Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

For the sake of Confederation, will we be open-minded about pipelines?

Published

7 minute read

From Resource Works

By

Can we learn to work together and build together?

The Western provinces now stand on the precipice of achieving the status they have craved since joining Confederation. However, let’s be clear: this is about oil and gas, not just oil, not just gas.

Objectively, the West is the leading edge in Canada’s pursuit of 21st-century prosperity. Will the Western provinces get their act together, or, more to the point, will the premiers and the Prime Minister find a way to do what Canada needs them to do?

The political and cultural differences between Alberta and British Columbia date back to before they entered Confederation.

The Colony of British Columbia was a classic creation of the British Empire. The familiar British structures and institutions of governance were in place, just as they were in central and eastern Canada before Confederation. Settlers to British colonies were typically recruited with secure employment. They were usually employees of an industry, working in administration, logistics, or some aspect of commerce. It is fair to say they were not particularly adventurous, beyond the fact that they had travelled all the way to the West Coast of North America.

Before and after Confederation, many Americans moved into the prairie provinces, where British institutions were not yet well-established. Albertans are often seen, not without reason, as the most “American” of Canadians, a perception rooted in the wave of settlers who brought a frontier culture and economy north from the Great Plains. All of which becomes clear when one surveys the range of historical accounts available through a Google search.

The conflict between the staid British heritage of the Colony of British Columbia and Upper Canada, and the restless energy of the American Wild West, has always been in the background of Alberta’s relationships within Canada.

B.C. and Alberta’s conflicts over pipelines do not originate with oil; they are more like siblings in a never-ending quarrel over anything and everything. That does not mean there is no substance to the pipeline dispute, it means it requires a grown-up response.

Because if we did not think things could get more complicated, they have.

Venezuela, with the world’s largest reserves of heavy oil, is now a clear target of the United States. With the U.S. Navy positioned in the Caribbean Sea, clearly surrounding Venezuela, it is no joke and a clear threat to Canada’s oil and gas industry.

It appears evident that the American end goal is unchallenged access to Venezuelan oil. The strategy resembles a return to the centuries-old model of Empire and Vassal States. The tactical move is regime change.

The United States has only 35.2 billion barrels of oil reserves, while Venezuela, ranked first, holds 300 billion barrels, and Canada, ranked third in the world, has 170.9 billion barrels. For the United States to maintain its global oil status, it will increasingly need large quantities from Canada, Venezuela, or Mexico. (It should be noted that Mexican oil production has declined in recent years.)

Should America’s domination of Venezuela come to fruition, what does this put in front of Canada, for our economic security and sovereignty? It raises difficult questions:

• Can we be sure of maintaining access to the U.S. market?
• Would we be limited to the current capacity of the Midwest refineries, as Gulf refineries expand their heavy-oil processing capabilities?
• Can we be certain that the discount we now experience will not grow even larger?

We must be honest with ourselves. Every day brings new evidence that Canada’s oil and gas future points toward the Asia Pacific region, strengthening the case for an open mind about a new pipeline to the Pacific Coast.

The 6.5-billion-person underserved market is far more attractive, as is a market where buyers are focused on their own countries and their own people, with no intent or interest in punishing their suppliers.

For the next half-century, oil and gas will continue to be the dominant global trade currency. This does not mean we should ignore emissions or fail to protect our coastlines, it implies that neglecting the oil and gas bounty we are blessed with would betray our grandchildren.

To protect Canadian sovereignty, we must significantly expand our oil and gas production and shipping capacity to the Asia Pacific region.

Thirty years ago, no one was predicting anything close to what is happening today.

One thing that has not changed is the United States itself. Since its formation, its leaders have been both expansionist and isolationist. Preferential access to resources and Fortress America are today’s manifestations of U.S. foreign and economic policy.

We should not believe this is just Trump. There is broad public support across America. Polls indicate that while many dislike his tactics, they are also no longer accepting of the Free World relying solely on the United States. They also show growing support for a more nationalist economy, a sentiment increasingly visible across most Western democracies, including Canada.

Future American leaders may not be so Trumpian, but it would be wrong to think the Fortress America approach will be abandoned as Trump leaves office.

Prime Minister Carney needs to lead a discussion that finds a path forward and addresses long-held prejudices founded on differing entry points into Confederation.

Jim Rushton is a 46-year veteran of BC’s resource and transportation sectors, with experience in union representation, economic development, and terminal management.

Bruce Dowbiggin

Integration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?

Published on

““He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.” George Bernard Shaw

In the days immediately following Donald Trump’s rude intervention into the 2025 Canadian federal election— suggesting Canada might best choose American statehood— two schools of thought emerged.

The first and most impactful school in the short term was the fainting-goat response of Canadian’s elites. Sensing an opening in which to erode Pierre Poilievre’s massive lead in the 2024 polls over Justin Trudeau, the Laurentian elite concocted Elbows Up, a self-pity response long on hurt feelings and short on addressing the issues Trump had cited in his trashing of the Canadian nation state.

In short order they fired Trudeau into oblivion, imported career banker Mark Carney as their new leader in a sham convention and convinced Canada’s Boomers that Trump had the tanks ready to go into Saskatchewan at a moment’s notice. The Elbows Up meme— citing Gordie Howe— clinched the group pout.

