This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism.
On February 26, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, in the House of Commons. The Online Harms Act is presented by the government as a means to promote the online safety of persons in Canada and reduce harmful content online. The Online Harms Act would impose severe penalties for online and offline hate speech, including life imprisonment, which is the most severe criminal punishment in Canada. This new legislation would establish a new Digital Safety Commission with power to enforce new regulations created by the federal cabinet. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would acquire new powers to prosecute and punish non-criminal hate speech.
Good intentions should be applauded
Although the Online Harms Act seriously threatens free expression in Canada, there are good intentions behind some of its provisions. It is a laudable goal to force online platforms to remove revenge porn and other non-consensual sharing of intimate images, content that bullies children, content that sexually victimizes children, content that encourages children to harm themselves, and content that incites violence, terrorism or hatred.
Unnecessary duplication of the Criminal Code
However, good intentions do not justify passing additional laws that duplicate what is already prohibited by Canada’s Criminal Code. Additional laws that duplicate existing laws are a poor substitute for good law enforcement.
Section 162.1(1) of Canada’s Criminal Code already prohibits online and offline publication of an intimate image without consent. Section 163 already prohibits publication of obscene materials and child pornography. Thus, it is already illegal to post online content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.
Section 264(1) already prohibits criminal harassment. Section 319(1) already prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and other personal characteristics. Section 59(1) criminalizes sedition: advocating the use of force to achieve governmental change within Canada. Sections 83.21 and 83.22 criminalize instructing to carry out terrorist activity; any online content that incites terrorism is already illegal.
Further, Section 22 of Canada’s Criminal Code prohibits counselling, procuring, soliciting or inciting another person “to be a party to an offence.” Any person who counsels, procures, solicits or incites another person to be a party to an offence will be found guilty if the person receiving such counsel commits the offence in question. This applies to terrorism and other violent crimes, and even to minor criminal offenses like shoplifting. Further, section 464 of the Criminal Code criminalizes counselling another person to commit an offence even if that offence is not committed.
Those who support the Online Harms Act should explain why they believe that existing legislation is inadequate to address “harmful” online expression.
New government bodies to censor online speech
If passed into law, the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to enforce compliance with new regulations created by the federal cabinet. This Digital Safety Commission will have the power to regulate nearly any person or entity operating as a “social media service” in Canada. Any person or social media service found to have permitted “harmful content” would face penalties. The severity of the penalties would be established by the federal cabinet. The creators and users of online content will self-censor to avoid the risk of running afoul of the new regulations and government-imposed censorship. The Online Harms Act provides that an Order of the Digital Safety Commission may be converted into an Order of the Federal Court and enforced like a Court Order. This could result in people operating social media services being fined and imprisoned for contempt of court if they refuse to censor Canadians’ speech.
Pre-emptive punishment for crimes not committed
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will add section 810.012 to the Criminal Code, which will permit pre-emptive violations of personal liberty when no crime has been committed. This repudiates centuries of legal tradition that rightly reserved punishment for what a person had done, not for what a person might do. Under this new provision, a complainant can assert to a provincial court that they “fear” that someone will promote genocide, hate or antisemitism. If the judge believes that there are “reasonable grounds” to justify the fear, the court can violate the liberty interests of the accused citizen by requiring her or him to do any or all of the following:
wear an ankle bracelet (electronic monitoring device)
obey a curfew and stay at home, as determined by the judge
abstain from alcohol, drugs, or both
provide bodily substances (e.g. blood, urine) to confirm abstinence from drugs or alcohol
not communicate with certain designated persons
not go to certain places, as determined by the judge
surrender her or his legally owned and legally required firearms
In other words: a citizen who has not committed any crime can be subjected to one or more (or all) of the above conditions just because someone fears that that person might commit a speech crime in future. Further, if the person who has committed no crime fails to agree to these court-ordered violations of her or his personal liberty, she or he could be sentenced to up to two years in prison.
