Haida Heritage Centre, Haida Gwaii, Queen Charlotte Islands

From Resource Works

By Geoff Russ

Halting funding for natural gas expansion cut off many Indigenous communities from affordable energy.

Energy poverty in Canada is both an urgent and underreported crisis that is affecting Indigenous, rural, and remote communities across the country.

This is a resource-rich country, but Canada has continually failed to remedy the glaring energy affordability and accessibility gap in these communities. In particular, Indigenous families and households have to face disproportionately high energy costs due to their geographic isolation, a lack of built infrastructure, and neglect during policymaking.

In a report for the Energy for a Secure Future, authored by Heather Exner-Pirot, titled “The Other Energy Security: Addressing Energy Poverty in Canada’s Indigenous Communities,” she lays out these many problems that must be fixed.

It is a dire situation, with remote Indigenous communities being forced to spend over three times more of their household income on energy than the Canadian average. Twenty-six percent of Indigenous households fall into the category of energy poverty, as defined by the Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners (CUSP).

Many families spend more than six percent of their disposable income on energy, and this has worsened in recent years as energy costs rise with inflation and other present economic hardships.

Natural gas is the most plentiful and affordable source of household energy in Canada, but it cannot be accessed by many Indigenous communities that lack pipeline infrastructure. Although natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than diesel, propane, heating oil, or wood, the expansion of gas infrastructure into remote regions has hit snags in recent years.

From the 1980s to the 2000s, Ottawa supported the expansion of infrastructure to rural areas in a bid to alleviate affordability issues. However, the shift to reducing emissions and growing renewable energy has resulted in a lack of support for natural gas infrastructure.

This has had the counterproductive effect of leaving Indigenous communities with higher costs and higher emitting fuels like heating oil and diesel due to a lack of alternatives. As a source of energy, diesel is handy and reliable, but is expensive, heavily polluting, and expensive to transport into remote areas.

Renewables like solar and wind help to meet climate goals, but they are not feasible in remote northern communities because of their unreliability and high upfront costs. Phasing out fossil fuels in rural and remote Canada is a bad decision for the people affected without a fair transition strategy.

Many of the Indigenous leaders featured in Exner-Pirot’s report expressed grave concerns about the impact of energy poverty in their communities. They cited the many difficult choices that they have to make, such as having to pick between adequate heating or food.

These leaders are frustrated with the decisions made by distant authorities that prioritize ambitious sustainability goals instead of immediate, practical solutions. Many explicitly called for the expansion of natural gas, declaring it to be feasible, cost-effective, and cleaner than their current options.

One of the more striking statements is their assertion that withholding federal funding from natural gas projects actively denies Indigenous communities relief from energy poverty.

There is good evidence that reveals the benefits of expanding natural gas.

Red Lake, Ontario saw its energy costs fall by 70 percent once it was connected to natural gas infrastructure. Alberta’s Bigstone Cree Nation formerly used propane for decades, but then saw their energy security and affordability greatly improve after the province expanded the natural gas network.

The O’Chiese First Nation, also in Alberta, has been a model for energy autonomy and energy development, having harnessed its natural gas production for the benefit of the whole community.

Exner-Pirot’s report ends with several clear recommendations:

• Equal treatment of all fuels under carbon pricing to eliminate undesirable incentives
• Expanded eligibility for funding programs to include transitional fuels like natural gas
• Financial support for Indigenous-led energy security projects
• Explicit provincial targets and timelines for natural gas infrastructure expansion, using Ontario’s Natural Gas Expansion Program as a model

There is no debate that Canadian energy policy in Indigenous and remote communities has to change immediately. As they currently stand, they are exacerbating energy poverty by cutting out transitional and practical solutions.

No one-size-fits-all approach works for the countless Indigenous communities that reside in Canada, and they each need a tailored approach that respects their geographic and economic realities, as well as their right to self-determination.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s scripted tax-cut spectacles are misleading and sidestep Canada’s constitutional rules. Carney chips away at the core of our parliamentary system by staging solo announcements that mimic President Trump. Canada isn’t a republic, and the prime minister isn’t a president. These theatrics bypass oversight and erode public trust.

