As I watched the federal and provincial officials shake hands across the wooden conference table in Calgary last week, it struck me that this unusual meeting carried the weight of decades of energy policy tension. The memorandum of understanding signed between Ottawa and Alberta represents what many are calling a turning point in Canada’s fractured approach to energy development.
“We’ve been talking past each other for far too long,” Premier Danielle Smith told me after the ceremony, her voice carrying both caution and something that sounded almost like hope. “This framework gives us a chance to work together on what Alberta does best—responsible energy development—while addressing the federal government’s emissions concerns.”
The Canada National Energy Strategy 2024 arrives at a critical moment. For years, I’ve reported from communities caught between resource development promises and climate crisis realities. In Fort McMurray, I’ve sat with workers who speak of oil as their economic lifeline. In coastal First Nations territories, I’ve listened to elders describe how changing weather patterns are altering ancestral food systems. These seemingly opposed perspectives have dominated our national conversation on energy—often at the expense of finding common ground.
The MOU, facilitated in part by former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, outlines a collaborative approach to energy development that maintains provincial jurisdiction while working toward national emissions targets. The agreement focuses on four key areas: carbon capture technologies, hydrogen development, critical minerals extraction, and electricity grid expansion.
According to Environment Canada data, oil and gas production accounts for approximately 27 percent of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. This new framework doesn’t shy away from that reality, but rather than imposing top-down emissions caps as initially proposed, it creates incentive structures for companies to adopt cleaner technologies.
“This represents a shift from confrontation to coordination,” explains Dr. Monica Gattinger, Chair of Positive Energy at the University of Ottawa. “Previous attempts at national energy strategies often faltered because they tried to impose uniform approaches across vastly different regional contexts.”
When I visited Fort Saskatchewan last month, construction was already underway on what will become one of Canada’s largest carbon capture facilities. The Pathways Alliance project, representing major oilsands producers, plans to invest $16.5 billion in carbon capture infrastructure that could reduce emissions by 10 million tonnes annually by 2030.
James Gunning, a pipefitter working on the project, offered his perspective as we toured the massive construction site. “I’ve been in oil and gas for twenty years. Five years ago, I wouldn’t have believed I’d be building something like this,” he said, gesturing toward the sprawling foundation work. “But my kids keep asking me what we’re doing about climate change. This feels like an answer I can give them.”
The framework doesn’t satisfy everyone. Environmental organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation have expressed concern that the agreement lacks specific emissions reduction targets. Meanwhile, some industry associations worry about the economic feasibility of rapid technological transitions.
“We’re still analyzing the details,” says Catherine McKenna, former environment minister and now chair of the UN High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments. “The challenge will be ensuring this framework has enough teeth to drive real emissions reductions while providing the certainty investors need.”
Indigenous participation represents another crucial dimension of the strategy. The MOU specifically mentions creating pathways for Indigenous equity ownership in major projects—something First Nations across the country have increasingly demanded.
During my reporting in northeastern British Columbia last year, I spent time with members of the Blueberry River First Nations, who had recently won a precedent-setting court case establishing their right to limit industrial development on their traditional territory. Chief Judy Desjarlais told me then, “We’re not against development, but we need to be partners in how it happens and beneficiaries of what comes from our land.”
The new framework appears to acknowledge this reality, though implementation details remain vague.
Energy economists point to another potential benefit: regulatory certainty. Canada’s reputation for lengthy, unpredictable approval processes has deterred investment in recent years. The Business Council of Canada estimates that uncertain regulatory environments have contributed to over $100 billion in deferred or cancelled energy projects since 2015.
“What businesses need most is clarity,” explains Martha Hall Findlay, president of the Canada West Foundation. “This framework might finally provide that, allowing companies to make long-term investment decisions with greater confidence.”
As Canada works to position itself in a rapidly evolving global energy landscape, this new approach could help the country leverage its significant resources—both fossil and renewable—while navigating the complex transition toward lower emissions.
When I left the signing ceremony, I found myself thinking about a conversation I had with a young climate activist in Vancouver last month. “We don’t have time for half measures,” she had told me, her voice tense with urgency. Whether this new framework represents meaningful progress or another delayed response to the climate crisis remains to be seen.
What’s clear is that Canada’s energy future will be shaped by our ability to move beyond entrenched positions and find pathways that acknowledge both economic realities and environmental imperatives. This memorandum may represent a first step toward that difficult balance.
