A tale of two countries – Drill, Baby, Drill vs Cap, Baby, Cap

Analysis of the U.S. Election and the Canadian Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

Monday, November 4, the Canadian federal government announced the long-awaited draft emissions cap for the oil and gas industry.

The next day, the world’s largest economy held an election that resulted in a decisive victory for the position of 47th President of the USA.

With the GOP (Republicans) taking a commanding lead with 53 out of 100 possible Senate seats, and two more still to be confirmed, they have a majority that can help move along their plans for at least the next two years. Rumoured expectations are that they’ll take the House too, which will further solidify President-elect Trump’s mandate.

As part of Trump’s campaign platform, Agenda47, he promised “to bring Americans the lowest-cost energy and electricity on Earth.” The agenda pledged that “to keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy, President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL.”

The platform also states that under his leadership, the US will once again leave the Paris Climate Accords, and he will oppose all Green New Deal policies that impact energy development. He also plans to roll back the Biden administration’s EV mandates and emissions targets, while advocating for low emissions nuclear energy.

It isn’t a guarantee that he will do anything that he says; however, if the past is any indication, we can expect Trump to follow through on his energy and climate promises.

Even though Canada and the USA are on a contiguous land mass, they could not be farther apart in energy and climate ideology.

On the northern side of the border, a day before, Canada’s green avengers of the Liberal cabinet congregated for a press conference to jubilantly announce their emissions cap, which has been studied and determined to be a defacto production cap. CAP, BABY, CAP!

Claims that the new rules go after pollution, not production, should be met with scepticism. If pollution is the problem, there would be blanket emissions caps on all heavy emitting industries and imported oil and gas would be subject to the same requirements, but it is not. I’m not sure how else to read it other than a willful slight with a sledgehammer against the Canadian oil and gas industry.

Especially since Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said that this is a backstop to ensure the Pathways Alliance does what they say they will. I wonder if the Pathways folks feel like they have a giant target on their backs… and fronts?

The hour-long press conference was a lesson in how to deceive with a straight face. Most of the Liberals’ claims have either been discredited or are unsubstantiated as to be meaningless.

Wilkinson, a Rhodes Scholar, calls this cap an “economic opportunity” because he believes that for Canadian oil and gas, climate change is a competitive issue, for both combusted and non-combusted products. Square that circle when no other country on the planet has an emissions cap on its oil and gas industry.

Nonetheless, the Liberals expect production to increase, which is counter to what they say out of the other side of their mouths – that oil and gas demand will peak this year, and we are not going to be using it much longer so we should just shut it all down.

Wilkinson excitedly announced the need for thousands and thousands of workers to build the decarbonization infrastructure of the new energy future. However, the Department of Environment’s Cost-Benefit Analysis Summary contradicts this claim, citing thousands of job losses.

The Study also identifies that the costs from the plan will be borne by Canadians. The Conference Board of Canada expressed similar concerns, but they were dismissed by the politicians on stage.

Edmonton MP and Minister of Employment, Workforce Development, and Official Languages Randy Boissonnault, also known as “The Other Randy” for his ethical mis-steps, put on one of the best shows of the press conference. He speaks so convincingly that you almost believe him. Almost.

He claimed that when he was campaigning last election during the Covid pandemic, the number one topic at the doors was climate change. Edmontonians wanted to talk about climate change over the global pandemic that was disrupting their lives? Yeah, right.

The Other Randy praised Ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson for working with industry on the regulations and promised that Canadian workers will be part of the consultation and final rules. Forgive me for being sceptical.

The Spiderman-like Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said that oil companies have seen record profits, going from $6.6 billion pre-pandemic to $66 billion post-pandemic, and the Liberals want that extra money used on projects they approve of, namely ones that are climate-related.

Guilbault believes this cap is necessary for prosperity and energy security, along with being good for workers and “for good union jobs”. It’s not often talked about, but within the feds’ climate plans is a push for unionizing jobs. It was top-of-mind for the Deputy Minister of Labour when I was part of a delegation to Ottawa last year. She was most interested in learning about how many oil and gas jobs are unionized and showed visible displeasure at finding out that most are not.

The press conference seemed to be more of a one-sided political bun fight, with a disproportionate amount of time spent talking smack about Pierre Poilievre, Premier Danielle Smith, and Premier Scott Moe. Perhaps demonstrating the Liberals’ trepidation about the future since the final regulations will come out late next year and go into effect January 1, 2026, when it’s likely they will be out of office.

