Connect with us

National

The State of Confederation: Provinces are pushing back against federal overreach

Published

2 months ago

18 minute read

News release from Project Confederation

Canada’s recent federal election has left many Canadians uncertain about the future.

With the Liberals back in power, the old Ottawa-centric mindset hasn’t disappeared.

But the ground is shifting.

At Project Confederation, we believe this is a pivotal moment.

Across the country, provinces are making moves – some bold, others subtle – to assert their jurisdiction, secure their economic futures, and push back against federal overreach.

From new trade corridors to critical minerals strategies to court battles over emissions caps, the fight for a stronger, freer Confederation is alive and evolving.

Clearly, the calls for real reform – for a rebalancing of powers between Ottawa and the provinces – aren’t going away.

If anything, the chances of significant changes have improved.

But, if the provinces want change, they’re going to have to lead it.

Which is why now is the perfect time to take stock of where each province stands.

So, let’s take a look at the State of Confederation in 2025, breaking down the positions each province has taken since the election, and highlighting the progress and problems we see in 2025 and beyond:

 

British Columbia

BC Premier David Eby has outlined several key priorities for the province now that the election campaign is over.

First, he emphasized the importance of removing interprovincial trade barriers, with BC already working on legislation to allow unilateral recognition of other provinces’ standards.

He also highlighted support for the softwood lumber industry, diversifying trade markets, and accelerating natural resource development.

Eby called on Ottawa to ensure fair treatment of BC by ensuring that federal programs and funding are distributed equitably across provinces, particularly comparing BC’s lack of transfer payments with those of other provinces.

Additionally, Eby expressed dissatisfaction with the unequal distribution of federal funds and criticized the current system for its lack of transparency and fairness.

In terms of energy projects, Eby’s government has tabled Bill 15, legislation designed to fast-track infrastructure and clean energy projects in British Columbia, but he’s also said projects won’t get fast-tracked without First Nations’ ownership.

 

Alberta

Alberta is taking bold steps to assert its rights and push for a more equitable deal with Ottawa.

In a recent address, Premier Danielle Smith announced the need for an “Alberta Accord” that would seek a guarantee of access to tidewater for energy exports, the repeal overreaching federal policies such as the clean electricity regulations and the oil and gas production cap, and demand equalization payments that reflect Alberta’s contributions to the Canadian economy.

Premier Smith’s address also acknowledged the growing movement for Alberta’s independence, recognizing that the province may explore the possibility of separation if Ottawa continues to ignore its demands.

Smith’s government has recently lowered the signature threshold for citizen-initiated referendums, potentially setting the stage for a referendum on separation in 2026 if enough signatures are gathered.

By opening the door for this vote, Alberta is sending a clear message to Ottawa: give the province a real deal or risk facing a more drastic path.

To ensure that Alberta’s voices are heard, Premier Smith announced the Alberta Next panel, a province-wide engagement initiative designed to give citizens the opportunity to share their frustrations and ideas for the province’s future.

This panel will host town halls and public consultations, with the possibility that the most popular proposals could make their way onto a province-wide referendum ballot in 2026.

 

Saskatchewan

Premier Scott Moe has been vocal about the need to remove trade barriers, including US and Chinese tariffs.

He released a list of 10 policy changes he says the federal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney must make to reset its relationship with Saskatchewan.

Key demands include negotiating to lift Chinese tariffs on Canadian agricultural exports like canola and peas, which were imposed in retaliation for Canada putting tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles.

Moe also wants Ottawa to scrap the federal industrial carbon tax and clean electricity regulations, reform bail laws and increase penalties for drug offences, expand pipeline and export infrastructure, and reduce federal red tape that he says infringes on provincial jurisdiction.

He emphasized that quick federal action on these issues would signal a more positive relationship than under the previous Trudeau government.

Premier Moe’s government has also been active in pushing back against federal policies that it believes undermine Saskatchewan’s energy sector.

