Opinion Piece from Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer

Duane Rolheiser

Published

6 years ago

5 minute read

OP-ED: FIGHTING FOR ENERGY JOBS

I had one of the most inspiring days of my political life this week in Nisku, Alberta.

I was there as an endless line of trucks rolled through town in a show of support for Alberta’s energy sector. The convoy stretched back almost 22 kilometres, with hundreds of men and women making their voices heard loud and clear. Heading to a townhall meeting to talk to these struggling workers, I got out of my car and walked the rest of the way.

It was emotional. There’s a lot of anger, and it’s justified. People have lost jobs. Families have been broken up. The pain is real, but it’s going unaddressed by Justin Trudeau’s government. That’s why so many hardworking Canadians came out with a single message for Justin Trudeau: They don’t want his handouts. They want to go back to work.

I went to Alberta this week to respond to this impassioned plea for help. I went to look these men and women in the eye, and tell them that we’re with them, and we’re fighting for them. Not just Conservatives, but people from across the country that understand how important our energy sector is to Canada’s economy. They’re not alone.

Everyone in Nisku understood why they were there, and why the situation in Canada’s energy sector is so grim.

Justin Trudeau is trying to phase out their jobs. An industry that has sustained families and given them their livelihood for generations is being shut down by a prime minister who no longer hides his disdain for their work. In just three years, Trudeau has killed two major pipeline projects, and thrown $4.5 billion in taxpayer money into another that he can’t build. Meanwhile, his government’s Bill C-69 will put the energy sector out of business for good by ensuring that no pipeline project will see the light of day – ever again.

The consequences of Trudeau’s disastrous policies are felt most strongly in Alberta but will affect every part of Canada. Our national economy is losing billions of dollars because we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to get our resources to those who want to buy them. Canadian oil is now selling at a major discount, costing us jobs and investment. That is why Alberta’s government took the drastic step of cutting production, and why the ultimate responsibility for that move lies with Justin Trudeau. His pipeline vetoes, carbon taxes and added red tape are the cause of this lack of pipeline capacity, and the dire consequences that have followed.

The prosperity that once flowed from Alberta’s energy sector to communities across our country is a distant memory under Justin Trudeau.

At the same time, all he’s offered suffering workers and their families is a small government handout. That money might feed families for a few weeks, but the pipelines that get Canadian energy to markets will feed us all for a generation.

With Justin Trudeau doubling down on his destructive carbon tax and rejecting every attempt to revive struggling pipeline projects, it is clear that he will never take any meaningful step to offer help.

That’s why I outlined my Conservative plan to get out energy sector back on track. When Conservatives form government we are going to cancel the carbon tax, and repeal Bill C-69. But that’s just our first step. We will also establish firm timelines for pipeline approvals, invoke constitutional authority to build major projects, and eliminate foreign interference in the approvals process.

Justin Trudeau has done historic damage to Canada’s energy sector. And after this week, everyone understands that it’s going to take a change of government to put an end to this crisis and get our energy sector back to work.

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Leader of Canada’s Conservatives

Up Next

The Chasm Between Pro and Anti Pipeline Debate in Two Opinions

Don't Miss

Smirnoff’s Non-GMO Marketing Misstep

Duane Rolheiser

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Former Tim Walz appointee wanted for Minnesota shootings

Also Interesting / 7 days ago

Property Markets in Alberta and B.C. Show Strong Momentum

Also Interesting / 1 week ago

The Historic Beginnings of Roulette

Daily Caller

Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting

Published on June 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

It comes as a surprise to many Americans when they learn that the vast majority of decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court are decided unanimously. Far too often, these unanimous decisions receive scant attention in the press due to their lack of controversy.

Such is the case with a key 8-0 decision the Court published May 29 that could help Congress and the Trump administration meet their goals to streamline permitting for energy projects in the United States. The decision narrows the scope of application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law whose environmental review provisions have been systematically used – and often abused – by climate alarm groups and plaintiff lawyers for decades to impede the progress of major projects of all kinds.

The case at hand involves the Uinta Basin Railway Project, which will transport oil produced in Utah’s Unita Basin and connect it to the national railway network so it can reach national markets. Because the rail line would parallel the Colorado River for roughly 100 miles, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in 2023 that the project’s developers would have to conduct a second, expanded environmental impact study under NEPA to try to assess nebulous potential impacts to air quality – often taking place thousands of miles away – or from a possible oil spill, rescinding a key permit that had been issued in 2021 by federal regulators.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

It is key to note that that permit was issued by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) along with a 3,600-page environmental impact statement to comply with NEPA. In the conduct of the environmental review, the Wall Street Journal wrote that STB and the company assessed “the railway’s potential effects on local water resources, air quality, protected species, recreation, local economies, the Ute Indian tribe and much more.”

But for the plaintiffs and the D.C. Circuit Court, 3,600 pages of thorough scientific analysis just weren’t enough. They filed suit, complaining that the study didn’t try to assess potential impacts that might happen on dozens of other rail lines hundreds of miles distant, or, even more absurd, assess potential pollution in “environmental justice communities” as far away as the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.

