Connect with us

Energy

Canada could have been an energy superpower. Instead we became a bystander

Published

2 years ago

15 minute read

This article was originally published in a collected volume, Canada’s Governance Crisis, which outlines Canada’s policy paralysis across a wide range of government priorities. Read the full paper here.

From the MacDonald-Laurier Institute

By Heather Exner-Pirot

Government has imposed a series of regulatory burdens on the energy industry, creating confusion, inefficiency, and expense

Oil arguably remains the most important commodity in the world today. It paved the way for the industrialization and globalization trends of the post-World War II era, a period that saw the fastest human population growth and largest reduction in extreme poverty ever. Its energy density, transportability, storability, and availability have made oil the world’s greatest source of energy, used in every corner of the globe.

There are geopolitical implications inherent in a commodity of such significance and volume. The contemporary histories of Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq are intertwined with their roles as major oil producers, roles that they have used to advance their (often illiberal) interests on the world stage. It is fair to ask why Canada has never seen fit to advance its own values and interests through its vast energy reserves. It is easy to conclude that its reluctance to do so has been a major policy failure.

Canada has been blessed with the world’s third largest reserves of oil, the vast majority of which are in the oil sands of northern Alberta, although there is ample conventional oil across Western Canada and offshore Newfoundland and Labrador as well. The oil sands contain 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, of which just under 10 percent, or 165 billion barrels, are technically and economically recoverable with today’s technology. Canada currently extracts over 1 billion barrels of that oil each year.

The technology necessary to turn the oil sands into bitumen that could then be exported profitably really took off in the early 2000s. Buoyed by optimism of its potential, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper pronounced in July 2006 that Canada would soon be an “energy superproducer.” A surge of investment came to the oil sands during the commodity supercycle of 2000-2014, which saw oil peak at a price of $147/barrel in 2008. For a few good years, average oil prices sat just below $100 a barrel. Alberta was booming until it crashed.

Two things happened that made Harper’s prediction fall apart. The first was the shale revolution – the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that made oil from the vast shale reserves in the United States economical to recover. Until then, the US had been the world’s biggest energy importer. In 2008 it was producing just 5 million barrels of crude oil a day, and had to import 10 million barrels a day to meet its ravenous need. Shale changed that, and the US is now the world’s biggest oil producer, expecting to hit a production level of 12.4 million barrels a day in 2023.

For producers extracting oil from the oil sands, the shale revolution was a terrible outcome. Just as new major oil sands projects were coming online and were producing a couple of million barrels a day, our only oil customer was becoming energy self-sufficient.

Because the United States was such a reliable and thirsty oil consumer, it never made sense for Canada to export its oil to any other nation, and the country never built the pipeline or export terminal infrastructure to do so. Our southern neighbour wanted all we produced. But the cheap shale oil that flooded North America in the 2010s made that dependence a huge mistake as other markets would have proven to be more profitable.

If shale oil took a hatchet to the Canadian oil industry, the election of the Liberals in 2015 brought on its death by a thousand cuts. For the last eight years, federal policies have incrementally and cumulatively damaged the domestic oil and gas sector. With the benefit of hindsight in 2023, it is obvious that this has had major consequences for global energy security, as well as opportunity costs for Canadian foreign policy.

Once the shale revolution began in earnest, the urgency in the sector to be able to export oil to any other market than the United States led to proposals for the Northern Gateway, Energy East, and TMX pipelines. Opposition from Quebec and BC killed Energy East and Northern Gateway, respectively. The saga of TMX may finally end this year, as it is expected to go into service in late 2023, billions of dollars over cost and years overdue thanks to regulatory and jurisdictional hurdles.

Because Canada has been stuck selling all of its oil to the United States, it does so at a huge discount, known as a differential. That discount hit a staggering US$46 per barrel difference in October 2018, when WTI (West Texas Intermediate) oil was selling for $57 a barrel, but we could only get $11 for WCS (Western Canada Select). The lack of pipelines and the resulting differential created losses to the Canadian economy of $117 billion between 2011 and 2018, according to Frank McKenna, former Liberal New Brunswick Premier and Ambassador to the United States, and now Deputy Chairman of TD Bank.

