Turns out that there is a business case for exporting LNG to Europe

The EU-US trade deal includes provisions for American energy exports, including LNG that Canada could have supplied. Canada must not make the same mistakes in the Pacific.

The trade deal signed between the European Union and the United States is a slap in the face for Canadian energy. American oil, natural gas, and even nuclear fuel, are now slated to flow across the Atlantic to European buyers, as the bloc pushes to fully wean itself off Russian energy.

It should have been Canadian liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Atlantic coast.

Canada had every chance to build a thriving LNG industry on its East Coast. But short-sighted, hesitant government policy has consistently dismissed what has now proven to be a strong and viable business case.

The $750 billion energy trade deal between the EU and the US shows how costly that’s been.

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau repeatedly said Atlantic LNG was never economically viable. He famously told a 2022 press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that there’s “never been a strong business case” for exporting Canadian LNG from the East Coast.

Trudeau cited distance and infrastructure challenges, saying Canadian gas was uneconomic for direct export to Europe. Trudeau’s dismissal led to Germany signing a 15-year LNG deal with Qatar later that same year, in the first reminder of what Canada missed out on.

Reality contradicts the former Prime Minister’s pessimism. European leaders, desperate for energy after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, repeatedly approached Canada with LNG requests. Chancellor Scholz came to Canada, followed by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in 2023, and Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Polish President Andrzej Duda in 2024.

Each time they received vague assurances and non-commitments from Trudeau’s government. Europe’s need was real, urgent, and sustained, but Canada’s response was inadequate.

As the Fraser Institute pointed out in May 2024, transitioning coal-dependent countries like India to natural gas would achieve four times more global emission reductions than shutting down Canada’s entire economy. Furthermore, Resource Works CEO Stewart Muir said natural gas isn’t just a “bridge fuel,” but a destination fuel for global energy stability.

But Canada chose domestic political caution and lofty green ideals, and ignored the broader global emission reduction opportunities. The results are clear.

The new US-EU trade deal, which guarantees $250 billion a year in American LNG purchases for the next three years, is exactly the kind of long-term market Canada could have had years ago. US LNG developers like NextDecade, Venture Global, and Cheniere Energy are already riding high on market confidence, and US natural gas producers are cashing in on the growing transatlantic demand.

Meanwhile, Canada’s Atlantic provinces are missing out on the jobs and prosperity that would have come with robust LNG development.

Trudeau’s own Energy Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, said last March that Canada wouldn’t subsidize future LNG projects, calling them “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”

The regulatory framework, Bill C-69, and BC’s CleanBC plan further added to investor uncertainty, with long approval timelines and strict emission caps. As a result, Canada has seen $670 billion in resource projects cancelled since 2015, including critical Atlantic LNG projects.

Ironically, Canada’s hesitation has inadvertently increased global emissions, as Europe and Asia revert to coal due to the lack of reliable gas supplies. That’s the opposite of Trudeau’s climate goals, proving that Canada’s cautious approach to LNG was not only economically short-sighted but environmentally counterproductive.

Today, as US LNG terminals thrive and European reliance on American energy deepens, Canada must recognize that what our leaders said did not exist was always real. The “business case” Trudeau dismissed as weak was strong enough for our southern neighbours to jump at.

Canada’s indecision has left it on the sidelines, as the economic and strategic benefits flow to those who had the will to build.

All is not yet lost. Canada is still ahead of the US on supplying LNG to the Asia-Pacific, with LNG Canada in the first year of operation. Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG will soon join them in supplying Canadian LNG to Japan, South Korea, and others.

If the Atlantic opportunity has passed, ensuring that a Pacific LNG export industry can thrive is a necessity for Canada’s energy future.

Related Topics:#CanadaLNG #ResourceWorks canadianenergy EUUSLNG feature GeoffRuss TrumpLNG

Up Next

Less Talk, More Action

Don't Miss

Ten years of overspending and fiscal mismanagement weighing Canada down

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

Vaccine Liability is On the Table

Business / 4 hours ago

Ignore the nonsense about Carney’s ‘ambitious savings’—he will outspend Trudeau

conflict / 6 hours ago

Canada to recognize Palestinian state at UN, sparking outrage

Business

Ignore the nonsense about Carney’s ‘ambitious savings’—he will outspend Trudeau

Published on July 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The Carney government is not making deep cuts but rather simply slowing the pace of spending increases. In fact, Prime Minister Carney is on track to be a much bigger spender than Justin Trudeau (the highest-spending prime minister in Canadian history)

Earlier this month, federal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne told his fellow cabinet members to present “ambitious savings proposals” to help constrain federal spending. In response, public-sector unions cried foul while some pundits inexplicably compared Champagne’s request to the Chrétien government’s substantial spending cuts in the 1990s.