Our criminal justice system is not supposed to function this way. Violating the liberty of citizens through pre-emptive punishment, when no crime has been committed (and quite possibly when no crime will be committed), is a radical departure from centuries of common law tradition. The respect that our legal system has for individual rights and freedoms means that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by way of a fair trial, held before an independent and impartial court. We do not punish the innocent, nor do we restrict their liberty based on what they might do. The mere fear that harmful expression may occur is not a legitimate basis for court-ordered imprisonment or other conditions that violate personal liberty.
Life imprisonment for words spoken
For the existing Criminal Code offence of advocating for genocide, the Online Harms Act would raise the maximum penalty from five years in jail to life imprisonment. Free societies recognize the distinction between speech and actions. The Online Harms Act blurs that distinction.
Considering the inherent difficulty in determining whether a person has actually “advocated for genocide,” the punishment of a five-year prison term is already an adequate deterrent for words alone.
Federal cabinet can censor speech without input from Parliament
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, would give new powers to the federal cabinet to pass regulations (which have the same force of law as legislation passed by Parliament) that place prohibitions or obligations on social media services. This includes passing regulations that impose fines or other consequences (e.g., the removal of a licence or the shutting down of a website) for non-compliance. New regulations can be created by the federal cabinet in its sole discretion, and do not need to be debated, voted on or approved by Parliament. Parliamentary proceedings are public. Any political party, or even one single MP, can raise public awareness about a Bill that she or he disagrees with, and can mobilize public opposition to that Bill. Not so with regulations, which are deliberated in secret by the federal cabinet, and that come into force without any public consultation or debate.
Apart from a federal election held once every four years, there is no meaningful way to hold cabinet to account for the draconian censorship of social media services by way of regulations and the harsh penalties that may be imposed for hosting “harmful content.” The federal cabinet can also decide what number of “users” the “social media service” needs to have in order to trigger federal regulation of content, or the federal cabinet can simply designate a social media service as regulated, regardless of the number of its users.
New censorship powers for Canadian Human Rights Commission
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will give the Canadian Human Rights Commission new powers to prosecute and punish offensive but non-criminal speech by Canadians if, in the subjective opinion of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, they deem someone’s statement to be “hateful.” The Online Harms Act will empower Canadians offended by non-criminal expression to file complaints against their fellow citizens.
Those who are prosecuted by the Human Rights Commission cannot defend themselves by establishing that their supposedly “hateful” statement is true, or that they had reasonable grounds for believing that their statement was true.
Those found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can be required to pay as much as $50,000 to the government, plus up to $20,000 to the person(s) designated as “victims” by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. These significant financial penalties will discourage or eliminate necessary discussion on controversial but important issues in our society.
Advocates for censorship often stress the fact that human rights prosecutions are not criminal. It is true that those found guilty of violating vague speech codes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal do not suffer the consequences of a criminal record. However, those who are prosecuted for expressing their beliefs face the difficult choice of having to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills or having to issue an abject apology. Regardless of whether they choose to defend themselves against the complaint or not, they may still be ordered to pay up to $20,000 to the offended party or up to $50,000 to the government, or up to $70,000 to both.
Many Canadians will continue to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, but many will self-censor to avoid the risk of being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Anonymous complaints: no right to face one’s accuser
The Online Harms Act, if passed into law, will allow complaints to be filed against Canadians in secret, such that the citizen who is prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission loses the ancient and well-founded right to face and question one’s accuser. This repudiates centuries of common law tradition requiring the legal process to be public and transparent.
The pretext for eliminating this necessary and long-standing legal protection is that some complainants might be subjected to “threats, intimidation or discrimination.” This ignores the fact that threats and intimidation are already Criminal Code offences, and any illegal discrimination can be addressed by way of a new and separate complaint. Those filing complaints about expression should be accountable for their decision to do so; this is an inherent and necessary component of both criminal and civil legal proceedings.
