Energy Magazine Category: The Commentators

What role, if any, does energy policy play in the outcome of the upcoming provincial election in Quebec, and to what extent might energy policy shape the next federal election, should one be called within the next 12 months?

Energy policy isn’t just energy policy. Not anymore. Not in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s year-long assault on the global trading system and his more recent war on Iran. The sheer destructive force of this man’s foreign policy has propelled energy from an evergreen topic to the sole, dominating focus of discussion. In all world capitals and around every kitchen table.

Will the Strait of Hormuz ever be cleared? Or ever again be navigable? How long will the price of gas and groceries remain high? How structural are the inflationary effects? Will western nations soon experience the terror of stagflation – with growth stalling, prices jumping and rates rising?

Energy – its cost, its supply and its security – is reshaping the world economy. As a consequence, it is also reshaping our politics. No jurisdiction, large or small, will escape its effects.

“Energy – its cost, its supply and its security – is reshaping the world economy.”

For Canada that means a couple things. First, fears around energy, cost-of-living and Trump’s trade tactics have conjured a war-time mentality among voters. This peculiar combination of economic anxiety and national solidarity explain so much about our inexplicable politics of late. Carney’s rise in the polls is sustained by people’s sense that he is best suited to lead Canada against a hostile US administration. This come-together psychology also explains how he is able to attract floor crossers from both the NDP and Conservatives – and sweep by-elections to assemble a majority in the House of Commons.

Second, our priorities are being reset with energy at its center. Suddenly, support for pipelines and LNG facilities are soaring. Asian nations, shocked by instability Trump triggered in the Gulf will only double and triple their request of Canada to feed their natural gas and other energy needs. Canadians see this as a lifeline and are lending their support with high approval ratings for the government’s priorities.

Even in Quebec, a jurisdiction that has traditionally rejected talk of pipelines, is changing its attitude. Here too, the dual effect of Trump’s attacks and the world’s energy insecurity are on display. This fall’s election will, at first glance, be driven by the age-old theme of ‘time for a change’ as voters prepare to end the CAQ’s long run in office even with the arrival of a new premier. But look closer and you will see the same broader effects at play. The external threat of Trump is souring voters on the PQ’s promise of a referendum on separation. And energy proposals, like a renewed Energy East initiative, are suddenly seen as viable. Even desirable. The takeaway is unmistakable: even closeted by its own culture, language and political history, Quebec’s election will be buffeted by these same global forces.

In many respects, the lesson of the past year hinges almost entirely on energy policy. From wars to geo-politics; from gas prices to polling results: access to affordable, secure sources of energy eclipse all else. When times are good and energy is abundant, economies grow and political debates widen. But when the world darkens and energy access is threatened, economies shrink and political argument narrows. Energy isn’t just an important issue right now. It is THE issue.

Scott Reid was director of communications to former prime minister Paul Martin, and is the co-founder of Feschuk.Reid.

---

What role, if any, does energy policy play in the outcome of the upcoming provincial election in Quebec, and to what extent might energy policy shape the next federal election, should one be called within the next 12 months?

As geopolitical tensions continue to threaten supply chains and send energy prices spiralling, our allies in Europe and Asia are desperate for stable, democratic energy partners. Canada has exactly what the world wants: abundant energy reserves. Yet, our resources remain trapped in a regulatory and ideological web of our own making.

On the federal stage, we have recently seen some positive signals from the government, such as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Ottawa and the Government of Alberta. However, a change in tone is not the same as a change in policy. The anti-production machinery built over the past decade remains largely intact. Suspending some of these policies may be a step in the right direction, but suspension alone will not rebuild trust with industry or provide confidence to our allies abroad. Only their outright removal will provide the certainty needed to demonstrate that the Carney government is serious about growing Canada’s oil and gas production.

One year into Prime Minister Carney’s mandate, the legacy of a decade of anti-energy policy still dominates. Voices from the anti-energy Trudeau era – including those who fought for policies such as Bill C-69, the “anti-pipeline act”, the tanker ban, the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies (IFFS) policy, the industrial carbon pricing regime and the punitive emissions cap – remain around the decision-making table. Actions speak louder than words. In this case, too little action has been taken to allow for the growth of production and exports that the energy sector needs.

That uncertainty carries a real economic cost. Investment in new oil and gas assets has fallen by roughly 23 per cent. Over the past decade, Canada’s net outflow of investment exceeded $1 trillion – the most significant capital exodus in modern Canadian history. Money flows to certainty, and Canada offers anything but. At the same time, the United States is outcompeting Canada on fiscal policy. Washington has restored 100 per cent bonus depreciation for qualifying oil and gas property, while Canada still offers no comparable immediate expensing for major energy investments. If Ottawa is serious about attracting capital and expanding production, it must remove these policy barriers and offer a tax and investment framework that can compete.

Quebec now faces its own energy reality. In Quebec, the province is no longer swimming in the energy surplus it once enjoyed. After decades of energy abundance, Hydro-Québec signalled earlier this year that it will run out of unallocated power by the end of next year. Quebec currently has a backlog of industrial projects requesting over 20,000 megawatts of power – more than the capacity of the entire James Bay project. As the province looks to cap rate hikes at 3 per cent, it cannot on wind and solar alone to meet its energy needs. Quebec shale is estimated to contain up to 20 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas.  That is enough to power the province for decades and could allow Quebec to become a net exporter to European markets, creating good-paying jobs and strengthening its economic and energy security.

In the decade that Canada and Quebec have debated a single East Coast LNG terminal, the U.S. has become the world’s largest LNG exporter, with seven operational terminals and five additional terminals under construction. On current projections, Canada’s LNG growth will come only from projects already underway, with no new greenfield terminals expected. To reach Europe today, Canadian gas must move through U.S. facilities, sending jobs and investment outside the country instead of to Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

Canadians expect our governments to deliver tangible results that support economic growth and good-paying jobs. Yet, one year into the Carney government’s mandate, no new pipeline has been approved, and the infrastructure needed to get Canadian energy to market has not advanced.

That lack of action is now being reflected in industry sentiment. According to ATB Capital Markets’ Cormark survey, less than half of respondents said it was probable or highly probable that a pipeline project would be added to the national-interest list. Industry is still waiting for proof that Ottawa is prepared to move from rhetoric to results.

