Tag: tariffs

This article was written by Adam Radwanski and was published in the Globe & Mail on July 21, 2025.

A central figure in former president Joe Biden’s effort to make the United States a clean-energy superpower believes Canada needs to get more assertive about trying to attract low-carbon investment and innovation now being displaced south of the border.

Jigar Shah, previously one of his country’s most high-profile cleantech entrepreneurs, was director of the Loans Program Office (LPO) in the U.S. Department of Energy from 2021 until early this year.

That meant he oversaw approximately US$400-billion in lending authority through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – a key driver in the surge in U.S. investment in renewable electricity, the electric-vehicle supply chain and the scale-up of new technologies, all aimed largely at challenging Chinese dominance.

With the U.S. now retreating from the cleantech race under President Donald Trump, including a disempowering of the LPO, Mr. Shah spoke to The Globe and Mail about why and how he believes Canada needs to become more fearless in trying to step into the void.

What have you been hearing the past few months, from companies or investors that were in the process of planning clean-energy projects in the U.S. while you were at the DOE?

If you’re talking about investors, I worked with infrastructure investors, and they want to know what rules are going to be for the next 10 years, because they make money over the long term.

Certainty really matters, and now there’s all the tariffs, [possibly] firing the Fed Chair, figuring out how to roll back incentives. And at a time when the administration is promising that they’re going to make permitting more efficient, they’re making permitting more difficult for solar and wind.

Now, on the company side, entrepreneurs are people on a mission. If they’re being left at the altar in the United States, they’ll find other jurisdictions that want to support them to get to the finish line.

If there’s likely to be displaced cleantech capital from the U.S., should Canada be doing more to attract it?

Whether it’s Canada or the U.K. or Australia or EU, they have pots of money – particularly loan money, where I’m more focused – that’s available to match what we achieved with the Loan Programs Office. But they run those programs in a way that makes it harder to get money out of them than from Wall Street.

Canada already has the tools necessary to succeed at attracting companies. The problem is the people running the tools are scared.

How do you mean scared?

I think scared of financial losses.

We never were afraid of financial losses. We did such a good job that we didn’t have many – we were at less than 3-per-cent loss rates. But we were leaning in.

We were saying, if your application is short in these three areas, let us help you figure out how to clean them up to get to the finish line. Whereas many of these other countries are saying sorry, we don’t like your deal, we’re not gonna give you any feedback, and we hope you find somebody else to fund you.

You were aggressively seeking them out, right?

You have to aggressively seek them out. Most governments say, if we have money, people will come. And that’s simply not true.

Most entrepreneurs don’t want to interact with the government. So you have to make it an inviting relationship.

If you’re running an agency such as the Canada Growth Fund or the Canada Infrastructure Bank, largely geared toward low-carbon investment, should you literally be cold-calling folks who might be getting displaced from the U.S. and gauging interest in relocating projects here? Or is that oversimplifying it?

The first thing that I did when I became the head of the LPO was to cold call a hundred companies. And I do think that Canadians should be cold calling a hundred companies.

I then hired 40 ombudsmen in our outreach department, who called almost 1,000 companies and said, hey, you’re too early for us, but let us explain what the milestones are that you have to reach to be able to use us in two years.

Those agencies here, particularly the Canada Growth Fund, are trying some pretty complex instruments – equity stakes, contracts for differences, offtake agreements. Did you favour loans just because that was the most available tool, or do you think there’s a danger in overcomplexity?

I think there’s a danger in moving away from being private sectorled. The problem with using equity and some of these other tools is it can look like the government is more interested than the private sector in getting something done.

Are there particular technologies or sectors that you think Canada should be trying to target?

The U.S. clearly has a mandate that befits the largest GDP in the world, so we covered all 20 or so [cleantech] sectors. Each country is going to have to find their areas of focus.

I would say it’s very obvious that Canada has a huge lead in nuclear technology. But I don’t think Canada is prepared to meet the moment right now and help the United States build 10 [large nuclear reactors], which is what the President has announced.

Not prepared in what sense?

The biggest problem with nuclear is getting the financial stack put together. The Loan Programs Office can put together a loan. But then you have to raise equity, and you have to figure out cost overrun risk.

Canadians have the best sources of equity in the world – CPPIB and Ontario Teachers and AIMCO and others. They separately have an ability to manage risk; I mean, there’s no smarter prime minister in the G7 than Mark Carney at these types of structuring assignments. And Canadians want some of the supply chain jobs.