No need to establish that someone was harmed
If the Online Harms Act is passed into law, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will not even require a victim in order to prosecute a citizen for what she or he has said. For example, a man in Vancouver can file an anonymous complaint against a woman in Nova Scotia who made disparaging online remarks about a mosque in Toronto, regardless of whether that mosque’s members were harmed, or even offended, by the post. No actual victims are required for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find guilt or to impose penalties. Nor does a victim need to prove that he or she suffered loss or damage; feeling offended by alleged “hate” is all that is needed to become eligible for financial compensation.
Conclusion
For reasons set out here above, the Online Harms Act will harm freedom of expression in Canada if it is passed into law. Many Canadians will self-censor to avoid being prosecuted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Canadians who do not self-censor, by practicing courage and by continuing to exercise their Charter-protected freedom of expression, will still see their online expression removed from the internet by the operators of social media websites and platforms. These operators will seek to avoid running afoul of Mr. Trudeau’s new regulations. Everyone will live in fear of the Digital Safety Commission.
The Justice Centre urges all Members of Parliament to vote against this legislation.
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.
The times have been excessively interesting. This is especially true for the conventional energy sector where there was much more news served up in 2025 than normal people can comfortably digest in just 12 months.
Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here
The past year provided a few flourishes of good news for supporters of conventional energy. But, for the most part it was a continuation of the disappointment, frustration and uncertainty which characterized the Justin Trudeau years.
Unfortunately, there’s a chance that disappointment and frustration will follow us into 2026.
Yet, the Festive Season demands all glasses be at least half full when we ring in the New Year. And, for all we know, the inveterate optimists among us could actually turn out to be right on a few counts.
The Alberta-Ottawa Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may actually result in a pipeline being launched. And maybe the bit in the MOU about the cost of CO2 emissions rising to $130 per tonne will turn out to be just a typo. The Carney government could be forced to call an election in 2026. And Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives, who unequivocally support expansion of conventional energy production and exports, could win it.
If the pipeline problem is satisfactorily resolved, we can then return to time honoured grievances we’ve put on the back burner, such as equalization and Canada’s catch and release legal system.
Let’s drink to that.
In keeping with the traditions of news publications at year-end, here is a list of the top 2025 news stories and events affecting Canada’s oil and gas industries in Canada.
The nine news items we came up with are presented below, listed in chronological order. You, the reader, may have some additional ones of your own.
1. Goodbye Justin Trudeau, You Will Not Be Missed
The arrogant poser, with the colourful socks, who acted like virtue oozed from every pore of his body is now persona non grata. Six days into 2025 Justin Trudeau announced his intention to resign as prime minister and member of parliament. It was one of the most joyous occasions of the year—heartily celebrated by many fans of the oil and gas industries.
For nine long years, the Trudeau government imposed environmental and climate change legislation intended to reduce expansion of conventional energy production and consumption. The Trudeau government’s actions have been be characterized as efforts designed to cancel the future of Canada’s conventional energy sector. Trudeau, his cabinet and caucus will forever be remembered for measures such as Bill C-48/the Tanker Ban and C-69/the No More Pipelines Bill—legislation that will live in infamy.
Danielle Smith probably said it best. “Pierre Trudeau only wanted to steal our oil, Justin Trudeau wanted to kill the industry.”
2. Trump and the Trade War
Donald Trump and his tariff war have had some important, positive effects in Canada. They exposed the vulnerabilities associated with relying on a single country to purchase approximately 93% of our oil exports. The critical importance of increasing access to new non-US customers for Canadian oil and natural gas was made crystal clear. Several polls taken over the course of 2025 indicated a majority of Canadians now support the construction of new oil and gas pipelines to one or more of Canada’s coasts.
Oil is Canada’s single most important export commodity. And, a growing number of people appreciate handcuffing the conventional energy sector and limiting export options is economic madness; especially when the country is experiencing economic distress and the fiscal crisis created by Liberal Ottawa.
One of the unfortunate outcomes of the new tariffs Trump imposed on Canada is that in January they breathed new life into the political corpse of the Liberal party. Amazingly, this allowed them to elbow their way to an astonishing revival of fortunes and a minority election win on April 28.
