The Next Canadian Federal Election Will Also be a Crucial Energy Issues Election

Since January 6, 2025, when Prime Minister Trudeau announced that he was stepping down as Prime Minister of Canada and announced that the Governor General had granted his request to prorogue Parliament, Canadians have been contemplating the fallout.

Terry Winnitoy, co-founder of EnergyNow.ca in Canada and EnergyNow.com in the US, wisely chose to bring together speakers from provincial and federal governments, as well as energy industry SMEs and an indigenous organization to discuss energy issues that will be part of this year’s 2025 federal election in Canada and crucial to Canada’s energy future; The Federal ‘Energy’ Election ’25 event was held at the Calgary Petroleum Club last week to a packed room.

The Federal ‘Energy’ Election ’25 Panel – From Left to Right : Greg McLean, David Yager, Rebecca Schulz, Kendall Dilling and Dale Swampy

Tracey Bodnarchuk CEO of Canada Powered By Women moderated the leaders’ panel which included Greg McLean Calgary Centre Federal Conservative MP, Rebecca Schulz Alberta Minister of Environment and Protected Areas, David Yager Senior Advisor to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Energy industry Entrepreneur and Author, Kendall Dilling, Pathways Alliance President and previous Cenovus Energy Vice-President- Environment & Regulatory, and Dale Swampy, President and founder of the National Coalition of Chiefs who is a board member and provides advisory services to The Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) and the Business Council of Alberta.

The discussion focused on the critical importance of the upcoming federal election, emphasizing the need for pragmatic, common-sense policies that will shape energy policies for decades to come.

Some of the Key points made by the panel included Canada’s significant role as the fourth-largest oil producer and fifth-largest natural gas producer, contributing 10% to GDP and $200 billion in exports. MP Greg McLean commented on how dramatically MPs in Ottawa have done a 180-degree pivot from their anti-fossil fuel stance of the last ten years.

“What I find ironic is the fact that you’ve got many eastern politicians- federal and provincial that are saying we need to use the oil industry as our trump card, and no pun intended,” McLean said.

“They’re actually trying to say this energy is very important. I can’t tell you how many years and how many speeches I’ve heard in the House of Commons about how we need to do away with this (Oil and Gas) industry as quickly as possible.

A wake-up call has happened. Now we recognize how important this industry is, as far as a job contributor, an economic contributor, and a taxation contributor to the Canadian economy. Now suddenly it’s the most important industry in Canada.”

The panel discussion highlighted the broad impacts of Trump tariffs and the need for pragmatic, common-sense policies that will shape energy policies for decades.

Minister Rebecca Schulz echoed the recent changes in energy discussions.

“Now we have to focus on energy security, affordability, our economy, jobs for everyday people, Schulz said. “We have to talk about that more now than we had in the past – when our federal government only wanted to talk about the environment and emissions. That is not a reasonable, rational conversation now, and it’s not what Canadians want to hear right now.”

She commented that the federal government has been problematic over the 10 years and said it was Premier Danielle Smith’s strong communications, advocacy and presence in the US and across North America – reaching out to policymakers south of the border that contributed to a reprieve in tariffs.

Dave Yager briefly described the market conditions that enabled misguided Federal govt policies over the last ten years.

“There were a lot of trends that took place from 2015 to 2019,” Yager said. “Interest rates were really low. Inflation was really low. They kept up with quantitative easing. The governments looked invincible. Renewables appeared to be penetrating because the cost was buried, and they never really realized what a contribution the collapse of oil prices made in 2015 to keep inflation down.

Why quantitative easing wasn’t inflationary until 2020 had a lot to do with the low price of oil and the low price of natural gas. That’s all changed. It started in 2020 and by 2022 when the Russian tanks went into Ukraine, all of a sudden we’ve got a whole different world. If you look around the world, a lot of people have changed direction. So I think there’s a growing realization that the platform that this government was elected on just doesn’t exist anymore.”

Kendall Dilling added his agreement that we are at “a palpable inflection point”. He saw a silver lining to all the challenges that he views as a wake-up call for Canadians.

“The question is, can we capitalize on it,” Dilling said. “and actually bring some change to fruition before we slide back into complacency?

When we talk about how we respond, there’s no scenario where we don’t remain intrinsically linked to the United States from a supply chain and energy perspective.

But we have become codependent. We slacked on our NATO and border commitments and other things. We’ve decided that only one issue mattered for the last decade, at the expense of the economy and we find ourselves in an unenviable position. Now the opportunity is in front of us to get a national consensus on the importance of the economy and actually drive some change.”

Dale Swampy stated that the Tariff issue has real relevance for the First Nations that the NCC represents as most of those Nations are located in Alberta and fully entrenched in the oil and gas industry.

He sees the importance of the impact on Canada and the U.S. as a driver for diversification to find new markets and he has experience in the fight to get pipeline project approval under the current processes. In 2010, he joined the Indigenous Relations team for the Northern Gateway Pipeline Project as Director of Indigenous Relations for the BC terrestrial region.

He worked with Indigenous community leaders to establish the Northern Gateway Aboriginal Equity Partners group or AEP – a group comprised of 31 Aboriginal community leaders working as part of an unprecedented partnership with Northern Gateway. It was after the cancellation of the project in 2016 that he started the National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC).

