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.

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.