3. Premier Danielle Smith’s Nine Bad Laws
Danielle Smith presented Mark Carney with a list of nine demands on March 25, 11 days after he replaced Justin Trudeau as prime minister. The list focused on the fortunes of the conventional energy sector and the barriers to new pipelines. It featured what Smith referred to as “the nine bad laws”—the laws that have to go if Canada is to recover from the economic and fiscal damage done during the Justin Trudeau years.
According to Smith, Liberal policies had adversely impacted the prosperity of Alberta and the rest of Canada and driven away billions in new capital investments.
The nine bad laws
Removal of the federal laws, regulations and policies that restrict access to oil and gas corridors to the East, West and North coasts.
Repeal Bill C-69
Cancel Bill C-48
Rescind the oil and gas emissions cap
Drop the clean electricity regulations
Dump the industrial carbon tax
End the net zero car sales mandate, including the ban on gas and diesel car sales by 2035
Eliminate the ban on single use plastics
Remove the restrictions on the free speech of conventional energy companies
The demands have been described as the things Albertans require to believe Confederation can accommodate their interests. They represent a set of issues which if not promptly addressed will continue to harm the economy and create a national unity crisis.
The Ottawa-Alberta MOU signed on November 27 proposes to eliminate or adjust several of the nine bad laws.
4. Canada’s Federal Election
Early in January of 2025 it finally looked like the stars had aligned in favour of the oil and gas community. Justin Trudeau was a terminally wounded lame duck, having announced his intention to resign as prime minister. And, it appeared the electoral fortunes of the Liberals were in the toilet.
There was dissention in the Liberal ranks—Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland had resigned the previous month. And, opinion polls taken in December and early January had shown the Conservatives had a commanding lead over the Liberals. Pierre Poilievre and company were heading for a majority. And, they were pledged to support the expansion of oil and gas production and the construction of new export pipelines from Alberta to one or more of Canada’s coasts.
By late January, fear of the Trump tariffs and Canada’s mainstream media had changed the political arithmetic. Canadians embraced a new superhero, Mark Carney. The legacy media extolled his record as an international financial wizard, macroeconomic guru, and leader of prominent institutions.
During the election campaign Carney adopted a duplicitous approach to discussing energy and pipeline policy. He embraced the longstanding Liberal strategy of saying one thing in the West while saying the opposite when talking to Quebecers.
More recently, Carney has been saying one thing to B.C. and oil pipeline opponent, Premier David Eby, and something entirely different to supporters of the oil and gas industries in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Following the defection of three Conservative MPs to the government side of the House the Carney government is just one seat shy of a majority.
5. Bill C-5 Promises Much But Delivers Nothing
The Building Canada Act/Bill C-5 was heralded as the solution to Canada’s failure to get major economic development projects, including oil pipelines, approved and built ever since the Justin Trudeau Liberals formed their first government in 2015. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 20, 2025 with the support of both Liberal and Conservative MPs. The promotional efforts of the government and mainstream media pundits had many people thinking it would deal with many of the issues identified in Danielle Smith’s list of nine bad laws.
The government claimed Bill C-5 would expedite approvals for nation building projects that would help secure Canada’s economic future and diversify export opportunities. The Liberals said they would use every tool at their disposal to get projects promptly approved and completed. Those tools did not include ending the West coast tanker ban or changing Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act.
Bill C-5 turned out to be the most overhyped nothing burger of 2025.
On September 11, Ottawa announced the first five projects which qualified for the approval process established under Bill C-5. A second tranche of six projects was announced on November 13. The common denominator for all eleven projects is that they had all been previously proposed and approved and some were already under construction. In the first five months following the enactment of Bill C-5 there have been no big new investments announced that hadn’t already been announced.
6. LNG Canada Begins Exporting Liquified Natural Gas
David Eby, and the government of British Columbia have vigorously opposed construction of an oil pipeline running from Alberta to Prince Rupert. Pipelines carrying natural gas produced in B.C. to LNG terminals on the West coast are another matter.