You really can’t make this stuff up.

If delay was the goal, the plaintiffs got a win, halting progress for four years. That is a sadly typical outcome for cases involving energy-related projects such as this one.

In their unanimous opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justices state, “The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.”

As I’ve written in previous stories, the vast majority of delays in permitting processes stem from provisions contained in major federal statutes designed to protect the environment and endangered species. In addition to NEPA, these laws include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Among them all, none has been more broadly abused and misinterpreted by activist courts than NEPA.

In its analysis of the decision, the Institute for Energy Research says, in part, that the “decision means that agencies can approve projects like pipelines, railways, and dams and not be mandated to consider distant environmental effects of the projects, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, that had stopped or delayed fossil fuel projects from moving forward, particularly during the Biden administration.” But, the author cautions, “the Uinta Basin Railway project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles within Colorado,” despite the ruling.

The good news is that even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court appear to be developing a growing awareness of just how absurd some of the claims made in lawsuits like this case really are. The unanimous nature of this decision inspires some sense of hope that the Trump administration can succeed in some of its efforts to reform the system and put an end to some of the most unjustified delays.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

International

Judiciary explores accountability options over Biden decline ‘coverup’

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

Former President Joe Biden salutes the departure party before boarding Special Air Mission 46 at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Jan. 20, 2025.

By Staff Sgt. Gabrielle Winn | U.S. Air Force photo

From The Center Square

By Morgan Sweeney

No obvious solutions emerged during a congressional hearing Wednesday on how to hold those accountable for the alleged cover-up of President Joe Biden’s mental and cognitive decline, but witnesses had some suggestions for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

Republicans have been adamant for some time that Democratic lawmakers, the prior administration, the legacy media and those closest to Biden conspired to hide the former president’s mental and cognitive decline from the American people. More recently, allegations have surfaced that some of Biden’s staff or potentially others may have used an autopen – a machine that can replicate signatures – to sign official documents for Biden without his knowledge or consent.

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Wednesday’s witnesses agreed that further investigation needs to be done into these questions. Republicans also explored what can be done after the fact and how to prevent similar events from happening in the future. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing into those questions Wednesday’s boycotted by all but one Democrat.

Republicans didn’t miss the opportunity to call them out for it. U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-MO, said Democrats’ absence and their failure to call any witnesses to testify was “deeply disappointing” but “not surprising.”

“Their absence speaks volumes – an implicit admission that the truth is too inconvenient to face,” Schmitt said. “This de facto boycott is not just a refusal to participate. It’s a refusal to serve the American people who deserve answers about who was truly leading their government.”

From the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 18th, 2025

Much of the hearing’s discussion revolved around proper uses of the autopen, which witnesses testified can only be rightfully used when the president specifically delegates its use to the user. The committee also discussed Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, which talks about succession in the case of a president becoming unfit or unable to fulfill the role. The amendment authorizes the vice president and a majority of the president’s cabinet to declare the president unfit, though that declaration has to be validated by a vote from Congress in order to have any effect.

What’s missing, however, is a clear manner of recourse for lawmakers or the public if those around the president fail to act despite plain signs he is incapable of holding office. Republicans wanted to know what they could do to prevent the alleged conspiracy from simply fading into history without consequences for any involved.

“As a government, it is imperative that we have clear contingency plans when emergency strikes, and yes, it is an emergency when we have a sitting president who is unable to discharge the duties of that office,” said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX.

He asked witness Theo Wold, a visiting fellow for law and technology policy with The Heritage Foundation and who worked in the previous Trump administration, if any criminal statutes could be applied to those who are found to have participated in the alleged cover-up.

“In this case, some have suggested that there may be potential crimes committed by members of the Cabinet for failing to act basically, suborning perjury, forging, forging government documents, impersonating a federal officer, making false statements, conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of justice, wire or mail fraud… Do you think there’s any application of any of those criminal statutes to the circumstances of the Biden presidency?” Cornyn asked.

“There very well could be,” Wold said, but he added that it would be “a question for a prosecutor to take up in their discretion.”

While witnesses agreed that anyone participating in a cover-up should be held accountable, the solutions for doing so weren’t as clear as recommendations for how to prevent similar situations in the future.

John Harrison, James Madison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, didn’t see an obvious method of redress for what already happened but suggested that Congress perhaps require greater documentation of presidential actions going forward.

Wold provided additional suggestions, such as a revival of discussion around “other guardrails” that can be imposed on the 25th Amendment. There was lively debate toward the end of Ronald Reagan’s presidency about adding a mental health professional to the White House medical team or “whether the surgeon general should oversee the inclusion of medical reporting as part of… the 25th Amendment,” according to Wold. But he said there hadn’t been serious discussion since on how to improve the amendment. He also agreed with Sen. Katie Britt, R-AL, that some of the terms in the amendment, like “unable,” should be more clearly defined.