From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

After decades on the outs with environmentalists and regulators, nuclear power is being heralded as a key component for a “net zero” future of clean, reliable energy. Its promise is likely to fall short, however, due to some hard realities. As North America grapples with the challenge of providing secure, affordable and sustainable energy amidst soaring electricity demand, it is time to accept this fact: natural gas remains the most practical solution for powering our grid and economy.

Nuclear power’s limitations are rooted in its costs, risks and delays. Even under ideal circumstances, building or restarting a nuclear facility is arduous. Consider Microsoft’s much-publicized plan to restart the long-dormant Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. This project is lauded as proof of an incipient “nuclear revival”, but despite leveraging existing infrastructure it will cost US$1.6 billion and take four years to bring online.

This is not a unique case. Across North America, nuclear energy projects face monumental lead times. The new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs), often touted as a game-changer, is still largely theoretical. In Canada – Alberta in particular – discussions around SMRs have been ongoing for years, with no concrete progress. The most optimistic projections estimate the first SMR in Western Canada might be operational by 2034.

The reality is that nuclear energy cannot scale quickly enough to meet urgent electricity needs. Canada’s power grid is already strained, and electricity demand is set to grow significantly, driven by electric vehicles and enormous data centres for AI applications. Nuclear power, even if expanded aggressively, cannot fill the gap within the necessary timeframes.

Natural gas, by contrast, is abundant, flexible, low-risk – and highly affordable. It accounts for 40 percent of U.S. electricity generation and plays a critical role in Canada’s energy mix. Unlike nuclear, natural gas infrastructure can be built rapidly, ensuring that new capacity comes online when it’s needed – not decades later. Gas-fired plants are cost-effective and capable of providing consistent, large-scale power while being capable of rapid starts and shut-downs, making them suitable for meeting both base-load and “peaking” power demands.

Climate-related concerns surrounding natural gas need to be put in perspective. Natural gas is the lowest-emission fossil fuel and produces less than half the carbon dioxide of coal per unit of energy output. It is also highly adaptable, supporting renewable energy integration by compensating for the intermittency of wind and solar power.

Nuclear energy advocates frequently highlight its zero-emission credentials, yet they overlook its immense challenges, not just the front-end problems of high cost and long lead times, but ongoing waste disposal and future decommissioning.

Natural gas, by comparison, presents fewer risks. Its production and distribution systems are well-established, and North America is uniquely positioned to benefit from the vast reserves underlying all three countries on the continent. Despite low prices and ever-increasing regulatory obstacles, Canada’s natural gas production has been setting new records.

Streamlining regulatory processes and expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity would help revive Canada’s battered economy, with plenty of natural gas left over to help meet growing domestic electricity needs.

Critics argue that investing in natural gas is at odds with the “energy transition” to a glorious net zero future, but this oversimplifies the related challenges and ignores hard realities. By reducing reliance on dirtier fuels like coal, natural gas can help lower a country’s greenhouse gas emissions while providing the reliability needed to support economic growth and renewable energy integration.

Europe’s energy crisis following the recent reduction of Russian gas imports underscores natural gas’s vital role in maintaining reliable electricity supplies. As nations like Germany still phase out nuclear power due to the sheer blind ideology of their left-wing parties, they’re growing more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights (mostly) on and the factories (partially) humming.

Europe is already a destination for LNG exported from the U.S. Gulf Coast, and American LNG exports will soon resume growth under the incoming Trump Administration. Canada has the resources and know-how to similarly scale up its LNG exports; all we need is a supportive federal government.

For all its theoretical benefits, nuclear power remains impractical for meeting immediate and medium-term energy demands. Its high costs, lengthy timelines and significant remaining public opposition make it unlikely to serve as North America’s energy backbone.

