Latest news with #BusinessCouncil
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mark Carney's first big test on the world stage
KANANASKIS, Alberta — In Canadian diplomatic circles, 'Charlevoix' is shorthand for summit disaster. Avoiding a repeat of the 2018 summit that Donald Trump set ablaze is job one for Prime Minister Mark Carney this week as he hosts G7 leaders. Carney came to power by campaigning openly against Trump's belligerence. But now he has a direct line to the president, with whom he's negotiating an economic and security deal. It's a high-wire good cop/bad cop routine — and the rookie politician is playing both roles on home soil. "Carney really does have to square a circle," said Louise Blais, a senior special adviser on U.S. and international affairs at the Business Council of Canada. "Canadians feel bruised by the president. So he's got to be nice, but not too nice." Blais warned that Trump could easily be distracted by a cold welcome from angry and frustrated Canadians who don't want him on their side of the border. Even if protesters won't get near the summit, demonstrations are sure to make news. "We know that the president pays attention to the media, so I just hope that Canadians give the prime minister a little bit of grace to navigate this summit," she said. Carney welcomes his counterparts and a phalanx of other world leaders and influencers amid a swirl of crises in the Middle East and Ukraine, widespread tariff consternation and social unrest on America's streets. Add to that list the shocking back-to-back shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers in their homes — and a deadly Air India disaster. There's a lot to disagree about, and even more to be distracted by. Janice Stein, founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, says keeping the band together for the entirety of the agenda would count as a win. "This summit is all about relationship management," Stein told POLITICO. "If the prime minister can keep all the allies at the table, that alone will enable agreement on some issues — but paves the way for better management of the issues that are important to everyone." In other words: If Trump and the allies stick around the Kananaskis lodge for the duration, that could — maybe — make it easier to get things done together down the road. Christopher Sands, director of the Hopkins Center for Canadian Studies, credits Carney with bringing pragmatism to his hosting duties. Sands said Carney took unpleasant conversations about defense spending off the table, at least for now, when he unveiled a plan to reach NATO's current benchmark of 2 percent of GDP. "He understands the problems. He's not showboating," Sands said. "He wants to deliver positive change. He doesn't want to have a fight over the communiqué." Officials from multiple delegations have telegraphed there will be no traditional joint communiqué to cap the confab, though all sides will work to hammer out issue-specific statements wherever they can cobble together common ground. With so many colliding variables, including the prospect of all-out war between Israel and Iran, few summit-watchers are willing to predict what else will come of the gathering. Only three months on the job, Canada's prime minister is also attempting a series of tricky diplomatic resets with some of his country's thorniest frenemies. Carney's decision to invite Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi drew backlash from Canada's Sikh lawmakers and the wider diaspora. Canada's national police force is currently investigating allegations that Indian government agents were linked to the murder of a Sikh activist in a Vancouver suburb. Carney has also moved to thaw relations with China following a seven-year diplomatic deep freeze, and he extended an invite to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — another rocky relationship under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. China isn't invited to Alberta and the Saudis aren't attending, but Goldy Hyder, the Business Council of Canada's president and CEO, pointed to the invite list as a signal that Carney is not like his predecessor. Trudeau, whose relationship with Trump was fraught for most of their shared years in office, hosted that tense confab in Charlevoix that went off the rails. "We've been seen to be a bit preachy around the world," Hyder said, referencing a view that the former prime minister was keener to project values than accept tradeoffs in his country's best interest. "We have to lean in more with our own interests and our role that we can play in a world that is rapidly changing," Hyder told POLITICO. That means dealing with global players that don't embrace liberal democracy. Arif Lalani, a senior adviser at StrategyCorp and former Canadian ambassador in Iraq, Jordan and Afghanistan, has long called for a reset with India, China and Gulf nations. "You have to be intellectually and diplomatically uncomfortable,' Lalani said. 'But that doesn't mean you can't tell right from wrong. You can still act with your values, but you've got to deal with the world as you find it." Investors are waiting. "Capital is emotionless. It goes where it grows,' said Hyder. 'We need to show that the G7, and countries that are invited there, understand the importance of creating the right environment for capital to be deployed in their respective countries to build energy security and supply-chain resilience." The Kananaskis guest list also includes Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung and United Arab Emirates President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. They're joined by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and World Bank President Ajay Banga. A Canadian official briefing reporters last week had high hopes for Carney's dance card: 'Scheduling will be challenging, but the intent will be for the prime minister to meet with as many of the leaders as possible, and we certainly hope all of them.' Still, not everyone stayed on the guest list. Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto withdrew two days before the summit, opting instead for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
National Post
09-06-2025
- Business
- National Post
Adam Pankratz: David Eby's CleanBC initiative a greater hit to economy than Trump's tariffs
