to open new markets.

Finally, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-69 created massive uncertainty in project reviews and approvals by introducing vague assessment criteria including “gender implications” for major energy projects including pipelines and LNG export facilities. In fact, according to a recent report, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, almost every project submission remained stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process, underscoring the inefficiency of the review process.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-48 restricts Canadian exports to Asia by banning large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast. And its targeted emissions cap, which requires only the oil and gas sector to cut greenhouse gases by 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030, is designed to curtail energy production, further limiting Canada’s ability to meet global energy demands.

During the upcoming election campaign, Canadians should demand to hear how (or if) each party will remove barriers that hinder the development of energy projects and streamline approvals to unlock Canada’s untapped potential. Tariffs or not, Canada can’t afford to keep undermining its key export sector with regulatory barriers.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#CanadaOilAndGas #ElmiraAliakbari #FraserInstitute #JulioMejía CanadaEnergyPolicy

Up Next

Social workers get millions to push DEI in schools

Don't Miss

Doug Ford needs to ditch the net-zero pipedreams

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

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Business / 12 hours ago

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Addictions / 12 hours ago

Coffee, Nicotine, and the Politics of Acceptable Addiction

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on December 31, 2025

Todayville

By Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

The legal layer

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Business

Dark clouds loom over Canada’s economy in 2026

Published on December 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

The dawn of a new year is an opportune time to ponder the recent performance of Canada’s $3.4 trillion economy. And the overall picture is not exactly cheerful.

Since the start of 2025, our principal trading partner has been ruled by a president who seems determined to unravel the post-war global economic and security order that provided a stable and reassuring backdrop for smaller countries such as Canada. Whether the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement (that President Trump himself pushed for) will even survive is unclear, underscoring the uncertainty that continues to weigh on business investment in Canada.

At the same time, Europe—representing one-fifth of the global economy—remains sluggish, thanks to Russia’s relentless war of choice against Ukraine, high energy costs across much of the region, and the bloc’s waning competitiveness. The huge Chinese economy has also lost a step. None of this is good for Canada.

Yet despite a difficult external environment, Canada’s economy has been surprisingly resilient. Gross domestic product (GDP) is projected to grow by 1.7 per cent (after inflation) this year. The main reason is continued gains in consumer spending, which accounts for more than three-fifths of all economic activity. After stripping out inflation, money spent by Canadians on goods and services is set to climb by 2.2 per cent in 2025, matching last year’s pace. Solid consumer spending has helped offset the impact of dwindling exports, sluggish business investment and—since 2023—lacklustre housing markets.

Another reason why we have avoided a sharper economic downturn is that the Trump administration has, so far, exempted most of Canada’s southbound exports from the president’s tariff barrage. This has partially cushioned the decline in Canada’s exports—particularly outside of the steel, aluminum, lumber and auto sectors, where steep U.S. tariffs are in effect. While exports will be lower in 2025 than the year before, the fall is less dramatic than analysts expected 6 to 8 months ago.

Although Canada’s economy grew in 2025, the job market lost steam. Employment growth has softened and the unemployment rate has ticked higher—it’s on track to average almost 7 per cent this year, up from 5.4 per cent two years ago. Unemployment among young people has skyrocketed. With the economy showing little momentum, employment growth will remain muted next year.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing positive to report on the investment front. Adjusted for inflation, private-sector capital spending has been on a downward trajectory for the last decade—a long-term trend that can’t be explained by Trump’s tariffs. Canada has underperformed both the United States and several other advanced economies in the amount of investment per employee. The investment gap with the U.S. has widened steadily since 2014. This means Canadian workers have fewer and less up-to-date tools, equipment and technology to help them produce goods and services compared to their counterparts in the U.S. (and many other countries). As a result, productivity growth in Canada has been lackluster, narrowing the scope for wage increases.

Preliminary data indicate that both overall non-residential investment and business capital spending on machinery, equipment and advanced technology products will be down again in 2025. Getting clarity on the future of the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will be key to improving the business environment for private-sector investment. Tax and regulatory policy changes that make Canada a more attractive choice for companies looking to invest and grow are also necessary. This is where government policymakers should direct their attention in 2026.