“I think it’s more important to understand that we have an opportunity now. It’s been nine years since they cancelled the Northern Gateway project. It’s been nine years since we have had an opportunity like this and can put the idea of building Northern Gateway and Energy East back on the table.

We want to advocate for the possibility of getting Northern Gateway launched again. If we get a First Nation-led project, we will support it. Now we have some leverage and we do have the ability to build it. So we’re working with a lot of the big six oil sands companies to say that we’ll put our name onto this and promote the Northern Gateway project.”

Swampy noted that with regulatory refinements, the pipeline could be built in a much more effective timeline than TMX.

The panel discussed specific projects like LNG expansion and the potential for more First Nations-led initiatives underscoring the urgency of rebuilding trust and attracting international capital to drive economic growth.

The discussion highlighted the challenges faced by Canada’s resource-based industries due to investor impatience with investors preferring more predictable returns, and favouring projects in the US (which are approved and built in much shorter timelines) over Canadian projects like LNG which become mired in regulatory red tape.

The comparison was made that Canada has only two LNG projects under construction compared to the US’s 25 billion cubic feet a day since 2015.

The panel addressed the current political instability with a parliament shutdown and a looming election. They emphasized the need for balanced policies that consider economic growth, energy security, and environmental responsibility but also shorten the overwrought regulatory process to get projects approved and built. They called for better communication and advocacy, particularly through social media, to influence public perception and policy.

MP Greg McLean summed up much of the sentiments of the panel saying:

“Oil is still going to be oil. Getting Canadian oil consumed in Canada, and getting a pipeline all the way through to New Brunswick makes all the sense in the world. Finally, the politicians are there. So maybe one of the things that we’ve seen in the last while about what the president of the United States has put on our table is the opportunity to cooperate to get the Canadian economy working coast to coast.”

Maureen McCall is an energy professional and Senior Fellow at the Frontier Center For Public Policy who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.

Up Next

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Releases Seven-Point Plan to Unleash Canada’s Energy Potential

Don't Miss

We need to get smart about climate

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

Fuelled by federalism—America’s economically freest states come out on top

Automotive / 49 mins ago

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Agriculture / 7 hours ago

Canada’s air quality among the best in the world

Automotive

Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

According to Steven Guilbeault, former environment minister under Justin Trudeau and former member of Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, “Switching to an electric vehicle is one of the most impactful things Canadians can do to help fight climate change.”

And the Carney government has only paused Trudeau’s electric vehicle (EV) sales mandate to conduct a “review” of the policy, despite industry pressure to scrap the policy altogether.

So clearly, according to policymakers in Ottawa, EVs are essentially “zero emission” and thus good for environment.

But is that true?

Clearly, EVs have some environmental advantages over traditional gasoline-powered vehicles. Unlike cars with engines that directly burn fossil fuels, EVs do not produce tailpipe emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, and do not release greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide. These benefits are real. But when you consider the entire lifecycle of an EV, the picture becomes much more complicated.

Unlike traditional gasoline-powered vehicles, battery-powered EVs and plug-in hybrids generate most of their GHG emissions before the vehicles roll off the assembly line. Compared with conventional gas-powered cars, EVs typically require more fossil fuel energy to manufacture, largely because to produce EVs batteries, producers require a variety of mined materials including cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, which all take lots of energy to extract and process. Once these raw materials are mined, processed and transported across often vast distances to manufacturing sites, they must be assembled into battery packs. Consequently, the manufacturing process of an EV—from the initial mining of materials to final assembly—produces twice the quantity of GHGs (on average) as the manufacturing process for a comparable gas-powered car.

Once an EV is on the road, its carbon footprint depends on how the electricity used to charge its battery is generated. According to a report from the Canada Energy Regulator (the federal agency responsible for overseeing oil, gas and electric utilities), in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario, electricity is largely produced from low- or even zero-carbon sources such as hydro, so EVs in these provinces have a low level of “indirect” emissions.

However, in other provinces—particularly Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—electricity generation is more heavily reliant on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, so EVs produce much higher indirect emissions. And according to research from the University of Toronto, in coal-dependent U.S. states such as West Virginia, an EV can emit about 6 per cent more GHG emissions over its entire lifetime—from initial mining, manufacturing and charging to eventual disposal—than a gas-powered vehicle of the same size. This means that in regions with especially coal-dependent energy grids, EVs could impose more climate costs than benefits. Put simply, for an EV to help meaningfully reduce emissions while on the road, its electricity must come from low-carbon electricity sources—something that does not happen in certain areas of Canada and the United States.

Finally, even after an EV is off the road, it continues to produce emissions, mainly because of the battery. EV batteries contain components that are energy-intensive to extract but also notoriously challenging to recycle. While EV battery recycling technologies are still emerging, approximately 5 per cent of lithium-ion batteries, which are commonly used in EVs, are actually recycled worldwide. This means that most new EVs feature batteries with no recycled components—further weakening the environmental benefit of EVs.

So what’s the final analysis? The technology continues to evolve and therefore the calculations will continue to change. But right now, while electric vehicles clearly help reduce tailpipe emissions, they’re not necessarily “zero emission” vehicles. And after you consider the full lifecycle—manufacturing, charging, scrapping—a more accurate picture of their environmental impact comes into view.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Energy

Canada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast

Published on December 13, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

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.