The time for “frameworks” and “understandings” has expired. The world is waiting for Canada to deliver. If we fail to build the pipelines, natural gas capacity and the supporting infrastructure needed to move our resources to market, Canada will continue to lose investment. As long as energy prices remain high, voters will support pro-energy policies that lower costs and strengthen energy security at home and abroad. That is how we grow the economy and deliver prosperity for all Canadians. With a majority government now secured, the Carney government has no excuse not to move forward quickly. The question now is whether it will.

“As long as energy prices remain high, voters will support pro-energy policies that lower costs and strengthen energy security at home and abroad.”

Robin Guy is a Vice President with Crestview Strategy in Ottawa. He brings nearly 20 years of public affairs experience, including over ten years serving as a political staffer for several cabinet ministers during the Harper Government.

---

What role, if any, does energy policy play in the outcome of the upcoming provincial election in Quebec, and to what extent might energy policy shape the next federal election, should one be called within the next 12 months?

In 2026, the world’s energy map has been redrawn, fast. Trump’s trade war upended global supply chains, and his military strike on Iran has disrupted the world’s most critical energy artery. Gas prices are rising. And Canada’s premiers and the federal government are fielding calls from European and Asian allies who want stable, democratic energy partners. Pipeline politics, long dormant, are back on the table. Energy has gone from a policy file to the defining political question of the moment, including in the upcoming election in “la belle province” this fall.

Quebec’s political history is inextricably linked to its energy choices, starting with the famous “Maîtres chez nous” campaign of Liberal Jean Lesage in 1962, which led to the nationalization of electricity and the creation of Hydro-Québec. That remains true today. In the upcoming Quebec election, energy policy will matter, but mainly as a proxy for the affordability crisis and economic sovereignty. Since the Coalition Avenir Québec took office, Hydro-Québec has gone from a surplus of 40 TWh to a structural shortage. A $200 billion investment plan aims to meet Quebec’s estimated need for more than 100 TWh. The gamble on the battery industry has backfired, and the postponement of Quebec’s energy transition to the post-Trump era has set the stage.

Affordability is now central to the political debate in Quebec, as households face rising costs, making energy supply and pricing immediate issues. In the leadership race to replace François Legault, relief at the pump was much discussed, and Premier Christine Fréchette has pledged to return additional provincial revenues from QST and royalties directly to Quebec motorists, with targeted measures aimed at supporting the middle class, which have been affected by prices busting $2.00 per liter.

“Affordability is now central to the political debate in Quebec, as households face rising costs…”

With the CAQ struggling in the polls, voters are turning their attention to the more traditional Parti Québécois – Parti libéral du Québec rivalry. The PQ closely links energy to its sovereignty project and the party firmly opposes what it characterizes as the “quiet privatization” of electricity pushed by the CAQ as part of its energy reform. The PLQ shares a similar view. What remains unclear is how either party will meet rising demand while keeping electricity affordable. The PQ is showing some flexibility on future pipelines, and the Liberals are attempting to reposition themselves as a “green economic” alternative. Meanwhile, the up-and-coming Conservatives are pledging to abolish the carbon cap-and-trade market, a move supported by more than half of Quebec voters.

Affordability was also a big part of the narrative ahead of the last federal campaign. Mark Carney’s abolition of the carbon tax effectively neutralized what was previously the Conservatives’ most powerful attack. But the cost of energy has kept rising alongside the general cost of living, which remains the Liberals’ Achilles’ heel on the economic front ahead of the next election, whenever it comes. Meanwhile, Mark Carney has given the green light to a new oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia. In doing so, Carney has exposed his left flank, which New Democratic Party leader Avi Lewis is keen to capitalize on. While not without political risk, this positioning allows the NDP to distinguish itself from both major parties by opposing fossil fuel expansion and emphasizing public investment, energy sovereignty, and affordability. In that sense, energy policy may not be the defining ballot question in the next federal election, but it will shape the terrain on which that election is fought. As in Quebec, the debate is less about abstract climate targets and more about who controls energy, who benefits from it, and who pays.

Kathleen Monk is Principal Owner at Monk + Associates, an independent public affairs firm. She appears regularly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics and sits on the board of CIVIX, a non-partisan charity dedicated to building engaged citizens.

How can Canada leverage its energy advantage, particularly natural gas, to position itself as a key partner in North American energy security?

If you like liquefied natural gas (LNG), you are going to love where Canadian politics and energy policy are headed as we move into 2026.

In a perverse way, the election of Donald Trump has positively re-engineered prospects for Canada’s natural gas sector and re-shaped domestic politics on this energy source. As US tariffs have soared, the world economy has lurched. The prospect of an own-goal recession by US policymakers is becoming very real. And nothing focuses the political mind like the prospect of job loss and economic contraction.

In that context, Canada is witnessing a rapid-fire transition in political priorities, much of which holds out the prospect of direct benefit to the natural gas sector. Prime Minister Mark Carney, since his election victory in April, has been clear that things are changing. When European leaders asked Justin Trudeau just a short while ago about the possibility of boosting LNG exports, the answer was pretty much no thanks. Carney’s new Energy Minister, Tim Hodgson, directly assured those same leaders in the summer that such reluctance is a thing of the past. As Canada seeks to expand trade with Europe (and Asia, to boot), LNG exports are likely to be a key focus.

The proof was in the pudding when, just recently, the Carney government revealed its first shortlist of major projects. Natural gas was a huge winner with Kitimat’s Phase II singled out, and the promise of more energy infrastructure down the road. Political consensus is also beginning to swirl around the deep-sea port of Churchill, which many business and political leaders see as a phenomenal opportunity to get more LNG to overseas markets.  The durability and depth of provincial – and even Opposition support – for natural gas suggests a momentum that will be difficult to halt.

Against this backdrop, other signs point toward LNG potential. With every trade and diplomatic mission to Asia and Europe, the prospects for new sources of demand are gathering. And, as mentioned, the commitment to energy infrastructure should be reassuring to investors concerned about the viability of transporting such a product to customers.

