Q&A: Energy and its impact on the 2025 federal election campaign
'This is different from energy debates we've had previously, because the question has now pivoted to, how are we going to develop our energy resources, as opposed to, should we?'
Oil and gas, pipelines and energy have played a major role in shaping the narrative during the 2025 federal election campaign. The renewed interest in production and infrastructure has also been heightened as a result of U.S. trade tariffs and disruptions. Have the needs and realities of the energy industry been fairly portrayed on the campaign trail? What does the future hold after April 28, whoever wins the election?
Columnist Chris Varcoe answered these questions and more during a live Q&A, including questions from you and insights from industry experts. See the conversations in the comments section below Varcoe’s column.
Two esteemed guests shared their insights in the chat as well:
Richard Masson is an executive fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. With more than 30 years of leadership experience in energy project development and governance, energy marketing, and finance, Masson provides consulting services to clients in these and other areas.
Jackie Forrest is executive director of ARC Energy Research Institute. An author, public speaker and podcaster, Forrest actively monitors emerging strategic trends related to energy.
Varcoe: Actions not words — Canada’s next PM needs to get major energy projects built, not just debated
Bill Black stood several metres to the side of a podium in a southeast Calgary hall in early April, watching as Liberal Leader Mark Carney talked about energy and getting major projects completed in Canada.
The president of the Calgary Construction Association supports ideas backed by the federal Liberals and Conservatives to put major energy developments on a faster track for regulatory review and approval — although the parties disagree on the pace and many other aspects of oil and gas policies.
Yet, years of dithering and delays, legal challenges and complex regulations have become the hallmark of Canada’s inability to build energy infrastructure in a timely fashion in recent years. “Our cynicism is justified and deep-rooted. And it will take more than just an announcement to convince,” Black said minutes after the Liberal news conference wrapped up.“
Actions are ultimately what convince, not words. However, the narrative is promising. It speaks to a bit of shift, it speaks to a more balanced consideration, of the role of conventional energy in a cleaner energy future.”
The federal election campaign of 2025 will go down as one contested under the shadows cast by the tariff threats of U.S. President Donald Trump.
It has also sparked a reoccurring discussion about how to best get energy infrastructure completed, including export pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, and how to improve energy security during an era of decarbonization and climate concerns.
Trump’s threat of putting a 10 per cent tariff on Canada’s largest export — oil and gas — was largely paused, but it’s placed a spotlight on the country’s reliance on one buyer and what can be done to diversify markets.
Even with the $34-billion Trans Mountain expansion opening last spring — accessing export markets in Asia for Canadian crude — about 94 per cent of all oil exports are still sold into the United States, and the figure is higher for natural gas. Several major oil pipeline projects pitched during the past 15 years would have significantly boosted Canadian exports.
Only Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement project and the Trans Mountain expansion (TMX) were completed. And TMX required federal ownership after the private-sector proponents were set to abandon the project due to political and regulatory uncertainty. Three other proposals — Energy East, Northern Gateway and Keystone XL — failed to move ahead. The average time for these projects to move from the initial application through to termination, or completion, was eight years, according to data from S&P Global Commodity Insights.
On the LNG front, after watching the U.S. charge ahead to become the world’s largest exporter of supercooled natural gas over the past decade, Canada is finally set to join the global industry. The massive LNG Canada project on the B.C. Coast is expected to start shipments later this year, exporting gas to customers in Asia, while two other projects are under construction.
Yet, industry experts say there could be much more, including the second phase of the massive LNG Canada project near Kitimat, and the proposed Ksi Lisims project, a partnership between the Nisga’a Nation, a consortium of gas producers and Western LNG. The industry sees LNG as an essential way for Canada to export its resources, improve energy security in the world, and displace higher-emitting coal used to generate electricity in other countries. The future of LNG, pipelines and the idea of finding new markets have been discussed and debated by the front-running Liberals and Conservatives over the past month.
“At a high level, it’s a positive thing that we’re finally talking about it. Frankly, though, talk is cheap,” said Dan Halyk, CEO of Calgary-based Total Energy Services, one of the country’s largest oilfield service firms.
“But to have an open discussion about the impact of energy on our lives, on our fiscal situation, is critical. So, I applaud that. I think it can be somewhat superficial, but I think to the extent that politicians are forced to address it and speak to their positions on it, is helpful.”