In 2022, the province convened an Economic Impact Assessment Tribunal to evaluate the federal Impact Assessment Act and the oil and gas emissions cap, both of which were rejected as detrimental to Saskatchewan’s energy growth, and these remain contentious.

 

Manitoba

Premier Wab Kinew of Manitoba recently wrote to the federal government highlighting some key “nation-building” projects that the province wants federal support for.

The first project, the One Canada Trade Corridor, aims to enhance trade through the Port of Churchill and expand Canada’s energy corridors.

Kinew also called for joint investment in the Prairie Agriculture Innovation and Export Diversification project to help Western farmers access new markets through innovation centers.

The Canada’s Trucking Corridor project seeks to twin the Trans-Canada Highway through Manitoba, improving trade and road safety.

Kinew also requested federal investment in northern Manitoba’s infrastructure to support the development of Critical Minerals.

While many of these proposals amount to pitches for federal funding, it’s still good to see support for these sorts of projects from a provincial government.

Manitoba has also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario to reduce interprovincial trade barriers and boost economic cooperation.

The agreement focuses on harmonizing regulations, improving labour mobility, and recognizing professional credentials more easily – particularly for health-care workers and tradespeople – allowing them to begin working while their qualifications are processed.

 

Ontario

Ontario is taking steps to break down interprovincial trade barriers, including introducing the Protect Ontario through Free Trade within Canada Act, 2025.

Premier Doug Ford, along with New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt and Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, announced agreements to enhance trade between their provinces.

Ford and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew have also signed a memorandum of understanding to reduce interprovincial trade and regulatory barriers.

Key initiatives include harmonizing regulations, improving direct-to-consumer alcohol sales, and facilitating the recognition of professional credentials to allow healthcare professionals and tradespeople to work across provincial borders while their qualifications are processed.

Ford has also called for the repeal of Bill C-69 and voiced support for building new pipelines across Canada, though with a caveat that he’ll only support them if they use Ontario-made steel.

Ford criticized past political inaction on pipelines, arguing it has made Canada too dependent on the United States for energy security.

 

Quebec

Quebec has long positioned itself as a defender of provincial jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to language, culture, and immigration.

But, at least at the federal level, the Bloc Québécois has taken a firm stance against any project to expand a pipeline across the country, pledging to block such initiatives in Parliament.

Provincially, however, the picture is a bit more nuanced.

Recently, Premier François Legault expressed renewed openness to pipeline projects, particularly a potential route through northern Quebec to the port of Sept-Îles, citing shifting public attitudes due to Donald Trump’s tariff policies.

He argued that Quebecers are increasingly supportive of alternative export routes for Alberta oil to bypass US control and reach European markets.

The Quebec government has signalled it may reconsider energy projects like LNG Quebec and Energy East, indicating they are open to reviewing such proposals based on their merits.

A recent Québec Solidaire motion in the National Assembly, which called on the provincial government to oppose any pipeline development on Quebec soil, was defeated with opposition from both the governing Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) and the Quebec Liberals.

While Québec Solidaire and the Parti Québécois framed pipelines as environmental threats linked to fossil fuels, the Quebec Liberals argued that pipelines are simply a mode of transport and could be used for non-fossil materials like hydrogen or salt water.

Legault emphasized the need to balance environmental concerns with economic priorities, noting that any project would still undergo environmental assessment.

Quebec is also taking some strange – but still positive – steps to reduce interprovincial trade barriers by withdrawing at least five of its exemptions to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.

These changes will make it easier for individuals to register racehorses, become funeral directors, or work as real estate brokers in Quebec without meeting residency or office requirements.

Additionally, board members of Quebec’s ferry authority will no longer need to live in the province.

The provincial government may remove more exemptions in the future as part of a broader effort to encourage internal trade.

 

New Brunswick

New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt took a more literal approach to promoting interprovincial trade by mailing a selection of local New Brunswick products to other premiers across Canada.

