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 Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

The Carney government continues to send mixed signals to Canada’s energy sector. Earlier this month, less than 48 hours after Prime Minister Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines, Steven Guilbeault, a high-profile member of Carney’s cabinet, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure, claiming that the Trans Mountain pipeline is operating at “about 40 per cent capacity” while also citing a lack of private-sector interest in building east-west pipelines due to an upcoming peak in oil demand.

But claims about the Trans Mountain pipeline from Guilbeault—former Minister of Environment and Climate Change, now Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture—are inaccurate. They also overlook a key point—despite regulatory hurdles, the energy industry maintains a strong interest in building pipelines to meet the growing global demand.

Canadians may recall the Trans Mountain Pipeline project—running between Strathcona County, Alberta and Burnaby, British Columbia—was marked by delays and overruns. After the Trudeau government purchased it from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion in 2018, costs ballooned to $34 billion. Since its opening in May 2024—five years behind schedule—the pipeline has reached 89 per cent capacity utilization (more than twice what Minister Guilbeault claimed), with projections showing it could approach 96 per cent in the near future. In short, more pipeline capacity will be needed soon.

Minister Guilbeault’s statements about peak oil demand are also off the mark. For starters, the Energy Information Administration forecasts that global oil consumption will keep growing through 2050—not just until 2028-2029 as Guilbeault claimed. Firms such as Goldman Sachs and GlobalData suggest that oil demand is set to rise well beyond 2030. Meanwhile, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) goes even further, forecasting that global oil demand will continue growing past 2050 while stating there’s “no peak oil demand on the horizon.” Simply put, it’s shortsighted for the government to undermine infrastructure projects when multiple credible forecasts point to increased demand.

Moreover, pipelines transport more than just crude oil—they also deliver natural gas to domestic markets and coastal ports for export. Even the International Energy Agency (IEA), which Guilbeault cites as his source, projects that global demand for liquified natural gas (LNG) will continue to grow steadily through 2050. This strong LNG demand presents a significant opportunity for Canada to become a major LNG exporter and provide cleaner burning fuels. But to seize this opportunity, we need infrastructure to get our energy to tidewater.

Furthermore, Guilbeault’s claim that there’s no interest in building east-west pipelines also contradicts industry sentiment. A recent survey by KPMG, a leading audit and consulting firm, found that more than 80 per cent of Canadian energy and natural resource CEOs support additional pipelines and infrastructure on both the west and east coasts to access international markets.

Currently, most of our oil and natural gas exports go to the United States. This dependence on the U.S. for energy exports has made Canadian energy producers vulnerable to U.S policy changes (as seen with the recent threat of U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy). Building more pipelines would reduce our reliance on a single buyer and open access to Canadian refineries and ports, enabling us to export oil and gas to other markets, including both Europe and Asia.

In fact, it’s not just the industry that calls for more energy infrastructure. Recent polls indicate that most Canadians support building additional oil and gas pipelines to all coasts, and LNG facilities, to diversify energy exports beyond the U.S. Yet, federal polices continue to stand in the way of critical energy infrastructure. For instance, Bill C-69, also known as the Impact Assessment Act, has created massive uncertainty by introducing subjective criteria including “gender” implications into the evaluation of major energy projects. Similarly, the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions cap, which exclusively targets the oil and gas sector, deters investment by effectively requiring a reduction in production and, in turn, reducing the need for new infrastructure.

Minister Guilbeault’s inaccurate statements and the Carney government’s continued mixed signals deepen the uncertainty for investors. Rather than creating confusion with conflicting statements, the federal government should provide clarity through a competitive regulatory framework—one that allows investors, guided by market realities, to determine when and where pipelines are truly needed.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute