It's Time Canada Saw Energy as Power, Not as a Liability
As Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump recently, 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), a federally owned pipeline project that now connects Alberta crude to global markets through British Columbia's coast. 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 that demand.
This matters not just for Canada, but for the United States as well. In a world where energy markets are weaponized and strategic reserves manipulated by authoritarian regimes, the case for a coordinated North American energy alliance is stronger than ever. Such an alliance should not erode national sovereignty. It should reinforce it, allowing Canada, the United States, and Mexico to insulate themselves collectively from supply shocks and geopolitical blackmail while projecting democratic strength abroad.
But for that alliance to work, Canada must be a credible partner, not merely a junior supplier shackled by Ottawa-induced internal bottlenecks. While the United States has leveraged its shale revolution, LNG capacity, and permitting reforms to pursue energy dominance, Canada dithers. 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 U.S. customers, and that discount costs Canada more than $70 million every single day. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy has developed a real-time
Related Stories
1/22/2025
2/15/2024
Such massive losses should be unacceptable to any government serious about economic growth, geopolitical influence, or environmental integrity. Yet Ottawa 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 defence. No country can claim to be secure while relying on another's pipelines to transport its energy across its own territory. No country can afford to leave its wealth-producing regions boxed in by regulatory choke points or political resistance dressed as environmental virtue.
Our 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 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, using energy exports to build alliances and reduce reliance on unstable regimes, 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 would allow Canada to claim its place in the emerging geopolitical order. They would also signal to global investors that Canada is open for business and capable of delivering returns without political obstruction.
The United States wants a stable, competent partner to help meet global energy needs. 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 us by. Stuck selling low while others sell high. Stuck in a conversation about sovereignty we're not structurally equipped to address, let alone win.
When Carney meets with Trump again, he would do well to remember that economic independence, not rhetorical unity, is the bedrock of sovereignty. Without infrastructure, Canada brings only 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.
Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is co-author, with Barry Cooper, of
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
New Mexico's governor called in the state's National Guard to address crime issues. Here's how they're being used
Federal agencies US military Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow In New Mexico's most populous city, National Guard troops are listening to the police dispatch calls, monitoring traffic cameras and helping to secure crime scene perimeters, tasks not usually part of the job. The New Mexico National Guard is in Albuquerque to help counter what officials have called a surge in crime, but unlike the recent deployment of troops in military fatigues by the federal government in the nation's capital and earlier in Los Angeles amid protests over immigration enforcement, the state's polo-shirted Guard troops were ordered in by the Democratic governor. And last week, New Mexico's governor declared a state of emergency in other parts of the state, which gives her the discretion to mobilize more troops. Here's how a National Guard deployment is playing out in New Mexico and why it matters. Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's state of emergency order issued for Rio Arriba County, the city of Española and area pueblos, was made at the request of the local governments, she said. The Albuquerque deployment of 60 to 70 troops came after an emergency request from the city's police department citing the 'fentanyl epidemic and rising violent juvenile crime as critical issues requiring immediate intervention.' The new declaration is aimed at helping local police respond to a 'significant surge' in violent crime, drug trafficking and public safety threats that have 'overwhelmed local resources.' Rio Arriba County has the highest overdose death rate in the state, the governor's news release said. The troops are helping police with non-law enforcement duties and are not armed, will not make arrests, detain anyone, use force or engage in any immigration-related activities, the city said. 'We understand there are concerns based on what is taking place in other parts of the country, and we want to assure the public that here in Albuquerque, the Guard's role is clearly defined, and focused on support without enforcement,' Police Chief Harold Medina said in a June news release. CNN has contacted the Albuquerque Police Department and the New Mexico National Guard about whether the deployment has been effective but did not receive a response. 'There is no question why the NM National Guard is helping out,' New Mexico National Guard spokesman Hank Minitrez said in a June Facebook post. The post described troops working behind the scenes in police offices, and conducting traffic management and manning perimeters around crime scenes when necessary. Albuquerque officials said last month they saw 'success with targeted resources' in the city's downtown. Shootings are down 20% this year compared with 2024, the city said in a news release, a figure that tracks with data provided to CNN by the governor's office. Grisham, a Democrat, criticized President Donald Trump's deployment of 800 troops in Washington, DC, as 'executive overreach' and said the contrast 'couldn't be clearer' between her state's usage of the National Guard and that of Trump's. The DC National Guard reports only to the president, while a governor acts as the 'commander in chief' of their state's troops and police agencies. Trump has suggested he could do the same in other major Democratic-led cities despite their leaders not asking for help. Meanwhile on the West Coast, questions are still lingering in a court case over the president's deployment of troops to Los Angeles in June as dramatic protests unfolded over immigration enforcement in parts of the city. The visual contrast between the troops in New Mexico and those sent to LA and the capital shows a difference in approach and intent. Grisham's office said the 'key difference' between her deployment of troops and Trump's is her order was in response to direct requests from local communities. 'While President Trump uses the National Guard to trample local leadership, New Mexico brings together local and state governments to make our communities genuinely safer,' she said. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the federal intervention in his state 'purposely inflammatory.' Washington, DC, Attorney General Brian Schwalb called the president's actions unnecessary and pointed out violent crime in the district reached 30-year lows last year. Trump said he was going to 'look at' taking action in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles because of their crime rates when he announced his plans to take control of DC's police department this week. It is not clear what specifically Trump wants to do in other cities. New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have all seen a sustained decline in crime so far this year, according to a mid-year report from the independent nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. It's a 'dangerous precedent' for the federal government to start deploying troops to deal with local and state policing matters, as they are historically used for crowd control, protecting federal property and federal workers, or responding to a natural disaster, according to Jeffrey Swartz, a former National Guard member and professor emeritus at Cooley Law School. The courts in California have yet to address a claim at the center of the case brought by Newsom to block Trump's deployment of troops in the city: whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law prohibiting the use of the US military for domestic law enforcement. The three-day trial concluded last week, but the judge did not say when he will rule. 'When the president nationalizes a unit or a state National Guard, they now fall under the Posse Comitatus Act saying they are not allowed to be used for civil policing,' said Swartz. 'He cannot authorize federal troops to make arrests. That is solely within the power of the governor.' The National Guard can, however, take someone into custody under circumstances where there's a danger to federal property or federal officers, he added. The act reserves law enforcement functions to the states, but its language is short, which 'lends itself to vagueness and argumentation,' said David Shapiro, lecturer at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Swartz said National Guardsmen 'don't like the idea of being on the streets and being put in a position where they might have to use force against fellow citizens.' 'These people are citizen soldiers, not full-time. They have jobs. They have families,' he said. 'They signed up to protect the country against external threats, not internal ones.'
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
Zelenskyy And EU Leaders To Meet With Trump After Dismal Alaska Summit
On Friday, August 15th, 2025, in Alaska, Americans saw a shameful moment. On U.S. soil, Donald Trump laid out a red carpet, received applause, embraced, and invited Vladimir Putin, an indicted war criminal, for a ride in the presidential limousine. Putin, soaked in blood and defying every principle America once claimed to uphold, was treated not as a pariah but as an honoured guest. It will now be up to Ukraine's President Zelenskyy and EU leaders to repair things in Washington meetings on Monday. Who Is Putin? Putin is not a partner for peace. He is the architect of the deadliest war in Europe since 1945. Under his command, over a million Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded, with a thousand more dying or being injured each day. Putin bears responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians who have been slaughtered, maimed, tortured, or forced to flee their homes. Entire cities lie in ruins. Dams have been bombed, leaving behind an environmental catastrophe. Nuclear facilities have been attacked, risking global security. Ukrainian churches, schools, hospitals, and museums have been mercilessly bombed into dust. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted, deported, and forced into programs designed to erase their language, culture, and identity. Yet in Alaska, Trump welcomed him. At that moment, America transformed an international outcast into a guest of honour. The Arresting Spectacle Trump waited as Putin deplaned, clapping as he approached. He shook his hand, embraced him, and welcomed him into the presidential limousine. The spectacle was carried out with breathtaking emptiness, revealing American values while glorifying Putin's brutality. The display sent a chilling message. The hidden messages were ominous. To Russia: the killing machine may continue unchecked. To Ukraine: the dead and wounded no longer draw American solidarity. To despots everywhere: commit atrocities on a large enough scale, and one day you too may ride in the limousine of the American president. Betrayal of American Ideals America fought a War of Independence not just to break away from the British crown, but to uphold the ideals of liberty, justice, and self-determination. Jefferson's words—'all men are created equal'—were intended as a pact with history, a vow that America would never support tyranny but always stand with those whose rights are suppressed. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned the nation to 'avoid entangling alliances with despots' and to beware of leaders who erode moral foundations. These warnings were not merely ignored in Alaska; they were betrayed on the very soil Washington's army fought to liberate. Is this what Lincoln fought for? Is this how we honour the courage of those who stormed Normandy or bled at Iwo Jima? America Once Knew Better Franklin Roosevelt never rolled out a red carpet for Hitler. Instead, he rallied the free world and declared the United States the Arsenal of Democracy. Ronald Reagan never invited a Soviet tyrant into a limousine. He stood at the Brandenburg Gate and thundered: 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!' Yesterday in Alaska, Trump negated that legacy. He humiliated America and elevated Putin, turning an international pariah into a partner, a criminal into a statesman. Let us remember: Russia is an imperial empire, just as America once fought against one for its independence. A Catastrophe for Ukraine For Ukraine, the Alaska meeting was heartbreaking. That very day, as Putin smiled for the cameras beside Trump, Russian bombs struck Kharkiv, Odesa, and Kyiv. Ukraine experienced no ceasefire, no new sanctions, no promises of aid—only betrayal. And yet, resilience persists. According to Canadians Chrystia Stodilka-Curkowskyj and Irena Hlywa, just returned from Lviv, Ukraine, the spirit of defiance remains unbroken. Each morning at dawn, young people gather at blood bank trucks to donate blood for soldiers at the front. At 9 a.m., a moment of silence reminds everyone of those who sacrificed their lives and those still fighting for Ukraine. Churches overflow with parishioners praying for loved ones and victory. Even elderly warriors kneel alongside the young, determined to see their nation survive. Funeral processions pass by en route to cemeteries where newly fallen soldiers are laid to rest. Their coffins are carried by military brigades and saluted by soldiers as family members and friends weep. A young woman told Stodilka-Curkowskyj that her father, brother, and fiancé were all at the front—and that she planned to join them. This is the resilience holding the line. This is the resilience of Ukraine. The Burden on Zelenskyy President Volodymyr Zelenskyy now faces the fallout from the Alaska summit. It is his responsibility to remind Trump of the vision he previously outlined: the potential for a ceasefire, the urgent need to halt the violence, the importance of prisoner exchanges, and the return of abducted Ukrainian children—a cause Melania Trump has supported, along with the serious consequences Trump once assured Russia. This is the direction Trump needs to be urged to follow. Meanwhile, Congress must act to keep American arms flowing to Ukraine, honouring the guarantee made in Budapest to support Ukraine's sovereignty and independence in exchange for Ukraine's transfer of its nuclear arsenal to Russia in 1994. European leaders, including leaders from France, Britain and Germany, are also expected to be present with him. A National Humiliation The Alaska meeting doesn't belong in the history of American diplomacy. It belongs among the country's shameful moments. It joins the failures of Iraq, the chaos of Afghanistan, and every other time when the nation compromised its values. But Alaska was worse. It wasn't a mistake or misjudgment. It was a clear decision: to support a war criminal, to praise mass murder, to betray the ideals of freedom for the sake of a different goal that would elevate Trump. History will not forget. The world will not forgive. And one day, when the record is read, the question will remain: when evil appeared on American soil, why did America applaud? The Choice Ahead This is not just about Alaska; it is about the kind of nation America chooses to be. Every generation faces a test: to uphold the values fought for by its ancestors or to abandon them. The question is whether America still stands for freedom, whether the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights still hold significance for Americans, and whether they remain living documents. It will be up to Zelenskyy and EU leaders to remind America of its legacy.
