Economy
Wrapping Up Canadian Energy 2023 – Prosperity, Power Struggles, Pipelines, EV Promises and “Pie in the Sky” Politics
From EnergyNow Media
By Deidra Garyk
2023 was an optimistic year in the Canadian oil patch. The +15 walkway system in downtown Calgary has been buzzing with the energy of people hurrying to business meetings and networking events.
Some of those scurrying about were headed to talk multi-billion-dollar merger and acquisition (M&A) deals that the patch continued to experience throughout the year. Traditional oil companies also bought alternative energy and carbon tech companies. Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) was the investment decision of the year.
Oil and gas prices remained relatively high. Not great, but not in the toilet like the dark years of 2015 to 2021. That meant government coffers filled, easing some of the debt burden accumulated during COVID. Oil and gas companies, producers and the many service providers who support the production, were able to continue paying down debt and providing returns to patient shareholders.
Canadian majors Suncor, Cenovus, and Enbridge went through leadership changes at the top. I wish these men success and courage. They are going to need it to embolden pragmatism at all levels of government.
The Canadian federal government continues to be all-in on climate and green energy, seemingly to the exclusion of traditional, reliable energy sources. Although, since climate change has taken a backseat to affordability and energy security for the voting public – the only people politicians really care about – the Liberals have had to rebrand some programs to get buy-in.
One example is renaming the “Just Transition” the Sustainable Jobs Plan. Other than the name, not much has changed. There is still a push for unionized, non-oil and gas jobs.
The feds “invested” (their word, not mine) billions of dollars in EV battery plants, continuing to go all-in on 100 percent EV car sales in twelve years. Senior bureaucrats at Transport Canada even touted the nearness of EV heavy-duty commercial transportation and equipment. (Someone should tell them it will not work well in remote locations with no charging infrastructure.) Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson lauded the day when agricultural equipment goes all electric, fantasizing about the economic boon that will bring. (Someone else should tell him it will not be experienced by farmers who have to spend their hard-earned dollars on equipment replacements.)
Joe Biden visited Ottawa in March. I happened to be there for a conference, so I got to experience the pomp and circumstance first-hand. I have never seen so much security, and I have travelled to places under military control and lived in a country that remains perpetually under the threat of foreign invasion.
Biden’s motorcade is a long, emissions-belching row of vehicles. I did not see any EVs. It includes two “Beasts” (one used as a decoy while the other transports the President), an ambulance, and several tricked-out SUVs. It is quite a spectacle.
As expected, topping the list of topics on the visit’s agenda, President Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau talked about energy and climate, as outlined in their joint statement.
Global sustainability reporting standards were released in June and come into effect January 1, 2024. Publicly traded companies are waiting for Canada to release jurisdiction-specific regulations to understand the magnitude of what will be required. In the Fall Economic Update, released November 22, the feds said rules will be put in place to extend mandatory climate reporting to private companies. That is a big hint at what all companies should expect, at a minimum.
You can listen to my podcast on the subject with energy analyst Dr. Tammy Nemeth here.
On the topic of climate, Bill S-243, An Act to enact the Climate-Aligned Finance Act and to make related amendments to other Acts passed second reading in the Senate in June. You may think this is just some boring Senate bill, but oil and gas boards and employees need to be aware of it.
The bill aims to restrict investment in hydrocarbons, forces companies to set climate commitments, and dictates who has to be part of a company’s board of directors. Worse, section 13(1) Appointment – restriction outlines who cannot be a board member – anyone who works in or owns shares in a fossil fuel company.
It goes as far as to include: “And whereas investment in energy efficiency, clean energy and clean technologies and the incentivization of innovation and behavioural change must replace investments in greenhouse-gas-emission-intensive activities for effective action against climate change.” It targets “fossil fuel activity” in the definition of “emissions-intensive activities”.
Alignment with climate commitments requires that companies:
- take into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, including the biodiversity of those ecosystems,
- make decisions based on equity and the best available science and
- do not promote, foster or exacerbate food insecurity or inequalities in society; and
- do not cause significant harm to social and environmental obligations recognized by Canada.
This bill should trouble any rational person, and it is not getting enough attention. It ramps up climate hysteria and enshrines it into all financial decision making. It is ideological to its core.
I encourage you to read the bill here.