Time for a reality check. Champagne told cabinet ministers to find operational savings in their respective departments of 7.5 per cent in 2026/27, 10 per cent in 2027/28 and 15 per cent in 2028/29. But the government will exclude more than half of all federal spending from this so-called “comprehensive expenditure review” on things such as individual benefits (e.g. Old Age Security) and transfers to the provinces (health care, etc.).

According to the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), these “draconian rollbacks” will produce massive “cuts to direct program spending” over the next three years. But that almost certainly will not be the case. While we won’t know for sure until the federal budget finally arrives in the fall, the “cuts” proposed by the Carney government won’t actually reduce overall spending. In fact, federal spending will likely increase.

Here’s why. In December, The Trudeau government planned to increase program spending from $504.1 billion in 2025/26 to $547.8 billion by 2028/29. According to rough calculations based on the Liberal Party election platform, the Carney government plans to further increase spending to a projected $533.3 billion in 2025/26 and $566.4 billion in 2028/29. The government also plans to substantially increase military spending on top of these increases. So, any “ambitious savings proposals” over the next three years may help cover some, but almost certainly not all, of these planned spending increases.

To put this in context, consider a household that spent $500 on entertainment in 2025 and plans to double that amount to $1,000 by 2028. Then some unforeseen circumstance makes that family scale back its plans. They decide to trim the $1,000 by 15 per cent and now only plan to spend $850 by 2028. This is not a cut or reduction in year-over-year spending—they still plan to spend 70 per cent more on entertainment three years from now than they do today. The family simply slowed the growth rate of planned spending. However, if the family reduced entertainment spending by 15 per cent from current levels ($500 in 2025), they would spend $425 in 2028.

Likewise, the Carney government is not making deep cuts but rather simply slowing the pace of spending increases. In fact, Prime Minister Carney is on track to be a much bigger spender than Justin Trudeau (the highest-spending prime minister in Canadian history) and plans to borrow a projected $224.8 billion over the next four years to pay for this profligate spending—$93.4 billion more than Trudeau planned to borrow. Again, this is not austerity.

And what about those allusions to the Chrétien spending reductions of the ’90s? Back then, the federal government did not merely slow the growth in spending, but instead reduced spending year-over-year by $11.9 billion (or 9.7 per cent) over a two-year period. Chrétien made difficult decisions and left nothing off the table in his spending review (except what was then called the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs). He reduced transfers to the provinces, reduced department expenses, and shrunk the size of bureaucracy by nearly 15 per cent.

Ignore the voices who call the Carney government’s “ambitious savings” plan the “worst spending cuts in modern history.” It’s wildly inaccurate and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of fiscal policy. Carney is actually poised to become an even bigger spender than Justin Trudeau.

Business

Trump says no deal with Canada if it recognizes Palestinian state

Published on July 31, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump warned late Wednesday that Canada’s recognition of a Palestinian state could derail trade negotiations with the United States. The message came after Canadian Premier Mark Carney pledged to join France and the UK in backing statehood at the UN in September.

Key Details:

Trump posted on Truth Social: “Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!”
Canada’s decision comes while Hamas continues to hold at least 50 Israeli hostages, with no defined borders or functioning government for a Palestinian state.
The U.S. and Canada are currently in sensitive trade talks ahead of an August 1 tariff deadline, which Carney has described as “intense.”

You back terror, you don’t get trade. pic.twitter.com/IxGwrfTfNn

— MxM News (@mxmnews) July 31, 2025

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump issued a sharp rebuke to Canada on Wednesday night, threatening to pull back on trade negotiations if the country proceeds with plans to recognize Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly this September.

The warning came in a Truth Social post following Canadian Premier Mark Carney’s announcement that Ottawa would join France and the United Kingdom in backing a Palestinian state. “Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine,” Trump wrote. “That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh’ Canada!!!”

Trump has long criticized Western moves to legitimize Palestinian statehood during ongoing violence in the region, calling such efforts a “reward for Hamas.” Palestinian terrorists launched a war against Israel last year, and Hamas is still believed to be holding at least 50 Israeli hostages in Gaza — including 20 reported to be alive.

Critics, including the families of the hostages, argue that recognizing Palestinian statehood while Hamas remains in control and hostages remain in captivity amounts to incentivizing terrorism. There are also practical hurdles to statehood, with no recognized borders and both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority widely seen as authoritarian regimes.

Up to this point, Trump had not taken retaliatory action against allies who pushed for Palestinian recognition during the conflict. But his post Wednesday signals a tougher stance as the U.S. navigates high-stakes trade negotiations with Canada. Carney himself has acknowledged the talks are “intense,” especially as an August 1 deadline approaches for potential tariffs.

Trump’s message was clear: any support for a Palestinian state — particularly while Hamas is holding hostages and violence continues — will carry consequences, including economic ones.