Coldest city in Canada at war with natural gas and common sense

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Winnipeg City Council’s War on Natural Gas Shows the Need to Counter Special Interests

Some members of the Winnipeg City Council are determined to continue their reckless war on natural gas in buildings in Canada’s coldest city.

The latest move occurred at City Council when the City’s Standing Policy Committee on Water, Waste and Environment considered a motion to discuss options for moving away from not using natural gas heating in existing and new residential, commercial and industrial buildings. The lack of action placed the motion in limbo.

It ought to remain in limbo forever. Winnipeg City Council should instead enshrine energy choice. Winnipeggers who favour energy choice and sensible policy can take heart from the experience of other Canadian cities. More cities are fighting these natural gas bans. Vancouver City Council ended a natural gas ban in new buildings this summer after a group of councillors pushed back. They raised housing affordability concerns because homeowners and landlords are subject to costly retrofits with a ban on natural gas heaters, gas furnaces and gas boilers.

Unfortunately, a recent tied vote defeated the policy reversal. This organized opposition, however, shows what is happening at ground level: Average people pummeled by inflation and higher energy costs are finally fighting back.

Opponents of energy choice make exaggerated claims regarding the influence of the energy lobby in these debates, while they are tone-deaf about the actual organized interests at play. Environmental organizations such as the Pembina Institute are well-funded and always present at protests. They also funnel misleading information to local activists and politicians.

Manitoba Hydro has spoken out against natural gas bans for years. In 2021, the Crown electric utility said moving the province from natural gas to electricity as a home-heating source was unrealistic. Despite abundant hydropower, Manitoba does not have the generating capacity to support this switch. Manitoba Hydro said the grid cannot serve peak demand without natural gas. Meeting our energy needs without natural gas would require doubling the province’s generating capacity. This is the province’s utility saying this based on a simple analysis of the evidence, not a ‘right-wing’ economist.

The problem with these debates is that ideologically driven environmental organizations drown out reasonable voices. These groups are often behind local campaigns to deny energy choice. They are well-funded special interests ‒ often using foreign funding or even funding from our governments.

Individuals and organizations committed to energy choice must become active and counter these well-funded voices. Pro-energy choice voices must refute the misinformation spread by environmentalist interests. In municipal elections, they should promote candidates and even electoral slates that respect energy choice and sensible policy.

In the United States, some Republican-led states have successfully prevented localities from banning certain hydrocarbon-based heating infrastructure. However, their efforts are limited because a change in state-level politics could reverse the move to limit local governments.

Strong citizen-led local movements are the answer. They should always watch for policies that oppose energy choice. Such movements must be active in local politics, opposing these elitist environmental special interests. Reasonable Winnipeggers ‒ right and left ‒ must defend reasonable energy policies. This is not a partisan issue. It is never too late to stand up for sanity in the local fight for energy abundance and freedom for all.

Joseph Quesnel is a Senior Research Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:#FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #JosephQuesnel WinnipegCityCouncil WinnipegNaturalGas

Up Next

Canada can – and should – crack down on trade-based money laundering

Don't Miss

Canadians face longest waits for health care on record

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

Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband

Canadian Energy Centre / 3 hours ago

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Canadian Energy Centre

Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces

Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.

One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.

The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.

Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.

Total Government Revenue by Region

Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
Total: $20.4 billion

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
Total: $90.9 billion

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
Total: $4.4 billion

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $746 million
Federal government revenue: $541 million
Total: $1.29 billion

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
Total: $11.3 billion

Other

Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
Total: $3.3 billion

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
Total: $131.7 billion

Annual Government Revenue by Region

Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia

Provincial government revenue: $340 million
Federal government revenue: $261 million
Total: $601 million per year

Alberta

Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
Total: $2.7 billion per year

Ontario

Provincial government revenue: $51 million
Federal government revenue: $79 million
Total: $130 million per year

Quebec

Provincial government revenue: $21 million
Federal government revenue: $16 million
Total: $37 million per year

Saskatchewan

Provincial government revenue: $204 million
Federal government revenue: $129 million
Total: $333 million per year

Other

Provincial government revenue: $58 million
Federal government revenue: $40 million
Total: $98 million per year

Canada

Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
Total: $3.8 billion per year

Employment by Region

Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia

Annual average: 7,736
Total over the period: 224,344

Alberta

Annual average: 11,798
Total over the period: 342,142

Ontario

Annual average: 3,061
Total over the period: 88,769

Quebec

Annual average: 1,003
Total over the period: 29,087

Saskatchewan

Annual average: 2,127
Total over the period: 61,683

Other

Annual average: 953
Total over the period: 27,637

Canada

Annual average: 26,678
Total over the period: 773,662

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on June 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.

Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.

His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.

On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.

To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.

The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.