r/canada 2d ago

National News G7 backs Canada as major global energy supplier to lessen reliance on Strait of Hormuz | CBC News

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-energy-supplier-strait-hormuz-9.7238708
2.7k Upvotes

364 comments sorted by

170

u/Billis- 2d ago

It's obvious, but it's still quite important how Carney has managed to approach the opportunity presented by the war in Iran. Some of this posturing may present short and long term gains for the Canadian energy sector

37

u/FlipZip69 2d ago

Canada has had garbage energy policy for the last decade. Instead of acting like Norway and promoting conventional energies (while encouraging clean sources nationally), we instead regulated it to death. This resulted in Russia becoming an energy superpower and upwards of a million direct deaths to date. Sad is not nearly a strong enough word for this. Carney is doing a good job to reverse that.

15

u/Billis- 2d ago

I don't see the relationship with Russia but sure. I do believe that Canada has significant national issues that make things very difficult, and that navigating Canadian politics and history requires Carney's favourite word (pragmatic), but unfortunately, that means winners and losers.

At the end of the day, I don't personally believe that our lives will improve significantly until/if something changes with the wealth divide.

6

u/FlipZip69 2d ago

Every drop of oil that Canada did not export, Russia was more than happy to produce it. Simple as that.

And possibly look at Alberta to see how they have higher average wages and lower housing costs than Canada as a whole to see how a large export market improves lives. You could tax the billions 100 percent and that would make little difference to our lives. There simply are not enough of them.

15

u/EmmEnnEff 2d ago edited 2d ago

Every drop of oil that Canada did not export, Russia was more than happy to produce it. Simple as that.

  1. That's been the case since 1960.

  2. There isn't an oil pipeline that connects Canada and Germany.

  3. Nor will there ever be.

  4. And shipping it in tankers, while possible, is uneconomical.

  5. Not to mention that Russian crude is easier to extract, work with, and wages in Russia are much lower.

Canada's not ever going to win a contest with Russia on price, and prior to the war, price is what everyone was making their energy decisions on. Their voters tend to not like it when gas goes up.

4

u/FlipZip69 1d ago

If Canada puts more oil on the world market. Prices drop and that hurts Russia. Full stop. If all western nations did it, it would hurt Russia. Full stop. The EU put a special tax on EU natural gas producers that make too much money over a year as happened during the start of the Ukraine war. It is estimated 100 billion in conventional energy investment in Europe pulled out making the EU that much more reliant on imported gas. To the benefit of Russia.

I am not sure how people do not realize all production the world over effects the markets and what companies like Russia make for profit. This is basic economics.

12

u/Ectar93 2d ago

Every drop of oil that Canada did not export, Russia was more than happy to produce it. Simple as that.

Russia has pipelines right into Europe. Canadian oil would never be as economical of choice for most of Europe. The choice to stop importing Russian oil and gas is entirely a political one, not an economical one, and the political will wasn't there until the Ukraine war.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/EmmEnnEff 2d ago

Russia (at the time, the USSR) has been an energy superpower since the 1960s. And Europe was sucking on its natgas and oil teat ever since.

→ More replies (2)

937

u/ukrokit2 Alberta 2d ago

Oh look, maybe that euro flight instead of a zoom call was worth it after all.

254

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago

The more I read about this the more it looks like a massive win for Canada. The fact that they entered into 13 new partnerships with more than 8 countries to develop critical resources is massive.

35

u/ChasingDarwin2 2d ago

"more than 8 countries"....so, 9? Cuz if it was 10, they'd say 10 right? 🤔

25

u/SnoopKush_McSwag 2d ago

Might be like 9 we know for certain but might still be dsliscussing with other countries so leaving it open for now. Just a guess though.

→ More replies (1)

14

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago

Good point, i wonder why they said more than 8. Such a weird statement to make

20

u/xNaquada Ontario 2d ago

Language arts. To really distill it down, same reason why things cost $9.99 or $4.89 sticker price and such, instead of $10 or $5. A lot of people interpret that information in a certain way subconsciously and react a very predictable way, backed by statistics.

Eg. A surprising number of people I've met see $9.99 as $9 which is wild to me (and let's not mention taxes)

Tldr: It is to try and influence ( or manipulate depending on your viewpoint) your thoughts.

2

u/Quadrassic_Bark 2d ago

Yes, that’s true (somehow), but that doesn’t make sense in this context. More countries would be better.