Article content Open any book on politics and you will find that, in Canada, the NDP stands for the New Democratic Party. In British Columbia under David Eby, the acronym needs to be updated to — Not Delivering Prosperity. Article content Since Eby and his government took over in 2022, British Columbia has been an economic basket case. The deficit projection for 2025 was revised upwards in March to $10.9 billion — a record — which followed hot on the heels of the 2024 deficit of $9.1 billion — also a record until 2025 stole the deficit crown. The result in April was a downgrade to BC's credit rating from AA to A+. By any measure, the outlook is grim, as total debt for the province is predicted to soar by 70 per cent over the next three years. Article content Article content The ruling NDP and Premier David Eby have been quick to blame economic woes on Donald Trump and his tariff policies. While tariffs are no doubt hurting B.C. — as they are all of Canada — this tactic is already tired. In truth, the damage appears to be mostly self-inflicted, caused by poor budgeting and economic policy driven by ideology rather than actual economics. Article content Article content At the B.C. Chamber of Commerce AGM on June 4th, Ken Peacock, the former Chief Economist at the Business Council of B.C., presented analysis indicating the NDP's CleanBC initiative has actually been a far greater hit to the province's sputtering economy than any tariffs. From 2019-2024 it cost B.C. $29.3 billion in lost GDP and is projected to cost the province a further $109.7 billion between now and 2029. That's David Eby's economic leadership in action: ideology torpedoing economic prosperity for hard working British Columbians. Article content Eby and the NDP will of course point to the fact that they have passed Bill 14 and 15. Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, is ostensibly a bill to speed up major infrastructure project development, particularly in the resource industry. Eby and the NDP say the bills are 'critically important' to respond to a 'rapidly evolving situation' (read Trump) rather than acknowledge their need as a result of the NDP's actions in creating a provincial economic dud. Bill 15 gives cabinet sweeping powers to override existing regulations for projects in the provincial interest and fast-track them to permitting. It has been met with serious pushback from B.C. Municipalities and from First Nations who claim it ignores their voices and dismisses their rights. Article content Article content While any business which has tried to work in the province's economically critical resource sector may applaud the notion of a government finding ways to stop B.C.'s quagmire of delays and regulatory hell, the bill fails to address the real problem and merely hands unmerited power to a small group of NDP ideologues. This is always the Eby NDP way: power consolidation for decision making. Article content Article content The problem should be obvious to any free-market supporter. Bill 15 does not reignite B.C.'s economy by streamlining regulation for private enterprise; it merely allows cabinet to pick and choose which projects it will decide to ram through any further regulatory oversight. This is ripe for abuse and political interference. It is a pay-to-play system where randomness and arbitrary decisions based on cabinet whims, without clear process, will become the norm. Eby's NDP claim the bill brings investment clarity, in fact, it does anything but. Article content The vague backroom modus operandi of the NDP is, however, consistent in one way. They echo the closed-door decision-making attempts and history of the NDP when deciding how the province's crown land will be used; something essential for investment and resource development. This important process has been shrouded in secrecy on multiple occasions. The latest announcement in this regard covers all of Northwestern B.C. including the mineral-rich Golden Triangle. As a result, nearly a third of British Columbia is now subject to a one year pause on new mining-tenure registrations. This is the exact of opposite of what attracts investment to the province and will send the critical dollars B.C. needs to friendlier investment regions. Article content David Eby's NDP has bankrupted the province and has no plan back for the simple reason that they cannot trust the free market to do its work. They are trapped in an ideologically-driven mindset which does not permit British Columbians to make full use of their own province. This arbitrary and regressive policy must change. Article content
Yahoo
08-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. John Ivison: Premiers seem delighted just to finally be meeting with a grown-up PM John Ivison: The first Carney spending numbers are as bad as Trudeau's Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Hans India
07-06-2025
- Business
- Hans India
India seeks to bolster Central Asia trade ties
New Delhi: External Affairs Minister (EAM) S Jaishankar has urged the India-Central Asia Business Council to recommend a roadmap for further deepening of India-Central Asia ties in trade, economic and investment. Addressing the Business Council meeting in the national capital, EAM Jaishankar highlighted three broad objectives for strengthening the economic partnership — deepen existing cooperation, diversify the trade basket and introduce sustainability and predictability in economic interactions. 'One, is to deepen the existing cooperation both in terms of volume and in terms of quality. There is already I think a recognition in each others countries and each others economies of the players and of the products. But, we must build further on that foundation and a very good example here is actually the pharmaceutical sector,' he told the gathering. 'Two, we need to diversify our trade baskets so that all of us have more options and we have more competition and in a way we are looking for new opportunities. I would like our friends from central Asian economies to appreciate that an economy today which is in excess of $4 trillion, which is growing at 6-8 per cent annually, it will create new demands for products, for services and even I would say in a way new demands out of more prosperous lifestyles,' EAM Jaishankar also stressed on the need to introduce greater sustainability and more predictability in economic interactions. 'That means more long-term contracts and arrangements, cross investments, joint ventures and certainly sectors like energy whether we are talking uranium, whether we are talking crude oil even potentially gas, whether we are looking at mining, If you are talking about coal or if you are discussing fertilizers, I think these are all relevant examples to reach really long term understatings between us,' the foreign minister trade and economic ties with Central Asia over the last decade have shown a very strong positive trend. Mutual trade was less than $500 million a decade ago in 2014. Today, 'what we have collectively is actually a trade volume which is almost touching $2 billion.