The story is not dissimilar with liquefied natural gas (LNG). While both the United States and Canada had virtually no LNG export capacity in 2015, the United States has since grown to be the world’s biggest LNG exporter, helping Europe divest itself of its reliance on Russian gas and making tens of billions of dollars in the process. Canada still exports none, with regulatory uncertainty and slow timelines killing investor interest. In fact, the United States imports Canadian natural gas – which it buys for the lowest prices in the world due to that differential problem – and then resells it to our allies for a premium.

Canada’s inability to build pipelines and export capacity is a major problem on its own. But the federal government has also imposed a series of regulatory burdens and hurdles on the industry, one on top of the other, creating confusion, inefficiency, and expense. It has become known in Alberta as a “stacked pancake” approach.

The first major burden was Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium. In case anyone considered reviving the Northern Gateway project, the Liberal government banned oil tankers from loading anywhere between the northernmost point of Vancouver Island to the BC-Alaska border. That left a pathway only for TMX, which goes through Vancouver, amidst fierce local opposition. I have explained it to my American colleagues this way: imagine if Texas was landlocked, and all its oil exports had to go west through California, but the federal government banned oil tankers from loading anywhere on the Californian coast except through ports in San Francisco. That is what C-48 did in Canada.

Added to Bill C-48 was Bill C-69, known colloquially as the “no new pipelines” bill and now passed as the Impact Assessment Act, which has successfully deterred investment in the sector. It imposes new and often opaque regulatory requirements, such as having to conduct a gender-based analysis before proceeding with new projects to determine how different genders will experience them: “a way of thinking, as opposed to a unique set of prescribed methods,” according to the federal government. It also provides for a veto from the Environment and Climate Change Canada Minister – currently, Steven Guilbeault – on any new in situ oil sands projects or interprovincial or international pipelines, regardless of the regulatory agency’s recommendation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal has determined that the act is unconstitutional, and eight other provinces are joining in its challenge. But so far it is the law of the land, and investors are allergic to it.

Federal carbon pricing, and Alberta’s federally compatible alternative for large emitters, the TIER (Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction) Regulation, was added next, though this regulation makes sense for advancing climate goals. It is the main driver for encouraging emission reductions, and includes charges for excess emissions as well as credits for achieving emissions below benchmark. It may be costly for producers, but from an economic perspective, of all the climate policies carbon pricing is the most efficient.

Industry has committed to their shareholders that they will reduce emissions; their social license and their investment attractiveness depends to some degree on it. The major oil sands companies have put forth a credible plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. One conventional operation in Alberta is already net zero thanks to its use of carbon capture technology. Having a predictable and recognized price on carbon is also providing incentives to a sophisticated carbon tech industry in Canada, which can make money by finding smart ways to sequester and use carbon.

In theory, carbon pricing should succeed in reducing emissions in the most efficient way possible. Yet the federal government keeps adding more policies on top of carbon pricing. The Canadian Clean Fuel Standard, introduced in 2022, mandates that fuel suppliers must lower the “lifecycle intensity” of their fuels, for example by blending them with biofuels, or investing in hydrogen, renewables, and carbon capture. This standard dictates particular policy solutions, causes the consumer price of fuels to increase, facilitates greater reliance on imports of biofuels, and conflicts with some provincial policies. It is also puts new demands on North American refinery capacity, which is already highly constrained.

The newest but perhaps most damaging proposal is for an emissions cap, which seeks to reduce emissions solely from the oil and gas sector by 42 percent by 2030. This target far exceeds what is possible with carbon capture in that time frame, and can only be achieved through a dramatic reduction in production. The emissions cap is an existential threat to Canada’s oil and gas industry, and it comes at a time when our allies are trying, and failing, to wean themselves off of Russian oil. The economic damage to the Canadian economy is hard to overestimate.

