NATO reps say U.S., Canada oil and gas critical for energy security

From the Canadian Energy Centre

‘The traditional energy system will not disappear in a day’

Canada and the United States now produce more oil and gas than anywhere else on Earth, including the Middle East, according to a new report by S&P Global.

This blanket of energy security extends beyond borders and is “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers wrote.

They found that without oil and gas produced in the U.S. and Canada – which has more than doubled since 2008 – North America, Europe and the rest of the world would have been “notably more vulnerable” following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The ‘massive social impact’ of energy insecurity

Energy insecurity is all too familiar for Lithuanian Juljius Grubliauskas, who works for the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO).

Growing up, he was on hand when the Soviet Union weaponized energy in an attempt to topple Lithuania’s fledgling independence.

“I remember clearly from my childhood in 1990 when the Russians cut off energy supplies to try to break the resolve of the Lithuanians, [and] that affected the daily lives of every citizen,” Grubliauskas told a recent webinar hosted by the Toronto-based Institute for Peace and Diplomacy.

“Having a lack of energy has a massive social impact and massive cascading effects like prices immediately jumping, massive inflation and such,” he said.

“Today obviously many things have changed and the energy landscape looks much different, but the principle that energy is closely linked to national security and the independence of nations to make their decisions still remains true.”

North America’s role in NATO energy supply

Formed following the second world war, NATO represents 31 nations in Europe and North America in shared collective defense where an attack on one is seen as an attack on all.

NATO is finalizing a strategic plan for its energy future as the world seeks to reduce emissions, focusing primarily on secure access for military forces, Grubliauskas said.

Oil and gas from North America play a critical role, said Brussels-based NATO energy security policy expert Can Ögütcü.

“We need to be sure that we’re going to have security of supply of production in the U.S. and in Canada,” he said.

“We have last one import supplier, the Russians, [and] we are in the transition to perhaps also lose another big supplier, the Middle East Gulf countries, as maritime routes become more and more insecure.”

Critical North American energy integration

While Canadian oil and gas exports currently go almost exclusively to the U.S., once they enter the integrated pipeline system, they can become so-called “re-exports” from U.S. Gulf Coast to overseas markets.

At the end last year, the U.S. imported more oil from Canada than ever before, according to the U.S. Energy Information.

At the same time, America exported a record 11.5 million barrels per day of oil and petroleum products, and a record 709 billion cubic feet of natural gas.

“North American energy integration, things like the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and the Keystone pipeline are absolutely crucial pieces of infrastructure, not just for the energy security of North America but also increasingly for the energy security of NATO allies,” said Joseph Calnan, energy security analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

“The traditional energy system will not disappear in a day. Climate change of course makes it imperative that we do reduce our emissions globally but the role of Canada in the short term and medium term, I believe, is to firm up this traditional energy system.

“While Canada has a major role to play in future energy technologies, the current energy technologies are in my opinion, the priority.”

Canada can do more

Canada has not done enough to improve world energy security, said Heather Exner-Pirot, a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“In the wake of Russia’s invasion, Canada has not stepped up and there is risk on all sides from depending too much on OPEC, or Qatar or Russia, but also too much on the United States,” she said, referencing the U.S. decision to pause approvals of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export projects.

“We can do much more shipping on the East Coast. There are projects that were in the pipeline that have been rejected by the federal government and by provincial governments that could be going to Europe. Obviously on the West Coast is more promising.”

Major projects slated to start up soon like the Trans Mountain expansion and LNG Canada terminal will grow global access to Canadian oil and gas, primarily in the Indo Pacific region, Calnan noted.

“I think we’ll see that Canada has a much larger role to play in the total global market, which will have a stepwise influence on the situation in Europe,” he said.

Related Topics:#CanadaOilAndGas #CanadianEnergyCentre #DeborahJaremko #EnergySecurity #NATO #NorthAmericanOilAndGas #USOilAndGas feature

Up Next

Red tape and uncertainty hurting oil and gas investment in Canada

Don't Miss

MB/SK/AB NeeStaNan Utilities Corridor: First Nations-led utility corridor is a 21st-century nation-building initiative

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

While Ohtani marches into MLB history, Nippon league’s shame lingers

Crime / 14 hours ago

RCMP Bust Industrial-Scale Superlab Outside Toronto

Opinion / 17 hours ago

A Nation of Announcements: Canada’s Government of Empty Promises

Alberta

Petition threatens independent school funding in Alberta

Published on October 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

Recently, amid the backdrop of a teacher strike, an Alberta high school teacher began collecting signatures for a petition to end government funding of independent schools in the province. If she gets enough people to sign—10 per cent of the number of Albertans who voted in the last provincial election—Elections Alberta will consider launching a referendum about the issue.

