Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Could the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?

Published

6 minute read

From Resource Works

By

Canada can be the democratic world’s top energy supplier, and the G7 Summit in Alberta is the perfect time to commit to that.

Canada is at the crossroads of opportunity as the leaders of the G7 convene in Kananaskis, Alberta.

An Ipsos poll has named Canada the top preferred oil supplier among G7 countries for the second time since 2023. No less than 68 percent of G7 respondents declared that Canada was among their top three choices to supply oil.

This should be yet another motivator for Canada to solidify itself as a key player in energy security and economic stability among the democratic nations.

The timing and location of this year’s G7 summit shows how important Canada can be to the world. Alberta, Canada’s energy heartland, is the source of nearly all of the country’s oil, and the provincial government wants more of it to reach global markets.

Those geopolitical anxieties caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 have not disappeared, and Canada’s allies and partners like the European Union (EU), Japan, South Korea, and India are looking for a reliable and responsible partner to supply them with energy, and we are the best and most obvious choice.

Willing partners are easy to find overseas, but the other provinces and the federal government need to become equally enthusiastic first.

There is more to this than mere symbolism. Canada embracing its position as the most desirable supplier of oil makes complete sense.

In 2023, Ipsos found that Canada’s political stability, comprehensive environmental rules, and strong regulatory frameworks are why it ranked first among preferred oil suppliers. Norway is another popular option, but Canada has the advantage of better market access to the United States and the Asia-Pacific, along with established infrastructure and an open government.

It all combines to create a distinct advantage for Canada in the world of trade.

The US has slid as a popular oil supplier, to Canada’s advantage, and we need to capitalize on that more than ever.

As Russia’s bloody, disruptive war with Ukraine continues to drag on, the EU still needs sources of alternative energy to make a clean break with Moscow. Russia had previously served as the bloc’s effective gas station, albeit one armed with nuclear weapons.

G7 member states like Britain and the EU are looking to slap even stricter limits on Russian energy exports that go beyond what is already in place. Whatever Russia has to lose is Canada’s to gain.

Canada began to enlarge its export capacity last year with the completion of the twinning of Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), enabling Canada to double the amount of oil it can pipe to Pacific markets. Shipping larger amounts of Canadian energy to partners in Japan, India, South Korea, and others has never been easier.

It was a monumental example of how investing in the right sorts of infrastructure can improve economic security, both nationally and internationally. Internally, developing the oil industry is a long term goal of First Nations leaders and communities.

The myth of First Nations opposing the expansion of oil and gas is one that needs to die. The Indian Resource Council, which represents over 130 First Nations, has repeatedly championed the responsible development of natural resources as a means of fostering economic independence and community renewal.

Many First Nations and other Indigenous groups have invested heavily into pipelines, production sites and storage facilities, and want to expand it further. In terms of pure economic value, there is not another industry that has created more wealth in Indigenous communities across Western Canada.

Complacency from the federal government and other authorities at this time could not be timed more poorly as the G7 Summit comes to Alberta. When the gathering ends on June 17, we should hope that it was a turning point where Canada made a direct and clear commitment to modernizing and expanding its oil and gas sector.

Our role in the world can be that of the great democratic alternative to Russia when it comes to supplying energy and other resources. Alberta knows it, as do our allies and Indigenous people across Canada.

Ottawa should listen. It is time to realize our potential to be an even greater energy superpower.

Through that, we can reduce the power of authoritarian, hostile regimes in the world by building a stronger, more unified Canada.

Business

Senator wants to torpedo Canada’s oil and gas industry

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Recently, without much fanfare, Senator Rosa Galvez re-pitched a piece of legislation that died on the vine when former prime minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament in January. Her “Climate-Aligned Finance Act” (CAFA), which would basically bring a form of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) to Canada’s oil and gas sector, would much better be left in its current legislative oblivion.

CAFA would essentially treat Canada’s oil and gas sector like an enemy of the state—a state, in Senator Galvez’ view, where all values are subordinate to greenhouse gas emission control. Think I’m kidding? Per CAFA, alignment with national climate commitments means that everyone engaged in federal investment in “emission intensive activities [read, the entire oil and gas sector] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

In plain English, CAFA would require anyone involved in federal financing (or federally-regulated financing) of the oil and gas sector to divest their Canadian federal investments in the oil and gas sector. And the government would sanction those who argue against it.

There’s another disturbing component to CAFA—in short, it stacks investment decision-making boards. CAFA requires at least one board member of every federally-regulated financial institution to have “climate expertise.” How is “climate expertise” defined? CAFA says it includes people with experience in climate science, social science, Indgineuous “ways of knowing,” and people who have “acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” (Stacking advisory boards like this, by the way, is a great way to build public distrust in governmental advisory boards, which, in our post-COVID world, is probably not all that high. Might want to rethink this, senator.)

