Max Fawcett questions Canada’s energy superpower strategy
October 2, 2026 | Economy, Electrification, Canada
Canada’s energy superpower ambitions need a tougher test than the volume of oil and gas the country can export, the National Observer columnist argues. The real questions are whether those exports will earn an adequate return and how Canada will compete as energy technology changes.
In an Energi Media interview with Markham Hislop, Max Fawcett challenged the assumption that more fossil fuel production necessarily translates into greater economic power.
“It’s pretty hard to exert power as a price taker,” he said.
Fawcett supports producing and exporting Canadian energy when buyers will pay fair prices. His criticism centres on investment decisions built around expectations that he believes no longer reflect the direction of global markets.
China changes the competition
Fawcett pointed to China as his example of an emerging energy superpower. Its influence, he argued, comes from exporting electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels and other technologies that change how customers produce and consume energy.
That challenges a familiar Canadian argument: developing countries need more energy, so their demand for Canadian oil and gas must keep growing.
Fawcett said those countries have their own economic priorities and can adopt newer technologies without repeating the development path followed by wealthy fossil fuel consumers. He compared that possibility with countries moving directly to mobile phones rather than building extensive landline networks.
The pipeline needs paying customers
The proposed Pacific Link oil pipeline brought the discussion back to investment risk. Fawcett questioned whether producers would finance enough additional production to justify another major export route.
He described a scenario in which slowing oil demand pushes producers to compete more aggressively for market share. Lower prices could then weaken the economics of expensive new Canadian projects.
That was a downside scenario, rather than a certainty. Fawcett acknowledged the difficulty of predicting oil prices, but argued that political debate gives insufficient attention to the consequences of declining demand.
Continued oil consumption alone does not resolve the investment question, he said. The price customers pay matters for future Canadian producers.
“The question is at what price?” he asked.
Electricity supply is only part of the task
Both journalists argued that expanding electricity production must be accompanied by greater adoption of electric technologies in homes, transport and businesses.
Fawcett favoured policies that make those technologies cheaper and easier to obtain. He argued that rewarding consumers for adopting them offers stronger political prospects than penalizing fossil fuel use.
Hislop agreed with the broad direction but questioned whether federal and provincial implementation was ambitious enough to deliver the promised transformation.
Fawcett was more optimistic about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s approach. He suggested modest public targets could be exceeded if policy improved affordability and competition.
He also argued that the government’s response must be judged against competing pressures, particularly relations with the United States and the protection of Canadian sovereignty. Closer cooperation with Europe could create opportunities for electrification, he said.
The disagreement was about delivery and political priorities. Both saw a need to examine the markets Canada hopes to serve and the technologies reshaping them. For Fawcett, an energy superpower strategy requires more than confidence that somebody will buy additional Canadian barrels.