But possibly the most encouraging factor is, once again, the discouraging tone coming from our neighbour to the south. As many leaders have pointed out, the most likely path for Canadian natural gas to find its way to Europe has been, ironically, through the US. It is estimated that 95% or more of our LNG exports arrive via America. In a world where Trump has all but abandoned the idea that Canada remains an ally, the political determination to enhance our ability to trade with the rest of the world is unlikely to erode. It has moved from an economic priority to a matter of sovereignty.

For 2026, whether borne of political reality, economic necessity or changing times, the federal government’s commitment to the natural gas sector has rarely looked stronger. And never seemed more certain to remain solid.

Scott Reid was director of communications to former prime minister Paul Martin, and is the co-founder of Feschuk.Reid.

---

Canada’s Natural Gas Opportunity: Time for Decisive Action

Canada stands on the threshold of a generational opportunity in natural gas. Our resources are coveted globally—European nations seek secure alternatives to Russian gas, and Asian economies are hungry for more energy to fuel their growth. With abundant reserves, a highly skilled workforce, and world-leading environmental standards, we are uniquely positioned to lead in responsible energy production. Yet federal missteps and overregulation have allowed other nations to surge ahead at Canada’s expense.

For nearly a decade, the Trudeau Liberal government’s anti-production agenda stifled investment and stalled progress in our natural gas sector. Policies like the emissions cap, uncompetitive carbon pricing system and restrictive methane regulations were presented as necessary for climate action, but in reality, they imposed rigid limits that discouraged innovation and made it nearly impossible for producers to expand responsibly. The tanker ban and “no-pipelines act” further restricted the development of essential infrastructure, trapping Canadian natural gas within our borders while global markets called out for reliable supply.

Meanwhile, Canada’s competitors – including the United States – seized the opportunity and built LNG terminals at a record pace, supplying Europe and Asia with energy that could (and should) have been Canadian. This failure to strike while the iron was hot not only cost Canadians thousands of good-paying jobs but also diminished our geopolitical influence at a critical time. Instead of taking a place of global leadership and reinforcing our dominance on the world stage, we ceded territory to the United States and other producers.

Prime Minister Carney’s recent election was supposed to signal a new era – one focused on economic growth, results, and getting projects built. Canadians were promised less talk and more action. Instead, despite the early change in language and tone, signs point to a continuation of the same regulatory paralysis that hampered the previous government. While the much-touted Major Projects Office is a welcome initiative, a piecemeal approach will not unlock Canada’s full potential.

The path to becoming an energy superpower is clear: government must step back and let Canadian innovation and expertise lead. Canada must prioritize projects that can be built and scaled rapidly, allowing our industry to diversify markets and support new sectors such as data centres powered by Canadian energy. It must create a predictable regulatory framework that applies fairly to all projects. It does not need government handholding. Real success will not come from ad-hoc policies or political favoritism, but from clarity, competitiveness, and consistency. The federal government must send a strong, single signal to global investors that Canada is open for business, committed to responsible energy production, and determined to grow its natural gas sector.

If Ottawa acts decisively, the benefits will be profound: increased investment, good-paying jobs across the country, and greater economic growth for the entire nation. The time for half-measures and endless consultations is over. Canadians deserve a government that will champion our natural gas sector and empower our workers to compete and win on the world stage.

The choice before us is urgent and clear. Canada can seize this opportunity – or watch it slip away to the advantage of others. The time to act is now.

Robin Guy is a Vice President with Crestview Strategy in Ottawa. He brings nearly 20 years of public affairs experience, including over ten years serving as a political staffer for several cabinet ministers during the Harper Government.

---

How can Canada leverage its energy advantage, particularly natural gas, to position itself as a key partner in North American energy security?

Every cubic meter of natural gas beneath Canadian soil represents both a promise and a warning. A promise of energy security and prosperity. But a warning because as the world transitions toward, lower-emission sources of power, the question of how to leverage Canada’s natural gas resources in a way that promotes energy security while upholding environmental commitments is crucial.

Canada’s vast natural gas reserves provide us an opportunity to strengthen our country’s energy security at a time global supply chains, global oil markets and our trading relationships – particularly with the U.S. – become more volatile and unstable.

The real question isn’t whether to develop our massive gas reserves – it’s how to do it in a way that fosters greater energy independence without sacrificing our climate commitments or betraying workers and families. While consecutive governments have kicked this challenge down the road, time is running out. If that wasn’t clear before Donald Trump was elected President, it certainly is now.

The numbers don’t lie. Canada sits on one of the world’s largest natural gas reserves. And yes, it burns cleaner than coal. But without proper oversight, Indigenous partnership, and more made-in-Canada upgrading, this advantage becomes just another lost opportunity.

Expanding our fossil fuel infrastructure without clear climate safeguards risks undermining Canada’s emissions reduction targets. Canada’s leadership should not come from merely supplying more fossil fuels but from demonstrating how an energy-rich country like ours can also lead in decarbonization.

The path forward also demands real partnership with Indigenous communities. Not just consultation, but genuine economic participation. If Canada is to develop its natural gas resources responsibly, Indigenous leadership must be central to project planning and benefit-sharing agreements. No more empty promises.

Canada’s natural gas advantage must be a bridge, not a detour. We can’t use it as a license to delay the transition to clean energy. Instead, it must pave the path to a renewable future. The revenues generated from natural gas exports should be reinvested into large-scale renewable energy projects, grid modernization, and green technology innovation. We need the next government to commit to policy instruments that help fund necessary investments to make Canadian natural gas the cleanest in North America.

This isn’t just about doing what’s right; it’s about putting the Canadian people at the centre of both our industrial and climate policy.

For too long, workers have been left to navigate the shift to a low-carbon economy on their own. That’s wrong. Skilled Canadian workers will build our low-carbon future, and they must be front and centre around the decision-making table as we plan for it. That means good, union jobs, comprehensive skills training, and concrete transition programs that ensure no region is left behind.

This isn’t a choice between energy security and environmental responsibility, as some argue. It’s about whether we choose to remain stuck in a failed status quo or have the courage to build a new energy economy with greater economic security and thriving, livable communities across Canada. That’s what putting Canada first really looks like.

Kathleen Monk is Principal Owner at Monk + Associates, an independent public affairs firm. She appears regularly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics and sits on the board of CIVIX, a non-partisan charity dedicated to building engaged citizens.

