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

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Agriculture / 54 mins ago

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Bloodlust: Worshipping Policies While Ignoring Science

Energy / 3 hours ago

Thawing the freeze on oil and gas development in Treaty 8 territory

Business

What Pelosi “earned” after 37 years in power will shock you

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Nancy Pelosi isn’t just walking away from Congress — she’s cashing out of one of the most profitable careers ever built inside it. According to an investigation by the New York Post, the former House Speaker and her husband, venture capitalist Paul Pelosi, turned a modest stock portfolio worth under $800,000 into at least $130 million over her 37 years in office — a staggering 16,900% return that would make even Wall Street’s best blush.

The 85-year-old California Democrat — hailed as the first woman to wield the Speaker’s gavel and infamous for her uncanny market timing — announced this week she will retire when her term ends in January 2027. The Post reported that when Pelosi first entered Congress in 1987, her financial disclosure showed holdings in just a dozen stocks, including Citibank, worth between $610,000 and $785,000. Today, the Pelosis’ net worth is estimated around $280 million — built on trades that have consistently outperformed the Dow, the S&P 500, and even top hedge funds.

The Post found that while the Dow rose roughly 2,300% over those decades, the Pelosis’ reported returns soared nearly seven times higher, averaging 14.5% a year — double the long-term market average. In 2024 alone, their portfolio reportedly gained 54%, more than twice the S&P’s 25% and better than every major hedge fund tracked by Bloomberg.

Pelosi’s latest financial disclosure shows holdings in some two dozen individual stocks, including millions invested in Apple, Nvidia, Salesforce, Netflix, and Palo Alto Networks. Apple remains their single largest position, valued between $25 million and $50 million. The couple also owns a Napa Valley winery worth up to $25 million, a Bay Area restaurant, commercial real estate, and a political data and consulting firm. Their home in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights is valued around $8.7 million, and they maintain a Georgetown townhouse bought in 1999 for $650,000.

The report comes as bipartisan calls grow to ban lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks — a move critics say is long overdue. “What I’ll miss most is how she trades,” said Dan Weiskopf, portfolio manager of an ETF that tracks congressional investments known as “NANC.” He described Pelosi’s trading as “high conviction and aggressive,” noting her frequent use of leveraged options trades. “You only do that if you’ve got confidence — or information,” Weiskopf told the Post.

Among her most striking trades was a late-2023 move that allowed the Pelosis to buy 50,000 shares of Nvidia at just $12 each — less than a tenth of the market price. The $2.4 million investment is now worth more than $7 million. “She’s buying deep in the money and putting up a lot of money doing it,” Weiskopf said. “We don’t see a lot of flip-flopping on her trading activity.”

Republicans blasted Pelosi’s record as proof of Washington’s double standard. “Nancy Pelosi’s true legacy is becoming the most successful insider trader in American history,” said RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels. “If anyone else had turned $785,000 into $133 million with better returns than Warren Buffett, they’d be retiring behind bars.”

Business

Ottawa should stop using misleading debt measure to justify deficits

Published on November 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Based on the rhetoric, the Carney government’s first budget was a “transformative” new plan that will meet and overcome the “generational” challenges facing Canada. Of course, in reality this budget is nothing new, and delivers the same approach to fiscal and economic policy that has been tried and failed for the last decade.

First, let’s dispel the idea that the Carney government plans to manage its finances any differently than its predecessor. According to the budget, the Carney government plans to spend more, borrow more, and accumulate more debt than the Trudeau government had planned. Keep in mind, the Trudeau government was known for its recklessly high spending, borrowing and debt accumulation.

While the Carney government has tried to use different rhetoric and a new accounting framework to obscure this continued fiscal mismanagement, it’s also relied on an overused and misleading talking point about Canada’s debt as justification for higher spending and continued deficits. The talking point goes something like, “Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7” and this “strong fiscal position” gives the government the “space” to spend more and run larger deficits.

Technically, the government is correct—Canada’s net debt (total debt minus financial assets) is the lowest among G7 countries (which include France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) when measured as a share of the overall economy (GDP). The latest estimates put Canada’s net debt at 13 per cent of GDP, while net debt in the next lowest country (Germany) is 49 per cent of GDP.

But here’s the problem. This measure assumes Canada can use all of its financial assets to offset debt—which is not the case.

When economists measure Canada’s net debt, they include the assets of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which were valued at a combined $890 billion as of mid-2025. But obviously Canada cannot use CPP and QPP assets to pay off government debt without compromising the benefits of current and future pensioners. And we’re one of the only industrialized countries where pension assets are accounted in such a way that it reduces net debt. Simply put, by falsely assuming CPP and QPP assets could pay off debt, Canada appears to have a stronger fiscal position than is actually the case.

A more accurate measure of Canada’s indebtedness is to look at the total level of debt.

Based on the latest estimates, Canada’s total debt (as a share of the economy) ranked 5th-highest among G7 countries at 113 per cent of GDP. That’s higher than the total debt burden in the U.K. (103 per cent) and Germany (64 per cent), and close behind France (117 per cent). And over the last decade Canada’s total debt burden has grown faster than any other G7 country, rising by 25 percentage points. Next closest, France, grew by 17 percentage points. Keep in mind, G7 countries are already among the most indebted, and continue to take on some of the most debt, in the industrialized world.

In other words, looking at Canada’s total debt burden reveals a much weaker fiscal position than the government claims, and one that will likely only get worse under the Carney government.

Prior to the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised Canadians he will “always be straight about the challenges we face and the choices that we must make.” If he wants to keep that promise, his government must stop using a misleading measure of Canada’s indebtedness to justify high spending and persistent deficits.