Holt has also signed trade and labour mobility agreements with Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, with similar deals in progress with Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan.

Her government is also working with Atlantic premiers to create a regional free-trade zone.

Unfortunately, key protectionist policies remain in place in New Brunswick – Holt has avoided tackling major restrictions in sectors like forestry and seafood.

For example, Crown wood must still be sold to local mills, shielding the province’s largest industry from outside competition.

On seafood, the message is a little more positive.

Current rules don’t force products to be processed in New Brunswick, but an exemption still exists that would allow future governments to impose such a requirement.

Holt says she’ll remove that exemption – but only for provinces that do the same, which many, like Newfoundland and Labrador, have refused to do – at least for now.

 

Prince Edward Island

Prince Edward Island has introduced the Interprovincial Trade & Mobility Act, aimed at eliminating trade and labour mobility barriers with other provinces.

Premier Rob Lantz presented the bill in the legislature, following a similar initiative in Nova Scotia, with PEI expected to be the first province to reciprocate.

The bill proposes accepting provincial inspections and standards for goods from participating jurisdictions and setting up expedited licensing for regulated professions, with a 10-business-day turnaround time for certifications.

The legislation, which will only apply to jurisdictions that reciprocate, aims to foster collaboration between provinces and boost the economy by making the workforce more accessible.

However, it will not apply to regulated health professionals or lawyers.

 

Nova Scotia

Premier Tim Houston introduced the Free Trade and Mobility within Canada Act back in February, well before the federal election.

The bill allows goods and services from provinces or territories with similar legislation to be treated equally in Nova Scotia, eliminating redundant fees and testing.

It also enables certified professionals from those jurisdictions to work in Nova Scotia without additional licensing.

However, the bill excludes Canada’s supply management system.

Nova Scotia also has some gripes with the federal government.

The Province is taking Ottawa to court over who should pay to upgrade the dikes protecting the Isthmus of Chignecto, the land link between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

The Province argues that Ottawa bears full responsibility for the $650 million project because the infrastructure protects federally regulated trade and communications links, including highways, railways, and power lines.

The federal government has agreed to cover only half the cost, claiming the dikes primarily serve agricultural land, a shared jurisdiction.

Houston is also refocusing his government’s agenda on natural resource development to address potential revenue threats from US tariffs, slowing population growth, and uncertain federal transfers.

He suggested reconsidering long-standing bans on uranium mining, fracking, and oil and gas exploration on Georges Bank, arguing that excessive restrictions have hindered prosperity.

In a letter to caucus members, he criticized past governments for lacking the courage to act and pledged to reverse sector-wide bans in favour of more balanced policymaking.

 

Newfoundland and Labrador

Newfoundland and Labrador is also unhappy with the current equalization program.

They argue that it shortchanges smaller provinces, particularly in the Atlantic region.

The Province says that the program fails to account for unique challenges such as the high cost of delivering services to remote, sparsely populated areas and penalizes resource-rich provinces like Newfoundland for developing offshore oil.

Newfoundland and Labrador wants fairer distribution that reflects the actual needs of all provinces, rather than perpetuating a system that disproportionately benefits the larger ones.

They are currently challenging the federal government’s equalization formula in court, after the Trudeau Liberals extended the current formula through 2029 without addressing the Province’s concerns.

 

We hope you’ve appreciated this summary of the State of Confederation in 2025.

The path to a stronger, freer, and more balanced Confederation isn’t going to be charted in Ottawa – it’s going to be led by the provinces and demanded by the people.

But that only happens if we keep up the pressure.

At Project Confederation, we’re working every day to hold governments accountable, push for structural reform, and empower citizens like you to fight for a better deal for your province.

We’re building momentum – province by province – but we can’t do it alone.

If you believe in a Canada where provinces are respected, where local priorities come first, and where Ottawa doesn’t get the final say on everything, please consider making a donation today:

Let’s make Confederation work – the way it was meant to.