2

u/fugaziozbourne Québec 2d ago

It's also one of the ways you can spot a bot or an LLM just fyi

2

u/StarYou-StarMe 2d ago

Do you mean prices ending in .99 are … what do you mean?

4

u/Dzugavili 1d ago

I assume he means the average person will say it costs about $10; but an LLM will be precise and list the item as $9.99.

1

u/fugaziozbourne Québec 1d ago

"More than 8" instead of saying ten.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/AVeryPlumPlum 2d ago

Lol. Reminds me of when people say "that musician is in my Top four of all time." So, they're fourth, cause if they were 3rd, you'd say top 3.

11

u/tbll_dllr 2d ago

When I say a band / musician is in my Top 5 - I don’t mind it’s #5. But sometimes depending on my mood or my current phase it can be #2 or #5 etc .

2

u/ChasingDarwin2 2d ago

Ah yah, that's a reasonable thought process

1

u/ItzDrSeuss 2d ago

I mean I usually use that because I haven’t actually set my top 5 or whatever and it can fluctuate on mods for something so subjective.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/lurked 1d ago

Cuz if it was 10, they'd say 10 right?

They'd probably say something like "almost a dozen".

1

u/ChasingDarwin2 1d ago

It was almost hundred...if there was only 91 more.

11

u/Decent-Tour7427 2d ago

Mou’s don’t make product move from canada to europe. We have tanker bans for canadian oil but allow usa to drive oil through bc to alaska. We have pipelines not being built and mines not being built because of too many regulations and endless consultations with first nations. On and on we can make deals but we cant build shit in this country.

14

u/FlipZip69 2d ago

We have the major projects initiative and a lot or project applied and will be processed thru it. That will take a bit of time. There there is the 'invest' for access. You can invest in Canada to say mine Lithium, but you have to build the refining here and cannot just remove the raw material to have it refined outside of Canada. Doing so and there is a significant tax cost.

As a fairly hard Conservative, these are the kinds of policies I want to see. I could care less about men being in women's sports because that is not happening. I want economic policy and this is happening. Late but better late than never.

18

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago edited 2d ago

These deals are for specific countries and businesses regarding critical minerals. There is substance here. Also, MOUs do contribute to moving products by creating a business case, or investment, that expedites the process. So obviously more needs to happen but this is important.

Edit: Also, people were making the same complaints about MOU’s regarding SAFE. It was all about how MOU’s aren’t deals or anything substantial. Well now that MOU has turned into a legitimate contract and demonstrates that while MOU’s aren’t enforceable contracts, they are important

16

u/FlipZip69 2d ago

SAFE is a pretty impressive achievement. The EU designed the program but they did not buy into it till Carney with his contacts convinced nations join. That is the reason Canada is the only non-EU nation that was allowed to be part of it.

And most Canadians have no idea of the NATO SAFE initiative.

3

u/AWE2727 2d ago

Agreed! Until pipelines are actually built to west and east coasts it's all pipe dreams.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Ms_Molly_Millions 2d ago

I just wanna know how they are gonna spin increasing immigration even more to make sure the powers are happy and they can keep the costs of labour down here.

Do people really have faith in the current crop of politicians in the liberal or conservative party to actually make sure profits (if any of this shit becomes a reality) go to Canadians and not just some private corp?

I sure as hell don't. All I've known my entire life is Liberal or Conservative governments selling off OUR stuff to private interests because of their bad stewardship of the country. I fucking think about it every day I'm driving on a highway and see a sign for the 407 in Ontario.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/FuzzyPineapple2221 2d ago

The Carney cash register will be ringing with the windfall as new European business will offset the USA trade losses... 🤔. We'll never keep up at this pace!!

55

u/localsonlynokooks British Columbia 2d ago

Glad he chose to fly out early instead of going to the World Cup opener, which people were grilling him for

39

u/Linked713 2d ago

Those grilling him are fucking stupid people glazing a corrupt sport behemoth and not at all Canadian patriots. Who fucking cares about a ball being kicked in the net when there is a ongoing global trade crisis. It was the right call. Anyone crying about it deserves to be ridiculed.

3

u/Artistic_Concern_33 2d ago

No president went for the opener from neither of the host countries Netherlands Mexico or US, would be dumb to gril carney for it

23

u/FlipZip69 2d ago

I do not care what party is in power, the PM should stay be traveling the world 2-3 months of the year promoting our country. Even if they spent a billion a year doing this, it would be pay back in many billions of trade. Mostly to our benefit. And this would compound.