Natural gas, on the other hand, is affordable, scalable and reliable. It is the fuel that powers industries, keeps homes warm and provides the stability our electricity grid needs – whether or not we ever transition to “net zero”. By prioritizing investment in natural gas infrastructure and expanding its use, we can meet today’s energy challenges head-on while laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s innovations.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

From the C2C Journal

By Scott Inniss

Canada’s open immigration policy has often been hailed as a positive thing, contributing to the building
of the country. Yet the Trudeau government’s decade-long determination to drive immigration numbers
ever-higher – a policy that public outcry now has it scrambling away from – has obscured an important
and discouraging phenomenon. Every year, tens of thousands of Canadians leave the country, taking
their skills and ambitions with them, and leaving Canada diminished.

Emigration is the flipside of the immigration issue — a side that has been largely ignored. Statistics
Canada estimates that more than 104,000 people left Canada in 2023-2024, a number than has been
rising for the past few years. Another study put the number of Canadian citizens living abroad in 2016 at
between 2.9 million and 5.5 million, with a “medium” scenario of 4,038,700 — or about 12.6 percent of
the Canadian population that year (the latest for which this kind of analysis exists).

This trend isn’t just an abstract problem; it undermines the very economic goals policymakers hope to
achieve through immigration. Emigrants are younger, better educated, and earn higher incomes than
the average Canadian, according to Statcan’s study: “The departure of people with these characteristics
raises concerns about the loss of significant economic potential and the retention of a highly skilled
workforce.” Canada is losing its best and brightest, many of them to the U.S. A survey by the U.S. Census
Bureau this year said the number of people moving from Canada to the U.S. was up 70 percent from a
decade ago.

Canada’s economic decline is big reason for the exodus. In 2022, all 10 Canadian provinces had median
per capita incomes lower than the lowest-earning American state. Canada’s per capita GDP growth has
also stagnated, with projections placing the country dead last among OECD nations out to 2060. Our
productivity is in decline and business investment is moribund, meaning employers in other countries
are able to pay more and compete for qualified labour.

The high cost of living, particularly skyrocketing housing costs, is an increasingly large factor pushing
skilled Canadians abroad. A recent survey by Angus Reid reported that 28 percent of Canadians are
considering leaving their province due to unaffordable housing, with 42 percent of those considering a
move outside Canada.

Even immigrants to Canada are losing faith and moving on. A recent report from the Institute for
Canadian Citizenship, entitled The Leaky Bucket, found that “onward” migration had been steadily
increasing since the 1980s. A follow-up survey of more than 15,000 immigrants and found that 26
percent said they are likely to leave Canada within two years, with the proportion rising to over 30
percent among federally selected economic immigrants—those with the highest scores in the points
system.

“While the fairy tale of Canada as a land of opportunity still holds for many newcomers,” wrote Daniel
Bernhard, CEO of the ICC, there is undeniably a “burgeoning disillusionment. After giving Canada a try,
growing numbers of immigrants are saying ‘no thanks,’ and moving on.” It’s a particularly stark
phenomenon considering that most immigrants have come from much poorer, less developed and often
autocratic or unsafe nations; that these people find Canada – for decades considered the ultimate
destination among those seeking a better life – to be such a disappointment that the best response is to
leave is a damning indictment.

Consider Elena Secara, an immigrant from Romania who built a life here only to find Canada’s economic
reality falling short of her expectations. After nearly two decades, Secara plans to return to Romania, a
country she sees as improving, while Canada, she says, “is getting worse and worse. Canada is
declining…In Romania there are much more opportunities for professionals, the medical system is
better, the food is better.” And, she adds with a laugh, “Even the roads are better.” One of her sons has
already voted with his feet, and is now living in Romania.

That a country like Romania, for years one of Europe’s poorest and most corrupt nations, can now
attract emigrants from Canada should be sobering for policymakers. Canada is facing ever-greater
competition just as it enters the second decade of what may be its longest and most serious economic
deterioration since Confederation.

Each emigrant lost represents not just an individual choice but a systemic failure to provide opportunity
at home. As the revolving door of emigration spins faster, Canada faces a reckoning. Our political leaders
must address the housing crisis, lower tax burdens, and foster a more competitive economy to retain
the talent Canada desperately needs. Without action, Canada’s silent exodus risks becoming a defining
national failure—one that leaves the country less resilient, less innovative, and less prepared for the
future.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Scott Inniss is a Montreal writer.