With the climate zealots out of power, enforcement may be a challenge. What if companies don’t meet the arbitrary targets and deadlines imposed by the rules? What if companies don’t buy the required credits? A reporter asked, but Guilbeault didn’t give an answer in his response. I guess we will have to wait to see what changes are made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), the enforcement regulations.

Wilkinson said climate change is a “collective action problem” that must be addressed as it is the “existential threat to the human race.” This gives you a sense of how they see things – there is a problem and government is the solution.

Meanwhile, energy policy is a “Day 1 priority” for Trump. As a businessperson, he understands that demand is growing, and limited regulations are the way to develop all forms of energy.

Even if industry can meet the emissions reduction targets – there are a variety of opinions on the proposed rules – it does not mean the regulations should be implemented. Canada’s real per capita GDP is 73 per cent of America’s, so as Canada goes hard on emissions reduction regulations, if investment moves south, that number is not going to improve. Don’t let them tell you otherwise.

Deidra Garyk is the Founder and President of Equipois:ability Advisory, a consulting firm specializing in sustainability solutions. Over 20 years in the Canadian energy sector, Deidra held key roles, where she focused on a broad range of initiatives, from sustainability reporting to fostering collaboration among industry stakeholders through her work in joint venture contracts.

Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and a recognized thought leader. She is passionate about promoting balanced, fact-based discussions on energy policy and sustainability. Through her research, writing, and public speaking, Deidra seeks to advance a more informed and pragmatic dialogue on the future of energy.

Up Next

Former BC Premier John Horgan passes away at 65

Don't Miss

TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance

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

Investigating Biden’s last minute pardons

Business / 6 hours ago

Five key issues—besides Trump’s tariffs—the Carney government should tackle

conflict / 6 hours ago

Inspired by Ukraine, Armed by the U.S., Reinvented by Tech: Taiwan’s New Way of War

Business

Five key issues—besides Trump’s tariffs—the Carney government should tackle

Published on May 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

On Tuesday in Ottawa, Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled his new cabinet, consisting of 28 ministers and 10 secretaries of state. They have their work cut out for them. In addition to President Trump’s trade war, the Carney government must tackle several other critical issues that have persisted since long before Trump was re-elected.

First and foremost, the Carney government should address stagnant living standards for Canadians. From the beginning of 2016 to the end of 2024, per-person GDP—a broad measure of living standards—grew by only 2.5 per cent in Canada compared to 18.7 per cent in the United States (all figures adjusted for inflation). While U.S. tariffs threaten to further reduce living standards in Canada, the marked decline began almost a decade ago.

There’s a similar gloomy story in worker incomes as Canadians continue to fall further behind their American counterparts. According to the latest data, median employment earnings (in Canadian dollars) in all 10 provinces ranked lower than in every U.S. state in 2022—meaning Americans in low-earning states such as Mississippi ($42,430), Louisiana ($43,318) and Alabama ($43,982) typically earned higher incomes than Canadians in the highest-earning province of Alberta ($38,969).

Why is this happening?

Part of the problem is the state of federal finances. Even Prime Minister Carney has criticized the Trudeau government’s approach to spending increases and debt accumulation, which diverts taxpayer dollars away from programs and towards debt interest payments, and burdens younger generations with higher taxes in the future. But unfortunately, according to Carney’s election platform, his government plans to borrow $93.4 billion more over the next four years compared to the Trudeau government’s last spending plan. The prime minister and his new cabinet should rethink this approach before tabling their first budget.

The Carney government should also cut taxes. Canadians in every province face higher combined (federal and provincial) personal income tax (PIT) rates than Americans in virtually every U.S. state across a variety of income levels. Canada’s PIT rates are similarly uncompetitive compared to other advanced countries. High taxes impose a burden on families, but they also make it harder for Canada to attract and retain high-skilled workers (e.g. doctors, engineers), entrepreneurs and investment, which drives economic growth and prosperity.

Finally, the Carney government should meaningfully address Canada’s housing affordability crisis. Housing costs have risen dramatically due to a significant gap between the demand for houses and the supply of housing units. In 2024, construction began on 245,367 new housing units nationwide while the population grew by 951,717 people due in part to one of the highest levels of immigration in Canadian history. This problem has been growing for decades—housing starts per year have remained stuck at essentially the same level they were in the 1970s while annual population growth has more than tripled. If policymakers want to help lower housing costs, they must reduce the imbalance between population growth and housing starts.