Oil demand is growing, and even in the most optimistic forecasts it will continue to grow for another decade before plateauing. Our European and Asian allies are already dangerously reliant on Russia and Middle Eastern states for their oil. American shale production is peaking, and will soon start to decline. Low investment levels in global oil exploration and production, due in part to ESG (environmental, social, and governance) and climate polices, are paving the way for shortages by mid-decade.

An energy crisis is looming. Canada is not too late to be the energy superproducer the democratic world needs in order to prosper and be secure. We need more critical minerals, hydrogen, hydro, and nuclear power. But it is essential that we export globally significant levels of oil and LNG as well, using carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) wherever possible.

Meeting this goal will require a very different approach than the one currently taken by the federal government: it must be an approach that encourages growth and exports even as emissions are reduced. What the government has done instead is deter investment, dampen competitiveness, and hand market share to Russia and OPEC.

Heather Exner-Pirot is Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 4 hours ago

Tent Cities Were Rare Five Years Ago. Now They’re Everywhere

Fraser Institute / 4 hours ago

How to talk about housing at the holiday dinner table

armed forces / 4 hours ago

Remembering Afghanistan and the sacrifices of our military families

Energy

75 per cent of Canadians support the construction of new pipelines to the East Coast and British Columbia

Published on December 25, 2025

By

Support for pipeline projects among Canadians is up compared to last year, show the results of an MEI-Ipsos poll released this week.

“While there has always been a clear majority of Canadians supporting the development of new pipelines, it seems that the trade dispute has helped firm up this support,” says Gabriel Giguère, senior policy analyst at the MEI. “From coast to coast, Canadians appreciate the importance of the energy industry to our prosperity.”

Three-quarters of Canadians support constructing new pipelines to ports in Eastern Canada or British Columbia in order to diversify our export markets for oil and gas.

This proportion is 14 percentage points higher than it was last year, with the “strongly agree” category accounting for almost all of the increase.

For its part, Marinvest Energy’s natural gas pipeline and liquefaction plant project, in Quebec’s North Shore region, is supported by 67 per cent of Quebecers polled, who see it as a way to reduce European dependence on Russian natural gas.

Moreover, 54 per cent of Quebecers now say they support the development of the province’s own oil resources. This represents a six-point increase over last year.

“This year again, we see that this preconceived notion according to which Quebecers oppose energy development is false,” says Mr. Giguère. “Quebecers’ increased support for pipeline projects should signal to politicians that there is social acceptability, whatever certain lobby groups might think.”

It is also the case that seven in ten Canadians (71 per cent) think the approval process for major projects, including environmental assessments, is too long and should be reformed. In Quebec, 63 per cent are of this opinion.

The federal Bill C-5 and Quebec Bill 5 seem to respond to these concerns by trying to accelerate the approval of certain large projects selected by governments.

In July, the MEI recommended a revision of the assessment process in order to make it swift by default instead of creating a way to bypass it as Bill C-5 and Bill 5 do.

“Canadians understand that the burdensome assessment process undermines our prosperity and the creation of good, well-paid jobs,” says Mr. Giguère. “While the recent bills to accelerate projects of national interest are a step in the right direction, it would be better simply to reform the assessment process so that it works, rather than creating a workaround.”

A sample of 1,159 Canadians aged 18 and older were surveyed between November 27 and December 2, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Continue Reading

Energy

The Top News Stories That Shaped Canadian Energy in 2025 and Will Continue to Shape Canadian Energy in 2026

Published on December 24, 2025

By

From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

The times have been excessively interesting. This is especially true for the conventional energy sector where there was much more news served up in 2025 than normal people can comfortably digest in just 12 months.

Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here

The past year provided a few flourishes of good news for supporters of conventional energy. But, for the most part it was a continuation of the disappointment, frustration and uncertainty which characterized the Justin Trudeau years.