But I don’t think that Canada is actually putting that all together. And I don’t think Westinghouse [the Pennsylvania-based nuclear giant now owned by Canada’s Brookfield Asset Management and Cameco Corp.] knows how to ask for things from the Canadian government.

To come back to risk, you’re saying not to be afraid of the odd failure, which is a common thing I’ve heard in this space – that government financing agencies should be judged across their portfolios. Still, isn’t there a challenge in assessing the prospects of companies in some emerging, volatile sectors?

I think part of the challenge we have here is when a company goes bankrupt, we believe that the government is somehow harmed.

In China, they always start with a hundred companies, and end up with six. That means 94 went bankrupt. Are you worried about that? No, they still have champions in solar manufacturing and critical minerals processing and battery manufacturing and EV manufacturing. And you don’t know the names of the other 94 companies that went bankrupt.

The technology that you have needs to be scaled up, and the total loss to the people of Canada for a $100-million loan or a $500-million loan going bankrupt is immaterial to the value of entrepreneurs believing that once they’ve invented something in Canada, they can scale up in Canada.

How much interest have you had from the Canadian government or its agencies lately? It would be obvious to reach out for guidance on how to attract more of this investment ourselves.

I think that the Carney government is still filling important positions, and until those positions are filled and they receive a mandate, people are still waiting for instructions.

I’m worried that they’re going to miss the window and some companies are either going to choose other jurisdictions or go bankrupt before the Carney government has everything in place.

Pact signals to the U.S. that Canada can get ‘big things done’: Hydro-Québec’s Sabia

This article was written by the Canadian Press and was published in the Globe & Mail on June 4, 2025.

The chief executive of Hydro-Québec says a sweeping new energy deal with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a signal to the United States that Canada can get “big things done.”

Michael Sabia was in St. John’s on Tuesday, where he pitched the draft deal as a turning point in Quebec’s relationship with Newfoundland and Labrador, and a step toward Canada becoming an “energy superpower.”

“Let’s be clear: Canada is under threat,” Mr. Sabia told a room full of representatives from Newfoundland and Labrador’s energy industry.

“This is a time of real economic and political uncertainty. It’s a time when Canadians need to work together to build the future,” he said. “Ultimately, that’s what this deal is about. It’s about building now to secure Canada’s energy future.”

Mr. Sabia was speaking to the crowd at a conference held by Energy N.L., Newfoundland and Labrador’s energy industry association. He was joined on stage by Jennifer Williams, president and chief executive of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The two discussed an agreement in principle announced last year that would end a contract signed in 1969 that allows Hydro-Québec to buy the lion’s share of the energy from the Churchill Falls hydroelectric plant at prices far below market value.

The contract has long been a source of bitterness in Canada’s easternmost province.

The new arrangement would end the contentious deal 16 years early and see Hydro-Québec pay for more power while developing new projects with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro along the Churchill River. Newfoundland and Labrador would also get more power from Churchill Falls.

The memorandum of understanding has its critics. The Opposition Progressive Conservatives have been uneasy with the draft deal, demanding the Liberal government have it independently reviewed. The party also called for a halt to continuing negotiations of final contracts, saying a proposed national energy corridor could bring better opportunities.

Some in Newfoundland and Labrador have also wondered if Hydro-Québec can be trusted and whether the province will truly get enough value for its resources.

“Show me a deal where there hasn’t ever been skeptics,” Ms. Williams challenged when asked about those who have criticisms.

Mr. Sabia addressed the tangled history of the provinces several times and said repeatedly that the new arrangement was “balanced” and served the needs of both Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. Both sides made concessions, he said, adding that the deal contained items neither side wanted.

He refused to elaborate on what those were.

Mr. Sabia said the agreement is the “single most important signal we can send to the United States right now,” as long as it goes ahead as planned. Ms. Williams agreed the proposed projects need to proceed smoothly and quickly, repeating “rigour and speed are not incompatible.”

Both said they were heartened by signs from Prime Minister Mark Carney that he would speed up project approvals.

Ms. Williams touted the deal’s promised economic benefits, which includes $17-billion in revenue to the provincial treasury by 2041. Newfoundland and Labrador expects to be carrying a net debt of $19.4-billion by the end of the current fiscal year.

Officials hope to have final agreements hammered out next year. In the meantime, preliminary topographic and soil studies are expected to begin in Labrador this summer, Mr. Sabia said.

This article was written by Laura Stone and Nojoud Al Mallees, and was published in the Globe & Mail on June 2, 2025.

