Ottawa’s mixed signals create more uncertainty in energy sector

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

Up Next

Carney government’s throne speech—different delivery, same old approach to policy

Don't Miss

Ottawa’s bold energy promises face skepticism in Alberta

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

COVID-19 / 4 hours ago

Trump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports

Business / 4 hours ago

Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada

Alberta

Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says

Published on July 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Cody Ciona

‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’

Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.

Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.

That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.

“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.

Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.

In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.

According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.

The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.

For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.

“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.

“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”

As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.

“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.

Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.

“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.

“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”

The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.

Energy

LNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence

Published on July 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

Kitimat’s LNG launch ends years of delay, weak policy and lost opportunity. This is a strategic turning point for Canada

Last week marked a turning point for Canadian sovereignty. On July 1, 2025, the tanker Gaslog Glasgow departed Kitimat, B.C., carrying Canada’s first-ever commercial liquefied natural gas (LNG) export to Asia. More than a shipment, it signalled the end of our economic vassalage to the United States and a long-overdue leap into global energy markets.

LNG Canada CEO Chris Cooper called it a “truly historic moment.” He’s right. The cargo left just days after the Kitimat plant produced its first liquefied natural gas and entered operation. The $40-billion megaproject, the largest private-sector investment in Canadian history, is now a fully functional Pacific Coast export hub. It can ship up to 14 million tonnes annually, and expansion is already being discussed.

Yet this success didn’t come easily. Despite being one of the world’s largest natural gas producers, Canada lacked an LNG export terminal, largely due to political delays, regulatory hurdles and lack of federal support. That this happened at all is remarkable, given nearly a decade of federal sabotage. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ideological hostility to natural gas meant rebuffed allies, stalled projects and choked-off investment.

Foreign leaders (from Japan and Germany to Greece) practically begged Ottawa to green-light Canadian LNG. Trudeau dismissed them, claiming there was “no business case.” No one in his caucus dared contradict him. The result: lost time, lost markets and a near-complete surrender of our energy advantage.

But the business case was always there. Kitimat proves it.

The U.S. has been exporting LNG since 2016, giving them a nearly decade-long head start. But Canada has something our neighbours don’t: the Montney Formation. Spanning northeast B.C. and parts of Alberta, it covers about 130,000 square kilometres and holds enormous gas reserves. Montney gas, abundant and close to tidewater, trades at roughly half the Henry Hub price, giving Canada a significant cost edge.

Location seals the deal. Kitimat, perched on the Pacific, bypasses the congested Panama Canal, a major chokepoint for U.S. Gulf Coast exports, and offers a shorter, more direct route to energy-hungry Asian markets. This geographic advantage makes Canadian LNG not only viable but globally competitive.

In 2024, Canada exported about 8.6 billion cubic feet of gas daily to the U.S. via pipeline. With Kitimat, we finally begin breaking that one-market dependency. We also start clawing back the price differential losses that come with being captive sellers. This is how you build productivity, strengthen the dollar and reclaim economic independence from Washington.

The economic ripple effect is massive. The Kitimat build created 50,000 jobs at its peak, generated $5.8 billion in Indigenous and local contracts and left behind more than 300 permanent positions. Provincial revenues are projected in the tens of billions. In an era of anaemic growth, this is real stimulus and has staying power.

Predictably, critics raise environmental concerns. But this critique ignores global realities. Exporting Canadian natural gas to countries still burning coal is not a step backward—it’s a practical advance. Natural gas is up to 25 per cent cleaner than coal when comparing full lifecycle emissions (that is, from extraction to combustion). Global emissions don’t respect borders. If Canada can displace dirtier fuels abroad, we’re part of the solution, not the problem.

And this is only the beginning. Cedar LNG and Woodfibre LNG are already under construction. Atlantic Coast projects are in the queue. We must now defend this momentum against bureaucratic delays, activist litigation and ideological roadblocks.

LNG is not a climate villain. It’s a bridge fuel that cuts emissions, creates wealth and helps fund our national future.

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