Regards,

– The Project Confederation Team

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 6 hours ago

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Alberta / 6 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

International / 6 hours ago

Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump

Business

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Published on July 6, 2025

By

A tax expert on the departed Digital Services Tax, and the fiscal and policy holes it leaves behind

It’s fun, and fair, arguing whether Mark Carney “caved” in suspending the application of Canada’s Digital Services Tax to revive broader negotiations with the Trump administration. But I figure there are other dimensions to this issue besides tactics. So I got in touch with Allison Christians, a tax law professor at McGill University and the founding director of the Canadian Centre for Tax Policy.

In our talk, Christians discusses the policy landscape that led to the introduction of the DST; the pressure that contributed to its demise; and the ways other countries are addressing a central contradiction of the modern policy landscape: without some kind of digital tax, countries risk having to impose costs on their own digital industry that the overwhelmingly US-based multinationals can avoid.

I spoke to Christians on Friday. Her remarks are edited for length and clarity.

 

Paul Wells: I noticed in your social media that you express inordinate fondness for tax law.

Allison Christians: You will not find a more passionate adherent to the tax cult than me. Yes, I do. I love tax law. Of course I do. How could you not? How could you not love tax law?

PW: What’s to love about tax law?

Christians: Well, tax law is how we create our country. That’s how we build our society. That’s how we create the communities that we want to live in and the lifestyle that we want to share with our neighbours. That’s how: with tax law.

PW: I guess the goal [of tax policy] is to generate the largest amount of revenue with the smallest amount of grief? And to send social signals while you’re at it. Is that right?

Christians: I don’t think so. Tax is not about raising maximum revenue. Tax is about deciding what society you’re trying to build and what portions of that society need to be made public, and what can be left to private interests which then need to profit. So we have decided in Canada, as a country, that basic minimum healthcare cannot be a for-profit enterprise. It has to be a public enterprise in order to make sure that it works for everybody to a certain basic level. So tax is about making those decisions: are we going to privatize everything and everyone pays for their own health care, security, roads, insurance, fire department etc. And if they can’t pay, then too bad? Or are we going to have a certain minimum, and that minimum is going to be provided in a public way that harmonizes across the communities that we have. And that’s what tax is about. It’s not about extracting revenue at all. It’s about creating revenue. It’s about creating a market. It’s about investing in a community. So I just object to the whole idea that tax is about extracting something from me, because what tax is doing is creating a market for me to be able to thrive. Not just me, but all of my neighbours, as well.

PW: Let’s jump forward to the events of the past couple weeks. Were you surprised when the Prime Minister suspended the Digital Services Tax?

Christians: I think “surprise” is probably too strong of a word, because nothing any political leader does to cope with the volatility of the United States would surprise me. We are dealing with a major threat, a threat that is threatening to annex us, to take our resources, to take our sovereignty, to take our communities and rip them apart and turn them into a different way of being. And that’s a serious threat. So nothing would surprise me in response to that. Disappointed, of course. But not disappointed in our Canadian response. More disappointed in the juggernaut that Trump has been allowed to become by his base, and that they’re pulling the rug out from under everyone that’s cooperated with the US agenda for decades, including us.

PW: What’s your best understanding of what the Digital Services Tax was designed to accomplish? And is it unusual as taxes go?

Christians: So to understand this, you really have to be a policy wonk, which isn’t much fun. So I’m gonna give you an example that might make it clear from the perspective of Canada. Why we might have a Digital Service Tax or might want something like it.

I want to preface this by saying that the Digital Service Tax is by no means the only way to do the underlying things we want to accomplish. Certainly other countries have been collecting DSTs and have been collecting billions of dollars, and US companies have had reserves for paying that Digital Service Tax. So we just left money on the table. But let me try to explain why we want to do the thing without getting too “tax nerdy” on you.

So I’m sure you can come up with the one Canadian company that’s streaming content on television or on digital devices.

