Heather Exner-Pirot: On energy, Carney is talking the talk but not walking the walk

A clash over tactics We are now aligned on resource strategy and objective. But the division over tactics is gaping. Carney’s own remarks in Berlin highlight the problem. A German journalist asked him what Canada could realistically offer to Germany and Europe given the lack of ports and pipelines. “Our government is in the process of unleashing half a trillion dollars of investment,” he said. When it came to port infrastructure he identified “a new port in Churchill, Manitoba…and other East Coast ports…which could open up enormous LNG opportunities.” He also mentioned the Port of Montreal in Contrecoeur, Quebec. In April, following Carney’s election win, 38 Canadian oil and gas CEOs wrote a letter to the prime minister congratulating him and offering recommendations on how to become the “world’s leading energy superpower” Carney spoke so much about on the campaign trail. The list didn’t include subsidies for seasonal Arctic ports, so we’d be forced to sell the most expensive and uncompetitive LNG on the planet. The letter didn’t ask for government “investment” in energy projects (these are not investments, they are subsidies). What did the letter include? It asked to get rid of the emissions cap and the West coast tanker ban; to overhaul the Impact Assessment Act; to replace the federal industrial carbon levy with provincial schemes; and to reduce regulatory approval timelines. Getting rid of these things would not cost the federal government anything; in fact, it would save the bureaucracy the trouble of administering them. It would also unleash billions, potentially tens of billions, of investment in the short term. Canada is weaker and poorer with these policies in place. It is bewildering that instead of cancelling the regulations that everyone knows are a barrier to becoming an energy superpower, and getting energy to markets in places like Germany, the government is advancing a new scheme to pick and choose projects that it will bankroll and fast track through a regulatory system left broken for everybody else. There is a case for some public funding for some export infrastructure. But shouldn’t we start with attracting private capital to build things before we resort to using taxpayers’ dollars? Can we at least try to occupy the range of options between “investment killing regulatory framework” and “government-subsidized infrastructure”, instead of going from one bad extreme to another? As it stands, it looks like the federal government will try to achieve its new economic and foreign policy goals through top down, publicly funded, and politically expedient projects. It will pick winners and losers. This is a more expensive, slower and less productive approach than re-establishing the conditions in which Canada is attractive for foreign investment. The new Canadian government is different in style. But when it comes to substance, it’s starting to look the same. Passing new legislation, delivering good speeches, and opening up new offices are not the outcomes we were promised. Success will be judged on an increase in foreign investment, exports, and GDP per capita. We will know we are on that trajectory when it is the private sector making announcements instead of the government.