Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil industry hoping election brings sea change
ST. JOHN'S — Members of Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil industry are hoping a new federal government focused on Canadian economic sovereignty will reignite a sector they say has been stymied by unfavourable policy.
Charlene Johnson, chief executive of the sector's industry association, Energy N.L., says policies from the Liberal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau have had a chilling effect on oil and gas development in the province.
However, she says energy security is now top of mind for Canadians as trade tensions persist with United States President Donald Trump, and there are untapped oil and gas resources in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Johnson sent a letter to the three major parties asking for their stance on issues such as proposed legislation that would force oil and gas companies to slash their greenhouse gas emissions.
She got a response from two parties: the NDP, whose answers focused on renewable energy, and the Conservatives, who vowed to scrap the proposed emission rules and shorten approval times.
Johnson says she was disappointed that the Liberals didn't respond, but she's been encouraged by comments from party leader Mark Carney that suggest his approach to oil and gas will be different from his predecessor's.
Industry consultant Rob Strong was blunt, saying the positions and policies of Steven Guilbeault — Trudeau's environment minister — and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson have got to go.
This story by The Canadian Press was first published on April 25, 2025.
The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BOSTON PIZZA ROYALTIES INCOME FUND ANNOUNCES MAY 2025 DISTRIBUTION
Toronto Stock Exchange: VANCOUVER, BC, June 10, 2025 /CNW/ - Boston Pizza Royalties Income Fund (the "Fund") (TSX: announced today a cash distribution to unitholders of $0.115 per unit for May 2025. The distribution will be paid on June 30, 2025 to unitholders of record at the close of business on June 21, 2025. The Fund periodically reviews distribution levels based on its policy of stable and sustainable distribution flow to unitholders. ABOUT US The Fund is a limited purpose open ended trust with an excellent track record for investors since its IPO in 2002. Including the May 2025 distribution which is payable on June 30, 2025, the Fund will have paid out 269 monthly distributions and three special distributions totaling $465.5 million or $28.03 per unit. The Fund earns revenue based on the franchise system sales of the 372 Boston Pizza restaurants in the Fund's royalty pool. Boston Pizza is the premier casual dining brand in Canada. The first Boston Pizza restaurant opened in Edmonton, Alberta in 1964 and over 60 years later Boston Pizza proudly remains a 100% Canadian company serving communities from coast-to-coast-to-coast. It boasts a vast network of local franchise owners who collectively operate the largest number of dining rooms, sports bars, and patios across the nation, complemented by robust takeout and delivery services. Boston Pizza International Inc. has been recognized as a Franchisees' Choice Designation winner and a Platinum Member of Canada's 50 Best Managed Companies for many years, and has received awards from Great Place To Work in the categories of Best Workplaces: in Canada – 100-999 Employees, in British Columbia, in Retail & Hospitality, for Mental Wellness, for Women, for Giving Back, and with Most Trusted Executive Teams. The trustees of the Fund have approved the contents of this news release.® Boston Pizza Royalties Limited Partnership. All Boston Pizza registered Canadian trade-marks and unregistered Canadian trade-marks containing the words "Boston", "BP", and/or "Pizza" are trade-marks owned by the Boston Pizza Royalties Limited Partnership and licensed by the Boston Pizza Royalties Limited Partnership to Boston Pizza International Inc. SOURCE Boston Pizza Royalties Income Fund View original content: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Asked about the U.S., Canada's chief justice says rule of law is 'under attack' worldwide
Asked about U.S. President Donald Trump's contentious relationship with parts of the American judiciary, Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Richard Wagner said Tuesday "the rule of law and judicial independence is under attack" around the world. Speaking to reporters at his annual news conference on Parliament Hill, Wagner said if a government attacks the media, judges, lawyers and universities — as Trump and his associates have done in recent weeks — there's a good chance it's "a dictatorship" and an "autocratic government." Wagner said Canadians must be "prudent" and preserve their institutions, including a judicial system where rulings are respected by elected officials. "We have to be careful, but be optimistic as well. "In Canada we have a strong legal system," he said. "We have to defend those institutions. We should not take anything for granted." Wagner said, throughout his cross-country travels, "everybody asks me the same question" about whether what's going on in the U.S. court system will bleed over into Canada. What's different in Canada, Wagner said, is that the "main stakeholders" here "respect separation of powers and judicial independence and are happy to live in a country where the rule of law will prevail. "Canada is not a superpower. But it is a democratic superpower. In this country, the rule of law is non-negotiable," he said. WATCH | Canada's chief justice asked about attacks on judiciary: In his second term as president, Trump is pushing an ambitious but constitutionally dubious agenda that has been held back by some judicial rulings. The president has slammed some judges on social media — complaining about a "radicalized and incompetent court system" in one recent post — and threatened others with impeachment or removal from office. When one federal judge ordered a temporary halt to the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, Trump said it was the actions of a "radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator" who should be off the bench. In hundreds of cases before the U.S. court system, judges have delayed or stymied his efforts to close some federal agencies, pursue mass layoffs of federal workers, block foreign aid, end birthright citizenship for people born on American soil, deport undocumented migrants and slap tariffs on countries such as Canada. After the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down parts of Trump's tariffs regime, saying the president overstepped his constitutional authority by imposing sweeping levies on global goods, one of his top advisers, Stephen Miller, said, "The judicial coup is out of control." Trump has had some legal victories, especially at the U.S. Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by him. Late last month, the top court let Trump's administration revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. A Trump official said that ruling was "a victory for the American people."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What happened the last time a U.S. president overrode a state to deploy the National Guard
On an unseasonably chilly but sunny day, March 20, 1965, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson stood on the porch of his Texas ranch and read a telegram he had just sent to Alabama Gov. George Wallace. "I am calling into federal service selected units of the Alabama National Guard… to help you meet your state responsibilities," Johnson said. For more than a week, Johnson and Wallace had been going back and forth about the president's concerns for the safety of Black Alabamians trying to exercise their right to vote and peacefully protest police brutality. Wallace, a segregationist, refused to call in his state's National Guard to protect the Black protesters — who had planned a march from Selma to Montgomery — so Johnson did it in his place. To do so, Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, an 18th century law that allows the president to deploy military forces inside the U.S. It's what many legal scholars and democracy watchers believed U.S. President Donald Trump might one day use to clamp down on dissent against his administration's policies. For the first time since Johnson, Trump on Saturday overrode a state's authority and called up its National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles over recent raids by federal immigration authorities. He sent 2,000 members of the California National Guard into the city on Saturday. But Trump used a more obscure law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to federalize National Guard units in case of an invasion, rebellion, or when police are unable to enforce the country's laws. "It was a bit of a surprise attack," said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at Princeton University who specializes in new autocracies. "I think it was something for which Trump's opposition was less well prepared legally." Another law, 1878's Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Title 10 does not override that prohibition, but allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are carrying out arrests. What has worried legal scholars in Scheppele's circles even more, though, is that Trump's proclamation deploying the National Guard made no mention of California or a specific time period. "There's nothing to prevent him from calling out the National Guard … anywhere else that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has been active or where public protests have arisen against it." Newsom sued the Trump administration on Monday, calling Trump's move "an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." The biggest difference "between now and 1965 is the degree to which this is basically a manufactured conflict," said Barry Eidlin, an assistant professor of sociology at McGill University, who researches social change in the U.S. and Canada. Sixty years ago, Johnson wanted National Guard troops to "quell a reactionary segregationist counterinsurgency against dissolving federal policy in favour of civil rights for all," he said, newly returned to Montreal from L.A., where his family lives and where he splits his time. "Whereas the current administration is basically trying to rollback civil rights for all." John Carey, a professor of government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and the co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group monitoring threats to American democracy, also says Trump is trying to provoke violence. "I think what's actually going on is the president and his administration are trying to bait California state officials and the protesters," he said, adding that immigration is one of the issues on which Trump has the broadest support. "I worry tremendously about the implications of this for American democracy." The idea, Carey and Eidlin say, is that National Guard troops' presence could escalate violence — which already appears to be the case — further justifying federal intervention. Eidlin said Trump wants to create "a rationale for further Draconian crackdowns." He also says California communities are pushing back, citing an email from his children's school district which said no ICE agents would be permitted on school grounds. And in nearby Glendale, that city's police department said Sunday it would no longer allow ICE to detain people at its jail. The day after Johnson deployed Alabama's National Guard, more than 3,000 marchers began their 87-kilometre walk from Selma to Montgomery along Route 80. They walked for four days without interference from white supremacists, law enforcement or vigilantes. By the time they arrived, the march had swelled to around 25,000 people. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his "How long, not long" speech on the steps of the State Capitol, calling for racial justice. Later that year, the Voting Rights Act was passed, outlawing voter suppression practices, such as literacy tests and poll taxes.
