In a recent interview with Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre noted some important facts about Canadian oil.
The whole 11-minute interview is worth watching.
Some highlights:
4:10: The nature of the Canadian trade surplus. “Yes, it is a ripoff. Canada is ripping itself off.”
4:25: Canada’s entire trade surplus with the United States is due to oil and natural gas.
4:30: Canada exports $120 billion in oil and gas to the United States at enormous discounts to market prices.
4:40: The reason: “We have been so stupid.”
4:50: Because of various restrictions, Canadians have not been able to develop the infrastructure to refine and transport energy to world markets.
5:10: So Canadians are stuck. Canadians sell a barrel of oil to Americans for a discount of 10 to 40% off the world price.
5:20: Until recently, Canada sends 99% of its oil exports to America.
5:40: Canada sells all its natural gas to the United States because Canada doesn’t have a natural gas liquefaction terminal.
6:20: If he becomes Prime Minister, Poilievre intends to approve refineries and LNG plants.
6:30: If Trump wants to make America richer, the last thing he should do is block Canadian energy from going into his marketplace. (DRH note: Poilievre understands international trade; I don’t think Trump does. When Trump sees cheap imports, this co-author of The Art of the Deal thinks it’s not a deal.)
6:45: Why Trump should approve the Keystone Pipeline.
7:20: Should have more trade in electricity.
8:15: Trudeau refused to cooperate with German and Japanese governments on natural gas. (So says Jordan Peterson: I haven’t checked this.)
9:14: What do you do when someone throws money out a window? Great answer.
9:50: The integrated economy–an automobile crosses the border 8 or 9 times.
The accompanying picture is of Poilievre.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Mar 1 2025 at 12:56pm
I cant tell from a quick scan if they were turned away or if the export ports just weren’t ready yet. It looks like they expect to start exporting LNG this year from Kitimat and it looks like there are at least two other ports under construction. Unless he specifically mentioned those my first impression would be that he is engaging in an ages old politician tactic of taking credit for something happening on his watch that was already going to happen anyway. I guess you could always make the argument these should have been built faster but I dont the details on those projects so maybe Polievre offered those? (Just as a point of reference when the planned ones are completed Canada would have 3 sites. The US just opened its 8th site in December.)
https://vancouversun.com/news/heres-how-2025-is-shaping-up-to-be-a-big-year-for-lng-in-bc
Steve
David Henderson
Mar 1 2025 at 7:07pm
Thanks, steve.
Here’s a quote from that article:
In other words, yes, regulation did hold things up, as Poilievre said.
Janet Bufton
Mar 2 2025 at 4:13pm
It’s unclear from this quotation that you pulled what type of approval they’re waiting on in that case or how long they’ve been waiting. Context is important in LNG export facility construction in BC. Yes, there are regulatory steps toward approving new energy projects, and some of those are federal. There are also provincial regulations (Poilievre has been friendly towards Premier Smith’s argument that the feds should get out of provincial jurisdiction, but will he steamroll them for energy projects?) and negotiations with First Nations whose land is at play or whose land or resources (especially salmon runs) are otherwise affected by the projects. For example:
This illustrates how environmental assessments are tied up with Indigenous jurisdiction and Indigenous relations. Plus there are provincial issues at play. This is not simply a federal call over which Poilievre can act unilaterally. Poilievre has not promised to throw Indigenous relations under the bus to compress timelines. The only solid thing Poilievre says here is that he’ll approve projects, something the Liberals have done, too. Presumably Poilievre would like for these to come online while he’s PM so that he can take credit, but that’s just standard politics.
Later in the article, they list some of the things that have been holding up the projects: opposition from other affected First Nations (neither federal nor provincial), breaches in contract having to do with BC Environmental Assessment (provincial), worker transportation (labour—provincial, but possibly also a First Nations demand to protect FN workers on the project), and unsafe storage of hazardous materials (this might be federal! but it will have involved First Nations negotiations).
