From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

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

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Rashid Husain Syed

Carney vows action but Alberta wants to see results and the repeal of Trudeau-era regulations

Ottawa is promising speed, Alberta is demanding proof, and the future of Canada’s energy industry hangs in the balance. A change in government hasn’t changed the tone—mistrust still defines the relationship between Ottawa and the oil-rich West. That tension is far from resolved, and any reconciliation may still be weeks or months away.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to “build big, build bold, and build now.” In recent days, new federal Energy Minister Tim Hodgson has been repeating the prime minister’s campaign promise to fast-track projects of national interest, including major energy projects. “Canada will no longer be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery,” Hodgson underlined in a speech at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce last Friday, pledging to see through the prime minister’s vision to transform “Canada into a conventional and clean energy and natural resources superpower.”

Hodgson made it clear Ottawa is in a hurry. “No more five-year reviews. Decisions will come in two years for all projects. This is not a time for half measures or slow steps,” he said.

In a post-address interview with chamber CEO Deborah Yedlin, Hodgson emphasized his focus on “quick wins” in the energy sector. He reiterated support for the proposed new West to East pipeline, a crosscountry project intended to move Alberta oil and gas to refineries and ports in Eastern Canada, and promised new infrastructure to get Canadian energy “to trusted allies” outside the U.S.

But while pursuing energy infrastructure at speed, Hodgson asserted that limiting greenhouse gas emissions remains a priority. The Carney government sees crude and natural gas exports as complementary to climate goals, not in conflict. This dual-track approach—clean and conventional energy moving forward in tandem—reflects the government’s broader energy vision.

Many in the Calgary business community responded with cautious optimism. Some were encouraged that Calgary was Hodgson’s first major stop. Others were skeptical. “There is some repair and trust-building that has to happen given the challenges of the last 10 years, I would argue,” Yedlin later told reporters, emphasizing that the real test will be reducing regulatory burdens on major projects.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, building pressure on Ottawa, was quoted in media reports as saying it’s “go time” for Mark Carney.

“Enough with the foot-dragging. Enough with trying to maintain the same failed policies of the last 10 years. Let’s get going,” says Smith. “Look. I was told to give this guy a chance. I’m giving him a chance. Now I’m telling him: Don’t blow it.”

Her demands are clear: scrap the Liberal No More Pipelines law—formally known as the Impact Assessment Act—along with the cap on oil and gas emissions, the net-zero electricity regulations and the tanker ban off the west coast.

That’s just part of the list. But as Smith puts it, “So far I’m not seeing anything to suggest there’s been a true change of heart.”

“I’ve got a mandate to develop our economy and exercise our constitutional rights, and I’m going to do that, one way or the other,” she emphasized, almost threateningly.

For Canadians, what’s at stake is more than pipeline routes. The outcome of this standoff could shape national energy prices, affect investor confidence in Canadian infrastructure and resource sectors, influence emissions targets and test the limits of federal-provincial cooperation.

Carney and Hodgson face more than infrastructure challenges—they must bridge a widening political divide. The clock is ticking.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters

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.