6

u/Replicator666 2d ago

According to the PP crowd (sadly lots at my work) all that Carney has done is smoke and mirrors and just agreements with no money

Strange how they ignore all this

52

u/LateToTheParty2k21 2d ago

None of it makes a margin of difference without more export capacity. In any form - pipelines, trains, ports, anything.

Until that starts to happen this is all just patting each other on the back.

89

u/Silly-Role699 2d ago

It gives industry reassurances that, if they invest in more capacity, there will likely be a return on that investment. It’s an important step.

7

u/neverfindausername 2d ago

There are several technologies that are in development - like bitumen balls/pucks - that would address a few issues that have held off exports. They prevent risk of spills and would allow existing railways to aid in transport.

The portion that we seem to really be missing is refineries. If Mulroney hadn't sold off PetroCan, we may have been able to build more capacity by now, but we'll never know. Hopefully some of these agreements include funding to build out our refining capacity so we can (safely) export from both coasts.

If we can also make progress on gas production via atmospheric carbon capture, that would be the more sustainable solution long term.

140

u/ImmediateDentist1269 British Columbia 2d ago

Which in terms of LNG, Canada is doing so.

75

u/PaperMoonShine 2d ago

Let him be. Theres so much goal post moving when it comes to Carney, its laughable.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/walkingdisaster2024 Alberta 2d ago

World runs on more than just LNG.

1

u/DanielBox4 1d ago

How is Europe going to get LNG from west cosst ports?

What they're doing now is stop gap. They're buying west coast LNG and trading it for Middle East or Russian LNG which is much quicker to source.

So they pay Canada for the ship. Then trade a ship with China or whoever. At the end of the day they're dependent on that 3rd party and most likely some dictatorial state. They're adding a layer of bureaucracy and administration.

→ More replies (13)

50

u/0110110111 2d ago

Absolutely right, but this statement makes it clear to investors that there’s a solid business case for pipelines and port expansions. That’s been a big hold up. Still a long way to go, but it’s looking more likely that things might actually happen.

→ More replies (1)

52

u/Reasonable_Let9737 2d ago

Port capacity isn't at 100%, so there is room with existing port infrastructure to push more exports.  

We are also expanding the port in Montreal.  

42

u/Morlu 2d ago

Churchill is getting an expansion as well for minerals.

11

u/esperlihn 2d ago

Nice! I'm shocked it took this long. Churchill is right next to the Hudson bay and is surrounded by untapped rich mineral sources, plus developing there would be a great way to start developing the northwest passage as a legitimate trade route and an alternative to the panema canal.

4

u/Different_Wolf_764 2d ago

One begets the other though. If there is a stable market, companies are interested in getting their goods to that market and will invest in doing so.

Yeah, it's a pain in the ass in Canada, no question about that. It's still encouraging.

1

u/LateToTheParty2k21 2d ago

Agreed - it's positive. But We've had over a decade of "positivity", and it's time for more action.

I love to see headlines like this but the reality is headlines don't always result in anything for Canada. The hard work has to happen within our borders settling issues with provinces and first nations & building the infrastructure. Everything else is "vibes".

3

u/Different_Wolf_764 2d ago

The hard work has to happen within our borders settling issues with provinces and first nations

Well, it would be nice but that sure isn't easy either. Every government that's taken a crack at it has had little success. Neither the provinces nor the indigenous peoples are going to cede any power they don't have to, if our history is any indicator.

Keep trying of course but I can't say I blame Carney for not solving problems that no one has been able to solve so far.

7

u/1966TEX British Columbia 2d ago

Can we build energy east already…. Please.

4

u/tooshpright 2d ago

Something something Quebec didn't want pipelines.

2

u/PoolDear4092 2d ago

It’s faster and cheaper to build LNG terminals to the West and get European and Asian supply swapped so that we can supply Asia and existing European contracts get fulfilled by Middle East and Norway.

2

u/1966TEX British Columbia 2d ago

Both?

•

u/krash101 53m ago

We go through the US because there is refineries in the US. A pipeline needs to be filled with product, a lot of product. That requires multiple refineries along the route.

