Photo credit: globalnews.ca
Liberal leadership contender Chrystia Freeland has recently proposed a strategy aimed at enhancing Canada’s role as an energy powerhouse, particularly through the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG). However, this initiative has sparked skepticism among critics who point out that her government has historically downplayed the energy sector over the last ten years.
On February 5, Freeland unveiled her policy statement focusing on job creation and economic growth, which included the ambitious goal to transform Canada into an energy superpower by leveraging various resources, from hydropower to LNG exports aimed at international allies.
This proposal forms part of a broader package meant to address potential U.S. tariffs on Canadian exports, as threatened by former President Donald Trump. Yet, some critics, even those who support the idea of expanding LNG production, find the statement disingenuous. Martha Hall Findlay, a prominent figure in public policy at the University of Calgary, expressed her frustrations, saying, “It would be humorous if it weren’t so exasperating.”
Hall Findlay’s concerns stem from Freeland’s significant involvement in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, which she claims took numerous steps to restrict Canada’s energy export capabilities. Notable actions included the cancellation of the Northern Gateway pipeline in 2016 and the enactment of Bill C-48 in 2019, which banned oil tankers from the northern coast of British Columbia.
Gary Mar, a CEO at the Canada West Foundation, echoed similar sentiments, asserting that the federal administration’s record has not supported natural resource development. He noted, “There was no advocacy for the oil and gas sector during their tenure.” Mar acknowledged the merit in Freeland’s energy proposals but questioned her credibility given past government actions.
Daily Updates on National News
Stay informed with daily updates on prominent political, economic, and current affairs.
Freeland’s campaign did highlight the Liberal government’s efforts to maintain the Trans Mountain pipeline, indicating a commitment to sustaining energy infrastructure. Meanwhile, John Manley, a former Liberal heavy-hitter, expressed strong agreement with Freeland’s energy vision, suggesting a shared perspective on the need for comprehensive energy policy.
However, critics have pointed out a noticeable absence in Freeland’s rhetoric regarding oil, with Hall Findlay suggesting that the strategy appears to aim at appeasing different factions within the Liberal Party—those concerned with environmental issues and those advocating for economic growth. Hall Findlay remarked, “She’s trying to satisfy everyone but seems to resonate with no one.”
Social tensions surrounding energy policies have been underscored by broader concerns about Canada’s investment trajectory in fossil fuels. UBC professor Kathryn Harrison, an expert on environmental policy, noted that while Freeland’s emphasis on LNG aligns with the Trudeau administration’s actions, such as approving new LNG terminal projects, there are significant economic and environmental implications at play. She raised alarms regarding the timeline for regulatory approvals and the potential peak in global LNG demand by 2030, suggesting an uncertain future for such investments.
Environmental advocacy groups have voiced their discontent, arguing that a focus on LNG primarily benefits wealthy stakeholders in the fossil fuel industry. Ecojustice lawyer Matt Hulse stressed the necessity for any leading candidate aiming for the prime ministerial office to prioritize solutions that assure economic progress while safeguarding climate health.
Source
globalnews.ca