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

Canada’s MAiD (State Sanctioned Murder) Report Just Dropped

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

A Democracy That Can’t Take A Joke Won’t Tolerate Dissent

MAiD / 4 hours ago

Health Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide

Business

Canada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast

Published on December 2, 2025

Todayville

Prince Rupert Port Authority CEO Shaun Stevenson. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

A strategic gateway to the world

Tucked into the north coast of B.C. is the deepest natural harbour in North America and the port with the shortest travel times to Asia.

With growing capacity for exports including agricultural products, lumber, plastic pellets, propane and butane, it’s no wonder the Port of Prince Rupert often comes up as a potential new global gateway for oil from Alberta, said CEO Shaun Stevenson.

Thanks to its location and natural advantages, the port can efficiently move a wide range of commodities, he said.

That could include oil, if not for the federal tanker ban in northern B.C.’s coastal waters.

The Port of Prince Rupert on the north coast of British Columbia. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

“Notwithstanding the moratorium that was put in place, when you look at the attributes of the Port of Prince Rupert, there’s arguably no safer place in Canada to do it,” Stevenson said.

“I think that speaks to the need to build trust and confidence that it can be done safely, with protection of environmental risks. You can’t talk about the economic opportunity before you address safety and environmental protection.”

Safe Transit at Prince Rupert

About a 16-hour drive from Vancouver, the Port of Prince Rupert’s terminals are one to two sailing days closer to Asia than other West Coast ports.

The entrance to the inner harbour is wider than the length of three Canadian football fields.

The water is 35 metres deep — about the height of a 10-storey building — compared to 22 metres at Los Angeles and 16 metres at Seattle.

Shipmasters spend two hours navigating into the port with local pilot guides, compared to four hours at Vancouver and eight at Seattle.

“We’ve got wide open, very simple shipping lanes. It’s not moving through complex navigational channels into the site,” Stevenson said.

A Port on the Rise

The Prince Rupert Port Authority says it has entered a new era of expansion, strengthening Canada’s economic security.

The port estimates it anchors about $60 billion of Canada’s annual global trade today. Even without adding oil exports, Stevenson said that figure could grow to $100 billion.

“We need better access to the huge and growing Asian market,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Prince Rupert seems purpose-built for that.”

Roughly $3 billion in new infrastructure is already taking shape, including the $750 million rail-to-container CANXPORT transloading complex for bulk commodities like specialty agricultural products, lumber and plastic pellets.

The Ridley Island Propane Export Terminal, Canada’s first marine propane export terminal, started shipping in May 2019. Photo courtesy AltaGas Ltd.

Canadian Propane Goes Global

A centrepiece of new development is the $1.35-billion Ridley Energy Export Facility — the port’s third propane terminal since 2019.

“Prince Rupert is already emerging as a globally significant gateway for propane exports to Asia,” Exner-Pirot said.

Thanks to shipments from Prince Rupert, Canadian propane – primarily from Alberta – has gone global, no longer confined to U.S. markets.

More than 45 per cent of Canada’s propane exports now reach destinations outside the United States, according to the Canada Energy Regulator.

“Twenty-five per cent of Japan’s propane imports come through Prince Rupert, and just shy of 15 per cent of Korea’s imports. It’s created a lift on every barrel produced in Western Canada,” Stevenson said.

“When we look at natural gas liquids, propane and butane, we think there’s an opportunity for Canada via Prince Rupert becoming the trading benchmark for the Asia-Pacific region.”

That would give Canadian production an enduring competitive advantage when serving key markets in Asia, he said.

Deep Connection to Alberta

The Port of Prince Rupert has been a key export hub for Alberta commodities for more than four decades.

Through the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the province invested $134 million — roughly half the total cost — to build the Prince Rupert Grain Terminal, which opened in 1985.

The largest grain terminal on the West Coast, it primarily handles wheat, barley, and canola from the prairies.

The Prince Rupert Grain Terminal. Photo courtesy Prince Rupert Port Authority

Today, the connection to Alberta remains strong.

In 2022, $3.8 billion worth of Alberta exports — mainly propane, agricultural products and wood pulp — were shipped through the Port of Prince Rupert, according to the province’s Ministry of Transportation and Economic Corridors.

In 2024, Alberta awarded a $250,000 grant to the Prince Rupert Port Authority to lead discussions on expanding transportation links with the province’s Industrial Heartland region near Edmonton.

Handling Some of the World’s Biggest Vessels

The Port of Prince Rupert could safely handle oil tankers, including Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs), Stevenson said.

“We would have the capacity both in water depth and access and egress to the port that could handle Aframax, Suezmax and even VLCCs,” he said.

“We don’t have terminal capacity to handle oil at this point, but there’s certainly terminal capacities within the port complex that could be either expanded or diversified in their capability.”

Market Access Lessons From TMX

Like propane, Canada’s oil exports have gained traction in Asia, thanks to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline and the Westridge Marine Terminal near Vancouver — about 1,600 kilometres south of Prince Rupert, where there is no oil tanker ban.

