Connect with us

Alberta

Cancelling Keystone XL cost thousands of jobs and billions in GDP: U.S. government report

Published

4 minute read

Keystone facility at Hardisty, Alberta. Photo courtesy Getty Images

From the Canadian Energy Centre Ltd.

Politicians, Indigenous leaders, and labour unions criticized the cancellation for the significant consequences it could have for both Canada and the United States

There is no doubt that Keystone XL’s cancellation was a massive gut punch to Canada and its oil and gas industry. Now the analysis is out showing the impact it had on the United States.

Just a sliver over two years ago the U.S. government nixed the pipeline project which would have added an additional 830,000 barrels of oil per day into the U.S.

The pipeline, which was expected to be complete in 2023, would have provided thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity. In December, the U.S. Department of Energy released its congressionally mandated report on the matter, and it’s now known approximately how many jobs and billions of dollars were foregone due to the cancellation.

The highlighted impacts in the report show that about 20,000 potential construction jobs per year over a two-year period were lost.

The nixing of the project also had a direct impact on the U.S. GDP with a loss of $3.4 billion. Wages were also impacted, with an estimated loss of $2.05 billion in potential earnings.

While there have not been any government numbers released for Canadian job losses, TC Energy said at the time of the cancellation that 1,000 workers would be laid off due to the announcement. It was a missed opportunity to lower costs for U.S. consumers, according to the American Petroleum Institute.  Indigenous groups were also impacted by the cancellation.

Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs noted that “It’s quite a blow to the First Nations that are involved right now in working with TC Energy to access employment training and contracting opportunities.”

Natural Law Energy, an Indigenous-owned energy company, had signed an agreement to invest a $1 billion equity stake in the pipeline.  This would have had the potential to create jobs and economic opportunity for Indigenous communities, Natural Law Energy said. More than $600 million in supply and employment agreements for Indigenous-owned companies were expected to come from the project’s construction.

While celebrated by many environmental groups, the decision to cancel Keystone XL was controversial on both sides of the border. Politicians, Indigenous leaders, and labour unions criticized the cancellation for the significant consequences it could have for both Canada and the United States.

Teamsters general president Jim Hoffa’s statement strongly encouraged the U.S. government to reconsider the decision. “This executive order doesn’t just affect U.S. Teamsters; it hurts our Canadian brothers and sisters as well who work on this project. It will reduce good-paying union jobs that allow workers to provide a middle-class standard of living to their families.”

Terry O’Sullivan, general president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America said, “By blocking this 100 percent union project, and pandering to environmental extremists, a thousand union jobs will immediately vanish, and 10,000 additional jobs will be foregone.”

The United States is the world’s largest importer of oil, and Canada is its top supplier. America will continue to rely on oil imports, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Absent Keystone XL, imports will come increasingly from other countries that may not have the same environmental and human rights standards as Canada.

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans in the form of lower contribution rates (which could be used to increase private retirement savings while receiving the same pension benefits as the CPP under the new provincial pension), finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate through a separate provincial pension plan while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan.

Assuming Albertans invested the savings from moving to a provincial pension plan into a private retirement account, and assuming a contribution rate of 5.85 per cent, workers earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025) could accrue a stream of retirement payments totalling $454,741 (pre-tax)—a 71.6 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Put differently, under the CPP, a median worker receives a total of $264,968 in retirement income over their life. If an Alberta worker saved the difference between what they pay now into the CPP and what they would pay into a new provincial plan, the income they would receive in retirement increases. If the contribution rate for the new provincial plan was 5.85 per cent—the lower of the available estimates—the increase in retirement income would total $189,773 (or an increase of 71.6 per cent).

If the contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan was 8.21 per cent—the higher of the available estimates—a median Alberta worker would still receive an additional $64,672 in retirement income over their life, a marked increase of 24.4 per cent compared to the CPP alone.

Put differently, assuming a contribution rate of 8.21 per cent, Albertan workers earning the median income could accrue a stream of retirement payments totaling $329,640 (pre-tax) under a provincial pension plan—a 24.4 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments.

“While the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan must be considered, its clear that Albertans could benefit from higher retirement payments under a provincial pension plan, compared to the CPP,” Hill said.

Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan

  • Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate with a separate provincial pension plan, compared with the CPP, while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP.
  • Put differently, moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans, which could be used to increase private retirement income. This essay assesses the potential savings for Albertans of moving to a provincial pension plan. It also estimates an Albertan’s potential increase in total retirement income, if those savings were invested in a private account.
  • Depending on the contribution rate used for an Alberta pension plan (APP), ranging from 5.85 to 8.2 percent, an individual earning the CPP’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings ($71,300 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $429,524 and $584,235. This would be 22.9 to 67.1 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($349,545).
  • An individual earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $329,640 and $454,741, which is between 24.4 percent to 71.6 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

 

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Joel Emes

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act bans transgender males from women’s sports within the province but cannot regulate out-of-province transgender athletes.

Alberta’s ban on gender-confused males competing in women’s sports will not apply to out-of-province athletes.

In an interview posted July 12 by the Canadian Press, Alberta Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko revealed that Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to regulate out-of-province, gender-confused males from competing against female athletes.

“We don’t have authority to regulate athletes from different jurisdictions,” he said in an interview.

Ministry spokeswoman Vanessa Gomez further explained that while Alberta passed legislation to protect women within their province, outside sporting organizations are bound by federal or international guidelines.

As a result, Albertan female athletes will be spared from competing against men during provincial competition but must face male competitors during inter-provincial events.

In December, Alberta passed the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act to prevent biological men who claim to be women from competing in women’s sports. The legislation will take effect on September 1 and will apply to all school boards, universities, as well as provincial sports organizations.

The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely, that males have a considerable advantage over women in athletics.

Indeed, a recent study published in Sports Medicine found that a year of “transgender” hormone drugs results in “very modest changes” in the inherent strength advantages of men.

Additionally, male athletes competing in women’s sports are known to be violent, especially toward female athletes who oppose their dominance in women’s sports.

In February, Andres ranted about why men should be able to compete in women’s competitions, calling for “the Ontario lifter” who opposes this, apparently referring to powerlifter April Hutchinson, to “die painfully.”

Interestingly, while Andres was suspended for six months for issuing death threats, Hutchinson was suspended for two years after publicly condemning him for stealing victories from women and then mocking his female competitors on social media. Her suspension was later reduced to a year.

Continue Reading

Trending

X