From Energy Now 

By Jim Warren

During the Cold War, Western journalists and political analysts were typically unable to penetrate the secrecy surrounding the machinations of upper level Soviet politics. They would  struggle to discern who the top contenders were in the contest to replace the current party leader and what a new leader might mean for geopolitics.

The lack of trustworthy official information prompted Kremlin watchers to adopt some rather desperate and sometimes absurd methods for divining the twists and turns of internal Communist Party intrigues.

For instance, they would look at photos of the party leadership on the reviewing stand for the annual May Day military parade. They would identify how close or far each member of the official party on the dais was sitting from the party leader. The proximity rankings were then compared with where people were positioned in relation to the leader at last year’s parade. Those who stood or sat closer to the leader than they did the previous year were presumed to be on their way up. Those who stood further away might be on their way to Siberia.

After one month in office it looks like the Carney government will require observers to go to similarly ridiculous lengths to figure out what cabinet ministers really mean when making public statements. Last week, a column by Calgary Sun’s Rick Bell discussed Danielle Smith’s demand that the Liberals quit talking in riddles. Bell suggested the Liberals would rather “stick handle” their way through questions about their policy positions than clearly indicate what those positions are.

Supporters of the oil, gas and pipeline sectors in the West remain uncertain and unconvinced when it comes to the Liberal government’s commitment to getting new pipelines built. This week’s Speech from the Throne certainly didn’t clarify the government’s plans for conventional energy production and exports.

The prime minister’s flip flopping has been particularly unhelpful. He has distanced himself from the comments he made at Kelowna early in the election campaign. While speaking there, Carney temporarily impressed supporters of new export pipelines by indicating he would use the emergency powers of the federal government to ensure oil pipelines are built to connect the prairies with the East and West coasts. Several days later he indicated he wouldn’t use those powers to override the objections of Quebec.

Currently, the prime minister says he is taking a wait and see approach. Last week he said a new pipeline extending from the prairies to a Canadian coastline is one of many possibilities depending on what sort of consensus develops around energy policy. When fumbling to explain his consensus approach, he produced the sort of word salad Danielle Smith could justifiably refer to as “talking in riddles.”

During the new government’s first Question Period on May 28, Andrew Scheer asked Carney what he intended to do about Bill C-69, the infamous No More Pipelines Bill. True to form Carney avoided providing a clear answer to the question. He responded with irrelevant canned talking points that failed to mention either the noxious Bill or increasing oil export opportunities.

Last week, Tim Hodgson, Canada’s new Energy Minister told people at a Calgary Chamber of Commerce event some of the of things they hoped to hear. According to a National Post report on the event Hodgson said he “promised to deliver new infrastructure to get Canadian energy to the coast and ultimately ‘to trusted allies’ outside the U.S.”

Hodgson also had comforting words for those concerned that Canada’s cumbersome project approval process could stymie new pipeline approval and construction. He said “Canada will no longer be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery.”

Talk is cheap. It is difficult to imagine how costly pipeline construction delays and cancellations can be prevented without first getting rid of Bill C-69. If Hodgson was truly being sincere you’d think he would have announced plans are in the works to overturn C-69 or to at least make serious revisions to it. Since he never went that far in his remarks, the presentation fell far short of announcing that a credible plan is currently being considered.

The week prior to Hodgson’s Calgary speech, his cabinet colleague Steven Guilbeault announced that Canada did not need any new pipelines because the Trans Mountain was not operating at full capacity. Guilbeault also said that by the time a new pipeline could be built the global demand for oil and gas will have declined so much it wouldn’t be needed. Unfortunately, if a new pipeline project isn’t approved and completed within the next 15 years, Gulibeault’s second point will be on its way to becoming a self-fulfilled Liberal prophecy.

So who really speaks for the government on conventional energy policy? We’ve been presented with three different versions from three of the people who sit around the cabinet table, one of whom is supposed to be the boss. Apparently it is no longer the case that ministers are duty bound to refrain from criticizing or deviating from government policy. Yet, as far as we know, nobody has been reprimanded for announcing an incorrect version of the Liberals’ conventional energy policy.

We have been left to guess at the answers to critical questions. Has the government initiated a plan for making policy changes that deal with the concerns of the conventional energy sector and the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan? If so, could someone please tell us what it is?

Transparency and clarity on the conventional energy file seem especially important at a time when Alberta is posed to hold a referendum on separation. Perhaps the Liberals don’t appreciate how much the lack of a coherent position in favour of building one or more new pipelines threatens national unity. Maybe their standard election winning formula of “screw the West, we’ll take the rest,” reflects what they have adopted as their long-term approach to the legitimate demands of alienated Westerners.

Barring the appearance of a clearly articulated official policy statement we might need to adopt a Canadian version of Kremlinology. That’s about the only means we would have to determine who, if anyone, is running the government—more specifically its conventional energy policy. Knowing which ministers speak for official government policy and which don’t could be useful.

We might need to ask questions like the following:

• Which cabinet ministers get to sit at the cool kids’ table at the parliamentary cafeteria?
• Which minister’s favourite companies and environmental groups have received the biggest grants and contracts since Carney became prime minister?
• Which minister enjoys the most taxpayer funded flights and luxury hotel room stays to attend international gabfests like The World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland or this year’s COP 30 conference in Brazil, etc.?
• According to Parliament Hill gossip, who is most likely bound for Siberia—Steven Guilbeault or Tim Hodgson? And, when, if ever, will Jonathan Wilkinson be released from the backbench gulag and allowed back into cabinet? And why was he sent there in the first place—not green enough, or too green?

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.