In other words, the critical funding many Alberta families rely on for their children’s educational needs may be in jeopardy.

In Alberta, the provincial government partially funds independent schools and charter schools. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), whose members are currently on strike, opposes government funding of independent and charter schools.

But kids are not one-size-fits-all, and schools should reflect that reality, particularly in light of today’s increasing classroom complexity where different kids have different needs. Unlike government-run public schools, independent schools and charter schools have the flexibility to innovate and find creative ways to help students thrive.

And things aren’t going very well for all kids or teachers in government-run pubic school classrooms. According to the ATA, 93 per cent of teachers report encountering some form of aggression or violence at school, most often from students. Additionally, 85 per cent of unionized teachers face an increase in cognitive, social/emotional and behavioural issues in their classrooms. In 2020, one-quarter of students in Edmonton’s government-run public schools were just learning English, and immigration to Canada—and Alberta especially—has exploded since then. It’s not easy to teach a classroom of kids where a significant proportion do not speak English, many have learning disabilities or exceptional needs, and a few have severe behavioural problems.

Not surprisingly, demand for independent schools in Alberta is growing because many of these schools are designed for students with special needs, Autism, severe learning disabilities and ADHD. Some independent schools cater to students just learning English while others offer cultural focuses, expanded outdoor time, gifted learning and much more.

Which takes us back to the new petition—yet the latest attempt to defund independent schools in Alberta.

Wealthy families will always have school choice. But if the Alberta government wants low-income and middle-class kids to have the ability to access schools that fit them, too, it’s crucial to maintain—or better yet, increase—its support for independent and charter schools.

Consider a fictional Alberta family: the Millers. Their daughter, Lucy, is struggling at her local government-run public school. Her reading is below grade level and she’s being bullied. It’s affecting her self-esteem, her sleep and her overall wellbeing. The Millers pay their taxes. They don’t take vacations, they rent, and they haven’t upgraded their cars in many years. They can’t afford to pay full tuition for Lucy to attend an independent school that offers the approach to education she needs to succeed. However, because the Alberta government partially funds independent schools—which essentially means a portion of the Miller family’s tax dollars follow Lucy to the school of their choice—they’re able to afford the tuition.

The familiar refrain from opponents is that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for independent school tuition. But in fact, if you’re concerned about taxpayers, you should encourage school choice. If Lucy attends a government-run public school, taxpayers pay 100 per cent of her education costs. But if she attends an independent or charter school, taxpayers only pay a portion of the costs while her parents pay the rest. That’s why research shows that school choice saves tax dollars.

If you’re a parent with a child in a government-run public school in Alberta, you now must deal with another teacher strike. If you have a child in an independent or charter school, however, it’s business as usual. If Albertans are ever asked to vote on whether or not to end government funding for independent schools, they should remember that students are the most important stakeholder in education. And providing parents more choices in education is the solution, not the problem.

Paige MacPherson

Associate Director, Education Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta introduces bill allowing province to reject international agreements

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Under the proposed law, international treaties or accords signed by the federal government would not apply in Alberta unless approved through its own legislation.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law to protect “constitutional rights” that would allow it to essentially ignore International Agreements, including those by the World Health Organization (WHO), signed by the federal Liberal government.

The new law, Bill 1, titled International Agreements Act and introduced Thursday, according to the government, “draws a clear line: international agreements that touch on provincial areas of jurisdiction must be debated and passed into law in Alberta.”

Should the law pass, which is all but certain as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s Conservatives hold a majority government, it would mean that any international treaties or accords signed by the federal government would not apply in Alberta unless approved through its own legislation.

“As we return to the legislature, our government is focused on delivering on the mandate Albertans gave us in 2023 to stand up for this province, protect our freedoms and chart our path forward,” Smith said.

“We will defend our constitutional rights, protect our province’s interests and make sure decisions that affect Albertans are made by Albertans. The federal government stands at a crossroads. Work with us, and we’ll get things done. Overstep, and Alberta will stand its ground.”

According to the Alberta government, while the feds have the “power to enter into international agreements on behalf of Canada,” it “does not” have the “legal authority to impose its terms on provinces.”

“The International Agreements Act reinforces that principle, ensuring Alberta is not bound by obligations negotiated in Ottawa that do not align with provincial priorities,” the province said.

The new Alberta law is not without precedent. In 2000, the province of Quebec passed a similar law, allowing it to ignore international agreements unless approved by local legislators.