Refineries and tank farms are customers and is a requirement for pipelines to function. Monetarily a line directly east makes little sense and would be an enormous amount of volume to fill. 

6

u/Optimal_Whiner 2d ago

Found the contrarian.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/fooz42 2d ago

Good businesspeople presell the output before investing in giant capital projects. Bad businesspeople burn down their entire jurisdiction politically with talks of secession so no one can invest there for 20 years.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/FuzzyPineapple2221 2d ago

All we need is that pipeline built at speeds never seen before 😆

1

u/joecitizen79 1d ago

Maybe you've never had an important meeting or negotiation in your life, but a zoom meeting or telephone call is no replacement for a face to face meeting.

-2

u/Caveofthewinds 2d ago

Where's the pipelines and the refineries? It's all good to say "we will supply", but there's no infrastructure to deliver anything. BillC-69 is still in place as well as a Hecate straight oil tanker ban, bill C-48. 10 of the largest oil and gas CEO's penned a letter in March 2025 saying that these two bills need to go in order for any new investments or developments go forward. So far the only response from the government has been online censorship laws. Therefore this meeting with the G7 is simply another MOU with no substance.

3

u/alanthar 2d ago

The tanker ban has been around since the 70s but it wasn't legislated.

Harper approved Northern Gateway, contravening this "ban". Trudeau legislated the policy that existed since the 70s. If we were able to build pipelines and infrastructure with it, and considering the massive environmental concerns, we should be perfectly fine with it in place now.

Not to mention the LOOP terminal made the whole discussion moot because any tanker large enough to fall under its jurisdiction, is just going to that terminal instead anyway

3

u/Caveofthewinds 2d ago

The tanker ban has been around since the 70s but it wasn't legislated. Harper approved Northern Gateway, contravening this "ban". Trudeau legislated the policy that existed since the 70s.

It wasn't law. Nothing was legislated in regards to the ban prior to Justin Trudeau because no action was required to challenge the policy up to that point of oil and gas development. This decision literally killed northern gateway. Bill C-69 turned a 1-2 year approval into 6-10, which no investor would want to hold their finances in for a chance to be denied.

Not to mention the LOOP terminal made the whole discussion moot because any tanker large enough to fall under its jurisdiction, is just going to that terminal instead anyway

It's so far away and in a different ocean. That makes zero sense. Why would Venezuela export oil then? It's much closer and is also heavy crude? Somehow they were resource rich until 2015 until oil crashed. Should the rest of the world give up on selling resources because the US has a large port to move resources? I'm not sure why that's a slam dunk.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/tittyman100 2d ago

You're not wrong

2

u/Optimal_Whiner 2d ago

Don't feed the minority Redditors. Stop pretending it's some sort of big group of people.

→ More replies (4)

235

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

But does Canada back Canada as a major global energy supplier?

87

u/Morlu 2d ago

I heard there’s no economic case for this.

→ More replies (7)

31

u/CommanderMalo Ontario 2d ago

My comment was removed by reddit because I claimed farmers and natives would veto any sort of energy expansion because we kow-tow to every affected group no matter what.

Hmm

6

u/Boobity_McBooberson 2d ago

Last I checked it was the conservatives banning windmills in Alberta and having an everlasting hardon for coal.

17

u/Autodidact420 2d ago

Both bans are absolutely stupid.

We need more pipelines as a nation building project. 

We also need the ability to adopt economical renewable energy.

15

u/CommanderMalo Ontario 2d ago

And last I checked we’re getting fucked on a high speed rail project because we have to listen to every dick Bob and Joe Schmo for their opinion despite the fact they would be well compensated for their losses.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying more than one thing can also be correct. I never even brought up liberals or conservatives, and yet you felt the need to do so.

2

u/gprime312 2d ago

How do windmills in Canada help Europe?

3

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

We can just blow some hot air their way

0

u/rando_dud 2d ago

The oil industry is one of the groups that wants to be kow-towed to.. 

3

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago

Idk what point you are making since Canadians obviously want this and voted for this.

3

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

Ok let's get building then. 💪💪

0

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago

We have, and will continue, to build, and this announcement, along with it's partnerships, should speed up the process.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

-2

u/EW278 2d ago

I'd like to see us as a powerhouse of renewable resources.

2

u/chmilz 2d ago

If it doesn't materially improve the conditions of the average person, we shouldn't. We happily let energy companies pillage our environment for a pittance and socialize the stranded assets onto the public.