National Post
06-06-2025
- Business
- National Post
Ivison: The future is nuclear but we need pipelines too
Article content This week, John Ivison discussed the Carney government's plans for nation-building projects with Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior advisor for the Business Council of Canada. Article content Ivison asked whether asking premiers to submit projects deemed to be in the national interest will mean we are at risk of pursuing white elephants that are not feasible or uneconomic. Article content Article content 'The tone has markedly improved from the last Liberal government, so there is some optimism,' she said. 'There is a sense that the federal government will be a partner in building things, where, for a long time, we thought they were blocking our ability to build things. So it's a great start but there's only so long that you can have a honeymoon period before things have to happen. We actually have to see some action. And we know that Liberal governments are very good at rhetoric and not so great at implementation.' Article content She said her concern is that projects are being submitted by governments and then projects deemed 'nation-building' are being selected by the federal government. Article content 'The direction it's going is a little concerning, in that they want to have a short list of nation-building projects and they will determine if it's nation building and use the public purse to fund them in cases where the private sector will not step up. Article content 'There may be a handful where that's justified. There's obviously a role for governments to build infrastructure. But the low-hanging fruit is obviously to improve our regulatory competitiveness. We have very restrictive, very burdensome regulatory processes. There are a lot of projects that proponents want to do on their own, without government help, if the regulation was better, if we had better tax competitiveness with our competitors. And so I will tolerate a handful of these nation building projects, if they make sense from a business side. But at the end of the day, we're going to need to see the regulations improved and streamlined.' Article content Exner-Pirot said that Mark Carney's goal of a two-year approval process is a 'great target' Article content '(But) we should walk before we run. For some of these things, three years also look pretty good. Two years is certainly feasible if we have good processes and good relations with Indigenous partners. The Conservatives were talking about a six months (approval process) and that just didn't seem feasible to me – that you would never be able to fulfill your duty to consult and accommodate in such a timeline. So two years is ambitious, but doable and we should reach for it.' Article content She pointed out that Canada has to be regulatory and tax competitive with jurisdictions like Texas. Article content 'We would like to bring some of that capital back home. But at the end of the day, investors are going to make those decisions based on the return that they get. Let's make sure that our tax system is competitive so that capital actually wants to choose Canada. One sector where Exner-Pirot is extremely bullish is nuclear power generation using small modular nuclear reactors. Article content This is the one area where I just think: 'Yes, this is a nation building project'. We should lead on SMRs. And there's so many strategic reasons for Canada. One is that we have the uranium source. (We are) the world's number two exporter and number two producer of uranium. We have phenomenal deposits in northern Saskatchewan and in Nunavut. We could dominate the supply chain and the technology. We are building the first SMR in the G7. It has taken some public money to get there. But being the first mover really does accord you some benefits as you try to sell these models in the future. So where can we go next? Nuclear really has the potential if you get the cost curve down. It's a baseload clean energy that needs very little land and very little material inputs. In 100 years, do I think we'll be doing mostly nuclear? Yes, I honestly do.' Article content On specific projects, Ivison asked if a bitumen pipeline should be a priority. Article content '(Alberta premier) Danielle Smith has said it, and my analysis suggests it's absolutely true: There is nothing that will change the economic growth, the GDP, the productivity per capita in this country as much as a bitumen pipeline. We finally added Trans Mountain about a year ago. That's at 90 per cent utilization right now in one year. Our producers filled it fast, so there's clearly demand. We're seeing most of that demand come from Asia, so there is strong demand in global markets for Canadian heavy oil. But it is concerning that we have added this pipeline and we're already running out of egress. So there is an urgency from the producers that we need to start thinking about the next pipeline. And I don't think we're going to get Northern Gateway in two years. If everything went well, probably four years. And that's why we have to start planning for (the next one) now,' she said. Article content Exner-Pirot said whichever pipeline plan comes forward will require the B.C. government to revisit its opposition to