Fortunately, two major, necessary egress projects – Coastal GasLink and Trans Mountain – are well underway before Bill S-243 can stop them. Coastal GasLink reached major milestones of 100 percent pipeline installation and mechanical completion, ahead of schedule. Unfortunately, the federally owned Trans Mountain pipeline has continued to experience delays and a cost increase to $30.9 billion. Although, it was about 80 percent complete in March and expected to be in service in the first quarter of 2024, the project has been delayed due to issues over the route and may not be completed until the end of 2024.
Canada’s summer wildfire season had environmental activists hot and bothered, blaming one thing, and one thing only – climate change!
Calgary hosted the 24th World Petroleum Congress and world energy leaders in September. The torch was passed on to Saudi Arabia to host next. Based on their booth, it will be an extravaganza that will undoubtedly proudly display their oil and gas development. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson dutifully kept to the Liberal’s script and was challenged to mention the words “oil” and “gas” during his speech at the World Petroleum Congress. This caused the ire of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has had it with the feds’ attitude towards oil and gas.
She has now invoked the Alberta Sovereignty Act in an attempt to prevent the federal government from being able to enact the Clean Electricity Standard by 2035. She has taken a lot of heat for it, but Saskatchewan’s Premier Scott Moe did it first with the colloquially named Saskatchewan First Act. When adversarial Environment and Climate Change Canada Minister Steven Guilbeault threatened to criminalize the use of coal-fired power generation past 2030, Moe puffed out his chest and said, “come get me!”
For all the partisan naysayers attacking the Premiers, I recommend reading Electricity Canada’s response to the Clean Electricity Regulations. It is emotionless and objective, and it sides with the Premiers.
Good thing there is serious discussion about the electricity grid and reliability happening in the Edmonton Legislature because Alberta’s grid operator AESO has issued several warnings in the last year, on both hot and cold days. This has me impatiently waiting for the 2,700 megawatts of new natural gas-powered generation to come on in 2024.
November was all about the carbon tax fight. The feds doubled down on the importance of carbon taxes in the fight against global warming, but not in regions where their sitting MPs risk losing their seats (i.e. their jobs) in the next election. If you think it was not political, you are fooling yourself. They are still fighting over the applicability of a tax on farmers. As someone who eats, I would like it removed to keep the cost of food down.
Premier Moe will not charge Saskatchewan residents carbon tax on natural gas and electricity used to heat homes. This seems reasonable considering that it gets really, really, really cold in Saskatchewan for many days in the winter and reliable energy is a must.
In a hotter region of the world, Dubai, United Arab Emirates hosted COP28 in December. It is the twenty eighth UN climate conference, and yet we appear no closer to solving the thing they say is a crisis – rising emissions. The globe reached the height of emissions in 2023, even though coal use is down and renewable energy capacity and investment is up, up, up, according to the International Energy Agency.
As expected, Canada made various expensive pledges. Minister Guilbeault bounces to the podium for a photo op, drops a climate pledge or two, and the rest of us are left trying to figure out how to meet the commitment. The most contentious for Alberta and Saskatchewan was the oil and gas emissions cap that has been called a de facto production cap.
GEOPOLITICS
With energy security remaining a priority for citizens, nuclear is no longer a bad word. Countries and regions are expanding existing nuclear infrastructure and there is increasing public acceptance for small modular reactors. The false fear tactics used by the anti-nuclear activists have finally been shown for what they are – exaggerated and untrue.
The BRICS alliance expanded with the addition of six new members: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates.
Not only are the BRICS nations population and economic power players, they hold the keys to unlocking vast reserves of reliable energy. Total oil production from BRICS nations will be between 40-45 percent of global oil production, more than OPEC’s 35-40 percent. In addition, the members hold vast reserves of the minerals needed for any future energy transformation.
Forty other countries applied to join, demonstrating an interest in the group. Western leaders and NGOs would be wise to pay attention to the growing influence of the BRICS, even if they dislike some of the members.
BRICS is my geopolitical story of the year as it continues to disrupt global energy markets. In 2022, India increased purchases of discounted Russian oil by forty percent. This year, India purchased oil from the United Arab Emirates in rupees, their local currency. These are two examples of the shifts that are happening but are seemingly ignored by the West.
Overall, it appears that pragmatism and realism are influencing political energy decisions, and 2024 is expected to be another positive year for the Canadian oil patch.
All the best for the new year. May you enjoy peace and prosperity.