The Trans Mountain expansion project included the largest expansion of ocean oil spill response in Canadian history, doubling capacity of the West Coast Marine Response Corporation.

The K.J. Gardner is the largest-ever spill response vessel in Canada. Photo courtesy Western Canada Marine Response Corporation

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) reports that Canadian oil exports to Asia more than tripled after the expanded pipeline and terminal went into service in May 2024.

As a result, the price for Canadian oil has gone up.

The gap between Western Canadian Select (WCS) and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) has narrowed to about $12 per barrel this year, compared to $19 per barrel in 2023, according to GLJ Petroleum Consultants.

Each additional dollar earned per barrel adds about $280 million in annual government royalties and tax revenues, according to economist Peter Tertzakian.

The Road Ahead

There are likely several potential sites for a new West Coast oil terminal, Stevenson said.

“A pipeline is going to find its way to tidewater based upon the safest and most efficient route,” he said.

“The terminal part is relatively straightforward, whether it’s in Prince Rupert or somewhere else.”

Under Canada’s Marine Act, the Port of Prince Rupert’s mandate is to enable trade, Stevenson said.

“If Canada’s trade objectives include moving oil off the West Coast, we’re here to enable it, presuming that the project has a mandate,” he said.

“If we see the basis of a project like this, we would ensure that it’s done to the best possible standard.”

Business

Ottawa’s gun ‘buyback’ program will cost billions—and for no good reason

Published on December 2, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Gary Mauser

The government told Cape Bretoners they had two weeks to surrender their firearms to qualify for reimbursement or “buyback.” The pilot project netted a grand total of 22 firearms.

Five years after then-prime minister Justin Trudeau banned more than 100,000 types of so-called “assault-style firearms,” the federal government recently made the first attempt to force Canadians to surrender these firearms.

It didn’t go well.

The police chief in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, volunteered to run a pilot “buyback” project, which began last month. The government told Cape Bretoners they had two weeks to surrender their firearms to qualify for reimbursement or “buyback.” The pilot project netted a grand total of 22 firearms.

This failure should surprise no one. Back in 2018, a survey of “stakeholders” warned the government that firearms owners wouldn’t support such a gun ban. According to Prime Minister Carney’s own Privy Council Office the “program faces a risk of non-compliance.” And federal Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree was recently recorded admitting that the “buyback” is a partisan maneuver, and if it were up to him, he’d scrap it. What’s surprising is Ottawa’s persistence, particularly given the change in the government and the opportunity to discard ineffective policies.

So what’s really going on here?

One thing is for certain—this program is not, and never has been, about public safety. According to a report from the federal Department of Justice, almost all guns used in crimes in Canada, including in big cities such as Toronto, are possessed illegally by criminals, with many smuggled in from the United States. And according to Ontario’s solicitor general, more than 90 per cent of guns used in crimes in the province are illegally imported from the U.S. Obviously, the “buyback” program will have no effect on these guns possessed illegally by criminals.

Moreover, Canadian firearms owners are exceptionally law-abiding and less likely to commit murder than other Canadians. That also should not be surprising. To own a firearm in Canada, you must obtain a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) from the RCMP after initial vetting and daily monitoring for possible criminal activity. Between 2000 and 2020, an average of 12 PAL-holders per year were accused of homicide, out of approximately two million PAL-holders. During that same 10-year period, the PAL-holder firearms homicide rate was 0.63 (per 100,000 PAL-holders) compared to 0.72 (per 100,000 adult Canadians)—that’s 14 per cent higher than the rate for PAL-holders.

In other words, neither the so-called “assault-style firearms” nor their owners pose a threat to the public.

And the government’s own actions belie its claims. If these firearms are such a threat to Canadians, why slow-roll the “buyback” program? If inaction increased the likelihood of criminality by law-abiding firearms owners, why wait five years before launching a pilot program in a small community such as Cape Breton? And why continue to extend the amnesty period for another year, which the government did last month at the same time its pilot project netted a mere 22 firearms?

To ask those questions is to answer them.

Another question—how much will the “buyback” program cost taxpayers?

The government continues to block any attempt to disclose the full financial costs (although the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has launched a lawsuit to try to force the government to honour its Access to Information Act request). But back in 2020 the Trudeau government said it would cost $200 million to compensate firearms owners (although the Parliamentary Budget Officer said compensation costs could reach $756 million). By 2024, the program had spent $67.2 million—remember, that’s before it collected a single gun. The government recently said the program’s administrative costs (safe storage, destruction of hundreds of thousands of firearms, etc.) would reach an estimated $1.8 billion. And according to Carney’s first budget released in November, his government will spend $364 million on the program this fiscal year—at a time of massive federal deficits and debt.

This is reminiscent of the Chretien government’s gun registry fiasco, which wound up costing more than $2 billion even after then-justice minister Allan Rock promised the registry program would “almost break even” after an $85 million initial cost. The Harper government finally scrapped the registry in 2012.

As the Carney government clings to the policies of its predecessor, Canadians should understand the true nature of Ottawa’s gun “buyback” program and its costs.