Alberta
Carney government should end damaging energy policies amid separatist sentiment in Alberta
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
Following last month’s Liberal election victory, and after a decade of damaging federal policies by the Trudeau government, some Albertans are calling for a referendum on separation. While Premier Danielle Smith said she does not support separation she “will honour” the referendum process. And according to a recent poll, more than one-third of Albertans are open to leaving Canada. But whether or not the referendum actually happens, one thing is clear—Albertans have reason to be frustrated with confederation.
In our current system, Ottawa collects taxes from people and businesses across the country then transfers that money to Canadians for federal and national programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and employment insurance. Albertans contribute disproportionately to this system thanks to the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and younger population.
For example, from 1981 to 2022 (the latest year of available data), Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP—meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta received in CPP benefit payments—was $53.6 billion. British Columbia was the only other province where workers paid more into the CPP than retirees received in benefits—and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than B.C.’s contribution.
On equalization—Canada’s transfer program aimed at ensuring each province can provide comparable levels of public services—Alberta has not received payments since 1964/65. In 2022 (the latest year of available data), the federal government spent $21.9 billion on equalization while 13.5 per cent of total federal revenue came from Alberta, which means Alberta taxpayers contributed an estimated $3.0 billion to the equalization program that year—while receiving no payments.
More broadly, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances and national programs (that is, total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times more than the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors) despite Alberta’s smaller population.
So that’s the reality—Alberta massively overcontributes to federal and national programs. But that’s not necessarily a problem, in and of itself. The problem is that despite Alberta’s outsized importance within Canada, Albertans have faced a barrage of federal policies that disproportionately and negatively impact the province including Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous “net-zero” targets, and so on.
On the campaign trail, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised to keep the emissions cap and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Yet in a recent interview with CTV, Carney said he will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward” adding that he may eventually remove both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.
That would be welcomed news in Alberta, which continues to punch above its economic weight despite federal policies that prevent the province from reaching its full economic potential. And any policies that restrict Alberta ultimately limit prosperity in Canada.
Albertans may soon face a referendum on separation. The rest of Canada should understand why so many Albertans are frustrated with the status quo. Federal policies specifically target their province’s energy industry despite their disproportionate contribution to the federation. It’s time to undo these federal policies, for the benefit of all Canadians.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Alberta
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Discusses Moving Energy Forward at the Global Energy Show in Calgary
From Energy Now
At the energy conference in Calgary, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pressed the case for building infrastructure to move provincial products to international markets, via a transportation and energy corridor to British Columbia.
“The anchor tenant for this corridor must be a 42-inch pipeline, moving one million incremental barrels of oil to those global markets. And we can’t stop there,” she told the audience.
The premier reiterated her support for new pipelines north to Grays Bay in Nunavut, east to Churchill, Man., and potentially a new version of Energy East.
The discussion comes as Prime Minister Mark Carney and his government are assembling a list of major projects of national interest to fast-track for approval.
Carney has also pledged to establish a major project review office that would issue decisions within two years, instead of five.
Alberta
Punishing Alberta Oil Production: The Divisive Effect of Policies For Carney’s “Decarbonized Oil”
From Energy Now
By Ron Wallace
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate.
Following meetings in Saskatoon in early June between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Canadian provincial and territorial leaders, the federal government expressed renewed interest in the completion of new oil pipelines to reduce reliance on oil exports to the USA while providing better access to foreign markets. However Carney, while suggesting that there is “real potential” for such projects nonetheless qualified that support as being limited to projects that would “decarbonize” Canadian oil, apparently those that would employ carbon capture technologies. While the meeting did not result in a final list of potential projects, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said that this approach would constitute a “grand bargain” whereby new pipelines to increase oil exports could help fund decarbonization efforts. But is that true and what are the implications for the Albertan and Canadian economies?
The federal government has doubled down on its commitment to “responsibly produced oil and gas”. These terms are apparently carefully crafted to maintain federal policies for Net Zero. These policies include a Canadian emissions cap, tanker bans and a clean electricity mandate. Many would consider that Canadians, especially Albertans, should be wary of these largely undefined announcements in which Ottawa proposes solely to determine projects that are “in the national interest.”
The federal government has tabled legislation designed to address these challenges with Bill C-5: An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility Act and the Building Canada Act (the One Canadian Economy Act). Rather than replacing controversial, and challenged, legislation like the Impact Assessment Act, the Carney government proposes to add more legislation designed to accelerate and streamline regulatory approvals for energy and infrastructure projects. However, only those projects that Ottawa designates as being in the national interest would be approved. While clearer, shorter regulatory timelines and the restoration of the Major Projects Office are also proposed, Bill C-5 is to be superimposed over a crippling regulatory base.
It remains to be seen if this attempt will restore a much-diminished Canadian Can-Do spirit for economic development by encouraging much-needed, indeed essential interprovincial teamwork across shared jurisdictions. While the Act’s proposed single approval process could provide for expedited review timelines, a complex web of regulatory processes will remain in place requiring much enhanced interagency and interprovincial coordination. Given Canada’s much-diminished record for regulatory and policy clarity will this legislation be enough to persuade the corporate and international capital community to consider Canada as a prime investment destination?
As with all complex matters the devil always lurks in the details. Notably, these federal initiatives arrive at a time when the Carney government is facing ever-more pressing geopolitical, energy security and economic concerns. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that Canada’s economy will grow by a dismal one per cent in 2025 and 1.1 per cent in 2026 – this at a time when the global economy is predicted to grow by 2.9 per cent.
It should come as no surprise that Carney’s recent musing about the “real potential” for decarbonized oil pipelines have sparked debate. The undefined term “decarbonized”, is clearly aimed directly at western Canadian oil production as part of Ottawa’s broader strategy to achieve national emissions commitments using costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects whose economic viability at scale has been questioned. What might this mean for western Canadian oil producers?
The Alberta Oil sands presently account for about 58% of Canada’s total oil output. Data from December 2023 show Alberta producing a record 4.53 million barrels per day (MMb/d) as major oil export pipelines including Trans Mountain, Keystone and the Enbridge Mainline operate at high levels of capacity. Meanwhile, in 2023 eastern Canada imported on average about 490,000 barrels of crude oil per day (bpd) at a cost estimated at CAD $19.5 billion. These seaborne shipments to major refineries (like New Brunswick’s Irving Refinery in Saint John) rely on imported oil by tanker with crude oil deliveries to New Brunswick averaging around 263,000 barrels per day. In 2023 the estimated total cost to Canada for imported crude oil was $19.5 billion with oil imports arriving from the United States (72.4%), Nigeria (12.9%), and Saudi Arabia (10.7%). Since 1988, marine terminals along the St. Lawrence have seen imports of foreign oil valued at more than $228 billion while the Irving Oil refinery imported $136 billion from 1988 to 2020.
What are the policy and cost implication of Carney’s call for the “decarbonization” of western Canadian produced, oil? It implies that western Canadian “decarbonized” oil would have to be produced and transported to competitive world markets under a material regulatory and financial burden. Meanwhile, eastern Canadian refiners would be allowed to import oil from the USA and offshore jurisdictions free from any comparable regulatory burdens. This policy would penalize, and makes less competitive, Canadian producers while rewarding offshore sources. A federal regulatory requirement to decarbonize western Canadian crude oil production without imposing similar restrictions on imported oil would render the One Canadian Economy Act moot and create two market realities in Canada – one that favours imports and that discourages, or at very least threatens the competitiveness of, Canadian oil export production.
Ron Wallace is a former Member of the National Energy Board.
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