How Can Policy Leaders Support Affordable Energy to Reduce the Impacts of Energy Poverty in Canada?

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Canadian Gas Association.

If you have bought anything lately you know that inflation is real. If like many Canadians you aren’t driving an electric vehicle you will know when you have been to the pump that the price of gas has risen dramatically. And for people who don’t have public transit or walking options, the cost of getting to work or the kids to hockey is making life less affordable.

Now with war waging in Ukraine, Russia’s central role in energy provision to parts of Europe, Asia and elsewhere is properly getting more scrutiny. Geopolitical dynamics have always influenced discussions on energy policy in Canada. Already three Canadian provinces Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan have said Canada should use the crisis in Ukraine to advance the energy options those jurisdictions have to the world. Simultaneously, high-profile federal Conservative politicians Pierre Poilievre and Michael Chong have argued Canada must also move to accelerate the development of LNG projects, particularly those on the East Coast, so that Europe has new stable supply options.

As the domestic Canadian political system turns to budget season, expect inflation and global instability to dominate those political documents. From St. John’s to Victoria, citizens are screaming for some temporary relief from inflationary pain particularly when it comes to the price of gas. In Ottawa, they are hearing those same cries while being encouraged to be more aggressive on opening Canada’s energy warehouse to the world. With the Conservative Party in yet another leadership race expect more debate on how Canada needs to do more geopolitically to displace other nations not just on greenhouse gas reductions, but as an energy provider.

So, what to expect on the policy front? It is possible governments may look at temporary gas tax collection relief in the places where they have such mechanisms. Some have called for broader sales tax waiving or reductions — it is not outside the realm of possibility — but that might be seen as risky, given the perceived precedent it could set. Others could increase subsidies for swifter transition to non-renewable energy options if the argument can be made it provides legitimate relief from ongoing personal affordability challenges. Also, I wouldn’t rule out some governments creating special one-time relief payments for citizens. Bribery with our own money has worked before.

Medium to longer term policy debates, beyond the budgets, will return to the Canadian energy regulatory environment and pace of energy transition. For example, in the current Conservative Party of Canada leadership race the pace and place of transition has been centre stage. Most of all the candidates have acknowledged that geo-political uncertainty in Europe creates a significant opening for Canadian oil and gas. One candidate has gone as far to argue that uncertainty should be impetus to expand our domestic production. This on top of the government’s own recent recognition that our energy production in Canada will be increasing creates a set of many interesting circumstances.

Maybe for the first time in years there is real disruption happening around what the shape of Canada’s energy policy is about to be over the next two decades. Watching it play out will be fascinating as the threat of climate change is not going away, and neither is instability in Europe.

“Maybe for the first time in years there is real disruption happening around what the shape of Canada’s energy policy is about to be over the next two decades.”

Tim Powers, is the Chair of Summa Strategies Canada and the managing director of Abacus Data, both headquarters are in Ottawa. Mr. Powers appears regularly on CBC’s Power and Politics program as well as on VOCM in his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

---

The drive to net zero will remake Canada’s economy over the coming couple of generations. At stake is our ability to preserve our standing as a major energy-producing nation, albeit in a sustainable fashion. Even more fundamentally, this effort will determine our ability to preserve our standard of living and quality of life. If there’s any word that’s been overused in recent times, it is transition. But managing this energy transition will be the most critical public policy challenge Canada faces in the next half-century.

Affordability will be vital to the entire exercise. If we rush head-long into a brand of change that radically increases the prices that families pay to meet their energy needs, there will be recoil and resistance. Progress will be undermined and setback. Consequently, identifying affordable energy sources — and using public policy tools to support their development is key. Natural gas sits high on this list. Abundant in supply and with high demand around the world, it represents an enormous transition opportunity. Not only will it help us move toward net zero, it will provide more affordable options at home as well as GDP-boosting potential for export. Of course, the challenge is getting such product to market which requires the engaged support of a prudent public policy approach — in particular, for the sustainable, socially-accepted construction of pipelines.

Other technologies offer similar hopes for an affordable transition such as the development of SMRs — or small modular reactors. Canada could easily, with the concerted support of governments and public policy leaders, become a champion in this new era of nuclear power. But the technology will not produce itself. Public dollars and policy support are needed to create momentum, prompt breakthroughs and facilitate scale.

Finally, Canada will need to also invest in the support of our energy producers and workers across the country. Those in energy-generating regions like Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC and elsewhere will need help to shift their focus to other options whether that be renewables, natural gas, nuclear or other. The talents of these workers need to be nurtured. Their skills need to be supported. And their ability to earn a living wage must be respected. At previous points in our history, dedicated transition programs have been put in place to help hasten change and support those most acutely affected. Our public policy tools must be similarly employed today in order to demonstrate to our energy sector workers that all Canadians recognize the challenge is not theirs alone. Nor is it simply sectoral or geographic. It must be regarded as a truly national priority.

In pursuing all these courses, and possibly others, we would be wise to keep affordability as a top-of-mind imperative. Public policies must be shaped with full consideration of practical consequences. If the price of energy transition is too costly for people to pay, the entire project will be harmed. Affordability is therefore a disciplining tool. It helps us pick the public policy priorities that will not only see us succeed but that will enable us to create and cultivate public support.

Scott Reid was director of communications to former prime minister Paul Martin, and is the co-founder of Feschuk.Reid.

---

Families are struggling. Inflation has hit a 30-year high while wages continue to lag, especially for workers on the lower end of the pay scale.

The cost-of-living crisis will continue to be a top political issue. As politicians focus on Canadians struggling to pay rising bills, rising energy costs will play a central role.

For months, energy costs have been a top driver of inflation and now, as costs rise to transport or manufacture goods, this is having a run-on effect making everything families need even more expensive. With interest rates poised to rise in coming months, and Canadian households holding $2.5 trillion in debt, the fiscal squeeze families face is only going to get worse.

Experts generally measure energy poverty by the percentage of household income families spend on energy, but this doesn’t even consider the impact of sky-high gas prices, which particularly affect low-wage earners in communities without easy access to public transit.