About Deidra Garyk
Deidra Garyk has been working in the Canadian energy industry for almost 20 years. She is currently the Manager, ESG & Sustainability at an oilfield service company. Prior to that, she worked in roles of varying seniority at exploration and production companies in joint venture contracts where she was responsible for working collaboratively with stakeholders to negotiate access to pipelines, compressors, plants, and batteries.
Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and thought leader who researches, writes, and speaks about energy policy and advocacy to promote balanced, honest, fact-based conversations.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, a visiting scholar at McGill University and perhaps better known as the Food Professor, has lamented a strange and growing trend among Canadians. It seems that large numbers of especially younger people would prefer a world where grocery chains and food producers operated as non-profits and, ideally, were owned by governments.
Sure, some of them have probably heard stories about the empty shelves and rationing in Soviet-era food stores. But that’s just because “real” communism has never been tried.
In a slightly different context, University of Toronto Professor Joseph Heath recently responded to an adjacent (and popular) belief that there’s no reason we can’t grow all our food in publicly-owned farms right on our city streets and parks:
“Unfortunately, they do have answers, and anyone who stops to think for a minute will know what they are. It’s not difficult to calculate the amount of agricultural land that is required to support the population of a large urban area (such as Tokyo, where Saitō lives). All of the farms in Japan combined produce only enough food to sustain 38% of the Japanese population. This is all so obvious that it feels stupid even to be pointing it out.”
Sure, food prices have been rising. Here’s a screenshot from Statistics Canada’s Consumer Price Index price trends page. As you can see, the 12-month percentage change of the food component of the CPI is currently at 3.4 percent. That’s kind of inseparable from inflation.
But it’s just possible that there’s more going on here than greedy corporate price gouging.
It should be obvious that grocery retailers are subject to volatile supply chain costs. According to Statistics Canada, as of June 2025, for example, the price of “livestock and animal products” had increased by 130 percent over their 2007 prices. And “crops” saw a 67 percent increase over that same period. Grocers also have to lay out for higher packaging material costs that include an extra 35 percent (since 2021) for “foam products for packaging” and 78 percent more for “paperboard containers”.
In the years since 2012, farmers themselves had to deal with 49 percent growth in “commercial seed and plant” prices, 46 percent increases in the cost of production insurance, and a near-tripling of the cost of live cattle.
So should we conclude that Big Grocery is basically an industry whose profits are held to a barely sustainable minimum by macro economic events far beyond their control? Well that’s pretty much what the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) claims. Back in 2023, Competition Bureau Canada published a lengthy response from the RCC to the consultation on the Market study of retail grocery.
The piece made a compelling argument that food sales deliver razor-thin profit margins which are balanced by the sale of more lucrative non-food products like cosmetics.
However, things may not be quite as simple as the RCC presents them. For instance:
- While it’s true that the large number of supermarket chains in Canada suggests there’s little concentration in the sector, the fact is that most independents buy their stock as wholesale from the largest companies.
- The report pointed to Costco and Walmart as proof that new competitors can easily enter the market, but those decades-old well-financed expansions prove little about the way the modern market works. And online grocery shopping in Canada is still far from established.
- Consolidated reporting methods would make it hard to substantiate some of the report’s claims of ultra-thin profit margins on food.
- The fact that grocers are passing on costs selectively through promotional strategies, private-label pricing, and shrinkflation adjustments suggests that they retain at least some control over their supplier costs.
- The claim that Canada’s food price inflation is more or less the same as in other peer countries was true in 2022. But we’ve since seen higher inflation here than, for instance, in the U.S.
Nevertheless, there’s vanishingly little evidence to support claims of outright price gouging. Rising supply chain costs are real and even high-end estimates of Loblaw, Metro, and Sobeys net profit margins are in the two to five percent range. That’s hardly robber baron territory.
What probably is happening is some opportunistic margin-taking through various selective pricing strategies. And at least some price collusion has been confirmed.
How much might such measures have cost the average Canadian family? A reasonable estimate places the figure at between $150 and $350 a year. That’s real money, but it’s hardly enough to justify gutting the entire free market in favor of some suicidal system of central planning and control.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
The Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh charges of “greedflation” collapses under scrutiny.
“It’s not okay that our biggest grocery stores are making record profits while Canadians are struggling to put food on the table.” —PM Justin Trudeau, September 13, 2023.
A couple of days after the above statement, the then-prime minister and his government continued a campaign to blame rising food prices on grocery retailers.
 |
The line Justin Trudeau delivered in September 2023, triggered a week of political theatre. It also handed his innovation minister, François-Philippe Champagne, a ready-made role: defender of the common shopper against supposed corporate greed. The grocery price problem would be fixed by Thanksgiving that year. That was two years ago. Remember the promise?
But as Ian Madsen of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy has shown, the numbers tell a different story. Canada’s major grocers have not been posting “record profits.” They have been inching forward in a highly competitive, capital-intensive sector. Madsen’s analysis of industry profit margins shows this clearly.
Take Loblaw. Its EBITDA margin (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) averaged 11.2 per cent over the three years ending 2024. That is up slightly from 10 per cent pre-COVID. Empire grew from 3.9 to 7.6 per cent. Metro went from 7.6 to 9.6. These are steady trends, not windfalls. As Madsen rightly points out, margins like these often reflect consolidation, automation, and long-term investment.
Meanwhile, inflation tells its own story. From March 2020 to March 2024, Canada’s money supply rose by 36 per cent. Consumer prices climbed about 20 per cent in the same window. That disparity suggests grocers helped absorb inflationary pressure rather than drive it. The Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh charges of “greedflation” collapses under scrutiny.
Yet Ottawa pressed ahead with its chosen solution: the Grocery Code of Conduct. It was crafted in the wake of pandemic disruptions and billed as a tool for fairness. In practice, it is a voluntary framework with no enforcement and no teeth. The dispute resolution process will not function until 2026. Key terms remain undefined. Suppliers are told they can expect “reasonable substantiation” for sudden changes in demand. They are not told what that means. But food inflation remains.
This ambiguity helps no one. Large suppliers will continue to settle matters privately. Small ones, facing the threat of lost shelf space, may feel forced to absorb losses quietly. As Madsen observes, the Code is unlikely to change much for those it claims to protect.
What it does serve is a narrative. It lets the government appear responsive while avoiding accountability. It shifts attention away from the structural causes of price increases: central bank expansion, regulatory overload, and federal spending. Instead of owning the crisis, the state points to a scapegoat.
This method is not new. The Trudeau government, of which Carney’s is a continuation, has always shown a tendency to favour symbolism over substance. Its approach to identity politics follows the same pattern. Policies are announced with fanfare, dissent is painted as bigotry, and inconvenient facts are set aside.
The Grocery Code fits this model. It is not a policy grounded in need or economic logic. It is a ritual. It gives the illusion of action. It casts grocers as villains. It gives the impression to the uncaring public that the government is “providing solutions,” and that “it has their backs.” It flatters the state.
Madsen’s work cuts through that illusion. It reminds us that grocery margins are modest, inflation was monetary, and the public is being sold a story.
Canadians deserve better than fables, but they keep voting for the same folks. They don’t think to think that they deserve a government that governs within its limits; a government that accept its role in the crises it helped cause, and restores the conditions for genuine economic freedom. The Grocery Code is not a step in that direction. It was always a distraction, wrapped in a moral pose.
And like most moral poses in Ottawa, it leaves the facts behind.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
The Bureau Exclusive: Chinese–Mexican Syndicate Shipping Methods Exposed — Vancouver as a Global Meth Hub
Carney’s Bungling of the Tariff Issue Requires a Reset in Canada’s Approach to Trump
Elbows Up Part Deux: Liberal Canada Now Riding The Blue Jays
Canadian Sovereignty at Stake: Stunning Testimony at Security Hearing in Ottawa from Sam Cooper
Negotiations continue in Israel-Hamas peace deal
Canada’s federal election in April saw ‘small scale’ foreign meddling: gov’t watchdog
Winnipeg Universities Flunk The Free Speech Test
-
Media1 day agoResponse to any budget sleight of hand will determine which audience media have decided to serve
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day agoCanada’s Democracy Is Running On Fumes
-
Business1 day ago
Your $350 Grocery Question: Gouging or Economics?
-
Education1 day agoClassroom Size Isn’t The Real Issue
-
International21 hours agoMelania Trump quietly reunites children divided by Ukraine war
-
illegal immigration21 hours ago$4.5B awarded in new contracts to build Smart Wall along southwest border
-
Business4 hours agoTruckers see pay surge as ICE sweeps illegal drivers off U.S. highways
-
Brownstone Institute4 hours agoTrump Covets the Nobel Peace Prize