Unfortunately, there’s a chance that disappointment and frustration will follow us into 2026.

Yet, the Festive Season demands all glasses be at least half full when we ring in the New Year. And, for all we know, the inveterate optimists among us could actually turn out to be right on a few counts.

The Alberta-Ottawa Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may actually result in a pipeline being launched. And maybe the bit in the MOU about the cost of CO2 emissions rising to $130 per tonne will turn out to be just a typo. The Carney government could be forced to call an election in 2026. And Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, who unequivocally support expansion of conventional energy production and exports, could win it.

If the pipeline problem is satisfactorily resolved, we can then return to time honoured grievances we’ve put on the back burner, such as equalization and Canada’s catch and release legal system.

Let’s drink to that.

In keeping with the traditions of news publications at year-end, here is a list of the top 2025 news stories and events affecting Canada’s oil and gas industries in Canada.

The nine news items we came up with are presented below, listed in chronological order.  You, the reader, may have some additional ones of your own.

1. Goodbye Justin Trudeau, You Will Not Be Missed

The arrogant poser, with the colourful socks, who acted like virtue oozed from every pore of his body is now persona non grata. Six days into 2025 Justin Trudeau announced his intention to resign as prime minister and member of parliament. It was one of the most joyous occasions of the year—heartily celebrated by many fans of the oil and gas industries.

For nine long years, the Trudeau government imposed environmental and climate change legislation intended to reduce expansion of conventional energy production and consumption. The Trudeau government’s actions have been be characterized as efforts designed to cancel the future of Canada’s conventional energy sector. Trudeau, his cabinet and caucus will forever be remembered for measures such as Bill C-48/the Tanker Ban and C-69/the No More Pipelines Bill—legislation that will live in infamy.

Danielle Smith probably said it best. “Pierre Trudeau only wanted to steal our oil, Justin Trudeau wanted to kill the industry.”

2. Trump and the Trade War

Donald Trump and his tariff war have had some important, positive effects in Canada. They exposed the vulnerabilities associated with relying on a single country to purchase approximately 93% of our oil exports. The critical importance of increasing access to new non-US customers for Canadian oil and natural gas was made crystal clear. Several polls taken over the course of 2025 indicated a majority of Canadians now support the construction of new oil and gas pipelines to one or more of Canada’s coasts.

Oil is Canada’s single most important export commodity.  And, a growing number of people appreciate handcuffing the conventional energy sector and limiting export options is economic madness; especially when the country is experiencing economic distress and the fiscal crisis created by Liberal Ottawa.

One of the unfortunate outcomes of the new tariffs Trump imposed on Canada is that in January they breathed new life into the political corpse of the Liberal party. Amazingly, this allowed them to elbow their way to an astonishing revival of fortunes and a minority election win on April 28.

3. Premier Danielle Smith’s Nine Bad Laws

Danielle Smith presented Mark Carney with a list of nine demands on March 25, 11 days after he replaced Justin Trudeau as prime minister. The list focused on the fortunes of the conventional energy sector and the barriers to new pipelines. It featured what Smith referred to as “the nine bad laws”—the laws that have to go if Canada is to recover from the economic and fiscal damage done during the Justin Trudeau years.

According to Smith, Liberal policies had adversely impacted the prosperity of Alberta and the rest of Canada and driven away billions in new capital investments.

The nine bad laws

  • Removal of the federal laws, regulations and policies that restrict access to oil and gas corridors to the East, West and North coasts.
  • Repeal Bill C-69
  • Cancel Bill C-48
  • Rescind the oil and gas emissions cap
  • Drop the clean electricity regulations
  • Dump the industrial carbon tax
  • End the net zero car sales mandate, including the ban on gas and diesel car sales by 2035
  • Eliminate the ban on single use plastics
  • Remove the restrictions on the free speech of conventional energy companies

The demands have been described as the things Albertans require to believe Confederation can accommodate their interests. They represent a set of issues which if not promptly addressed will continue to harm the economy and create a national unity crisis.