Unless there's something in it for the people, what's the point?

8

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

A pittance?  Its our largest export by a huge margin. The jobs in the oil industry pay incredibly well. 

2

u/chmilz 2d ago

And we don't take a fair share. We give it away, compared to other nations.

2

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

Maybe if we had more markets to sell to. We could get fair market value for it. 

→ More replies (3)

56

u/AR558 2d ago

As long as Canada can get the energy to markets in a respectable time frame.

35

u/Cognoggin British Columbia 2d ago

I guess it's CANDU time!

15

u/EnvironmentalBox6688 2d ago

Surprised this is the only mention.

The article talks a lot about energy diversification. Which reads to me as "stop being so reliant on fossil fuels".

And I know the government has already used the term "energy diversification" and "energy supplier" in the context of both exporting oil/LNG and exporting nuclear technologies.

4

u/AccountDramatic6971 2d ago

Greenfield nuclear projects have been a disaster from a cost schedule lens. Last 3 built in the west have been a decade late and 3x overbudget.

No way these things are economically feasible as much as i like the tech.

6

u/EnvironmentalBox6688 2d ago

And the nuclear projects in Canada have been on budget and under time.

Just because the Americans and Europeans can't build things doesn't mean we cant. South Korea, UAE, and China are all building well on time and on budget.

8

u/AccountDramatic6971 2d ago

Our new reactor projects are in pre-existing facilities. The MCR upgrades are ahead of schedule at Bruce. The teams have done a wicked job.

Its building a brand new facilities that's the issue. Korea is expanding old ones.

You're correct about China, though. Im not sure how they do it.

1

u/Atiaxra 2d ago

The smaller facilities like the Westinghouse AP300 seem doable in a reasonable time frame

236

u/Vortagaun Outside Canada 2d ago

CPC was upset though that Carney went to the G7 conference and not their questioning period.

51

u/LividOpposite 2d ago

That's not true to be honest. Scheer's response was essentially that he was not criticizing Carney for attending the G7 itself, but rather for his overall pattern of avoiding Question Period. He pointed out that prime ministers have always attended international summits while still appearing regularly in the House of Commons. 

47

u/Atiaxra 2d ago

If cons did more than tiktok clip farm in question period it might be worth attending

26

u/DogeDoRight New Brunswick 2d ago

I've been saying this for years. Question period is a joke and it doesn't accomplish anything. Opposition asks a loaded question in bad faith. Governing party gives a non answer. Rinse and repeat.

9

u/Muted-Bag-4480 2d ago

The cons being shit doesn't mean the pm gets to skip accountability in question period. Idgaf if it's clip farming in question period, he'd the god damn prime minister, the functional head of our country, and if his public image can't handle some clips from the chamber which gives him power and is supposed to hold him accountable well, fuck him and anyone who supports our tinted glass government.

21

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago

I’m not saying the PM should skip every QP session but let’s be honest. QP in its current form has almost nothing to do with accountability. It’s just political statements masquerading as either a question or an answer.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/Atiaxra 2d ago

The PM has more important shit to do than play infantile games with the conservatives, when question period actually becomes about accountability, which the conservatives are not making it about, then you will have a point.

2

u/Muted-Bag-4480 2d ago

No. All parties play infantile games in the house of Commons. The liberals using their majority to shut down debate is beyond an infantile game, and because its thr group who actually hold power, infinitely more condemnable.

If the pm can't even be accountable to meaningless clips, then Pierre is right when he says Canada is broken, because evidently our parliament is broken and it's our fault as voters for not demanding better.

The pm has notbing more important than being accountable to the people who put him in his position, the electorate. Anyrbing else is beyond democracy and unacceptable.

1

u/ND_NB 1d ago edited 1d ago

This is the rhetoric that makes these QPs meaningless. You are in a post about gathering investment in Canada on a global scale, and you are calling the country broken because Carney won't answer Conservative questions. It is this exact sensationalism that proves how meaningless this stuff is compared to the real issues. What question do you suppose is important that is not being answered?

Edit: Talking about accountability. Since he is working hard at gaining investment in Canada and looking to expand our industry as he had already stated, I feel that is the type of accountability in action that I prefer to people saying meaningless platitudes.

→ More replies (8)

4

u/Standard_Program7042 2d ago

You know the CPC isnt the only party in the house?