Clearly, Senator Galvez’ CAFA is draconian public policy dressed up in drab finance-speak camouflage. But here’s what it would do. By making federal investment off-limits to oil and gas companies, it would quickly put negative pressure on investment from both national and international investors, effectively starving the sector for capital. After all, if a company’s activities are anathema to its own federal regulators or investment organs, and are statutorily prohibited from even verbally defending such investments, who in their right minds would want to invest?

And that is the BDS of CAFA. In so many words, it calls on the Canadian federal government to boycott, divest from, and sanction Canada’s oil and gas sector—which powers our country, produces a huge share of our exports, and employs people from coast to coast. Senator Galvez would like to see her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (CAFA) resurrected by the Carney government, whose energy policy to-date has been less than crystal clear. But for the sake of Canadians, it should stay dead.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Energy

Who put the energy illiterate in charge?

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Bill Whitelaw

Canada’s energy policy is being shaped by politicians who don’t actually understand how energy works. That’s not just embarrassing. It’s dangerous

Canada’s energy future is being held back by a critical obstacle: our elected officials don’t understand energy.

At all three levels of government, most politicians lack even a basic grasp of how our energy systems function. That ignorance isn’t just a knowledge gap—it’s a leadership crisis. Energy systems are evolving rapidly, and our leaders are ill-equipped to manage the complexity, tradeoffs and consequences involved. With few exceptions, their understanding is superficial, shaped more by talking points than substance.

By “energy systems,” I mean the complex web of technologies, infrastructure, markets and regulations that generate, distribute and manage power—from oil and gas to hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. These systems are deeply interconnected, constantly changing and central to every aspect of modern life. Yet the people making decisions about them often have little idea how they actually work.

This shows up frequently in public life: dodged questions, scripted answers, vague platitudes. Many politicians skate across the surface of issues with the thinnest understanding. The old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” perfectly describes Canadian energy politics today.

Decisions about energy directly affect household utility bills, climate goals, industrial competitiveness and grid reliability. Yet politicians tend to be tethered to the dominant energy source in their own region—oil and gas in Alberta, hydro in Quebec, nuclear in Ontario—without grasping how those systems connect or conflict. Canada’s energy landscape is fragmented, with each province operating under its own regulatory framework, infrastructure constraints and political pressures. That makes coordination difficult and systems-level thinking essential.

This isn’t a left-versus-right issue. It’s not oil and gas versus renewables. It’s a national failure to understand the integrated systems that power our lives and economy. Canada is, functionally, energy illiterate, and our elected officials reflect that reality. We flip a switch, pump gas, turn up the thermostat and rarely ask how or why it works, or what it costs in environmental or economic terms.

Take the Clean Electricity Regulations as one example. Introduced by the federal government to drive Canada’s electricity grid to net-zero emissions by 2035, the CERs require provinces to sharply reduce or eliminate fossil fuel-based power. But in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where coal and natural gas still dominate, those regulations landed with a thud. The federal government failed to account for regional infrastructure limitations, market structure
differences and technology readiness. The result? Immediate backlash, legal threats and political gridlock—not because climate action is unwelcome, but because the policy was crafted in a vacuum of systems-level understanding.

Adding to the problem is the dominance of bureaucrats and political handlers in shaping what passes for energy messaging. Speeches are often a patchwork of statistics and sanitized clichés, stripped of nuance or depth. Many politicians simply deliver what they’re handed, guided more by risk management than insight. The result is policy that’s disconnected from the realities it aims to change.

A handful of elected officials do have real-world energy experience, but even that is often narrow, based on one role or one sector. It rarely translates into the kind of broad, integrated knowledge needed to lead across multiple interdependent systems. The risks of this fragmented thinking are immense.

What’s needed is mandatory education—an energy information and insights toolkit for anyone seeking public office. This shared curriculum would cover how electricity and fuel systems work, the economics of energy markets, climate dynamics, environmental trade-offs and public policy principles. It should be grounded in both natural and social sciences and structured to develop systems thinking, so that decisions are informed by how energy technologies, markets and governance truly interact.

Imagine if thousands of politicians—urban and rural, left and right, federal and local—learned from the same textbook. Politics wouldn’t vanish. Disagreements wouldn’t disappear. But the debate would shift from tribal talking points to informed discussion.

And for once, Canada might start moving forward on energy, not with noise or paralysis, but with purpose.

Bill Whitelaw is a director and advisor to many industry boards, including the Canadian Society for Evolving Energy, which he chairs. He speaks and comments frequently on the subjects of social licence, innovation and technology, and energy supply networks.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X