The Ottawa-Alberta MOU signed on November 27 proposes to eliminate or adjust several of the nine bad laws.

4. Canada’s Federal Election

 

Early in January of 2025 it finally looked like the stars had aligned in favour of the oil and gas community. Justin Trudeau was a terminally wounded lame duck, having announced his intention to resign as prime minister. And, it appeared the electoral fortunes of the Liberals were in the toilet.

There was dissention in the Liberal ranks—Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland had resigned the previous month. And, opinion polls taken in December and early January had shown the Conservatives had a commanding lead over the Liberals. Pierre Poilievre and company were heading for a majority. And, they were pledged to support the expansion of oil and gas production and the construction of new export pipelines from Alberta to one or more of Canada’s coasts.

By late January, fear of the Trump tariffs and Canada’s mainstream media had changed the political arithmetic. Canadians embraced a new superhero, Mark Carney. The legacy media extolled his record as an international financial wizard, macroeconomic guru, and leader of prominent institutions.

During the election campaign Carney adopted a duplicitous approach to discussing energy and pipeline policy. He embraced the longstanding Liberal strategy of saying one thing in the West while saying the opposite when talking to Quebecers.

More recently, Carney has been saying one thing to B.C. and oil pipeline opponent, Premier David Eby, and something entirely different to supporters of the oil and gas industries in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Following the defection of three Conservative MPs to the government side of the House the Carney government is just one seat shy of a majority.

5. Bill C-5 Promises Much But Delivers Nothing

The Building Canada Act/Bill C-5 was heralded as the solution to Canada’s failure to get major economic development projects, including oil pipelines, approved and built ever since the Justin Trudeau Liberals formed their first government in 2015. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 20, 2025 with the support of both Liberal and Conservative MPs. The promotional efforts of the government and mainstream media pundits had many people thinking it would deal with many of the issues identified in Danielle Smith’s list of nine bad laws.

The government claimed Bill C-5 would expedite approvals for nation building projects that would help secure Canada’s economic future and diversify export opportunities. The Liberals said they would use every tool at their disposal to get projects promptly approved and completed. Those tools did not include ending the West coast tanker ban or changing Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act.

Bill C-5 turned out to be the most overhyped nothing burger of 2025.

On September 11, Ottawa announced the first five projects which qualified for the approval process established under Bill C-5. A second tranche of six projects was announced on November 13. The common denominator for all eleven projects is that they had all been previously proposed and approved and some were already under construction. In the first five months following the enactment of Bill C-5 there have been no big new investments announced that hadn’t already been announced.

6. LNG Canada Begins Exporting Liquified Natural Gas

David Eby, and the government of British Columbia have vigorously opposed construction of an oil pipeline running from Alberta to Prince Rupert. Pipelines carrying natural gas produced in B.C. to LNG terminals on the West coast are another matter.

Several large and small LNG projects have been approved by B.C. and the federal government. The largest of them, LNG Canada, began shipping liquified natural gas (LNG) from its processing facilities at Kitimat on June 30 this year. By the end of November, 25 cargoes of LNG had been shipped from the new terminal. When all phases of LNG Canada’s $40 billion system are fully operational they will be capable of exporting 3.68 billion feet of B.C. natural gas per day.

Thus far, LNG Canada’s operation is the only large LNG project that is up and running. Proponents of some of the other projects are apparently still looking for additional financing. And, there are concerns about a global LNG supply glut developing. Yet, a global oversupply is hard to envision given growing demand for natural gas in East and South Asia.

One thing is certain, all of B.C.’s currently approved LNG projects have met the criteria required to be announced by the federal government as new developments made possible only by the miracle of Bill C-5.

7. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

There are indeed fans of oil and gas who enthusiastically welcomed the unveiling of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on November 27. There were also some who denounced the deal, and skeptics who remain undecided. If there is a lack of meaningful progress toward building an oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert by mid-2026, the number of Albertans opposed to the MOU can be expected to grow.