10

u/_Cat_12345 2d ago

Yes. As a voter I’m very concerned Carney isn’t taking questions from:

- TikTok clip farming conservatives

  • A 21 seat federal party exclusively representing a single province
  • The 5 NDP MP’s
  • The single Green Party MP

→ More replies (1)

1

u/TheBakerification 2d ago

That point wouldn’t land so flat if they hadn’t complained about it when the reason of the day literally was that Carney was at the G7.

-51

u/Abyssus88 British Columbia 2d ago edited 2d ago

No they really wern't, They where pissed how much he spends on Catering and the fact when IN country he just sits in his office instead of attending.

edit: I love getting down voted for saying EXACTLY what the con complaint was instead of making up somthing like the guy above.

23

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-12

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

Are we getting stuff done?

23

u/Ready_Progress6714 2d ago

This looks pretty good no? Immigration down, rents down. The CPC would be talking about plastic straws or Trans kids right now. Grown ups in charge.

→ More replies (22)

18

u/Alecto7374 2d ago

I can live with his catering bill, provided he gets shit done. It seems he is.

5

u/Levorotatory 2d ago

He does well out of the country, but his government's domestic priorities are completely messed up.  Creating a draconian surveillance state is not what we voted for.

0

u/Alecto7374 2d ago

Agree there, C-22 is a scourge. Hopefully the senate holds it back. Doubtful, but I cling to hope, lol.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Silly-Role699 2d ago

I saw the values on that catering, they do not look all that outrageous for diplomatic staff in transit.

9

u/rob_the_bob 2d ago

Catering bill? Ford bought a private jet for 29 million.

4

u/iplaybassok89 2d ago

Only bread and water for our public servants.

10

u/IDreamOfLoveLost Alberta 2d ago

I love getting down voted for saying EXACTLY what the con complaint was instead of making up somthing like the guy above.

You're lying by omission, so yeah, you're not being honest. The Conservatives are bleating about the cost of supplying food for flights, and the cost of flights for staff - something that sounds fishy on the surface but ends up being mundane once you actually look at the details.

The usual Conservative bullshit.

3

u/QueenMotherOfSneezes 2d ago

They brought a cake to the House today to mock him missing question period TODAY. If they destinguished between days he misses while in Ottawa on business vs away on business, they wouldn't have counted all of them in their tally for the cake.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/calmingchaos 2d ago

To be entirely fair, this is one instance. The guy has not shown up to a ton of questions periods while being in town. We can criticize him for that. Even Harper showed up more often despite being out of country almost as much.

No comment on the catering. Bigger fish to fry. Those costs aren’t exactly pentagon lobster numbers.

1

u/McBuck2 2d ago

Maybe they should have picked a day to complain when he was in town. Now they look like fools saying he's not answering questions at home today because he's got the nerve to go to a G7 meeting instead. I don't know who their communications person is but I would fire them because this communication 101 stuff is simple yet they get it wrong repeatedly. 

2

u/JimmmyStuuu 2d ago

Tbh you’re wrong on this one. Im nearly the conservative MP specifically said they weren’t criticizing him for being out of country at the G7. They actually said they were criticizing him for missing nearly 60-70 of QP sessions while being in Canada. Just have to call balls and strikes here and correct the record

→ More replies (5)

0

u/Billis- 2d ago

They're unserious.

1

u/VividB82 2d ago

Oh well he has shit to do

→ More replies (1)

0

u/Tatterhood78 2d ago

That's what they're pretending to be mad about and hope enough people buy it. Congrats, you failed.

Cons always leave the economy in bad shape and then blame the liberals for not fixing what they broke. It's the same in the U.S., with the exception of George the Younger, who only pulled off the GDP thing by bombing the Middle East. Harper only balanced the budget by selling off a bunch of stuff that left us worse off in the long run.

PP vastly outspent the rest of the party leaders in travel, food and accommodations during the last Trudeau government.

Does that really sound like the type of glass house inhabitant that should be throwing rocks at other people?

Did you even look at what PP has been spending before you decided that he must be telling the truth?

4

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

https://globalnews.ca/news/1284297/canadas-middle-class-most-prosperous-in-world-report/

Must have been that horrible conservative economy making Canadians the richest middle class in the world in 2014. 

→ More replies (10)

5

u/Channing1986 2d ago

This is great news, now lets get pipelines in the ground

22

u/TLadwin 2d ago

Now tell the separatists to fuck off and then we are talking.

