Business
The world needs energy. Canada has the supply. Other nations eagerly fill the demand.

From the Fraser Institute
Spend time on the websites of Canada’s leading environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and you will see repeated references to the “energy transition”—the shift away from fossil-fuel energy sources to no- and low-carbon alternatives, to help lower the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that lie behind concerns over climate change.
While most countries—albeit not Donald Trump’s America—notionally support the 2015 Paris Agreement goal to limit global temperature increases to between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees centigrade, few are on track to slash their emissions sufficiently to reach that target. Indeed, emissions are still climbing, mainly due to the ravenous appetite for energy in many emerging economies.
Notwithstanding decades of climate change conferences, humanity remains firmly wedded to fossil fuels, which currently supply about four-fifths of global primary energy demand—a share that has fallen only slightly since the late-1990s. Moreover, as Canadian energy scholar Vaclav Smil recently noted, the absolute quantity of fossil fuels consumed by the world has risen by more than half since 1997.
Stupendous amounts of energy are needed to provide electrical power, for heating and cooling, transportation and agriculture, and to support many industrial processes. Today, fossil fuels are ubiquitous in all these areas. Only in the case of electricity have we observed a quantitatively significant move away from fossil fuel energy.
A glance at recent energy supply/demand projections highlights the dominant role of fossil fuels in the world’s energy system. The latest global outlook from multinational giant Shell is a good example.
According to Shell’s 2025 baseline forecast, worldwide demand for energy “will continue to increase as the global population grows and living standards rise.” By 2050, energy demand “could be nearly a quarter higher than in 2024 depending on economic growth rates, energy efficiency gains and the pace of electrification.”
Global oil demand is expected by grow by another 3-5 million barrels per day into the mid-2030s, confounding earlier forecasts of imminent “peak oil” consumption. Shell notes that “petroleum fuels remain affordable and convenient in transport, particularly in long-distance haulage, aviation and marine.” Oil also remains crucial to the petrochemicals sector.
Meanwhile, natural gas use is set to increase into the 2040s at least, with liquefied natural gas (LNG) representing a steadily rising share of the total natural gas market. Natural gas is a principal source of “industrial heat, fuel for power generation and heat for buildings.” It’s also critical to “helping the world move away from coal.”
Significant investments in oil and gas exploration, production, infrastructure and downstream processing “will be required for decades to come.” So much for the argument of Canadian environmental activists that it’s time to starve the oil and gas business of capital.
What are the implications of all of this for Canada?
We are endowed with an almost unmatched abundance of energy riches, notably the world’s third-largest oil reserves and vast amounts of natural gas. Canada is also a global leader in producing electricity from carbon-free sources. And energy plays an outsized role in our economy, directly accounting for one-tenth of GDP and supplying roughly a quarter of the country’s merchandise exports.
As a major energy producer, Canada has well-respected environmental standards and rigorous project approval and permitting processes. These are a long-term competitive advantage.
Even as efforts continue to reduce the carbon intensity of energy use and expand renewable power capacity, a growing world will need prodigious quantities of energy including oil and gas. Canada is well-placed to help meet it.
Business
Government distorts financial picture with definition of capital

“The government is acting fast and loose with the definition of ‘capital. Handing out corporate welfare shouldn’t be considered ‘capital.’
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to focus on reducing debt rather than distorting the financial picture by watering down the definition of “capital” spending, as noted by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
“The PBO shows the government is inappropriately expanding the definition of ‘capital’ spending,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “The reality is taxpayers need to cut through Carney’s budget spin and look at one number: How fast is the debt is going up?”
The Carney government announced it’s separating operating and capital spending in its budget. It also released its criteria for what it would consider capital spending.
The PBO’s analysis found that “Finance Canada’s definition and categories expand the scope of capital investment beyond the current treatment of capital spending in the Public Accounts of Canada.”
The PBO added that “based on our initial assessment, we find that the scope is overly expansive and exceeds international practice such as that adopted by the United Kingdom.”
“The government is acting fast and loose with the definition of ‘capital,’” Terrazzano said. “Handing out corporate welfare shouldn’t be considered ‘capital.’
“Regardless of the spending category, more debt means more interest payments and that’s what taxpayers need to focus on to hold the government accountable.”
The PBO’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook projects this year’s “deficit to increase sharply to $68.5 billion.” Debt interest charges will cost taxpayers $55.3 billion this year. That means that paying interest on the federal debt will cost each Canadian about $1,300 this year.
“The government is trying to muddy the water with its accounting nonsense,” Terrazzano said. “The government should stop focusing on cutting the numbers and instead focus on cutting the debt.
“Taxpayers will need to cut through all the accounting noise from the government and focus on one question: Is the debt going up or down?”
Business
Canada Post is failing Canadians—time to privatize it