PW: Crave?

Christians: Yeah, that’s the one. Crave is owned by Bell Media and is a Canadian company. And Crave pays taxes in Canada. Crave has to compete against Netflix, which does not have to pay tax in Canada. Netflix just simply doesn’t have to pay the same way that Crave does unless we force them to pay. Crave has to compete with US and foreign content streamers. We may get to a point where we can get Netflix to collect some sales tax on the GST, for example. But if Netflix itself stays out of Canada, physically, but it’s still getting all those customers that otherwise Crave would have access to, then Crave is at a structural disadvantage.

Now tell me which Canadian provider competes with Google.

PW: I can’t think of one.

Christians: Exactly. There isn’t one. How are we supposed to get a homegrown competitor when our competition simply does not pay taxes, and any one we would grow here in Canada has to pay tax here? So we have to understand the Digital Service Tax as simply our response to the fact that we normally do not tax a company unless they are physically located in Canada. But now we’ve got to go into this digital space and say: you’re still here, even if we can’t see you and talk to you, you’re still here. You’re doing something in our market. And that’s what the Digital Service Tax was trying to deal with.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

PW: Now, how are companies likely to respond to this Digital Services Tax? It seems to me the likeliest outcome would be that they would pass those costs on to their customers.

Christians: Yes, that is what companies have said they would do. Google talked about passing those costs on to the customers. And their customers obviously are advertisers. I want to point out that advertisers in Canada used to advertise in local newspapers and media. Now they advertise on Facebook, owned by an American-headquartered Company, Meta. Right now, they advertise on those foreign platforms, so we don’t have those advertising dollars here. Advertisers might have had to pay the Digital Service Tax if Google, or whoever, had passed it on to them. I think it’s fair to say, that Canadians advertising on those foreign platforms would have faced a gross-up to cover that tax.

PW: So, the net effect is that it just becomes more expensive for Canadian consumers. I’ve seen it argued that all this tax would have succeeded in doing is making Netflix more expensive.

Christians: Okay, that’s possible. I mean, that assumes the supply is totally elastic: you can increase the price of Netflix, and people will still pay it indefinitely. Right? So that’s the assumption in the short term. But the long-term assumption is that Crave becomes more competitive — because its competitors are paying the same tax that it is paying. The Crave subscription price may or may not respond, but if you put pressure on the foreign service providers in the same manner that’s on the Canadian providers, it might cost more, but we’re also getting the tax.

PW: I believe the Prime Minister, in an interview with the CBC said that he was thinking of getting rid of this thing, anyway. [The quote I’m reaching for here is: “Look, what we did this week is something that I think we were going to do anyways, in the end, for the deal.” At 1:07 in this video. — pw] Why do you think he would have been leaning in that direction? And do you think that absent a Truth Social post by President Trump, he actually would have gotten rid of the thing?

Christians: I can’t speculate too much about the politics of this, because I’m not talking to many of the people that make policy, but I know the complaints about the DST, and I don’t dispute them. It was going to be a complicated tax to collect and it was going to be messy in terms of compliance. There’s a lot of uncertainty around the tax and I know there’s always an enormous amount of pressure to reduce all taxes. There’s always going to be that segment of society that sees taxes being thrown down the drain and not as an investment in the society that we want to live in.

Share

American companies are famous for investing their money on lobbying and not in taxes. They spend their money convincing us that it would be bad for us to tax them, and they can spend a much smaller percentage of their money on lobbying and get us to believe that narrative. And the narrative is that somehow, if we tax Google, Google will go away and we won’t be able to use it. That Google won’t innovate. It’s nonsense, but it’s a story that resonates nonetheless. Was Prime Minister Carney pressured to get rid of the DST? Undoubtedly. And maybe he personally thinks there’s a better way to tax these companies than with an excise tax. I don’t fault him for thinking that. I have even written that there are better ways for Canada to collect this tax than the Digital Services Tax.

