Energy
Quebecers starting to understand the need for Canadian pipelines
From the Canadian Energy Centre
Q&A with Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst with the Montreal Economic Institute
A new poll from Angus Reid shows significant support from people in Quebec for Canada to build sea-to-sea oil and gas pipelines.
Gabriel Giguère, a senior policy analyst with the Montreal Economic Institute, says it’s support like he has never seen before.
Here’s what he had to say.
CEC: Where does Quebec get its energy from?
Giguère: Quebec’s electricity comes from local hydroelectric power, while oil and gas primarily come from Canada and the United States. This is a major shift from 2005, when oil was sourced from Algeria, the UK, Norway, Mexico and Venezuela and only a small amount from Canada. Today, it’s almost entirely from Canada and the United States.
CEC: How would an oil pipeline from Alberta benefit the people of Quebec?
Giguère: It’s clear it will help Canadians diversify their trading partners. A pipeline will also create jobs, benefiting Quebec workers.
Quebec is a part of Canada, and unity is essential. The good news is we all seem to agree on that. According to the latest poll from Angus Reid, it’s unanimous. There is broad support for new pipelines to expand our trade relationships.
The United States has been a strong trading partner, but there is ongoing uncertainty that has made diversification essential. We all know that investors don’t like uncertainty. To achieve certainty, we need the right infrastructure to be able to diversify.
In Quebec, twice as many people support a new pipeline than oppose it. I don’t remember having data like that before.
This is a clear and significant shift, especially for the oil and gas sector, which is one of Canada’s most vital economic sectors. This is very good news.
CEC: What has changed that is making Quebecers more supportive of a project like this?
Giguère: I believe the tariff threat was the spark. People are now starting to understand that our trade relationship with the United States isn’t what it once was. It’s as simple as that.
We need to diversify our trading partners. The million-dollar question is: how? I don’t think It’s possible without a pipeline. I believe Quebecers are starting to understand that.
There is the pipeline, but I strongly believe that GNL Quebec [proposed LNG project in the Saguenay Region to transport Alberta natural gas to Europe] could have even stronger public support, as it offers a direct way to diversify our trading partners. This wouldn’t only benefit our European allies but would open doors to other countries also.
CEC: What do you see happening next?
Giguère: It will depend on political leadership in Quebec. When we are talking about pipelines here, the discussion always circles back to Energy East, which was scrapped because there was “no social acceptability.” Nobody can say that today.
It’s not possible to tell me there’s no social acceptability when you have twice as many people who want a pipeline than those who don’t. There is clearly social acceptability.
The real issue is heavy regulation, such as the Impact Assessment Act. To be clear, I’m not saying we should not have any environmental impact assessment, but we need to make sure that the current regulatory framework allows the construction of big energy infrastructure projects.
Political leaders need to recognize that diversifying our trading partners is their responsibility and requires facilitating the projects to make that possible.
Dan McTeague
Will this deal actually build a pipeline in Canada?
By Dan McTeague
Will Carney’s new pipeline deal actually help get a pipeline built in Canada? As we said before, the devil is in the details.
While the establishment and mainstream media cheer on the new pipeline agreement, there are specific details you need to be aware of.
Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.
Energy
Canada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
Family in Spain eating by candlelight during a blackout, April 2025
From Resource Works
Canada’s own 2024 grid scare proves we’re on the same path unless we change course.
Europe’s green-energy unraveling is no longer a distant cautionary tale. It’s a mirror — and Canada is already seeing the first cracks.
A new Wall Street Journal investigation lays out the European story in stark detail: a continent that slashed emissions faster than anyone else, only to discover that doing so by tearing down firm power before its replacement existed comes with brutal consequences — collapsing industry, sky-high electricity prices, political fragmentation, and a public increasingly unwilling to subsidize wishful thinking.
The tragedy isn’t that Europe tried to decarbonize quickly.
The tragedy is how they did it: by insisting on an “or” transition — renewables or fossil fuels — instead of what every energy-literate nation outside Europe pursued: renewables and fossil fuels, working together while the system evolves.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Canada has already had its first European-style crisis. It happened in January 2024.
Canada’s early warning: the January 2024 electricity crunch
Most people have already forgotten it, because our political class desperately wanted you to. But in January 2024, Western Canada came within a whisker of a full-blown energy security breakdown. Alberta, Saskatchewan, and B.C. were stretched to their limit. The grid was under cascading stress. Contingency plans were activated. Alberta came terrifyingly close to rolling blackouts.