tanker traffic on the West Coast. Article content 'I'm finding this hard to understand because B.C. has actually done some constructive and progressive things on the economic development side since Trump was inaugurated. (Premier Dave) Eby has almost been the most vocal about wanting the elbows up. He said in February that if we don't sell Canadian oil and gas, they will just get it from places like Venezuela. I thought: 'Wow, this guy has had a light bulb moment'. To hear (his support for the tanker ban) two and a half months later is quite disappointing. Now a lot of this is federal jurisdiction, so while we want the feds to get out of the way, (it is different) on inter-provincial pipelines, because that is clearly federal jurisdiction. We know from Trans Mountain when B.C., if you recall, said: 'We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project'. And they did. But it wasn't their right. The feds can overturn the oil tanker ban. That's their jurisdiction. But what proponent really wants to step into a situation where a provincial government is going to use every tool in the toolbox to stop your project? It's obviously not bullish for investment to have this kind of political disagreement on the ground.' Article content Ivison asked if the idea of a 'grand bargain' between Alberta and Ottawa on decarbonizing bitumen before it is transported to the West Coast by pipeline is a viable option. Article content 'It is feasible. The industry itself has proposed carbon capture and also using some solvents to reduce emissions. In the last 11 years, they have actually reduced carbon intensity emissions per barrel by 30 per cent. So they are doing the work. A lot of the carbon comes from natural gas input to heat the bitumen. That's an expense. There's every reason why they would rather not have to pay that kind of money. Article content 'Right now, the oil sands, on a life cycle basis, is only about 1-3 per cent higher emissions than the global average barrel, the average crude. But if we did this carbon capture, if we did some of the solvent innovations that they're using, it would actually be below the global average on a life cycle basis. So there is a grand bargain to be had. The industry itself has been advocating it. We're very competitive on an economic basis. We want to be competitive on a carbon basis. Article content 'What Danielle Smith is saying is: 'Where's the money going to come from to spend probably $20 billion on these (carbon capture) technologies? If you know you're going to get another pipeline and you can increase your production and fill it with a million barrels a day, well, now there's more revenue coming in and there's a justification. (But) if all your profits have to be driven into carbon capture, you're just not going to get any investment. All of this is cost, none of this is profit and they still have to have a certain level of return from the investors or the investors will just take off.' Article content Moving east across Canada,, Exner-Pirot has been skeptical about Arctic ports being commercially viable. She noted that the feds and the province of Manitoba have spent more than half a billion dollars on the port of Churchill and it's still not attracting shippers and investors, while the Northwest Territories is trying to push the idea of an 'Arctic Security Corridor' that runs between Alberta and Gray's Bay in Nunavut, via Yellowknife. Both ports are impacted by a short shipping season because of sea ice. Article content 'It's a terrible idea for oil and a very bad idea for liquefied natural gas,' she said. 'You will never get a return on your investment. We do want northern development. We do want those regions to prosper at a local level. (But) this is not the thing that's going to grow our GDP. This is not the thing that's going to help Canada diversify its exports away. Article content 'A port in Churchill and a port in Gray's Bay can be useful for helping local mining development happen. That's important for jobs, for taxes, for royalties, for those communities' economic health. So there's a reason it's a public good to provide some basic infrastructure, basic transportation access for the people that live there. Article content Critical minerals are a very different thing from oil. You can mine, you can produce all year and stockpile it, and then in that short shipping season you can ship it out. It's not very expensive just to have it sitting there while the shipping season is closed.' Article content Exner-Pirot said the signs are positive that Canada will finally get its act together and overcome the barriers to economic development because the alternative is stagnation. Article content 'If we return to our complacency after what we've seen and what we've gone through, then God help this country. The conversation right now, again, is focusing on a few projects. I'll be tolerant of this, maybe for a handful of projects and for a handful of months. But (we must) improve our regulatory systems, especially at the federal level. That is where we need to see movement. You can't bring in new people at the rate we bring in new people, and you can't be dependent on China at the rate that we're dependent on China. That cannot keep going on,' she said. Article content
