Talk:Energy policy of Canada

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Governments High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. Energy Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)~

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/inter/publications/peo_e.html

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]