PW: I’m going to want you to tell me about these other ways. But I assume that if a Canadian government attempts any of these other ways, then the companies we’re talking about know that all they have to do is hit the Trump button and the pressure will be right back on.

Christians: That’s correct. There are a couple of [alternatives to the DST]. We could, like some other countries have done, redefine the types of income that we subject to withholding taxes in Canada. It’s a complicated technical idea, but basically any payments that go from our advertisers to Google, we could impose a withholding tax simply by expanding a couple of definitions in the Income Tax Act that would then carry over into our treaty. Now, people will push back on that, and say that you’re changing a deal, and people will object to that. And we can have an argument about that, but that possibility exists. That withholding tax is the most straightforward way to do this and we should probably already be thinking about it.

Another one that’s kind of fun, which I really enjoyed learning about when I came to Canada, is Section 19 in the Income Tax Act. So, Canadian advertisers are paying Google now, instead of a Canadian newspaper. Well, Section 19 basically says that whenever someone makes a payment for advertising to a foreign, non-Canadian media, that payment’s not deductible.

Now that provision seems to violate Free Trade rules because it changes, depending on who you make the payment to. But it’s a provision in law. The US objected to it when we adopted it by imposing a reciprocal tax on US advertisers paying Canadian outlets, which doesn’t seem to bother anybody.

PW: But the application of that will be very asymmetrical, right?

Christians: Yes, for sure. And I’ll tell you what the Canadian media noticed when we started paying for digital newspapers online: that they’re not subject to Section 19 — only print and traditional media are subject to this denial of deduction — and Canadian media advocated for this denial of deduction for online publications as well.

All you have to do is look at the wording of Section 19 — and you don’t even have to change the words — and all of a sudden all those payments to Google are not deductible. But if the payments were to Crave, they would be deductible, and if they are to the Globe and Mail, or other Canadian companies, they would be deductible. That is a different kind of advantage for the Canadian competitor that’s a little less susceptible to Trump’s understanding, and a little less susceptible to the politics that surround the Digital Services Tax. But it’s technical. You have to explain it to people, and they don’t believe you. It’s hard to understand it.

PW: Theoretically a two-time central-bank governor could wrap his head around it.

Christians: Yes, I think he could fully understand it, for sure. You’re absolutely right. Will he want to do it, though? I just don’t know.

PW: You said that there are other jurisdictions that continue, today, to successfully tax the web giants. Who are you thinking of?

Christians: Well, Austria’s been doing the Digital Service Tax since the beginning. The UK has the Diverted Profits Tax that they’ve been using. Australia has one that’s been enforced. Austria stands out because I think it was 2017, in Trump’s 1st term, and it was part of a group that Trump threatened to retaliate against, but they just quietly kept going and they’re still collecting it. Part of the narrative is that we, Canada, came too late to the DST party. We just weren’t part of that initial negotiation. We came in too late, and then it was too obvious, and people were able to isolate us from the pack.

PW: My understanding is we’re looking at a hypothetical $7.2 billion in revenue over 5 years. And that represents a shortfall that’s going to have to be found either in other revenue sources or in spending cuts, or in greater debt. Aside from the DST, do you think Canada could use a general overhaul of its tax code?

Christians: Always. Yes, absolutely! Taxes are funny, right? Because they come into every single political battle, and what ends up happening is that politicians treat the Tax Act and the tax system as a present-giving machinery, and not as a clear policy deliverance system.

I am, every day, surprised at how complicated the Canadian tax system is. It’s way too complicated. You can’t even fill out your own tax return in this country. You’re going to make mistakes because it’s just too ridiculously written. It’s too confusing. It’s too messy. So it’s time to take another look. But you need a commission [like the 1962 Carter royal commission on taxation]. You need to be bipartisan. You need to spend money on that. You need to think that the things that you do have long-term effects, and this takes political courage. And basically it requires upsetting a bunch of people and resetting things, and we just might not be at the right time politically to be doing that because people feel vulnerable to volatility from abroad. So it may not be the time to push that.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Paul Wells, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Energy

If Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It

Published on July 6, 2025

By

Photo by David Bloom / Postmedia file

From Energy Now

By Gary Mar

Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here

With the Trans Mountain Expansion online, we have new access to Pacific markets and Asia has responded, with China now a top buyer of Canadian crude.