Ontario announces deals with three provinces to lower trade barriers ahead of talks in Saskatoon

Prime Minister Mark Carney was facing provincial pressure to support a new oil pipeline and repeal a federal environmental review law as he prepared to join premiers at a Monday first ministers meeting focused on fast-tracking major infrastructure projects and reducing red tape.

Ahead of Monday’s meeting in Saskatoon, Ontario announced separate agreements with each of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Prince Edward Island to reduce trade barriers between them. Lowering these interprovincial barriers was expected to be another major theme of Mr. Carney’s meeting with the premiers, his first since winning the federal election.

The provinces have inked non-binding memorandums of understanding with Ontario in which they pledge to work on bilateral deals, including direct-to-consumer alcohol sales, and to work with interested jurisdictions on a national framework.

At a roundtable discussion with leaders in the energy sector Sunday, Mr. Carney reiterated his message that Canada needs to diversify its economy in the face of existential threats from U.S. President Donald Trump.

“It’s a critical time for our country. The world’s certainly more divided and dangerous and the imperative of making Canada an energy superpower in all respects has never been greater,” Mr. Carney said.

Premiers have submitted to Mr. Carney their wish lists for projects to be deemed in the national interest, which include infrastructure to access minerals in Ontario’s northern Ring of Fire region, a pipeline that would transport oil from Alberta to the West Coast, and a trade corridor out of Manitoba’s Port of Churchill, among others.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s pipeline push – and her argument that the failure to prioritize an oil pipeline would “send an unwelcome signal to Albertans concerned about Ottawa’s commitment to national unity” – is expected to dominate discussions at the meeting, as are her calls to scrap policies from the previous Liberal government, such as Bill C-69, the Environmental Assessment Act, which critics have dubbed the “no more pipelines” law.

Appearing alongside Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe in Saskatoon on Sunday to announce Ontario’s sixth interprovincial trade agreement, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said he hopes Mr. Carney expresses support for a new pipeline at the meeting.

“I’d like to encourage him to say that. We can’t rely on the U.S.,” Mr. Ford said. He added that the federal government has to scrap C-69 as well.

Mr. Moe, along with his fellow Western premiers, has been pushing a “port to port” corridor in Western Canada to open up the Asian and European markets.

“Credit to Prime Minister Carney. I think he is aware that there’s, you know, a feeling of alienation in certain areas of the nation,” Mr. Moe said.

As trade uncertainty clouds the economic outlook for Canada, the federal and provincial governments have stressed the urgency of bolstering the country’s economic independence by boosting internal trade, beefing up infrastructure and leaning into the natural resources sector.

But not all premiers appear to be on the same page.

B.C. Premier David Eby on Saturday called Alberta’s demands “very predictable” and said a proposal for a new pipeline currently does not exist.

“If, finally, a project is proposed and financed, whether private or public, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” said Mr. Eby, who stressed that he wants to focus on collaboration. He is not attending the meeting because he left on a trade mission to Asia on Saturday, but he is sending Deputy Premier Niki Sharma in his place.

Mr. Carney is also expected to brief premiers on legislation that would remove federal barriers to internal trade and fast-track approvals for projects of national interest so that they would be given the greenlight within two years. It would also allow the federal government to modify regulatory requirements on all projects deemed to be in the national interest.

However, the proposed “One Canadian Economy” legislation has been met with backlash from Indigenous communities, which were given one week to provide feedback on the bill, over concerns that it could infringe on their constitutional right to be consulted on such projects.

“We totally oppose this ‘fasttracking’ approach to development on our homelands as it ignores our jurisdiction, our Treaty rights and our interests,” Neskantaga Chief Gary Quisess wrote in a letter to Mr. Carney.

Audrey Champoux, a spokesperson from the Prime Minister’s Office, told The Globe and Mail that some Indigenous groups were invited to a closed-door reception on Sunday ahead of the first ministers meeting. However, the PMO would not confirm which groups would be in attendance.

Provincial bills in British Columbia and Ontario aimed at speeding up natural resource projects have also been criticized by Indigenous communities, which say they were not consulted on these pieces of legislation.

In response, B.C. has pledged to include a requirement for projects to receive approval from affected First Nations in the regulations of Bill 15, which would give the provincial government sweeping powers to expedite infrastructure projects. Ontario is amending its proposed legislation to reaffirm its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations, but the bill still faces heavy opposition.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said last week that governments should take the time to engage Indigenous communities on projects.