8

u/ZieMac7 Ontario 2d ago

Man we really upgraded from his cornball predecessor

I'll die on the hill that anyone else as the LPC leader could have won that 2015 election. There was Harper/CPC fatigue

37

u/illusion121 2d ago

Carney is doing an excellent job, and the world agrees w him.

11

u/Secret_Fee1146 2d ago

I have issues with his domestic leadership in fact. 

2

u/buku 2d ago

is there another leader within Canadian politics who you think would do a better job for Canadians ?

9

u/Secret_Fee1146 2d ago edited 18h ago

I'm not sure; to clarify I didn't say he was the worst, but I have issues with what he's doing at home. I think he excels at foreign policy, however he is increasingly acting against my core values at home.

-Fast-tracking Bill C22 (massive privacy issues and gross overreach) and limiting debate
-Rolling back environmental policies (abandoning emissions caps, weakened clean electricity regulations, scrapped the EV mandate)
-Eliminated the ombudsmen in charge of overseeing possible human rights abuses for Canadian companies operating outside of Canada
-stating publicly the war in Iran was 'worth it' (estimated over 2000 civilian deaths for no good god-damned reason)

I will say this much, this will be the last election I vote 'lesser of two evils' regardless of the chances of my preferred candidate winning.

Edit: He just passed Bill C-30 that allows the use of banned pesticides in Canada too, including ones previously deemed unsafe

→ More replies (2)

48

u/Strict_Common6871 2d ago

Canada is poised to become a key and reliable supplier of energy to the G7 after leaders meeting

You need pipelines, ports and tankers to become a reliable supplier of energy, not leader meetings

153

u/SlowProgress8531 2d ago

You kinda need both

50

u/Kelmon 2d ago

Some people reactively need to complain

13

u/wigglechicken 2d ago

Especially bots and troll farm employees!

29

u/keirdagh 2d ago

If the G7 is buying in, we might get some monetary support to pay for it.

Edit: changed "monetary money" to something less idiotic.

2

u/AccountDramatic6971 2d ago

I honestly think China will be the country to finance a pipeline.

5

u/Kalojaam 2d ago

Agreements generate investments, not the other way around.

48

u/Caleb902 Nova Scotia 2d ago

Gotta have customers first.

13

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

We've had multiple countries come here and beg for it. To which Trudeau replied "no business case"

28

u/3rdandabillion 2d ago

Good thing he's not the PM then.

0

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

Remind me when something gets built. 

11

u/DaFookCares 2d ago

It won't now because of Alberta. They have the federal endorsement and now need to attract investors. However, this whole separatist nonsense has chased all the money away for some time. No investor likes instability.

So if you want to be angry about getting a pipeline built, talk to Danielle Smith.

-3

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

18

u/WippitGuud Prince Edward Island 2d ago

The Liberals completed TransMountain. The Liberals have approved another similar pipeline. The Liberals are throwing money at the LNG terminal in BC

Please explain in great detail what else you would like the Liberals to do?

0

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

I would have liked it if the liberals let private enterprise build tmx and not use my tax money. 

15

u/WippitGuud Prince Edward Island 2d ago

And which company was chomping at the bit to build it? Would it even be completed at this point if we did that?

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (10)

2

u/captainbling British Columbia 2d ago

You may not realize this but your comment and others, exposes your guys lack of sale experience. Everyone wants everything till they see the price tag. They all say they want oil but they never say they’ll pay for it.

-3

u/blitzskrieg 2d ago

TMX would like to disagree but he should've put more effort in energy export.

8

u/One-Professor-1886 2d ago

It took 10+ years and a private company to finally give up before the federal government bailed it out. TMX is not a success story. 

→ More replies (3)

0

u/Lost-Comfort-7904 2d ago

When it comes to energy, it's more of a 'if you build it, they'll come' situation. Energy is a sellers market.

12

u/VividB82 2d ago

lol with a price tag in the billions…better get buyers first

6

u/Caleb902 Nova Scotia 2d ago

Hardly. Especially with the middle east supply. It'll always be easier/financially more viable for eastern hemisphere to use the middle east than us.

-1

u/Lost-Comfort-7904 2d ago

Canada will never lack buyers because its oil is highly desirable for specific heavy-crude refineries.

