Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland’s pitch to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) to allies is drawing skeptical reactions from those who say her government neglected the sector over the past decade.
The former finance minister's policy statement on jobs and growth, released on Feb. 5, includes a pledge to "seize the opportunity to make Canada an energy superpower, from powering our grids with hydro to exporting liquefied natural gas to our allies."
That line is part of a package of proposals Freeland made to diversify Canada's exports in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to impose steep tariffs on those exports.
But critics — even those who agree with her ideas for LNG — found it to be a tough line to swallow.
"Should I just laugh?" said Martha Hall Findlay, director of the University of Calgary's school of public policy. "It would be funny if it weren't just so frustrating."
Hall Findlay said Freeland was a central figure in the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for nearly a decade, as it "did everything it could possibly do to limit our ability to export energy."
The Trudeau government shelved the Northern Gateway pipeline project in 2016. It also passed Bill C-48 in 2019, which prohibited tankers off the northwest coast of British Columbia.
Gary Mar, CEO of the Canada West Foundation, said Ottawa's track record over the past decade has "not at all been friendly to the development of natural resources" and that "nobody was speaking up for the oil and gas industry."
“They’re the right things to do," he said of Freeland's energy policy proposals. “The question is whether she has credibility to say these things."
Freeland's campaign defends that she pushed for the Trans Mountain Expansion project amid concerns it was expensive and difficult.
"Chrystia Freeland's track record is indisputable," said spokesperson Katherine Cuplinskas. "She delivers on getting Canadian resources to market while ensuring the highest environmental standards are met."
Along with Freeland getting the roughly $34 billion Trans Mountain Expansion finished, Cuplinskas also pointed to the Canada Growth Fund as well as investment tax credits for carbon capture, utilization, and storage as evidence of her investments in energy.
Her Liberal government also purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline in 2018, which saved it.
John Manley, once a heavyweight blue Liberal who now describes himself as "post-partisan," summed up his reaction to Freeland's policy proposal in two words: "Totally agree."
But Hall Findlay, a former Liberal party leadership contestant herself who later left and backed centrist Conservative party contenders, noted the absence of any mention of oil in Freeland's platform.
She suggested Freeland's strategy here is to try to "please the environmental keep-it-in-the-grounders, the anti-oil people in the Liberal party, but also trying to sound like she wants to do the right thing for the economy."
"She's trying to play both sides by saying, 'Well, we'll look at expanding the friendlier fossil fuel … but we'll avoid mentioning the one that really is the fundamental economic driver,'" Hall Findlay said. "She's trying to please everybody and I just don't think that pleases anybody.
"Canada's been spending an awful lot of time shooting itself in the foot so that a few people in Ottawa can pat themselves on the back, and unfortunately Chrystia Freeland's one of them."
But UBC politics professor Kathryn Harrison, who specializes in environment and energy policy and is a member of the B.C. Climate Solutions Council, said Freeland's platform here is consistent with the Trudeau government's track record.
"The emphasis on exporting LNG is not inconsistent with the Trudeau government's track record in that they have approved new LNG terminals during their time in government — LNG Canada, Cedar LNG," Harrison said.
The federal government also pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into LNG Canada’s complex in Kitimat, B.C.
"It's a popular line right now," Harrison added, suggesting it "plays well with voters because gas seems cleaner than oil" and it gives them a sense Canada would be doing the world a favour by helping other countries move away from more emissions-heavy fuels.
"But I think it's fraught on environmental grounds and economic grounds as well," she said, adding LNG takes a long time to receive permits and build. She also cited reports suggesting global demand for LNG may peak around 2030.
Environmental groups insist doubling down on LNG would only benefit wealthy Canadians who invest in the fossil fuel industry.
"Whoever wants to be Canada’s next prime minister must focus on solutions that will bring Canadians economic relief, and certainty without jeopardizing climate security," said Ecojustice lawyer Matt Hulse.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 8, 2025.
Comments
Kathryn Harrison is absolutely right. Both climate fighters and economists who have done their research would agree that there is now a best before date on fossil fuels as solar, wind, hydro, nuclear and geothermal work together worldwide to replace hydrocarbon molecules with electrons, and do it more cheaply.
Chrystia Freeland's primary narrative (outside of resisting Trump) is building an "energy superpower" in Canada, as though it wasn't mostly there already in fossil fuels that she helped perpetuate for years. In other words, more if the same.
Mark Carney's narrative for years, and now in the LPC leadership contest (outside of resisting Trump), is to build a "CLEAN energy superpower" by mining into the Mount Everest of worldwide investment money flowing into renewables
It's unclear where he stands on Canadian fossil fuels, but the primary focus of his energy and economic talking points is on clean power. Perhaps he'll leave petroleum to stand unsubsidized on its own feet, or promote CCUS, but he needs to clarify his thoughts on the existing industry. When questioned, he refers to the emerging tariffs in the EU on the carbon content of their imports. That directly counters any notion of exporting Canadian fossil fuels (i.e. LNG) across the Atlantic, which would require the horribly expensive Energy East pipeline and more LNG plants to be built. Like, 20 years and $100B later..... Not gonna happen.
Carney constantly refers to the fact that world investments in fossil fuels has now stagnated whereas the same in renewables doubled that in petroleum last year. It is expected to triple this year. That is phenomenal.
Freeland has never referred to this very real data trend in any if her narratives, probably because the high pace of growth in mostly solar and wind power in Asia and Europe puts her judgement into question about sinking tens of billions into export pipelines and LNG plants only to risk the erosion of these markets starting in about five years once the overseas investments in renewables materialize in physical infrastructure. Her solution, along with her cabinet colleague Jonathan Wilkinson's, is to double down in oil and gas, and maybe sprinkle a few glittery critical minerals on top of the carbon bomb cake, just for show.
When you compare their actions and accomplisments over the last few years, there is only one leadership contender to consider, namely because his policies for the future of our country are not borrowed from the gas flares of last century. Not to mention his credibility in managing international crises.
AB wrote: "Carney constantly refers to the fact that world investments in fossil fuels has now stagnated whereas the same in renewables doubled that in petroleum last year."
Source?
The IEA's World Energy Investment 2024 report indicates otherwise.
Global investment in clean energy and fossil fuels, 2015-2024 (first graph)
Fossil fuels: $US 1,116 B (2024)
Renewable power: $US 771 B (2024)
IEA: World Energy Investment 2024 report: Overview and key findings
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2024/overview-and-k…
The ratio is 1.45:1 in favor of fossil fuels.
Mr. Botta conflates "renewables" with "clean technology" — a broad IEA category that includes renewables, electric vehicles, nuclear power, grids, storage, low-emissions fuels, efficiency improvements and heat pumps.
Renewables is not synonymous with "clean technology", but a subset of that category.
A crucial difference.
After falling off in 2020 (first pandemic year), fossil fuel investment has increased year over year — and has returned to 2019 levels.