It wasn’t caused by climate change. It wasn’t caused by a mysterious cyberattack.
It was caused by the same structural brittleness now crippling Europe:
- Insufficient firm power, after years of political messaging that we could “electrify everything” without adding real generating capacity.
- Overreliance on intermittent sources not backed by storage or gas.
- A planning system that punted risk into the future, betting the grid could be stretched indefinitely.
The January 2024 event was not a blip. It was a preview.
Our European moment in miniature.
But instead of treating it as the national wake-up call it should have been, B.C. did something telling — and deeply damaging.
The B.C. government’s response: attack the messenger
Just a couple of years ago, an economist publicly warned about the economic price of emerging system vulnerabilities due to a groaning stack of “clean economy” policies.
The B.C. government didn’t respond with data, evidence, or even curiosity. Instead, a cabinet minister used the safety of legislative privilege — that gold-plated shield against accountability — to launch nasty personal attacks on the economist who raised the concerns, which themselves had originated in the government’s own analysis.
No engagement.
No counter-analysis.
No willingness to consider the system risks.
Just slurs — the very definition of anti-intellectual governance.
It was a moment that told the whole story:
Too many policymakers in this province believe that energy systems obey politics, not physics.
Physics always gets the last word.
Europe shows us what political denial turns into
The WSJ reporting couldn’t be clearer about the consequences of that denial:
- Germany: highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world.
- U.K.: highest industrial electricity rates among major economies.
- Industrial flight: chemical plants closing, data centres frozen, major players hinting at exiting Europe entirely.
- Grid instability: wind farms paid tens of millions not to generate because the grid can’t handle it.
- Public revolt: rising support for parties rejecting the entire green-transition agenda.
- Policy whiplash: governments rushing to build gas plants they swore they’d never need.
Europe is now an object lesson in how good intentions, executed poorly, can produce the exact opposite of what was promised: higher prices, higher volatility, declining competitiveness, and a public ready to abandon climate policy altogether.
This is precisely what January 2024 warned us about — but on a continental scale.
The system cost we keep pretending doesn’t exist
Every serious energy expert knows the truth Europe is now living: intermittent renewables require massive amounts of redundant capacity, storage, and backup generation. That’s why the U.K. now needs 120 gigawatts of capacity to serve a demand previously met with 60–70 gigawatts, even though electricity use hasn’t meaningfully grown.
This is the math policymakers prefer not to show the public.
And it’s why B.C.’s refusal to have an honest conversation about firm power is so dangerous.
If we electrify everything without ensuring affordable and abundant natural gas generation, we’re not building a green future.
We’re building Europe, 10 years early.
The lesson for Canada — especially for B.C.
Here is what Europe and January 2024 together say, in one clear voice:
1. There is no energy transition without firm power.
Renewables are part of the system, but they don’t run the system. Natural gas does. Hydro does. Nuclear does. Pretending otherwise is how you end up with rolling blackouts.
2. Political denial makes crises worse.
When ministers attack economists instead of answering them, it signals that ideology is running the show. Europe learned the cost of that. We will too, unless we change course.
3. Affordability is the foundation of public consent.
Europe lost the room. Once people see their bills double while factories close, the climate agenda becomes politically radioactive.
4. B.C. has an advantage Europe would kill for.
Europe dreams of having an abundant, local, low-carbon firm-power fuel like northeastern B.C.’s natural gas. We treat it like a political liability. That’s not strategy. It’s negligence.
5. The transition will fail if we don’t treat electricity like the national security asset it is.
Without energy, there is no industry.
Without industry, there is no prosperity.
Without prosperity, there is no climate policy that survives the next election cycle.
What we need now
Canada must embrace an “and” strategy:
Renewables and natural gas. Electrification and realism. Climate ambition and economic competitiveness.
January 2024 showed us the future in a flash. Europe shows us the end state if we keep ignoring the warning.
We can still choose something better. But only if we stop pretending that energy systems bend to political narratives — and start treating them with the seriousness they demand.
Resource Works News
-
MAiD1 day agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Automotive2 days agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business2 days agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children
-
Business1 day agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoA Democracy That Can’t Take A Joke Won’t Tolerate Dissent
-
Energy1 day agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoFrances Widdowson’s Arrest Should Alarm Every Canadian