Energy poverty is only going to grow. This means more Canadians sacrificing one essential to pay for another, a greater number of families living in discomfort, higher incidences of respiratory illnesses, and poorer mental health outcomes. This is the bleak context facing policy makers as they look towards new measures to tackle energy poverty in this country.

Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners (CUSP) provides a tool to show what energy poverty looks like across Canada. According to CUSP, the number of households that spend more than double the nation-wide average on their monthly energy bills — which is the definition for energy poverty — stands at over 2.8 million families across Canada. In Atlantic Canada, over a third of households are now experiencing energy poverty. In some parts of Northern Ontario, it’s over 50 per cent of families.

This isn’t just about families struggling to afford high energy costs. Some communities face a lack of dependable access to energy at all, including a sizable number of Indigenous communities.

Solutions will have to work in the different realities facing a myriad of communities across the country.

Governments can start by helping families improve household energy efficiency through measures like energy retrofit programs, in particular, initiatives aimed directly at helping low-income families living in inefficient homes. Efficiency Canada, an organization pushing for a more energy efficient economy, has proposed new legislation with firm energy poverty reduction targets as well as new funding in the upcoming federal budget that could be used to leverage greater commitments from the provinces around reducing energy poverty.

“Governments can start by helping families improve household energy efficiency through measures like energy retrofit programs…”

These would be good first steps but so much more needs to be done. The fact is, we need urgent measures to reduce energy costs, but also action on bringing down the high cost of housing, medicines, and groceries. If we fail to act, we risk millions of families being left behind.

Kathleen Monk is Principal Owner at Monk + Associates, an independent public affairs firm. She appears regularly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics and sits on the board of CIVIX, a non-partisan charity dedicated to building engaged citizens.

What do the results from the federal election tell us about Canadians’ perspectives on the country’s energy and environmental policy landscape?

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Canadian Gas Association.

Canada’s 44^th general election concluded on September 20, 2021. The results of this vote almost completely mirrored the outcome of the 2019 campaign. The Liberals were returned to power again in a minority parliament setting. The Conservatives will again serve as the principal opposition party, with the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP looking to be more like partners than opponents for the Liberals when parliament returns on November 22^nd.

Vote 2021 focused very little on environment and energy policy. It was in the end, more of a contest of whether Justin Trudeau should be re-elected or whether Erin O’Toole should be given a chance. While the current Prime Minister won, in the end he did not get his much sought-after majority. Post-election, Mr. O’Toole was subject to early calls from some parts of the Conservative movement to step down — for now though, it looks like he will hold on.

In the early days of the campaign, the future of Afghanistan, the withdrawal of Canada and allied troops from there, and the plight of many Afghans who had helped our country during the conflict, dominated the discussion. After a couple of weeks of intense coverage on that topic, the narrative moved to all matters pandemic, and then a self-made Conservative controversy on what weapons should be banned or not in Canada. You would have needed old legendary detective Colombo to find, beyond platform mentions, any discussion on energy in general, gas in particular, or the environment.

While the election may have offered little insight into what the next couple of years may mean in terms of environment and energy policy, I think there are some key indicators to watch for which might provide guidance. The first key indicator was the appointment of cabinet, and particularly the move of Jonathan Wilkinson from Environment and Climate Change (ECCC) to Natural Resources, and the placement of activist environmental advocate Steven Guilbeault at ECCC. A very strong focus on the environment is only going to become stronger. And the Prime Minister’s remarks at COP demonstrated that clearly.

Of course, the Throne Speech in late November will be another leading indicator of where the Trudeau government will go with policy. This could be a more crucial throne speech than the others during Justin Trudeau’s era if it sets out the agenda for what could be his final term.

Speculation in and around Ottawa isn’t usually worth very much but currently it is ripe with the notion that at some point during this parliament the Prime Minister will announce he is not running again. There are lots of reasons why that makes sense including the historical difficulty in one leader winning four consecutive governments and the Liberal Party’s general success in plotting hand offs of power.

But make no mistake about it, if Justin Trudeau is indeed stepping away from politics he will be legacy minded. It is not hard to conceive that one of the legacy items he would like would be an environmental one, featuring ambitious GHG targets, stepping away further from non-renewable resources and the accordant economic restructuring. It could be coming and with the NDP and Bloc as allies in the short term anything is possible.

“It is not hard to conceive that one of the legacy items he would like would be an environmental one, featuring ambitious GHG targets, stepping away further from non-renewable resources and the accordant economic restructuring.”

Tim Powers, is the Chair of Summa Strategies Canada and the managing director of Abacus Data, both headquarters are in Ottawa. Mr. Powers appears regularly on CBC’s Power and Politics program as well as on VOCM in his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

---

Some people dared to say that the 2021 federal election was a waste of time and resources, but I disagree for two reasons that define our times: childcare and climate. As a mom to a three-year-old, I have tangible arguments in support of affordable childcare. As a longtime Liberal who recently moved to Calgary from Toronto, I have a new perspective on energy and environmental policy and not surprising, that’s my focus here.

Canadians want real climate action

In the 2021 federal election, 16,035,732 million Canadians representing 94 per cent of the votes cast were for parties that had climate plans. Canadians from coast to coast to coast sent a clear message that they are past the point of debating and want real action to tackle the climate emergency.

Leadership from the energy sector

The Liberals’ 2015 climate policies were visionary and at times seen as too ambitious, but no doubt pushed industries, especially the resource-intensive energy sector, down the path of sustainability and diversification. In June of this year, Canada’s largest oil sands producers announced an unprecedented alliance to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to help Canada meet its climate goals, including the Paris Agreement commitments. This is meaningful action that sends a loud message to employees, investors, and Canadians that the sector is taking meaningful steps towards sustainability.

Calgarians and Edmontonians support bold climate action

While we know that Canadians in provinces like Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia are typically in favour of climate action, Albertans in four ridings surprised the country by electing NDP and Liberal MPs. What’s more, Calgarians and Edmontonians also elected progressive and diverse mayors. In Edmonton, Amarjeet Sohi, a former Liberal Natural Resources Minister, was elected as mayor with an impressive 45 per cent of the vote — more than double of his closest opponent. Despite a significant downturn in the Alberta economy due to yet another oil price crash and the effects of the pandemic, Calgarians and Edmontonians were audacious and voted for bold climate action.

