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

Surgery Denied. Death Approved.

Economy / 6 hours ago

Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada

Business / 6 hours ago

Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’

Business

Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China

Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.

An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.

Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.

The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”

In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”

The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”

The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.

Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.

“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.

The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.

Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”

The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.

Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past  admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”

China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

By Christina Maas

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”

They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.

The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.

It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.

The first target is Elon Musk’s X, and the list of alleged violations look less like user safety concerns and more like a blueprint for controlling who gets heard, who gets trusted, and who gets to talk back.

The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.

None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.

Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.

The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.

The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.

Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.

Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.

Become a supporter here.

However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.

The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.

Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.

Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.

Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.

The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.

The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.

They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.

Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.

The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.

The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.

The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.

That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.

The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”

That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.

Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.

TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.

The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.

It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.

In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.

And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.

Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help

With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.

If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.

Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.

You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.

Please become a supporter today.

> Become a Supporter <

Thank you for your support.