Pipelines, Power, and Paralysis: It’s time to build, not posture.
As Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump last month, energy should have been the issue behind every headline, whether mentioned or not. Canada’s future as a sovereign, economically resilient country will depend in no small part on whether the country seizes this moment or stalls out again in a fog of regulatory inertia and political ambivalence.
Canada holds an underleveraged strategic card: the potential to be the world’s most reliable democratic energy supplier. Recent trade figures show Chinese imports of Canadian crude hit a record 7.3 million barrels in March, a direct result of newly expanded access to the Pacific via the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX). But one pipeline does not make a national strategy. Demand in Asia is growing fast. India is among the hungriest, but Canada’s infrastructure is nowhere near meeting Asian demand.
That matters to Canada and the United States as well. In a world where energy markets are weaponized and strategic reserves manipulated by authoritarian regimes overseas, the case for a coordinated North American energy alliance is stronger than ever. Such an alliance does not erode national sovereignty, anymore than any alliance with an European country does. It should reinforce it, allowing Canada, the U.S., and Mexico to insulate themselves collectively from supply shocks and geopolitical blackmail.
But for that alliance to work, Canada must be a credible partner, not merely a junior supplier shackled by self-inflicted internal bottlenecks. Canada dithers while the U.S. has leveraged its shale revolution, LNG capacity, and permitting reforms to pursue energy dominance. Projects languish. Investment flees. And meanwhile, Canadian oil continues to flow south at a steep discount, only to be refined and resold, often back to us or our trading partners, at full global prices.
Yes, you read that right. Canada’s oil and gas is sold at a discount to US customers, and that discount costs Canada over $70 million daily. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy tracks these incredible losses in real time here.
Such massive losses should be unacceptable to any government serious about sovereignty, economic growth, geopolitical influence, or environmental integrity. Ottawa sadly continues to speak the language of ambition while legislating the mechanics of paralysis.
Canada’s energy infrastructure challenges are not just economic; they are matters of national defense. No country can claim to be secure while relying on another’s pipelines to transport its energy across its territory. And no country can afford to leave its wealth-producing regions confined by regulatory chokepoints or political resistance masquerading as environmental virtue.
Canada’s energy economy is fragmented. Western hydrocarbons are stuck inland and must pass through the United States to reach Eastern Canada or global markets eastward. This weakens national unity and leaves us exposed to foreign leverage. It increases our reliance on one country, albeit an ally. The weakness also creates strategic vulnerabilities for our allies. American industries depend on Canadian crude. So do U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. And while American officials continue to treat energy as a tool of diplomacy and economic leverage, Canada treats it as a domestic liability.
We need to shift the frame. Infrastructure isn’t just about steel in the ground—it’s the backbone of strategic autonomy. Pipelines, export terminals, and utility corridors will enable Canada to rebuild and reclaim its once-respectable place in the emerging geopolitical order. They would also signal global investors that Canada is open for business and capable of delivering returns without political obstruction.
The U.S. wants a stable, competent partner to help meet global energy needs. And increasingly, so does the rest of the world. But until we address our internal dysfunction and build, we’re stuck. Stuck watching global opportunities pass by. Stuck selling low while others sell high. Stuck in a conversation about sovereignty, which, despite the bluster from Ottawa, we’re not structurally equipped to address, let alone win.
When Prime Minister Carney meets with President Trump again, he would do well to remember that economic independence, not rhetorical unity, is the bedrock of sovereignty. Without infrastructure, Canada brings words to a hard-power conversation.
Paraphrasing Thomas Hobbes, energy covenants without infrastructure are but words. It’s time to stop posturing and start building.
---
This piece was published in the Epoch Times.
It's time to put all the facts on the table,as uncomfortable as it may be. First of all- location/location//location. Alberta is landlocked. Secondly, bitumen is the dirtiest fucking oil on the planet, containing a lethal cocktail of solvents that does not float on water but actually sinks. To get that oil to market , either you go North, South, East or West. Right now South through US or West through BC by pipeline and train are in play.
Let's talk about west through BC. Recently the trans mountain pipeline was expanded to provide 3 times the capacity. The terminus of the pipeline is in Burnaby on Burrard inlet. To get this oil on oil tankers the tankers must pass under two bridges ; Lions Gate and Second Narrows. This can be done only at low tide under control of a Harbor Pilot. Once clear of the bridges they must traverse the Juan de Fuca straight between Vancouver Island and Washington state which can have adverse weather regularly. It's definitely a disaster waiting to happen.
In July 2007 a third party contractor accidentally ruptured the pipeline in Burnaby causing oil to cascade on the road cover all the trees nearby and cause 250 homes to be evacuated as well as oil in the storm drains reach Burrard inlet. It took over a year to clean up the mess as well as millions of dollars.
Now Alberta wants another pipeline through Northern BC. First Nations are opposed to this idea. They remember the Exon Valdez disaster and don't want a repeat situation. Remarkably enough David Eby is also opposed to it also. Probably the one and only time I agree with him.
Now let's talk about Risk/Reward for BC. BC stands to make 25 million dollars a year in Revenue. You could buy BC's most expensive house for that amount. Hardly not a great deal. Alberta makes the most revenue followed by Federal government and then BC's paltry share. BC's pristine North Coast is at risk for $25 million a year. The reward does not fit the risk.
Now let's talk about a east pipeline. Not very practical once you reach North Ontario because it's all Precambrian shield with lake after lake. Ontario and Quebec don't want a pipeline.
How about North? Well maybe a pipeline through Manitoba to Churchill? Not sure Manitoba wants the risk?
Alberta is caught between a rock and a hard place. South is the most reasonable solution unless West through BC is gasoline which doesn't carry the same risk. The US knows what's going on and will negotiate from a position of power.
It all comes down to NIMBY. Natural gas is a good fit for BC. Very little risk and BC has natural gas reserves also.
Vancouver's lower mainland does not reap hardly any rewards when it comes to gas prices as a lot of our gas comes from the US . Hard to figure but it's a fact.
In short, it's complicated with no easy solution.