Energy transition will be much longer and more arduous than they’re telling you

While many Canadian politicians and activists continue to trumpet the “energy transition” and conjure visions of a low-carbon future that supposedly lurks just around the corner, along comes Natural Resources Canada with its latest Energy Fact Book. A careful review of the publication pours cold water on any notion of a rapid shift to a fundamentally different energy system, one that features a much smaller role for the fossil fuels that now supply the vast majority of the energy used by Canadians.

The book contains a wealth of information on Canada’s large and notably diverse energy sector, covering production, consumption trends, investment, and the environmental impact of energy production and use. Separately, Natural Resources Canada also publishes “energy profiles” for the individual provinces and territories that provide further insight into energy production and consumption patterns across the country.

Starting with energy production (and considering all sources of energy, including uranium), crude oil accounts for about 45 per cent of Canadian energy output, measured in petajoules. Natural gas and natural gas liquids comprise another 32 per cent, with uranium chipping in 11 per cent of primary energy production. Smaller shares come from coal (5 per cent), hydroelectricity (5 per cent) and “other” renewables (3 per cent).

The statistics on energy output confirm that fossil fuels dominate the mix of energy sources produced in Canada. There’s little reason to believe this will change in a significant way in the near term.

Turning to energy consumption, a review of the most recent information leads to a broadly similar conclusion.

Based on Statistics Canada’s latest data, industry, collectively, is responsible for about 35 per cent of final end-use energy demand; this category includes manufacturing, natural resource extraction and processing, and construction. Transportation is the second-largest consumer of energy (29 per cent of final demand), followed by the residential (16 per cent) and commercial sectors (14 per cent).

What about the various sources of energy Canadians depend on for their comfort and well-being and to enable industrial and other business activity? Refined petroleum products rank first, providing about two-fifths of all energy consumed. Natural gas is second (35-36 per cent). Electricity comprises just 16-17 per cent of the energy used in Canada. Overall, fossil fuels still meet more than three quarters of Canadians’ requirements for primary energy.

Some may be surprised that electricity constitutes less than one-fifth of the energy used in Canada. A principal strategy of governments aspiring to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to redirect energy demand to electricity and away from oil, natural gas and other carbon-based energy sources. That makes sense, particularly since Canada’s existing electricity grid is about 80 per cent carbon-free. But a “big switch” to electricity won’t be easy. Consider that, over the first two decades of the millennium, Canadian natural gas consumption jumped by 34 per cent while electricity demand rose by 12 per cent. This underscores the resiliency of household and business demand for reliable affordable energy—of which natural gas is the best example.

Raising electricity’s share of total energy consumption will necessitate an enormous expansion across all segments of the Canadian electricity sector, encompassing not only the development of far more generation capacity but also the construction of additional transmission networks to deliver electric energy to end-users. Industry experts talk of boosting the amount of electricity produced in Canada by up to three times within two decades—a herculean task, assuming it’s even possible.

And, in line with the “net zero” goals espoused by many governments, virtually all of new electricity presumably must come from carbon-free sources (e.g., hydropower, other renewables, biomass, nuclear). There’s also the challenge of replacing the remaining carbon-based electricity still produced in Canada with carbon-free alternatives, as mandated by the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) recently adopted by the Trudeau government.

Suffice to say the transition away from fossil fuels as the predominant source of energy consumed in Canada will be a lengthy and arduous journey and is sure to encounter more and bigger obstacles than most of Canada’s political class understands or cares to acknowledge.

Author

Jock Finlayson

Related Topics:#EnergyTransition #FraserInstitute #JockFinlayson EnergyFactBook LowCarbonFuture NaturalResourcesCanada

Up Next

Megyn Kelly Says We Are ‘Living In The End Times’ Of Corporate Media

Don't Miss

FACT CHECK: Who’s to blame for high grocery, energy, other costs?

