If Prime Minister Mark Carney doesn’t listen to the West, it’s going to cost Canada.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe are demanding that Ottawa stop stomping on their provinces’ natural resource production.

Smith is telling Carney to scrap the no more pipelines law, Bill C-69, lift the cap on Alberta’s energy and cancel the looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Moe is stepping in sync with Smith, listing Saskatchewan’s demands in a letter, calling for changes to the no more pipelines law, saying, “there are a few policies that are going to have to go.”

Moe is also taking aim at the industrial carbon tax saying “the tax can’t be charged on the electricity for Saskatchewan families.”

The new prime minister says he’s listening.

“I intend to govern for all Canadians,” said Carney in his election victory speech.

If that’s true, Carney must heed the demands of Smith and Moe, because Ottawa’s anti-West policies are damaging the economy and costing taxpayers a truckload of money.

How much?

Ottawa’s cap on oil and gas emissions – which creates a cap on production – will cost the Canadian economy about $20.5 billion and slash 40,000 jobs by 2032, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Canada has also seen nearly $670 billion in natural resources projects suspended or cancelled, since 2015.

To put that kind of money into perspective: $670 billion would pay for the salaries of hundreds of thousands of paramedics and police officers, for a decade.

That’s the equivalent to the value of more than one million houses in Alberta or almost two million homes in Saskatchewan.

That kind of money is worth the entire income tax bills for the populations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for about 10 years.

That’s just the lost money from natural resources.

Carney’s looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles also has a huge price tag.

Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.

If Carney is serious about boosting the economy and governing for all Canadians, getting the government out of the way of natural resource projects and scrapping the expensive plan to stop people from buying new gas and diesel vehicles is a good first step.

The West has been firmly asking for Ottawa to mind its own business for years.

Cancelling the industrial carbon tax is another way for Carney to show that he’s serious about growing the economy and governing for all Canadians.

On the same day Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, the Saskatchewan government dropped its industrial carbon tax down to zero.

“By eliminating industrial carbon costs which are often passed directly on to consumers – the province is acting to protect affordability and economic competitiveness,” said the Saskatchewan government’s news release.

Alberta’s industrial carbon tax is now frozen. Increasing the tax above its current rate would make Alberta “exceptionally uncompetitive,” according to Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz.

Business groups in both provinces lauded each premier, saying it would make their industries more competitive and help bring down costs.

When Ottawa forces businesses like fuel refineries or fertilizer plants to pay the carbon tax, they pass on those costs on to taxpayers when they heat their homes, fill up their cars and buy groceries.

If companies are forced to cut production or leave the country because of the industrial carbon tax and policies like the energy cap, it’s regular Albertans and Saskatchewanians who are hurt the most through job losses.

If Carney intends to govern for all Canadians he needs to listen to Smith and Moe and scrap these policies that are set to cost taxpayers billions and slash tens of thousands of jobs.

Kris Sims is Alberta Director and Gage Haubrich is Prairie Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

In a recent meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney, the provincial premiers discussed major infrastructure and energy projects to be fast-tracked through a new federal approval process. While the general sentiment was that the meeting was productive and collaborative, the British Columbia government seemingly shot down Alberta’s proposed pipeline to B.C.’s northern coast. This political resistance to new pipeline infrastructure overlooks the positive potential impact such projects could have for Canada and beyond.

Prime Minister Carney plans to table legislation that would create a new major projects office tasked with reducing approval times from five to two years, among other measures. Major projects must meet numerous criteria before deemed in the “national interest” and expedited. The premiers have compiled a short-list of projects for consideration though the full list has not been publicly released.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s proposed pipeline would transfer bitumen to the Port of Prince Rupert in B.C., which would open up access to Asian markets. B.C. Deputy Premier Niki Sharma, who attended the recent meeting in place of B.C. Premier David Eby, said the proposal has “no proponent” at this stage and that her government plans to focus on “shovel-ready projects.”

And it isn’t just the Eby government resisting the project—Steven Guilbeault, a member of Carney’s cabinet, recently dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure, including to B.C.’s coast, based on incorrect information about the Trans Mountain pipeline’s capacity and future oil demand.

Again, this political resistance ignores key facts about Canada’s energy sector, including our current overreliance on a single customer. Currently, 97 per cent of our oil exports go to the United States. This heavy reliance on the U.S. market has made Canada vulnerable to U.S. policy changes, as highlighted by the recent threat of tariffs on Canadian energy. Expanding pipeline infrastructure—both westward, as proposed by Premier Smith, and eastward—would help us diversify our export market and allow Canada to reach customers in Asia and Europe.

And pipeline expansion is not just about exports; it’s also about enhancing energy security at home. Some parts of our country, namely Ontario and Quebec, remain heavily dependent on U.S. pipelines to meet their energy needs. Specifically, due to the lack of an west-east pipeline dedicated to oil, for more than 70 years Canadian oil extracted in Alberta has passed through the U.S. via Enbridge’s network before returning to Ontario.

Finally, this discussion shouldn’t be limited to oil. There is and will continue to be strong demand for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in many parts of the world, including in Asia, for many years to come, which presents Canada with a significant opportunity to become a major LNG exporter and provide cleaner-burning fuel to countries such as China and India. However, building the necessary infrastructure (pipelines and LNG terminals) is critical if we’re serious about seizing this opportunity.

Governments across Canada should support critical energy infrastructure, including pipelines. This means putting politics aside and recognizing the importance of infrastructure in expanding export opportunities, ensuring energy security, reducing global emissions and creating prosperity across the country.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute