Talk:Energy policy of Canada
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
.svg){kind=link}
could we get some basic numbers added here. total electric production, use, export. production by source; oil production and use; uranium production; wind solar and tidal numbers; biomass output; number of vehicles in canada; average temperatures per province; R factors for houses buildings. etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.77.4 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Reply
This articles repeats lot of information from sector specific articles. If specific article exists, most of details should be included there, and the relevant section of this article should use summary style.Beagel 06:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Reply
I marked a couple sections I thought were not very neutral. I don't believe the word "alas" can be used in a neutral manner. If someone can rewrite these sections that'd be good. --dotDarkCloud (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Reply
- Where is the evidence to say that Petro-canada has done better since privatisation? I don't think there is any way to know whether it's been better for the company. Higher oil prices since 2003 would have benefited it either way. I also have concerns regarding the neutrality of this article. Canking (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Reply
I added content on the Kyoto Accord and created a new page with it, topic above. 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)~
Statistics are available from this publication, but creating tables is a pain.
[edit ]The coal mine pictured in the article is in Wyoming. Does anyone have any pictures of a Canadian coal mine? TastyCakes (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Reply
- Anyone object if I remove the foto of coal mining in Wyoming? Plazak (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Reply
- I have no problem with that. WP:BOLD! Bouchecl (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Reply
This article is much too long. Some sections are off topic. The History of Coal of Canada could be its own article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Reply
This article has a lot of important however not ever fact is referenced with appropriate, reliable references. But those references that do exist are reliable and appear factual. However, a few sources are news articles, which are not reliable or appropriate sources for information. These news articles do have bias tone and the bias is not stated. There is information that is stale-dated. A lot of information that is used is from years prior to 2010. The article is lacking information in regards to Provincial energy strategies and policies. Goldsthm (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2025 and 7 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page . Student editor(s): Agwrld (article contribs ).
— Assignment last updated by Greatkingjeff (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Reply
I removed a stat from the IMF on subsidies. Subsidies should be included but it should be in its own section since estimating subsidy amounts doesn't have an exact definition. What counts depends on who is doing the counting. Is a grant for an energy efficiency upgrade, a subsidy? Is a royalty credit, a subsidy? Is being allowed to pollute the air, a subsidy? Is public financing, a subsidy? This is an interesting topic but it needs its own section to be explored properly not a one-line stat. RedactedSagan (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC) Reply