In a climate of escalating economic nationalism, Ottawa’s scrutiny of Parkland Corp.’s $1.8 billion acquisition of Sunoco LP assets has emerged as the latest flashpoint in increasingly complicated Canada-U.S. trade relations. The Investment Review Division of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada confirmed yesterday that the Calgary-based company’s planned takeover will undergo a thorough national security review, signaling heightened sensitivity around cross-border energy transactions.
“This review comes at a particularly delicate moment for bilateral energy relations,” notes Dr. Miranda Chen, professor of international trade at the University of Toronto. “We’re seeing a pattern of increased protectionism on both sides of the border that extends well beyond the traditional friction points.”
The deal, announced in December 2024, would see Parkland acquire approximately 400 Sunoco retail fuel outlets across the northeastern United States, significantly expanding the Canadian company’s U.S. footprint. What might have previously been considered a routine business transaction has now become entangled in broader geopolitical concerns about energy security and economic sovereignty.
Industry analysts point to recent statements from the Biden administration expressing concerns about foreign ownership of critical energy infrastructure as potentially influencing Canada’s decision to apply additional scrutiny. “Ottawa may be positioning itself defensively,” explains James Harrington, senior energy analyst at RBC Capital Markets. “There’s an element of reciprocity at play here—if U.S. authorities are raising barriers to Canadian investment, Canada feels justified in applying similar standards.”
The review occurs against a backdrop of deteriorating trade relations between the two neighbors, with disputes spanning sectors from lumber to dairy products. Just last month, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai criticized Canada’s digital services tax as “discriminatory” against American tech companies, while Canadian officials have expressed frustration over continued aluminum and steel tariff threats.
According to sources familiar with the review process, officials are particularly focused on potential implications for domestic fuel pricing and supply chain resilience. “Energy security has taken on new significance in the post-pandemic economy,” says Elaine Sullivan, former deputy minister at Natural Resources Canada. “The question isn’t just who owns what, but whether strategic assets remain reliably available during crises.”
Parkland executives have expressed confidence that the deal will ultimately receive regulatory approval, emphasizing the positive economic impacts including job creation and infrastructure investment. In a statement released this morning, CEO Alex Robertson stressed that “this acquisition represents a commitment to strengthening North American energy integration rather than fragmenting it.”
The review comes as Canada’s approach to foreign investment has grown increasingly cautious, particularly regarding critical minerals and energy assets. Last year, Ottawa ordered three Chinese companies to divest their holdings in Canadian critical minerals projects, citing national security concerns. The Parkland review suggests this heightened vigilance now extends to transactions involving our closest trading partner.
Trade experts suggest the outcome of this review could signal broader shifts in Canadian economic policy. “We’re witnessing the normalization of investment screening as a tool of economic statecraft,” observes Dr. Richard Blackwell of the C.D. Howe Institute. “The question is whether this represents a temporary response to current tensions or a fundamental recalibration of how we approach foreign investment.”
For consumers on both sides of the border, the implications remain unclear. Some analysts warn that increased regulatory hurdles could ultimately lead to higher prices and reduced competition, while others suggest stronger oversight might protect market stability during volatile periods.
As Ottawa proceeds with its review, expected to conclude by late summer, the broader question remains: in an era of rising economic nationalism, can Canada and the United States find a path that balances legitimate security concerns with the benefits of integrated markets? Or are we witnessing the beginning of a more fragmented North American economic landscape?