Conservatives got serious about climate policy

The direction of the Conservative Party climate change policy, which included carbon pricing, surprised some Canadians, but most knew that a climate plan was a pre-requisite to be considered as a viable opposition, let alone government-in-waiting. An election exit poll commissioned by Clean Prosperity showed that over 40 per cent of Conservative voters said the party should do more on climate versus 10 per cent who said the party should do less. Including the carbon price in the conservative’s plan was a game-changer for the party. Over six in 10 voters said they can’t vote for a party without a credible climate plan and said that carbon tax is a priority for a credible plan.

In conclusion, this federal election was a win for Canadian families and the planet and we are all better off because of that.

Gabriela Gonzalez is a Director, Communications and Public Engagement at Argyle and a longtime Liberal volunteer who recently moved to Calgary from Toronto. She loves living near the mountains with her family and has embraced the Western Canadian identity. You can connect with her on Twitter @GabrielainYYC or LinkedIn.

---

With catastrophic climate change happening all around us, and after a summer in Canada featuring record breaking heat waves and widespread forest fires, it was surprising that climate change and the environment didn’t dominate more of the federal election campaign.

And while the election results didn’t change the seat count much, that doesn’t mean the coming parliament will be just like the last one.

Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, at least for a while, can’t use the big stick of a possible election hanging over the opposition parties. Meanwhile, Conservative leader Erin O’Toole will likely be more concerned in the coming months winning the support of his own caucus than about the Liberals. And while the New Democrats made some incremental gains, Election 2021 had no big winners. Even the party that suffered the biggest drop, the Green Party, could point to infighting as the cause, rather than a sign of Canadians’ changing views on the environment.

What has most changed in terms of Canada’s political landscape is how all the parties have now moved closer together on climate policy.

Liberals and Conservatives both proposed massive investments in carbon capture, a low-carbon fuel standard, and a regime of some sort that puts a price on carbon. While Conservatives still had strong commitments around supporting Canada’s oil and gas industry, they employed more explicit language than ever before acknowledging that climate change is real. The question now is to what extent Conservatives have really embraced this newfound concern for climate change, or will they snap back like a rubber band to their previous head-in-the-sand approach to these issues?

For the New Democrats, they made a strong case for why the Liberal government has not done enough to fight climate change. They put considerable efforts behind delivering the message that Trudeau’s government is strong on talk but weak on action around things like eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, and concrete measures to meet aggressive emission reduction targets.

Liberals will have to choose who their dance partner will be in the coming parliament. This will be the political move to watch. Will they look to get support from the Conservatives on things like carbon capture, and a more industry-friendly approach? Or will they look to partner with the NDP, on eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and more aggressive actions to fight climate change?

Knowing the Liberals modus operandi, the answer to these questions will lay in which path the party thinks will be more likely to led them towards a majority government.

Will they be more focused on keeping their support in Canada’s cities, and with younger voters? Or will they be more concerned about voters in the Prairies and those from more resource-dependent communities? And how quickly will climate change return as a top-of-mind issue for voters, once people feel the pandemic is truly waning away?

The first clear sign of an answer to these big questions will come when Governor General Mary Simon delivers the government’s Speech from the Throne.

Kathleen Monk is Principal Owner at Monk + Associates, an independent public affairs firm. She appears regularly on CBC News Network’s Power and Politics and sits on the board of CIVIX, a non-partisan charity dedicated to building engaged citizens.

What are your thoughts on the public response to energy prices in Canada?

How Canadians look at energy prices is as naturalist Henry David Thoreau described, “it’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.” Thoreau could not be more right when it comes to the public’s take on energy discourse in this country.

Politicians from coast to coast frame the debate around what their citizens see now in terms of bills and prices at the pump versus future action on matters such as climate change or the need for pipelines.  What you see is also different from where you sit. In places like Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador price is synonymous with employment. What you can afford to buy or pay for is heavily influenced by whether or not you have a job and the means to pay for it.

For example, the recent provincial election in Alberta was waged on who will more effectively get pipelines built. The pipeline symbolizes opportunity and the pace at which construction can happen represents the difference between a family’s employment or potential unemployment. Food on the table or not; certainly that is how the debate is cast.

An Angus Reid poll released in January captured well the notion of what you see depends on your perspective. The headline that came with the research screamed, “Nearly 6 in 10 Canadians polled call lack of new pipeline capacity a crisis.” Yet a paragraph in the media statement from the Angus Reid group captured the Canadian mosaic nicely. It read:

The latest polling finds Canadian polarized along regional lines, with residents of Alberta overwhelmingly taking the view that the situation is a crisis. Where British Columbians are divided, Quebecers take an opposite view.

In the recent Ontario provincial election the public was asked to see energy pricing through the prism of corporate executives getting wealthy, bad power distribution arrangements being struck while average Joe and Janes were just paying more to get by. They were also reminded that an energy price was really a carbon tax and the cost of everything in their lives was going up. Of course these are not homogenous views but the party that promoted them now governs Ontario and is driving its energy policy accordingly.

But Canadians are not lemmings and well communicated verifiable evidence changes what they see.  For example, when it comes to that same Carbon Tax debate in Ontario levels of support or opposition vary with information available. In a February 8, 2019 poll done by our research company Abacus data found that in Ontario, 34 per cent support, 37 per cent are open to, and 30 per cent oppose the federal carbon tax. When told of the idea that revenues would be rebated to affected households support jumps to 42 per cent and opposition drops to 22 per cent.

There is no one Canadian view on energy prices. It’s a wide lens with lots of angles and different sightlines.

Tim Powers, is the Vice-Chairman of Summa Strategies Canada and the managing partner of Abacus Data, both headquarters are in Ottawa. Mr. Powers appears regularly on CBC’s Power and Politics program as well as on VOCM in his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

---

Canadians have a lot of opinions when it comes to energy prices and they are not always polite when expressing them. I believe their strong opinions are the result of financial insecurities and frustrations and some politicians are capitalizing on this.

A 2018 year-end Ipsos poll showed that the percentage of Canadians who feel ‘good’ about their finances is at its lowest in 3 years. The picture looks even bleaker in Alberta where the energy sector and the thousands of livelihoods that depend on it continue to struggle. Conservatives in Canada are capitalizing on these insecurities and we don’t have to look very hard to find evidence of this. In Ontario, the Ford government continues to focus on doing everything in its power to fight the federal carbon tax and lower gasoline prices. Federally, the conservatives have sent robo text messages to Canadians in provinces where the carbon tax came into effect.