The world is short on reliable energy and long on instability. Tankers edge through choke points like the Strait of Hormuz. Wars threaten pipelines and power grids. Markets flinch with every headline. As authoritarian regimes rattle sabres and weaponize supply chains, the global appetite for energy from stable, democratic, responsible producers has never been greater.

Canada checks every box: vast reserves, rigorous environmental standards, rule of law and a commitment to Indigenous partnership. We should be leading the race, but instead we’ve effectively tied our own shoelaces together.

In 2024, Canada set new records for oil production and exports. Alberta alone pumped nearly 1.5 billion barrels, a 4.5 per cent increase over 2023. With the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) online, we have new access to Pacific markets and Asia has responded, with China now a top buyer of Canadian crude.

The bad news is that we’re limiting where energy can leave the country. Bill C-48, the so-called tanker ban, prohibits tankers carrying over 12,500 tons of crude oil from stopping or unloading crude at ports or marine installations along B.C.’s northern coast. That includes Kitimat and Prince Rupert, two ports with strategic access to Indo-Pacific markets. Yes, we must do all we can to mitigate risks to Canada’s coastlines, but this should be balanced against a need to reduce our reliance on trade with the U.S. and increase our access to global markets.

Add to that the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) which was designed in part to shorten approval times and add certainty about how long the process would take. It has not had that effect and it’s scaring off investment. Business confidence in Canada has dropped to pandemic-era lows, due in part to unpredictable rules.

At a time when Canada is facing a modest recession and needs to attract private capital, we’ve made building trade infrastructure feel like trying to drive a snowplow through molasses.

What’s needed isn’t revolutionary, just practical. A start would be to maximize the amount of crude transported through the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, which ran at 77 per cent capacity in 2024. Under-utilization is attributed to a variety of factors, one of which is higher tolls being charged to producers.

Canada also needs to overhaul the IAA and create a review system that’s fast, clear and focused on accountability, not red tape. Investors need to know where the goalposts are. And, while we are making recommendations, strategic ports like Prince Rupert should be able to participate in global energy trade under the same high safety standards used elsewhere in Canada.

Canada needs a national approach to energy exporting. A 10-year projects and partnerships plan would give governments, Indigenous nations and industry a common direction. This could be coupled with the development of a category of “strategic export infrastructure” to prioritize trade-enabling projects and move them through approvals faster.

Of course, none of this can take place without bringing Indigenous partners into the planning process. A dedicated federal mechanism should be put in place to streamline and strengthen Indigenous consultation for major trade infrastructure, ensuring the process is both faster and fairer and that Indigenous equity options are built in from the start.

None of this is about blocking the energy transition. It’s about bridging it. Until we invent, build and scale the clean technologies of tomorrow, responsibly produced oil and gas will remain part of the mix. The only question is who will supply it.

Canada is the most stable of the world’s top oil producers, but we are a puzzle to the rest of the world, which doesn’t understand why we can’t get more of our oil and natural gas to market. In recent years, Norway and the U.S. have increased crude oil production. Notably, the U.S. also increased its natural gas exports through the construction of new LNG export terminals, which have helped supply European allies seeking to reduce their reliance on Russian natural gas.

Canada could be the bridge between demand and security, but if we want to be the world’s go-to energy partner, we need to act like it. That means building faster, regulating smarter and treating trade infrastructure like the strategic asset it is.

The world is watching. The opportunity is now. Let’s not waste it.

Gary Mar is president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation

Continue Reading

Trending

X