Several large and small LNG projects have been approved by B.C. and the federal government. The largest of them, LNG Canada, began shipping liquified natural gas (LNG) from its processing facilities at Kitimat on June 30 this year. By the end of November, 25 cargoes of LNG had been shipped from the new terminal. When all phases of LNG Canada’s $40 billion system are fully operational they will be capable of exporting 3.68 billion feet of B.C. natural gas per day.
Thus far, LNG Canada’s operation is the only large LNG project that is up and running. Proponents of some of the other projects are apparently still looking for additional financing. And, there are concerns about a global LNG supply glut developing. Yet, a global oversupply is hard to envision given growing demand for natural gas in East and South Asia.
One thing is certain, all of B.C.’s currently approved LNG projects have met the criteria required to be announced by the federal government as new developments made possible only by the miracle of Bill C-5.
7. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
There are indeed fans of oil and gas who enthusiastically welcomed the unveiling of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on November 27. There were also some who denounced the deal, and skeptics who remain undecided. If there is a lack of meaningful progress toward building an oil pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert by mid-2026, the number of Albertans opposed to the MOU can be expected to grow.
Many of the skeptics contend it is yet another example of the Carney government’s unwillingness to clearly and forthrightly endorse a revived version of the Northern Gateway pipeline (a Northern Gateway 2.0).
Yet, Danielle Smith has been reported as saying the MOU addresses several of the demands contained in her list of “nine bad laws”.
The MOU proposes to drop federal clean energy regulations for Alberta, allow carbon capture projects to use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery without penalty, suggests a tanker ban carve out is possible on the northern B.C. coast and, perhaps most importantly, it elevates Northern Gateway 2.0 to the realm of the possible.
Waiting for the agreement between Ottawa and Alberta was frustrating for supporters of fossil fuels who were not privy to the behind closed doors discussions and negotiations which apparently began on or shortly after June 1. Subsequently, Danielle Smith optimistically identified dates when she hoped to announce federal movement on the nine bad laws and an agreement to get Northern Gateway 2.0 launched.
We hoped to hear something concrete by the week of the Calgary Stampede. It turned out there was no big announcement but Smith remained positive regarding discussions. The prime minister offered only highly qualified support for some of Alberta’s demands when speaking publicly.
The next deadline suggested was some time in October. October came and went. We listened for a commitment from the prime minister and got crickets. Smith said she was still fairly confident a deal would be forthcoming, probably by Grey Cup.
The day of the big game came and went and there was still no announcement. The goal posts had apparently been moved again. But wait, just a few days after Saskatchewan’s win on the gridiron, the government news agency, CBC, reported a rumour was going round claiming a deal was close at hand. And so it was.
The wait was exhausting. Here’s hoping the end result was worth it.
8. The “Green Jesus” of Montreal Quits Cabinet
Steven Guilbeault, one of the most politically divisive people to ever serve as a federal minister resigned from the Carney cabinet on November 27—within a few hours of the announcement of the Alberta-Ottawa Memorandum of Understanding.
Guilbeault’s resignation is one of the best signs to date that the MOU is a serious document.
Guilbeault is a high profile environmental activist (some would say fanatic) and climate change alarmist—famous for media stunts like scaling the CN Tower and demonstrating on the roof of Ralph Klein’s house in Edmonton. He became MP for a Montreal riding in the October 2019 federal election. Justin Trudeau appointed him Minister for the Environment and Climate Change in October of 2021 and gave him free rein over policy decisions.
The Trudeau government’s enactment of several of the policies harmful to the conventional energy sector such as Bill C-48/the Tanker Ban and Bill C-69/the No More Pipelines Bill actually occurred before Guilbeault became environment minister. However, under Guilbeault’s watch a series of excessively ambitious regulatory measures inimical to the future of the oil and gas sectors, costly to consumers and economically harmful were implemented.