What politicians fail to mention is that energy price fluctuations are the result of open markets and mostly beyond their control, by trying to artificially lower gasoline prices politicians are sacrificing the government’s future revenue. Government revenue from gasoline matters because it helps provincial and municipal governments build much needed infrastructure through the federal Gas Tax Fund.

It is human nature to complain about rising costs, whether it’s rising energy prices, food prices or the increasingly high cost of housing in Canada’s urban centres. It’s not difficult to see why energy prices have become a target for people’s frustrations. Prices fluctuate without “explanation”, almost arbitrarily, making it hard for Canadians, especially those with tight budgets and fixed incomes to adapt. While the sector is a major driver of Canada’s economy, it is a complex industry that is often misunderstood and the subject of ideological vitriol.

“No one likes uncertainty, especially when it comes to energy prices and how they fit into the budgets of Canadians.”

I propose that we look at the energy prices in Canada in a different light. When we think about the prices going up or down, instead of complaining about them, we should think about the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the sector, their livelihoods and ability or lack thereof – to provide for their families and in turn keep those towns and cities alive.

We should also think twice about the impact of government measures to lower energy prices. Saving you and me five cents per litre at the pump will result in the government having less revenue to fund the programs and services that we all rely on.

No one likes uncertainty, especially when it comes to energy prices and how they fit into the budgets of Canadians. Before politicians come up with yet another criticism of the federal carbon tax or a way to artificially lower energy prices, they should be honest with Canadians about the opportunity cost of their actions. If conservatives want to be fiscally responsible, they should focus on those who need the most help, like low incomes households, instead of trying to save everyone five cents, even those who are not bothered by the energy price fluctuations.

Gabriela Gonzalez is Consultant at Crestview Strategy. Prior to this, Gabriela worked at Queen’s Park and is a long-time Liberal organizer. Most recently, she worked as a Senior Communications and Operations Advisor to Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Gabriela holds an Honours Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Psychology from York University and Master’s degree from the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

---

For environmentalists, the survival of our planet depends on our society reducing the use of fossil fuels, starting with putting a price on carbon dioxide and higher energy costs. For everyday families struggling to make ends meet, energy costs are a major monthly expense – and a major irritant. In less urban areas, say without public transit, the high cost of gasoline impacts and irritates even more.

So, for many, someone promising relief from rising energy costs is certainly worth listening to.

In the lead-up to the last election in Ontario, parties on the left and the right made proposals to address the impact of energy prices on everyday people. In fact, both the Liberals and Conservatives proposed putting a price on carbon while offering strong measures to provide relief from high energy prices.

There was a reason for this. The new federal Carbon Pricing plan meant a price had to be put on carbon dioxide, but a provincial government could direct revenues almost anywhere they wanted – including giving it back directly to taxpayers.

But in the aftermath of Patrick Brown’s resignation, these facts didn’t stop the entire field of PC leadership candidates from declaring war on the very notion of a Carbon Tax.

Doug Ford led the pack, taking rhetorical aim at the Carbon Tax already in the PC platform. The rest of the field – even those who had previously supported the PC version of a Carbon Tax – found Ford’s rhetoric too popular among PC members and all fell into line.  But with just weeks until election day having a bumper sticker slogan became more important, no matter how many billions it cost the government. Right-wing populist bumper stickers are very expensive.

In October we will see the federal election take place and sadly we will likely witness more campaigns heavy on right-wing populist slogans but light on facts, policies or reasoned debate.

High energy prices are a reality and hurt families in the pocketbook. While I believe we must take urgent action to fight climate change, including putting a price on carbon dioxide, we cannot simply leave lower income families to fend for themselves.

But the problem isn’t populism vs pragmatism. The real issue here is honest, factual debate about a real problem vs misleading, dishonest and divisive rhetoric.

New Democrats come from a proud populist tradition, but not a dishonest one. When Tommy Douglas acted to establish Medicare, it was a populist idea. But it was also a practical solution to a problem everyday people were facing. A solution that made so much sense that even the elites of the Liberal Party in a few short years went from scare tactics and demonizing Douglas’ ideas to co-opting them.

Any energy policy that ignores the public’s response when it comes to energy prices is doomed. But an energy plan based on divisive rhetoric and bumper sticker slogans dooms the entire country.

Kathleen Monk is a Principal at Earnscliffe, where she is trusted by Canadian leaders to navigate complex public strategy issues, design strategy and bring together diverse stakeholders to tell authentic stories that deliver results. She appears regularly on CBC The National’s pre-eminent political panel, The Insiders, and provides analysis for CBC News Network’s Power and Politics.

Many provincial elections are taking place (NL, NWT, AB, PEI) or have taken place (ON, QC, NB) ahead of the 2019 federal election. In your opinion, how can the results of these elections have an impact on the dynamic between provincial and federal politics and in turn the federal election results?

The Canadian political landscape is a busy place in 2018 and 2019. Not only is a federal election approaching next year, lots of provinces will also be going to the polls. Provincial elections and their outcomes can have pronounced impact on federal policies and practices.

One immediate example that jumps to mind is the influence the change of government in Ontario has already had on the national energy and environmental debate. Doug Ford, the new Premier of Ontario, has already enacted legislation to end his province’s carbon pricing plan. He has aligned with Saskatchewan’s new Premier Scott Moe in a legal challenge on the Canadian plan. Ford also forced a change of leadership at Ontario’s Hydro One, one of the country’s largest electricity transmission and distribution utilities. Sending a message that potent populism knows no corporate bounds.

Another election is coming in Alberta in the spring of 2019. Current NDP Premier Rachel Notley, generally an ally of Prime Minister Trudeau’s government, could go down to defeat to United Conservative Party leader Jason Kenney. Though Notley should not be underestimated, a recent court decision halting the construction of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and until recently her support of the Liberal government’s climate plan, could be her undoing. The Alberta election when it finally comes will have a large focus on energy and the environment. If Kenney wins he has promised to keep Alberta out of the Trudeau climate gambit. That will influence how national policy falls out.