Many of the skeptics contend it is yet another example of the Carney government’s unwillingness to clearly and forthrightly endorse a revived version of the Northern Gateway pipeline (a Northern Gateway 2.0).

Yet, Danielle Smith has been reported as saying the MOU addresses several of the demands contained in her list of “nine bad laws”.

The MOU proposes to drop federal clean energy regulations for Alberta, allow carbon capture projects to use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery without penalty, suggests a tanker ban carve out is possible on the northern B.C. coast and, perhaps most importantly, it elevates Northern Gateway 2.0 to the realm of the possible.

Waiting for the agreement between Ottawa and Alberta was frustrating for supporters of fossil fuels who were not privy to the behind closed doors discussions and negotiations which apparently began on or shortly after June 1. Subsequently, Danielle Smith optimistically identified dates when she hoped to announce federal movement on the nine bad laws and an agreement to get Northern Gateway 2.0 launched.

We hoped to hear something concrete by the week of the Calgary Stampede. It turned out there was no big announcement but Smith remained positive regarding discussions. The prime minister offered only highly qualified support for some of Alberta’s demands when speaking publicly.

The next deadline suggested was some time in October. October came and went. We listened for a commitment from the prime minister and got crickets. Smith said she was still fairly confident a deal would be forthcoming, probably by Grey Cup.

The day of the big game came and went and there was still no announcement. The goal posts had apparently been moved again. But wait, just a few days after Saskatchewan’s win on the gridiron, the government news agency, CBC, reported a rumour was going round claiming a deal was close at hand. And so it was.

The wait was exhausting. Here’s hoping the end result was worth it.

8. The “Green Jesus” of Montreal Quits Cabinet

Steven Guilbeault, one of the most politically divisive people to ever serve as a federal minister resigned from the Carney cabinet on November 27—within a few hours of the announcement of the Alberta-Ottawa Memorandum of Understanding.

Guilbeault’s resignation is one of the best signs to date that the MOU is a serious document.

Guilbeault is a high profile environmental activist (some would say fanatic) and climate change alarmist—famous for media stunts like scaling the CN Tower and demonstrating on the roof of Ralph Klein’s house in Edmonton. He became MP for a Montreal riding in the October 2019 federal election. Justin Trudeau appointed him Minister for the Environment and Climate Change in October of 2021 and gave him free rein over policy decisions.

The Trudeau government’s enactment of several of the policies harmful to the conventional energy sector such as Bill C-48/the Tanker Ban and Bill C-69/the No More Pipelines Bill actually occurred before Guilbeault became environment minister. However, under Guilbeault’s watch a series of excessively ambitious regulatory measures inimical to the future of the oil and gas sectors, costly to consumers and economically harmful were implemented.

Guilbeault’s actions as minister imposed added costs on Canadian consumers who were dealing with an escalating cost of living. They contributed to the abysmal showing of the Liberals in party preference polls for most of 2024—as a consequence the Party finally gave Justin Trudeau the boot in January 2025.

Examples of Guilbeault’s environment and climate change policy legacy include:

  • The environment ministry’s announcement of a hard cap on oil and gas emissions in the fall of 2021. This measure would effectively set limits on the growth of natural gas and oil production. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan vehemently opposed these measures as a federal intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility under the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed and declared that the offending sections of Bill C-69/the Impact Assessment Act were unconstitutional—Guilbeault made no effort to amend his regulations.
  • Guilbeault was responsible for the major updating of the consumer carbon tax regulations announced in December of 2021. Those included the plan to increase the level of the tax to $170 for every tonne of CO2 emitted. The carbon tax angered voters already struggling with increases in the cost of living and caused support for the Liberals to tank by December of 2025.
  • Guilbeault introduced regulations limiting the number of gas and diesel fueled vehicles sold by Canadian manufacturers with a total phase out target of 2035. The regulations were published in December 2023. In early 2025, our new prime minister announced he was postponing implementation of the sales reduction target for at least one year. The Guilbeault regulations were largely responsible for Stellantis’ decision to shift thousands of jobs and production to US factories.
  • Guilbeault’s swan song as environment minister was the publication of updated clean electricity standards and regulations limiting the energy sources which can be used to produce electricity without penalties by 2030. The regulations were published by Guilbeault’s department in December of 2024. The Government of Saskatchewan has announced its intention to defy this mandate. It intends to continue using coal to generate electricity for another decade and possibly longer.

