Maple & Bay

Topic

Infrastructure & Energy

Canadian infrastructure investment, LNG, critical minerals, nuclear, and the capital decisions shaping the next decade.

2 IssuesRSS for Infrastructure & Energy

Orientation

Canadian infrastructure policy spans LNG export build-out on the Pacific coast, critical-minerals mining and processing, the small modular reactor (SMR) push centred in Ontario and Saskatchewan, hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Northeast, and the cross-jurisdictional politics of moving energy across provincial lines. Federal coordination through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the Canada Strong Fund increasingly drives major-project economics.

Key numbers
LNG Canada Phase 1 export capacity
14 Mtpa
Canada Infrastructure Bank capitalization
$35B
Federal Critical Minerals Strategy commitment
$3.8B
First grid-connected SMR target
Late 2020s
Primary sources
Related explainers
Coverage
May 25
Issue 5

Strings Cut: How Ottawa Walked Back the Clean Electricity Credit Conditions

The Clean Electricity ITC, a 15 percent refundable federal credit projected to support roughly $500 billion of investment by 2035, became law with Bill C-15's royal assent on March 26, 2026. The two conditions originally attached to provincial Crown-corp eligibility (a public net-zero electricity grid commitment by 2035 and a binding ratepayer pass-through with annual reporting) were stripped out in Budget 2025. The federal credit, as enacted, flows to provincial utilities with no climate test and no consumer-side accountability. The likeliest reason the change has drawn so little political attention is that almost everyone affected (Ottawa, provincial premiers, Crown utility CEOs) gets a cleaner outcome from the removal than they did from the gate. The cost is borne by the policy ambition the original conditions were supposed to advance, which is not a constituency that votes.

May 7
Issue 2

The $25 Billion Bet: What the Canada Strong Fund Actually Is (and Isn't)

The Canada Strong Fund is not Norway's sovereign wealth fund. Norway's fund is a savings vehicle that invests outside the country to preserve oil wealth. Canada's fund is a deployment vehicle directing capital into domestic infrastructure. The governance gap is the key variable: without a fiscal withdrawal rule and an independent results framework, the difference between a durable institution and a political slush fund is a legislation question, not an economics question.