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen
In the latest chapter of a seemingly never-ending saga, Canada Post workers are on strike again for the second time in less than a year, after the federal government allowed the Crown corporation to close some rural offices and end door-to-door deliveries. These postal strikes are highly disruptive given Canada Post’s near monopoly on letter mail across the country. It’s well past time to privatize the organization.
From 2018 to the mid-point of 2025, Canada Post has lost more than $5.0 billion, and it ran a shortfall of $407 million in the latest quarter alone. Earlier this year, the federal government loaned Canada Post $1.034 billion—a substantial sum of taxpayer money—to help keep the organization afloat.
As a Crown corporation, Canada Post operates at the behest of the federal government and faces little competition in the postal market. Canadians have nowhere to turn if they’re unhappy with service quality, prices or delivery times, particularly when it comes to “snail mail.”
Consequently, given its near-monopoly over the postal market, Canada Post has few incentives to keep costs down or become profitable because the government (i.e. taxpayers) is there to bail it out. The lack of competition also means Canada Post lacks incentives to innovate and improve service quality for customers, and the near-monopoly prohibits other potential service providers from entering the letter-delivery market including in remote areas. It’s clearly a failing business that’s unresponsive to customer needs, lacks creativity and continuously fails to generate profit.
But there’s good news. Companies such as Amazon, UPS, FedEx and others deliver more than two-thirds of parcels in the country. They compete for individuals and businesses on price, service quality and delivery time. There’s simply no justification for allowing Canada Post to monopolize any segment of the market. The government should privatize Canada Post and end its near-monopoly status on letter mail.
What would happen if Ottawa privatized Canada Post?
Well, peer countries including the Netherlands, Austria and Germany privatized their postal services two decades ago. Prices for consumers (adjusted for inflation) fell by 11 per cent in Austria, 15 per cent in the Netherlands and 17 per cent in Germany.
Denmark has taken it a step further and plans to end letter deliveries altogether. The country has seen a steep 90 per cent drop in letter volumes since 2000 due to the rise of global e-commerce and online shopping. In other words, the Danes are adapting to the times rather than continuing to operate an archaic business model.
In light of the latest attempt by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to shakedown Canadian taxpayers, it’s become crystal clear that Canada Post should leave the stone age and step into the twenty-first century. A privately owned and operated Canada Post could follow in the footsteps of its European counterparts. But the status quo will only lead to further financial ruin, and Canadians will be stuck with the bill.
-
COVID-191 day ago
Devastating COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effect Confirmed by New Data: Study
-
COVID-192 days ago
Freedom Convoy Sentencing: Lich and Barber escape prison terms but will spend months in house arrest
-
Alberta1 day ago
‘Visionary’ Yellowhead Pipeline poised to launch Alberta into the future
-
Crime2 days ago
Canadian Sovereignty at Stake: Stunning Testimony at Security Hearing in Ottawa from Sam Cooper
-
COVID-192 days ago
Chris Barber will not see prison time for his role in peaceful Freedom Convoy
-
Red Deer13 hours ago
The City of Red Deer’s Financial Troubles: Here Are The Candidates I Am Voting For And Why.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Sheriffs shut down Olds drug house
-
Crime2 days ago
The Bureau Exclusive: Chinese–Mexican Syndicate Shipping Methods Exposed — Vancouver as a Global Meth Hub