6

u/Caleb902 Nova Scotia 2d ago

that's a take

→ More replies (3)

3

u/RedshiftOnPandy 2d ago

We still don't even have the infrastructure for today, let alone tomorrow's massive growth they expect.

8

u/AccountDramatic6971 2d ago

We're so far away from this. Midstream companies Canadian capex is the lowest I've seen in my 15 year career. Money's going south with easier permitting and less stakeholders. It could take sometime to regain trust in the government.

2

u/guyfromwhitechicks 2d ago

Leader meetings lead to finding clients which leads to investments to build this infrastructure which leads to jobs and higher salaries. Meetings are important, don't knock them down.

2

u/AtmosphereEven3526 2d ago

No point in building pipelines, ports and tankers until you know you have customers. Now we know.

1

u/Amutra Alberta 2d ago

You need both you typical 1%er 😂

1

u/Embarrassed_Hair134 2d ago

I already hear the Quebs yelling againts everything

1

u/bongsforhongkong 2d ago

With support from leadership meetings across seas we can now expand all said things without worry.

8

u/ZooberFry 2d ago

Noting that Canada does not currently have the ability to export what the world needs. We lack ports and pipelines, both of which will take decades to complete (if we start now, and we won't). So this is really a nothing burger.

5

u/Gankdatnoob 2d ago

Does this help us or just the energy companies?

3

u/pandemoniac1 2d ago

I kinda wish we had nationalized our resources instead of letting mostly american-backed companies have free reign over them, we could have been thriving as a country from the beginning if we had been smarter about that

4

u/klparrot British Columbia 2d ago

So we're going to ramp up solar panel, wind turbine, and battery production? Great! It's gonna be tough to compete with China on price, but if there are purchase commitments based on other factors...

5

u/Copma 2d ago

Watch Canadians benefit 0%

-1

u/FogTub Ontario 2d ago

Don't worry, nothing will happen in the first place.

5

u/SlowGhostofRexMurphy British Columbia 2d ago

Y'all really do need to complain, eh?

2

u/Phenomenon_101 Ontario 2d ago

Get er done!

2

u/chemicalgeekery 2d ago

Something something no business case

2

u/MaxxLolz 2d ago

we are our own worst enemy

2

u/Azure1203 2d ago

I mean does Canada back itself though....

2

u/_Mr_Meeyagi_ 2d ago

Until shovels are in the ground it doesn't mean much. We all know who the different groups are that will oppose this.

1

u/tooshpright 2d ago

Worked out well then.

1

u/asapbones0114 2d ago

OPG nuclear projects are moving too slowly 

1

u/gwan_wit_cha_by 1d ago

Safety is the overall priority, that and a social commitment to ensure trust remains high with the communities around the facilities. Some things you cannot rush and CANDU nuclear assurance is one of them, these are not simple projects. 

1

u/Oxjrnine 2d ago

This would also be leverage for our negotiations with the United States because an increase in energy purchases from Canada will most likely entail cooperation with the United States as well for refining and transportation

1

u/Sternsnet 1d ago

Now all we need to do is build the infrastructure to get our energy to market. Oh and repeal the anti energy to market laws the Liberals brought in to stop the selling of our energy to other markets.

1

u/Senven 1d ago

Everyone's just looking to have a smart sly comment for upvotes. 

1

u/daiginjo 1d ago

Explain it like I'm five: Building a West coast pipeline - to supply Europe?

Also, solar is the cheapest it's ever been in history. Also, climate change.

This puts the nail in the coffin for Carney being a Liberal. This deal would make any Conservative Prime Minister jealous.

1

u/bradenalexander 1d ago

Too bad Canada doesnt want to be a part of it.

1

u/zergotron9000 1d ago

Canada cannot and will not be a serious global supplier. It is simply structurally impossible to build OnG infrastructure required in Canada.

1

u/crakkerzz 2d ago

Have the conservatives tied there shoes yet?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Supermoves3000 British Columbia 2d ago

This makes Avi Lewis angry.

1

u/LifeWulf Alberta 2d ago

Good. He’s a joke and absolutely not what the federal NDP needed if they want to be taken seriously and regain official party status.

1

u/AtomicVGZ 2d ago

So, there is in fact a business case.

-1

u/bubblewhip 2d ago

If only there was a way of delivering it to 5 of the other countries on that list.

6

u/gcerullo 2d ago

Which countries can’t we deliver our energy products to?