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

Zelenskyy Says He Still Wants To Sign Mineral Deal With US After Oval Office Spat With Trump

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

Reviewing NATO’s Rationale

Courageous Discourse / 3 hours ago

Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump

International / 3 hours ago

DataRepublican Exposes the Shadow Government’s Darkest Secrets

Energy

Trial underway in energy company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace

Published on March 2, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Chris Woodward

A trial is underway in North Dakota in a lawsuit against Greenpeace over its support for protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Filed by Texas-based Energy Transfer, the lawsuit alleges Greenpeace in 2016 engaged in or supported unlawful behavior by protesters of the pipeline, while also spreading false claims about it. Greenpeace, according to Energy Transfer, spread falsehoods about the pipeline and conspired to escalate what were small, peaceful protests illegal activity that halted the project in 2016.

Energy Transfer – which is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages – claims the alleged actions caused more than $100 million in financial difficulties for the pipeline.

Greenpeace denies any wrongdoing, arguing the case is about Americans’ First Amendments rights to free speech and to peacefully protest, and about corporations trying to silence critics.

Energy Transfer told The Center Square that its lawsuit “is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused” the company.

“It is not about free speech,” Energy Transfer said in an emailed statement to The Center Square. “Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that.”

Last week, Greenpeace filed for a change of venue, claiming that the environmental group may not get a fair trial in Morton County, where the trial is being held.

“The Greenpeace defendants have said from the start of this case that it should be heard away from where the events happened,” said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace, in another statement emailed to The Center Square. “After three motions for a venue change were refused, we now feel compelled to ask the Supreme Court of North Dakota to relieve the local community from the burden of this case and ensure the fairness of the trial cannot be questioned.”

The pipeline was completed in 2017 after several months of delays.

Greenpeace has voiced concerns about the environmental impacts that the Dakota Access Pipeline will have in areas where it is installed. Energy Transfer/Dakota Access Pipeline says that, among other things, safety is its top priority and that it is committed to being a good neighbor, business partner, and valued member of local communities that the energy company says will benefit economically.

Daily Caller

Trump Could Upend Every Facet Of The Obama-Biden Climate Agenda In One Fell Swoop

Published on March 2, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

Every week in this second Donald Trump presidency is such a whirlwind of major events that it is always a challenge to pick a topic for the next contribution here at the Daily Caller News Foundation.

But, despite this having been one of the most frenzied weeks of all since Jan. 20, picking the topic for this column was easy, because no energy-related action by this administration would have a bigger impact on American society than a successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding on greenhouse gas regulation.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin “has privately urged the White House to strike down a scientific finding underpinning much of the federal government’s push to combat climate change, according to three people briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.” Zeldin’s recommendation was a response to Trump’s Day 1 executive order tasking Zeldin to conduct a review of “the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).’”

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!

The Obama EPA’s finding was enabled by the 2007 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court in the Massachusetts v. EPA case allowing the agency to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants in the context of the Clean Air Act. In that case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who long served as the swing vote on the Court, joined with four liberal justices to give EPA this authority.

Given that the main so-called “greenhouse gases” — water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide — are all naturally occurring elements, a ruling classifying them as “pollutants” as that term was intended by the authors of the Clean Air Act in 1963 was absurd on its face, but that didn’t stop the five justices from imposing their political will on U.S. society.

Since implemented by the Obama EPA, the endangerment finding has served as the foundational basis for the vast expansion of climate change regulations impacting every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy, dramatically increasing the cost of energy for all Americans. The climate alarm hysteria over carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food and the basis for all life in Planet Earth, was also the motivational basis for every aspect of the Biden-era efforts to force taxpayers to bear the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy subsidies.

So, what has changed between 2007 and today to make Administrator Zeldin and President Trump think their attempt to reverse this endangerment finding would survive all the court challenges that would arise from the climate alarm community?

First, there is the dramatic shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy is no longer on the court, nor are the other four justices who issued the majority decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Where the Court was evenly divided in 2007, today’s Supreme Court is made up of a decisive 6-3 originalist majority with three justices appointed by Donald Trump himself during his first presidency.

But an even more decisive difference now stems from last year’s reversal of the Chevron Deference by the Supreme Court in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case. As I wrote here at the time, the Chevron Deference, established as a legal doctrine in a unanimous Supreme Court decision in 1984, required the federal judiciary to defer to the regulators’ judgments about the governing statutes whenever the statutory intent was vague and open to interpretation.

That doctrine of law led directly to the vast expansion of the regulatory state for the 40 years it was in effect. The question now becomes whether, in the absence of that doctrine, regulators at the EPA truly have the authority to regulate atmospheric plant food in the same way they regulate particulate matter and other forms of real air pollution.

A successful effort to reverse the Obama EPA endangerment finding would then put every element of the Obama/Biden climate agenda in jeopardy.

Mr. Trump likes to say he wants to bring common sense back to government. This is one big way to do exactly that.

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.