Provincial elections, along with stalled Trans Mountain pipeline development has kicked up the debate on whether or not the Energy East pipeline should be revived. When the federal Conservatives gathered for their policy convention in Halifax in August sensing some of the prevailing winds in the country they stated they would make Energy East a reality if they came in to power in 2019.

Already, federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has tucked in behind Ford, Kenney and Moe parroting many of their energy-environmental policies which are diametrically opposed to the current government’s stance. If more non-federally aligned Premiers are elected then national policy collaboration and implementation will become more challenging.

So while it is intriguing and often entertaining to look at how the Canada-U.S. relationship and American political dynamics are influencing federal politics, don’t take your eyes off these provincial contests. They have the potential to have a significant impact on federal discourse.

Tim Powers, is the Vice-Chairman of Summa Strategies Canada and the managing partner of Abacus Data, both headquarters are in Ottawa. Mr. Powers appears regularly on CBC’s Power and Politics program as well as on VOCM in his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

---

Despite well-defined levels of government and accompanying responsibilities, provincial elections have a way of influencing the national agenda. The most recent example is the Ontario election, where Premier Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservative government have started dismantling key policies from the previous administration and intentionally throwing a wrench in the federal Liberals’ plans leading up to the 2019 election.

As the first order of business of his new government, Premier Ford cancelled the province’s cap-and-trade program, threatening the “pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change” that all but two premiers had signed in 2016 under the leadership of Prime Minister Trudeau. Ford has also challenged the federal government’s immigration policies and the respective ministers have fought fierce public battles. The outcome of the Ontario election has thrown cold water on what was a very warm relationship between Queen’s Park and Ottawa. But as history shows, Ontarians seem to like a healthy tension between its provincial and federal governments, as a sort of check and balance on each other.

This change in provincial and federal dynamic was most evident during the first official meeting between Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford on July 5. The photo-op was revealing: Trudeau looked stern while Ford looked defiant. Shortly after that meeting, the Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet partly because of the changing provincial political landscape. But this change has not been limited to Ontario. On October 1, Quebeckers gave a majority government to the CAQ, a right of centre party that will be less friendly towards the federal Liberals than the previous administration. Polling indicates that Alberta will likely follow the footsteps of its provincial counterparts and also elect a conservative government in May 2019.

Government changes in Ontario, Quebec and likely Alberta – three critical regions for the Trudeau government – means losing key allies of the national agenda and progress on files such as infrastructure and the environment may face new hurdles.

Despite the above political storm clouds on the horizon, Canada’s economy is thriving, unemployment is at a record low and Canada’s perception on the world stage is at an all-time high. The provincial changes present an opportunity for the federal government to contrast its forward-looking, inclusive and nation-building agenda with the alternative: a conservative, backward-looking and populist agenda that doesn’t address the real challenges of our generation.

Liberals strongly believe they are on the winning side of the arguments on climate change, immigration and investments in social programs such as the Canada Child Benefit. Time and time again the Trudeau government shows that it can handle curve balls like a Trump presidency and NAFTA renegotiation. The USCMA, the renegotiated NAFTA, was a hard-fought win for the Liberals, delivering major wins for sectors critical to Canada’s economy and ensuring economic stability. Premiers who criticize the Liberals’ USCMA deal do so to their detriment since there is widespread consensus that Canada fared better than expected in the new Agreement.

No one is taking the 2019 election results for granted but the Trudeau government can stand by its solid track record and ability to lead the country regardless of what comes its way.

Gabriela Gonzalez is Consultant at Crestview Strategy. Prior to this, Gabriela worked at Queen’s Park and is a long-time Liberal organizer. Most recently, she worked as a Senior Communications and Operations Advisor to Ontario’s Minister of Economic Development and Growth. Gabriela holds an Honours Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Psychology from York University and Master’s degree from the Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

---

One year out from the next federal election, campaign nomads are busy settling into new jobs at Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic headquarters to churn out platforms, nominate candidates, and staff up in the regions. The 2019 federal election is shaping up to be an interesting one and it’s worth reflecting on just how different the political landscape is today as compared to October 2015.

The context of the 2015 election was one of growing frustration with Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives after close to a decade in power. But, the political climate that resulted in the Trudeau government’s victory has to factor in the significant wins made by progressive governments across the country: in Alberta, Rachel Notley’s NDP stomped out the PC dynasty in spring 2015; the populous provinces of Ontario and Quebec elected Liberal majorities in late 2014 for both Kathleen Wynne and Philippe Couillard; New Brunswick’s Brian Gallant swept out a PC government the same year; and Liberals and New Democrats still held the reigns of power in British Columbia and Manitoba. In other words, the political landscape leading up to the 2015 federal vote had significant progressive political headwinds. The 2019 election will be an entirely different scenario.

Listen, there is no money to be made in the political prediction game. Every election is unique and certainly any strategist worth their salt will be wary of dusting off the previous campaign’s playbook without changing strategy, tactics, targeting, and message. But what a difference a few years can make.

With recent elections we’ve seen provincial governments challenge the federal government’s key energy and climate policy agenda and alter the dynamic between provincial and federal politics. Trudeau’s close ally, Dominic LeBlanc, got shuffled into the roll of quarterback this summer as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the government is hopeful that the experienced political operator with folksy charm can manage the increasingly rocky relations with the provinces and curry favour among the premiers ahead of the next first ministers’ meeting.

With Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe challenging the federal government’s carbon tax policy and the Trans Mountain Pipeline essentially becoming a ‘political dumpster fire’, the provinces’ growing frustration with the federal government makes headlines daily. For the Trudeau government, securing a second majority mandate in 2019 will depend on far more than just the winds of ‘real change’ and opposition to the Harper regime. This time the road to victory will be more challenging and the government’s ability to communicate and demonstrate substantive progress on major policies will be the key to their success or ultimate downfall.

Kathleen Monk is a Principal at Earnscliffe, where she is trusted by Canadian leaders to navigate complex public strategy issues, design strategy and bring together diverse stakeholders to tell authentic stories that deliver results. She appears regularly on CBC The National’s pre-eminent political panel, The Insiders, and provides analysis for CBC News Network’s Power and Politics.