Guilbeault’s actions as minister imposed added costs on Canadian consumers who were dealing with an escalating cost of living. They contributed to the abysmal showing of the Liberals in party preference polls for most of 2024—as a consequence the Party finally gave Justin Trudeau the boot in January 2025.
Examples of Guilbeault’s environment and climate change policy legacy include:
The environment ministry’s announcement of a hard cap on oil and gas emissions in the fall of 2021. This measure would effectively set limits on the growth of natural gas and oil production. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan vehemently opposed these measures as a federal intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility under the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed and declared that the offending sections of Bill C-69/the Impact Assessment Act were unconstitutional—Guilbeault made no effort to amend his regulations.
Guilbeault was responsible for the major updating of the consumer carbon tax regulations announced in December of 2021. Those included the plan to increase the level of the tax to $170 for every tonne of CO2 emitted. The carbon tax angered voters already struggling with increases in the cost of living and caused support for the Liberals to tank by December of 2025.
Guilbeault introduced regulations limiting the number of gas and diesel fueled vehicles sold by Canadian manufacturers with a total phase out target of 2035. The regulations were published in December 2023. In early 2025, our new prime minister announced he was postponing implementation of the sales reduction target for at least one year. The Guilbeault regulations were largely responsible for Stellantis’ decision to shift thousands of jobs and production to US factories.
Guilbeault’s swan song as environment minister was the publication of updated clean electricity standards and regulations limiting the energy sources which can be used to produce electricity without penalties by 2030. The regulations were published by Guilbeault’s department in December of 2024. The Government of Saskatchewan has announced its intention to defy this mandate. It intends to continue using coal to generate electricity for another decade and possibly longer.
When Mark Carney assembled his first cabinet he demoted Guilbeault, moving him from the prestigious environment portfolio to the Department of Canadian Identity and Culture. Incidentally Carney left Jonathan Wilkinson, Guilbeault’s predecessor, as environment minister, out of Cabinet altogether.
9. What’s Old is New Again: Anti-Pipeline Lobbying, Misinformation and Insanity by the Sea
We better fasten our seat belts heading into 2026. Climate change alarmists, their allies in the media and several members of the federal Liberal caucus have already launched their assault on the MOU and prospects for a new oil pipeline to the West coast. Visions of Trans Mountain all over again.
The Complicit Media
In the days leading up to the federal budget, a frantic Elizabeth May falsely claimed Canada was legally bound to meet its net zero and green transition targets under terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change. She claimed the Trudeau/Guilbeault anti-oil-and-gas legacy must remain inviolate lest we incur the wrath of the UN—a supposedly terrifying prospect.
In reality the only things the parties to the Paris Agreement bound themselves to was the submission of an outline of their plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to submit an updated version of their plans every five years. No penalties of any sort are provided under the agreement should a country fail to get its homework handed in on time.
The legacy media gave May a free ride on that fabrication—no effort was made to correct her. May was similarly allowed a pass when she claimed oil tankers carrying oil from Prince Rupert would have to cross the most dangerous waters in Canada.
Another disturbing example is how the environmental movement and the legacy media have been falsely presenting the Vancouver-based environmental lobby group, Coastal First Nations, as though it is some sort of official representative voice for all First Nations governments from Western B.C. Furthermore, neither environmentalists nor the traditional media acknowledge that many First Nations are actively involved in the oil industry and support the new pipeline proposal.
We can expect to see a lot more flagrant misinformation passing for news in 2026.
Insanity by the Sea
Then we have B.C. premier, David Eby, the poster child for the failure of the Team Canada approach to ensuring Canada successfully navigates the challenges presented by the Trump tariffs. Eby’s sense of team spirit does not extend to allowing neighbouring provinces to export commodities like oil through British Columbia.
No surprise, Mark Carney has proven loathe to publicly criticize Eby for his unCanadian obstruction.
The B.C. government is hostage to the minority of voters who constitute Eby’s base of support—the lunatic fringe of anti-development environmental zealots who back the NDP.