During the federal leaders’ English language election debate last week, the word pipeline was uttered nearly 20 times in the opening segments, even before the four leaders began a discussion that was dedicated to energy and climate issues.
“This is different from energy debates we’ve had previously, because the question has now pivoted to, how are we going to develop our energy resources, as opposed to, should we?” said Kevin Krausert, CEO of Calgary-based Avatar Innovations, which operates a venture capital fund and an energy technology studio focused on decarbonization.
“And that, to me, is a clear shift.” On the campaign trail, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to “unleash” Canada’s natural resources if his party wins Monday’s election. Poilievre said he’d rapidly approve 10 major projects, create a one-stop shop for the review process and set a maximum of one year for an application decision — with a goal of six months. A Conservative government would scrap the federal emissions cap on the oil and gas sector introduced by the Trudeau government, and repeal the Impact Assessment Act — known by critics as the “No More Pipelines” law — overseeing major projects. It would also eliminate the federal industrial carbon tax and create a national energy corridorfor infrastructure such as transmission lines, railways and pipelines.
While in Calgary, Carney pledged to de-risk investment in exploring and producing critical minerals. The Liberals have promised to create trade and energy corridors and accelerate developments deemed to be of national interest, which would be jointly identified with provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples. Ottawa would offer to sign substitution agreements with provinces and Indigenous governing bodies to ensure major projects only proceed through one environmental review. The Liberal leader said a major project review office would have a mandate to issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Martha Hall Findlay, director of the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, notes the energy conversation has taken place against a backdrop of Canada’s weak productivity levels, and it’s highlighted the importance of oil and gas to the nation’s economy.
“For an awful lot of reasons, energy has become a very top-of-mind question for the voters in this Trump-world election,” said Hall Findlay, a one-time Liberal MP and former chief sustainability officer with Suncor Energy.
“We have been given an opportunity to finally get our economic house in order, and that means finally having most Canadians understand just how important to our economic prosperity (that) oil and gas are.”
The industry has its own ideas on how to get infrastructure built. Leaders of major petroleum producers and pipeline firms issued a letter last month, calling on the main parties to declare a Canadian energy crisis and commit to getting new projects approved within six months of an application being filed. It recommended overhauling the Impact Assessment Act and tanker ban off the northern B.C. coast. It wants the federal emissions cap to be axed, and called for the federal carbon tax on large industrial emitters to be repealed — allowing the province to set carbon regulations.
Meanwhile, opinion polls show a shift in Canadians’ views on pipelines and conventional energy. In February, an Angus Reid Institute survey reported 79 per cent of Canadians agreedthe country needs to ensure it has “oil and gas pipelines running from sea to sea across the country.”
Adam Waterous, executive chair of oilsands producer Strathcona Resources and one of the backers of the industry’s open letter, said it’s encouraging to see an upswing in support for building pipelines, calling it necessary, but also not sufficient to see new projects proposed by private companies.
The industry’s proposals were a response to Canadians who want to see more pipelines built and it sets out what it will take “to get private sector investors to support the development of energy infrastructure,” he said.
Waterous points out it required federal ownership of the Trans Mountain project, which Ottawa acquired in 2018, to get the oil pipeline completed after the private sector proponent was set to walk away from it.
“Nothing has changed from the investor perspective,” he said, adding the new Liberal leader hasn’t proposed making the necessary regulatory reforms.
“Investors wouldn’t give the industry money, back seven years ago. They still won’t give it today, because of the regulatory environment.”
Last year, Canadian exports of energy products to the U.S. were worth $171.7 billion, and more than four million barrels per day of oil was shipped south of the border.
Halyk, whose company operates in Canada, Australia and the United States, said the tariff conversation has underscored the risk of “putting all of your eggs in one basket” and the need to have more pipelines that run east and west.
“At the end of the day, I see this election as being a referendum on natural resource development, to a large part,” he said.
In the construction industry, Black hopes all the energy talk translates into tangible action — that Canada builds energy projects that can attract investment, create jobs and strengthen the country’s economy. “It is a conversation that has been quite fraught over recent years,” Black said Monday.
“The fact that (energy) is still there, still in the forefront, it’s still in the debate, tells me that it is going to be very hard to not follow up on these words.”
Chris Varcoe is a Calgary Herald columnist.