When Mark Carney assembled his first cabinet he demoted Guilbeault, moving him from the prestigious environment portfolio to the Department of Canadian Identity and Culture. Incidentally Carney left Jonathan Wilkinson, Guilbeault’s predecessor, as environment minister, out of Cabinet altogether.

9. What’s Old is New Again: Anti-Pipeline Lobbying, Misinformation and Insanity by the Sea

We better fasten our seat belts heading into 2026. Climate change alarmists, their allies in the media and several members of the federal Liberal caucus have already launched their assault on the MOU and prospects for a new oil pipeline to the West coast. Visions of Trans Mountain all over again.

The Complicit Media

In the days leading up to the federal budget, a frantic Elizabeth May falsely claimed Canada was legally bound to meet its net zero and green transition targets under terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. She claimed the Trudeau/Guilbeault anti-oil-and-gas legacy must remain inviolate lest we incur the wrath of the UN—a supposedly terrifying prospect.

In reality the only things the parties to the Paris Agreement bound themselves to was the submission of an outline of their plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to submit an updated version of their plans every five years. No penalties of any sort are provided under the agreement should a country fail to get its homework handed in on time.

The legacy media gave May a free ride on that fabrication—no effort was made to correct her. May was similarly allowed a pass when she claimed oil tankers carrying oil from Prince Rupert would have to cross the most dangerous waters in Canada.

(See the Energy Now column MAY DAY! THE GREEN PARTY’S ELIZABETH MAY HAS IT WRONG: An Alberta to Prince Rupert Oil Pipeline Will Contribute to Greater Global Oil Tanker Safety – Jim Warren ).

Another disturbing example is how the environmental movement and the legacy media have been falsely presenting the Vancouver-based environmental lobby group, Coastal First Nations, as though it is some sort of official representative voice for all First Nations governments from Western B.C. Furthermore, neither environmentalists nor the traditional media acknowledge that many First Nations are actively involved in the oil industry and support the new pipeline proposal.

We can expect to see a lot more flagrant misinformation passing for news in 2026.

Insanity by the Sea

Then we have B.C. premier, David Eby, the poster child for the failure of the Team Canada approach to ensuring Canada successfully navigates the challenges presented by the Trump tariffs. Eby’s sense of team spirit does not extend to allowing neighbouring provinces to export commodities like oil through British Columbia.

No surprise, Mark Carney has proven loathe to publicly criticize Eby for his unCanadian obstruction.

The B.C. government is hostage to the minority of voters who constitute Eby’s base of support—the lunatic fringe of anti-development environmental zealots who back the NDP.

Eby fumes over the possibility of a pipeline being built. Yet he remains mute over bad legislation and hyper-woke courts that threaten the status of non-Indigenous land titles in his province. His priorities are clearly shaped by fear of being removed as NDP leader and/or losing the next provincial election.

Hopes for the election of a sane government are frustrated by division and disarray among B.C. Conservatives.

Steven Guilbeault Will Rise Again

Here’s another troubling prediction for 2026. Steven Guilbeault will take a leadership role in the movement to shred the MOU. Guilbeault and his fellow environmental crusaders intend to force the Liberal government to recant and return to the more rigidly orthodox green agenda Mark Carney supported before becoming prime minister.

It will up to Canadians who truly think “Team Canada” to overcome yet even more challenges in 2026.  In the meantime, investors will continue to take their energy opportunities and money elsewhere.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X