Canadian natural resource minister’s wife invests in oil stocks as gov’t attacks industry

Records show Tara Wilkinson’s stock purchases include ‘fossil fuel’ producers targeted for eventual elimination by the Liberal government.

The wife of Canadian Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson bought oil and gas company stocks, records show, at the same time the federal Liberal government has been attacking the industry in a bid to curb so-called “fossil fuel” use and “fight against climate change.”

According to records as per a recent Blacklock’s Reporter report, Wilkinson’s wife, Tara, amped up her trading in oil and gas stocks last year in Enbridge Incorporated and Shell PLC. The records were found filings under Canada’s Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

Records show Mrs. Wilkinson also has shares in the globalists linked BlackRock Inc., Amazon, and Finning International Inc., the military-industrial complex linked to Lockheed Martin Corporation, along with COVID jab promoting Pfizer and 3M Company. She also holds stock in Royal Bank and Toronto Dominion Bank.

As early as December, Wilkinson boasted that “Canada became the first oil and gas producer in the world to put a cap on oil and gas emissions.”

He also has claimed that he is looking out for his family’s future by promoting federal climate programs.

Indeed, in 2021, he said he would “honour the commitments we made to our children that we’re going to leave them something that is a workable and sustainable world,” claiming “climate change” is the “existential issue of our time.”

He also claimed, despite his wife and by extension family profiting off oil and gas companies, that “we are on a trajectory to reducing to net zero by 2050” and that “it is important in our fight against climate change.”

Other current and former Liberal cabinet ministers also have oil and gas stocks, such as former Addictions Minister Carolyn Bennett, former Attorney General David Lametti and current Veterans Affairs Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor.

Oil and gas companies have been racking in high profits due to both a high demand for oil and gas and higher oil prices.

The federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau since 2015 has pushed a radical environmental agenda similar to the agendas being pushed the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations “Sustainable Development Goals.”

Late last year, the Trudeau government forged ahead with many policies that if they come to full fruition will destroy Canada’s oil and gas industry, which provides jobs to thousands and is important in Alberta and Saskatchewan.

At COP28 held late last year, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault unveiled a plan to slash oil and gas emissions by 35% to 38% below 2019 levels. He claimed that it is important to reach “carbon neutrality in Canada by 2050.”

At COP28, he announced a new Liberal federal government climate policy that aims to incentivize beef cattle ranchers to reduce how much gas their cows emit by giving them feed additives.

A recent near power blackout in Alberta due to the failure of wind and solar power, however, highlights how so-called sustainable wind and solar power, which the Trudeau government heavily promotes, are not a good fit for Canada’s cold climate.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has blasted Guilbeault as a “menace” for going after her province and the oil and gas industry in general and vowed to fight him with every tool available to her government.

The Trudeau government has also pledged to mandate that all new cars and trucks by 2035 be electric, which would in effect ban the sale of new gasoline- or diesel-only powered vehicles after that year.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

A June 2017 peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician confirmed that most of the recent global warming data have been “fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening.”

There have been two recent court rulings that have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws, however.

The most recent was the Federal Court of Canada on November 16 overturned the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”

The second ruling comes after Canada’s Supreme Court recently sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Trudeau’s law, C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. The decision returned authority over the pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.

The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the recent rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.

Related Topics:#AnthonyMurdoch #LifeSiteNews #NaturalResourcesMinisterJonathanWilkinson #OilAndGasStocks

Up Next

Bureaucratic shuffle not enough to fix health care in Alberta

Don't Miss

Federal government cranked up spending up but Canadians are worse off

Todayville

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

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 9 hours ago

Canada Needs a Mandatory National Service

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Alberta introduces bill allowing province to reject international agreements

Economy

Top Scientists Deliberately Misrepresented Sea Level Rise For Years

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From Michael Shellenberger

Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has claimed that human-caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid-19th Century, and thus none showing human-created emissions caused an acceleration in recent decades.

This does not mean that climate change isn’t happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human-caused climate change.

Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years, deceiving the public.

In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide-gauge data, which is the only real-world data that goes back long enough, to the mid-19th Century, that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated, or remained steady. Since then, I exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world’s leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, and heard back from IPCC, NASA, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I learned shocked me.

For years, the world’s top scientists have known that they cannot prove there has been an acceleration of sea level rise, and yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into how the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers, and the wider public for so long.

You might think this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real-world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention-grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has, since the 1990s, been the main justification for apocalyptic climate claims, and past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show that scientists were deliberately misleading.

The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations.

Not only can I prove that the real-world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration, I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented their research, and how they did it, thanks to my on-the-record email conversation with Kopp of Rutgers….

Please subscribe now to support Public’s award-winning investigative reporting, to read the whole article, and watch the full video!

Full version: x.com/shellenberger/

Scientists for years said they had proof that climate change was accelerating sea level rise. But that's not what the evidence shows. They knew the truth and misled the public. And now I have a long email exchange with a top scientist that shows how they did it. Massive scandal. pic.twitter.com/MNIX1025Fe

— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) October 24, 2025

Alberta

B.C. would benefit from new pipeline but bad policy stands in the way

Published on October 25, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.