CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
There is a war in the Middle East, and much of the world’s oil supply from that region is now unreliable or undeliverable. Beyond the immediate human tragedy, the conflict highlights a broader failure of international diplomacy, and a reality Canadians must confront: the world is becoming more dangerous and more unpredictable.
Energy security now sits at the centre of geopolitical stability. Many countries are facing severe and long‑lasting energy disruptions. In Canada, we are comparatively secure — but that security is uneven, fragile, and largely accidental.
Over the past decade, Canada has failed to build the infrastructure needed to connect our own energy supply with domestic and global demand. As a result, we are less prepared than we should be to respond to moments of global instability like the one unfolding today.
Canadian oil and gas has never competed solely on cost. We produce in a global market heavily distorted by cartels whose production costs — and labour and environmental standards — bear little resemblance to our own. What has always made Canada’s energy valuable are different attributes: geopolitical reliability, democratic governance, and the ability to diversify supply away from unstable or authoritarian regions of the world.
In hindsight, the consequences of not developing our resources and not building access to markets are obvious. Ten years of federal policy openly hostile to Canada’s energy sector has imposed real costs — costs that become sharply visible when global events test the resilience of supply chains.
That context is why the details of the Alberta–Canada Memorandum of Understanding matter — and why it deserves careful scrutiny.
Make no mistake – my colleagues and I will do whatever it takes to help this federal government advance the interests of the industry for which we have advocated these past 11 years – and increase our production, and get those products to markets – national and international.
What the Alberta-Canada Memorandum of Understanding Really Means
The Alberta–Canada Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been presented by the federal government as a major step forward for energy development and economic competitiveness. After reading the document carefully, one conclusion stands out clearly:
The MOU vaguely defines 7 new steps that the Government of Alberta and our energy industry need to undertake to move forward – and the completion of these steps is cautioned by the federal government as being ‘necessary, but not sufficient’ . . . . steps. No wonder our infrastructure builders have largely ignored allocating any capital – or hope – to the effort. Further delay is practically built into this document.
Words vs. Results
Canada is operating in an increasingly unstable world. Global energy supply chains are under pressure, geopolitical conflict is disrupting production, and our largest trading partner has become less reliable. In moments like this, countries with secure, responsibly produced energy have an opportunity — and a responsibility — to step up.
Canada should be one of those countries. Yet after more than a year since the last election, no new major energy infrastructure has begun, and there remains no clear path to move Canadian resources to global markets. Instead, we’ve seen announcements, letters of intent, and now another Memorandum of Understanding.
Tone has changed in Ottawa, and that matters. But tone does not replace decisions. Announcements do not equal execution.
What the MOU Promises — and What It Doesn’t
On paper, the MOU commits the federal government to:
- Not implementing the Oil and Gas Emissions Cap
- Suspending the Clean Electricity Regulations
- Recognizing Alberta’s TIER system for large emitters
- Declaring an Alberta‑to‑Asia bitumen pipeline a national priority
None of these commitments are self‑executing. Each requires further legislation, regulation, or cabinet decisions — none of which have yet occurred.
More concerning, the MOU ties key initiatives together by declaring that a pipeline and large‑scale carbon capture projects are mutual prerequisites. In plain terms: no pipeline before CCUS, and no CCUS before the pipeline. This circular dependency creates delay, uncertainty, and investment risk — precisely the opposite of what Canada needs.
Review the Full MOU
We have annotated the document to highlight circular language, internal contradictions, and key inconsistencies in wording and detail.
Readers are encouraged to review the full document to see how these issues appear.
A “Priority” Pipeline Without a Path
Declaring a pipeline a “priority” is easy. Delivering one is not.
To build an export pipeline to world markets, the federal government must:
- Fix the Impact Assessment Act (Bill C‑69)
- Repeal the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
- Establish an approvals process that is timely, predictable, and legally durable
None of these steps have been taken. Until they are, the word priority won’t move a single shovel of dirt — or get a barrel of Canadian energy to a global customer.
The Industrial Carbon Tax Reality
The MOU also maintains a commitment to raising the industrial carbon price to $130 per tonne by 2030, administered through Alberta’s TIER system.
This is an area that demands honest national debate, not government talking points.
Carbon credits currently trade at levels far below the official price, masking real economic impacts. Independent economic analysis consistently shows that industrial carbon costs affect inflation, competitiveness, and investment decisions — just as was eventually acknowledged with the consumer carbon tax.
With this tax fully implemented, it is estimated to increase the cost of Alberta’s oil by $1.50 – $6.00 per barrel – depending on the reservoir. The only global oil producer that has a similar regime is Norway – at the equivalent of US$0.91 per barrel. The UK and Kazakhstan have regimes that make their additional cost per barrel equivalent to less than US$0.25. This tax will obviously not encourage investment in Canadian oil and gas.
Canada benefits when climate policy is effective, transparent, and economically realistic. It suffers when policy relies on slogans rather than outcomes.
Giving with One Hand — Taking with the Other
While the federal government signals flexibility through the MOU, it is simultaneously advancing a Sustainable Finance Taxonomy led by the same institutions that have long sought to restrict energy investment in Canada – The Canadian Climate Institute and Business Futures Pathways.
This contradiction — concession on one file while tightening constraints on another — reinforces the uncertainty industry, workers, and provinces continue to face.
The Direct Path Forward
Canada does not lack resources. It lacks clarity and resolve.
If the federal government is serious about energy security and competitiveness, the path forward is straightforward:
- Fix the Impact Assessment Act
- Address the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
- Hold a transparent debate about the effects and outcomes of the industrial carbon tax
- Respect constitutional roles
- Build infrastructure now
We lost a decade pretending we could be all things to all people. The world has changed, and the cost of continued delay is rising.
This moment calls for clear choices — and a direct path forward. I believe Canadians expect nothing less.
Share This:
PERSPECTIVE: Why Natural Gas Peaker Plants in B.C. are Inevitable – Resource Works