Canadians are often frustrated by government red tape, bureaucratic black holes and delays. So when a politician like Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to “get things done,” it’s tempting to cheer.

But let’s not be so hasty.

Government is not meant to move at the speed of a press conference. Efficiency without oversight is not good governance, it’s unchecked power. Bypassing Parliament may look like a solution, but it’s an abuse of process.

History teaches this lesson well. The constitutional roots of our institutions, stretching back to England’s Magna Carta—a foundation of modern democracy—make clear that no ruler can take, or even give back, from the public purse without Parliament’s consent.

In Canada, this principle is enshrined in Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which requires that any bill imposing or changing taxes originate in the House of Commons. Not the Prime Minister’s Office. Not the cabinet table. The House.

This isn’t a dusty relic. It is the backbone of limited government, ensuring elected representatives hold the power of the purse.

So when the prime minister theatrically signs a sheet of paper at a cabinet meeting, purporting to “lower middle-class taxes,” that is not leadership. It’s a staged deception. And even though Carney has not been PM for very long, it is not the first time.

Only weeks ago, Carney staged a similar photo op, pretending to erase the consumer carbon tax with a dramatic signature. The problem? Prime ministers do not have the solo authority to change laws, and they do not sign Orders in Council. That power belongs to the Governor in Council—a formal decision made by cabinet, approved by the Governor General. It is not something a prime minister can do alone.

The ceremony was legally meaningless but theatrically effective. It was designed to channel Donald Trump’s bravado.

Another fake signing is another misleading spectacle. And while some might shrug, “At least he’s lowering taxes,” this misses the larger point.

There is no shortcut for tax cuts. They follow the same constitutional process as tax hikes. Cutting taxes often means shifting burdens elsewhere or altering spending priorities. One cannot be separated from the other.

Consider the 2006 GST cuts, from 7 per cent to 6 per cent and then to 5 per cent. Both reductions were passed through budget implementation acts, debated, voted on and approved by Parliament. The same was true for business tax cuts in 2015. This is how it works.

It’s not about whether taxes go up or down; it’s about Parliament’s rightful authority to decide.

Carney’s mimicking of presidential authority isn’t only an abuse of process. It strikes at Canada’s political identity.

This is not Trump’s America. Canada is a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential republic. The prime minister’s power comes from the confidence of the House of Commons, especially with a minority government, not from a personal mandate. His role is not “commander-in-chief” but a servant of Parliament.

When the prime minister plays dress-up as a president pretending to lower taxes with the stroke of a pen, he isn’t just misleading Canadians. He is shunning the traditions that make our system different from the United States.

And those traditions matter. They are not superficial. They define how power is distributed, checked and limited in Canada. These constitutional guardrails keep governments honest and prevent the slide into executive overreach.

A government that fakes the process to look good betrays an inclination to ignore limitations. Carney’s craving for the quick win—for the Trumpian photo op that “gets things done”—reveals a dangerous instinct: bypassing Parliament as it suits him.

Even more galling is the context of a Parliament improperly prorogued for months; Carney is sidelining parliamentary oversight. And in their contempt for Parliament, the new Carney government will not present a budget until the fall. The country has been without one for over a year—a cornerstone document that tells Canadians how their tax dollars will be spent. Instead, he chooses theatre.

As if the rules don’t apply. But they do.

This is about consent, not convenience. The process is a feature, not a flaw. It ensures no government can act unilaterally on taxes or spending. These procedures protect citizens from arbitrary executive action, regardless of how well-intentioned or well-staged. When leaders ignore those safeguards, it weakens public trust, concentrates power in fewer hands and chips away at the core principle of responsible government.

When leaders flout these rules for convenience, we should not celebrate it, nor should Carney continue the Trudeau-era habit of governing by spectacle, not substance.

Prime Minister Carney likes to say, “Canada is not for sale.” Fair enough. But neither are Canada’s parliamentary traditions. When a government pretends to wield presidential-like authority, it betrays process and identity since part of being Canadian is to have a Parliament that matters.

Ultimately, governments must follow the rules. In punting Trudeau, Canadians thought they were getting rid of stagecraft masquerading as governance. It seems they were mistaken.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is coauthor, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).