These processes need to be sped up, and regulatory streamlining has to be part of that. But this isn’t just a matter of federal political will, but coalition building and collaboration with provinces and Indigenous governments. Poilievre does not make concrete promises about how he’d approach this. As it stands, it’s cheap talk. That’s not really on Poilievre. When he gave this interview, there was no need to worry too much about nuts-and-bolts because he had a 25 point lead on the Liberals. But it’s also not inspiring. Now the race looks like it could be competitive again and he’ll have to do better, but it’s not a straightforward process and good candidates for the other parties should point that out and make him elaborate.
David Henderson
Mar 2 2025 at 5:57pm
Thanks for laying out the details of the regulatory hurdles.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 2 2025 at 2:19pm
A trade surplus implies a surplus of saving over investment, the “ripoff” involves passing up high yielding investment? I wonder what he had in mind?
Why does he think Peterson cares which set of export items (there must be hundreds) equal the trade surplus
What does “discounts” on oil and gas sales mean?
The complaint about the US not cooperating in building infrastructure to export to world (the XL!) markets is valid but it’s a general problem in the US, not directed against Canada.
He certainly should approve the refineries and LNG plants (provided they pass cost-benefit tests). Better still remove the structures that require a PM to approve of investments.
You _think_ Trump does not underhand internatinal trade? What else woud he have to do to persuade you? 😊
Trump should not have to approve Keystone because a) it should not need presidential approval and b) since it does, Obama, Trump1 or Biden should already have approved it.
We should have trade in electricity (and everything else). [I lack context to know if this is a dig at Trump or Trudeau, but valid at whomever.]
Why can’t the US have “conservatives” like this guy?
Thomas L Hutcheson
Mar 2 2025 at 2:21pm
Odd that the interview is with Peterson.
Janet Bufton
Mar 2 2025 at 4:42pm
It is not. Poilievre, before Trump got more serious about attacking Canada, was leaning hard into culture warring and talking down to mainstream media sources. That will be harder now that it looks like he’ll have to compete meaningfully with the Liberals and Canada/U.S. dynamics have changed so dramatically.
It cannot be stressed enough: Everything has changed since this interview.
Janet Bufton
Mar 2 2025 at 4:30pm
This 11-minute interview is part of the gated bonus content after an hour+ long interview with Peterson. Poilievre had a lot more to say in it about economic policy. He asks why Canada should import oil if we also produce it. He says a lot about what the energy sector “has to do” for a strong and independent Canada. That’s different than just promising to approve projects that cross his desk, even if getting things built was as simple as that. If the energy sector has to do something and a federal candidate who would become PM if his party wins says so, how should I interpret that? How would I interpret that if he were a Liberal, NDP, or Green leader?
And his talking points on inflation are gobbledygook. Canadians are poor and in debt. Inflation is bad for savers, good for debtors, bad for Canadians. Inflation is a wealth transfer from poor to rich people. Canadians should buy “inflation-proof” assets to guard against inflation, like housing (he promises to get Canada building again to lower the price of housing—he will make it “dirt cheap”). He implies that he would politicize Bank of Canada policy by saying that if it’s set without voter input it amounts to “secret” policymaking. He blames inflation for housing affordability being worse now than in the 1970s.
Poilievre understands trade and basic econ, despite his performance. All the interview told me is that he knows better and does this anyway. But again, he was way ahead in the polls and did not have to put on a serious performance. This is just red meat for the base. Yet we should keep in mind that the Conservative base has a vision for the Canadian energy sector that is not guided by markets. They want industrial policy, and they have done so since before this interview.
At any rate, everything has changed since Poilievre gave this interview. He would no longer say that he just has to explain to Donald Trump that trade is mutually beneficial and show him respect to avoid tariffs. I doubt he would still emphasize that he has a good friend of JD Vance in his caucus. Trudeau will be replaced by a technocrat who understands trade and econ. And every single party will agree now that getting Canadian energy export projects that go to places other than the United States is a priority worthy of the serious political trade-offs that doing that will entail.
Comments are closed.