Eby fumes over the possibility of a pipeline being built. Yet he remains mute over bad legislation and hyper-woke courts that threaten the status of non-Indigenous land titles in his province. His priorities are clearly shaped by fear of being removed as NDP leader and/or losing the next provincial election.
Hopes for the election of a sane government are frustrated by division and disarray among B.C. Conservatives.
Steven Guilbeault Will Rise Again
Here’s another troubling prediction for 2026. Steven Guilbeault will take a leadership role in the movement to shred the MOU. Guilbeault and his fellow environmental crusaders intend to force the Liberal government to recant and return to the more rigidly orthodox green agenda Mark Carney supported before becoming prime minister.
It will up to Canadians who truly think “Team Canada” to overcome yet even more challenges in 2026. In the meantime, investors will continue to take their energy opportunities and money elsewhere.
From petrochemicals for toys to B.C. fibre for repairs, Canada keeps Santa and the North Pole stocked up for Christmas.
In most households, the Christmas supply chain looks like a torn wrapping paper and a box that weighs more than it should. In the West, it starts earlier, and farther north, with a practical question, what do you make a modern Christmas out of?
For all the talk of “magic,” the season is built from materials, and Western Canada supplies a lot of them. Most toy aisles are a small museum of polymers, which owe their existence to the chemistry between plastic and petroleum, where basic building blocks such as ethylene and propylene are turned into everyday goods.
What matters, at least for policy and planning, is not whether plastics come from crude alone, but how flexible the inputs can be. The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that plastics production draws from natural gas, natural-gas processing liquids, and refinery feedstocks, and that it cannot pin down exact shares because the petrochemical sector switches among them.
That flexibility is also why recycling is shifting from a moral lecture into an industrial method. One increasingly discussed option is pyrolysis oil, which uses high heat in an oxygen-free environment to break end-of-life plastics into hydrocarbons that can be refined back into feedstock for new products.
The balance sheet behind the workshop
If Santa’s workshop is the headline, the Canadian balance sheet is the fine print. Oil and gas production is concentrated in Western Canada’s sedimentary basin, with industry figures placing Canadian output around 19 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day and about six million barrels of oil per day on a year-to-date basis, led by oil sands volumes. That steady volume keeps plants humming, and shelves stocked.
British Columbia’s other gift is fibre, and here the story is harder, but still central. The province’s timber supply has been squeezed by the mountain pine beetle era and by shifting land use and permitting, with harvest levels falling from roughly 50 million cubic metres a year in the 2010s to about 30 million cubic metres a year in 2025, alongside a debate over what sustainable should mean for mills and towns.
Wood is not just boards, it is packaging, pallets, paper products, and, if you are willing to play along with the season, the occasional replacement runner for a sled. Add paint, varnish, and a few fasteners, and the workshop is back in business.
Getting materials to the pole
Getting materials to tidewater is where the politics returns. One Resource Works analysis argues that shipping can be managed with modern tanker safety rules, noting decades of existing tanker traffic out of Vancouver, and pointing to double hull standards and spill response capacity as part of the modern baseline.
Another points to the Port of Prince Rupert as a strategic northern gateway, citing its deep, wide harbour, shorter sailing times to Asia, and growing export role for commodities such as propane, even as the federal northern tanker ban shapes what is, and is not, possible.
Canada’s latitude is not a punchline either. With the country’s Arctic stretching toward the Pole, Western Canada sits closer to Santa’s route than most industrial regions on Earth, which is a reminder that distance, as much as ideology, determines who supplies whom.
None of this requires believing in miracles. It requires acknowledging that Christmas is still a physical enterprise, that the West’s energy and forest sectors are part of the country’s winter logistics, and that, once a year, even the fiercest debates about molecules and metres have to reckon with a simple reality, the stockings get filled by supply chains, in plain sight, too. Somewhere above it all, Santa’s route planner approves the shorter distance tonight.