For the federal government, that means aligning immigration targets more closely to housing supply and rethinking policies that increase housing demand such as homebuyer tax credits and First Home Savings Accounts. Meanwhile, provincial and local governments should reduce red tape and construction costs to increase supply.

The Carney government has its work cut out for it. Besides U.S. tariffs, Canadians face several critical issues, which have persisted long before Trump was re-elected, and will continue unless something changes.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

Washington Got the Better of Elon Musk

Published on May 14, 2025

Todayville

Christopher F. Rufo

The tech tycoon’s Department of Government Efficiency was prevented from achieving its full reform agenda.

It seems that the postmodern world is a conspiracy against great men. Bureaucracy now favors the firm over the founder, and the culture views those who accumulate too much power with suspicion. The twentieth century taught us to fear such men rather than admire them.

Elon Musk—who has revolutionized payments, automobiles, robotics, rockets, communications, and artificial intelligence—may be the closest thing we have to a “great man” today. He is the nearest analogue to the robber barons of the last century or the space barons of science fiction. Yet even our most accomplished entrepreneur appears no match for the managerial bureaucracy of the American state.

Musk will step down from his position leading the Department of Government Efficiency at the end of May. At the outset, the tech tycoon was ebullient, promising that DOGE would reduce the budget deficit by $2 trillion, modernize Washington, and curb waste, fraud, and abuse. His marketing plan consisted of memes and social media posts. Indeed, the DOGE brand itself was an ironic blend of memes, Bitcoin, and Internet humor.

Three months later, however, Musk is chastened. Though DOGE succeeded in dismantling USAID, modernizing the federal retirement system, and improving the Treasury Department’s payment security, the initiative as a whole has fallen short. Savings, even by DOGE’s fallible math, will be closer to $100 billion than $2 trillion. Washington is marginally more efficient today than it was before DOGE began, but the department failed to overcome the general tendency of governmental inertia.

Musk’s marketing strategy ran into difficulties, too. His Internet-inflected language was too strange for the average citizen. And the Left, as it always does, countered proposed cuts with sob stories and personal narratives, paired with a coordinated character-assassination attempt portraying Musk as a greedy billionaire eager to eliminate essential services and children’s cancer research.

However meretricious these attacks were, they worked. Musk’s popularity has declined rapidly, and the terror campaign against Tesla drew blood: the company’s stock has slumped in 2025—down around 20 percent—and the board has demanded that Musk return to the helm.

But the deeper problem is that DOGE has always been a confused effort. It promised to cut the federal budget by roughly a third; deliver technocratic improvements to make government efficient; and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. As I warned last year, no viable path existed for DOGE to implement these reforms. Further, these promises distracted from what should have been the department’s primary purpose: an ideological purge.

Ironically, this was the one area where DOGE made major progress. In just a few months, the department managed to dismantle one of the most progressive federal agencies, USAID; defund left-wing NGOs, including cutting over $1 billion in grants from the Department of Education; and advance a theory of executive power that enabled the president to slash Washington’s DEI bureaucracy.

Musk also correctly identified the two keys to the kingdom: human resources and payments. DOGE terminated the employment of President Trump’s ideological opponents within the federal workforce and halted payments to the most corrupted institutions, setting the precedent for Trump to withhold funds from the Ivy League universities. At its best, DOGE functioned as a method of targeted de-wokification that forced some activist elements of the Left into recession—a much-needed program, though not exactly what was originally promised.

Ultimately, DOGE succeeded where it could and failed where it could not. Musk’s project expanded presidential power but did not fundamentally change the budget, which still requires congressional approval. Washington’s fiscal crisis is not, at its core, an efficiency problem; it’s a political one. When DOGE was first announced, many Republican congressmen cheered Musk on, declaring, “It’s time for DOGE!” But this was little more than an abdication of responsibility, shifting the burden—and ultimately the blame—onto Musk for Congress’s ongoing failure to take on the politically unpopular task of controlling spending.

With Musk heading back to his companies, it remains to be seen who, if anyone, will take up the mantle of budget reform in Congress. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that Republicans will revert to old habits: promising to balance the budget during campaign season and blowing it up as soon as the legislature convenes.

The end of Musk’s tenure at DOGE reminds us that Washington can get the best even of great men. The fight for fiscal restraint is not over, but the illusion that it can be won through efficiency and memes has been dispelled. Our fate lies in the hands of Congress—and that should make Americans pessimistic.

Subscribe to Christopher F. Rufo.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.