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

Mystery cloaks Doug Ford’s funding of media through Ontario advertising subsidy

Censorship Industrial Complex / 7 hours ago

Senate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship

Automotive / 7 hours ago

Carney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet

Business

Bank of Canada governor warns citizens to anticipate lower standard of living

Published on November 1, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

“Unless something changes, our incomes will be lower than they otherwise would be.”

Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem gave a grim assessment of the state of the economy, essentially telling Canadians that they should accept a “lower” standard of living.

In an update on Wednesday in which he also lowered Canada’s interest rate to 2.25 percent, Macklem gave the bleak news, which no doubt will hit Canadian families hard.

“What’s most concerning is, unless we change some other things, our standard of living as a country, as Canadians, is going to be lower than it otherwise would have been,” Macklem told reporters.

“Unless something changes, our incomes will be lower than they otherwise would be.”

Macklem said what Canada is going through “is not just a cyclical downturn.”

Asked what he meant by a “cyclical downturn,” Macklem blamed what he said were protectionist measures the United States has put in place such as tariffs, which have made everything more expensive.

“Part of it is structural,” he said, adding, “The U.S. has swerved towards protectionism.”

“It is harder to do business with the United States. That has destroyed some of the capacity in this country. It’s also adding costs.”

Macklem stopped short of saying out loud that a recession is all but inevitable but did say growth is “pretty close to zero” at the moment.

Canadian taxpayers are already dealing with high inflation and high taxes, in part due to the Liberal government overspending and excessive money printing, and even admitting that giving money to Ukraine comes at the “taxpayers’” expense.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Carney boldly proclaimed earlier this week that his Liberal government’s upcoming 2025 budget will include millions more in taxpayer money for “SLGBTQI+ communities” and “gender” equality and “pride” safety.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) recently blasted the Carney government for spending $13 million on promotional merchandise such as “climate change card games,” “laser pens and flying saucers,” and “Bamboo toothbrushes” since 2022.

Canadians pay some of the highest income and other taxes in the world. As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian families spend, on average, 42 percent of their income on taxes, more than food and shelter costs. Inflation in Canada is at a high not seen in decades.

Business

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, business owners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what’s needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn’t try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.

The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger “industrial policy”) better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.

It’s never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau’s Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the “green” economy.

The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the “green” economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).

Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.

Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.

Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the “green” sector, a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1 per cent. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6 per cent of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating.

And Ottawa’s initiatives did not deliver the green jobs promised. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, and the sector now represents less than 2 per cent of total employment.

Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Simply put, rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation. Consider that Canadian living standards, as measured by per-person GDP, were lower as of the second quarter of 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, we’re poorer today than we were six years ago. In contrast, U.S. per-person GDP grew by 11.0 per cent during the same period.

Median wages (midpoint where half of individuals earn more, and half earn less) in every Canadian province are now lower than comparable median wages in every U.S. state. Read that again—our richest provinces now have lower median wages than the poorest U.S. states.

A significant part of the explanation for Canada’s poor performance is the collapse of private business investment. Simply put, businesses didn’t invest much in Canada, particularly when compared to the United States, and this was all pre-Trump tariffs. Canada’s fundamentals and the general business environment were simply not conducive to private-sector investment.

These results stand in stark contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by Canadians during the Chrétien to Harper years when the focus wasn’t on Ottawa picking winners and losers but rather trying to establish the most competitive environment possible to attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and high-skilled professionals. The policies that dominated this period are the antithesis of those in place now: balanced budgets, smaller but more effective government spending, lower and competitive taxes, and smart regulations.

As the Carney government prepares to present its first budget to the Canadian people, many questions remain about whether there will be a genuine break from the policies of the Trudeau government or whether it will simply be the same old same old but dressed up in new language and fancy terms. History clearly tells us that when governments try to pick winners and losers, the strategy doesn’t lead to prosperity but rather stagnation. Let’s all hope our new prime minister knows his history and has learned its lessons.