(In fact, Trump has said that America is the world’s greatest market, and if those who’ve used it for free in the past [Canada] want to keep special access they need to pay tariffs to the U.S. or drop protectionist charges on dairy and more against the U.S.)

The ruse worked out better than they could have ever imagined with Trump even saying he preferred to negotiate with Carney over Poilievre. In short order the Tories were shoved aside, the NDP kneecapped and the pet media anointed Carney the genius skewing Canada away from its largest trade partner to the Eurosphere. We remain in that bubble, although the fulsome promises of Carney’s first days are now coming due.

Which brings us to the second reaction. That was Alberta premier Danielle Smith bolting to Mar A Lago in the days following Trump’s comments. Her goal was to put pride aside and accept that a new world order was in play for Canada. She met with U.S. officials and, briefly, with Trump to remind them that Canada’s energy industry was integral to American prosperity and Canadian stability.

Needless to say, the fainting goats pitched a fit that not everyone was clutching pearls and rending garments in the wake of Trump’s dismissive assessment of his northern neighbours. Their solution to Trump was to join China in retaliatory tariffs— the only two nations to do so— and to boycott American products and travel. Like the ascetic monks they cut themselves off from real life. Trump has yet to get back to Carney the Magnificent

And Smith? She was a “traitor” or a “subversive” who should be keel hauled in the North Saskatchewan. For much of the intervening months she has been attacked at home in Alberta by the N-Deeps and in Ottawa by just about everyone on CBC, CTV, Global and the Globe & Mail. “How could she meet with the Cheeto?”

Nonetheless conservatives in the province moved toward a more independence within Canada. Smith articulated her demands for Alberta to prevent a referendum on whether to remain within Confederation. At the top of her list were pipelines and access to tidewater. Ergo, a no-go for BC’s squish premier David Eby who is the process of handing over his province to First Nations.

It became obvious that for all of Carney’s alleged diplomacy in Europe and Asia (is the man ever home?) he had a brewing disaster in the West with Alberta and Saskatchewan growing restless. In a striking move against the status quo, Nutrien announced it would ship its potash to tidewater via the U.S., thereby bypassing Vancouver’s strike-prone, outdated port and denying them billions.

Suddenly, Smith’s business approach began making eminent good sense if the goal is to keep Canada as one. So we saw last week’s “memorandum of understanding” between Alberta and Ottawa trading off carbon capture and carbon taxes for potential pipelines to tidewater on the B.C. coast. A little bit of something for everyone and a surrender on other things.

The most amazing feature of the Mark Carney/Danielle Smith MOU is that both politicians probably need the deal to fail. Carney can tell fossil-fuel enemy Quebec that he tried to reason with Smith, and Smith can say she tried to meet the federalists halfway. Failure suits their larger purposes. Which is for Carney to fold Canada into Euro climate insanity and Smith into a strong leverage against the pro-Canada petitioners in her province.

Soon enough, at the AFN Special Chiefs Assembly, FN Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak told Carney that  “Turtle Island” (the FN term for North America popularized by white hippy poet Gary Snyder) belongs to the FN people “from coast to coast to coast.” The pusillanimous Eby quickly piped up about tanker bans and the sanctity of B.C. waters etc.

Others pointed out the massive flaw in a plan to attract private interests to build a vital bitumen pipeline if the tankers it fills are not allowed to  sail through the Dixon Entrance to get to Asia.

But then Eby got Nutrien’s message that his power-sharing with the indigenous might cause other provinces to bypass B.C. (imagine California telling Texas it can’t ship through its ports over moral objections to a product). He’s now saying he’s open to pipelines but not to lift the tanker ban along the coast. Whatever.

Meanwhile the kookaburras of isolation back east continue with virtue signalling on American booze— N.S. to sell off its remains stocks — while dreaming that Trump’s departure will lead to the good-old days of reliance on America’s generosity.

But Smith looks to be wining the race. B.C.’s population shrank 0.04 percent in the second quarter of 2025, the only jurisdiction in Canada to do so. Meanwhile, Alberta is heading toward five million people, with interprovincial migrants making up 21 percent of its growth.

But what did you expect from the Carney/ Eby Tantrum Tandem? They keep selling fear in place of GDP. As GBS observed, “You have learnt something. That always feels at first as if you have lost something.”

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s climate agenda hit business hard but barely cut emissions

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Gwyn Morgan

Canada is paying a steep economic price for climate policies that have delivered little real environmental progress

In 2015, the newly elected Trudeau government signed the Paris Agreement. The following year saw the imposition of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, which included more than 50 measures aimed at “reducing carbon emissions and fostering clean technology solutions.” Key among them was economy-wide carbon “pricing,” Liberal-speak for taxes.

Other measures followed, culminating last December in the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, targeting emissions of 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. It included $9.1 billion for retrofitting structures, subsidizing zero-emission vehicles, building charging stations and subsidizing solar panels and windmills. It also mandated the phaseout of coal-fired power generation and proposed stringent emission standards for vehicles and buildings.

Other “green initiatives” included the “on-farm climate action fund,” a nationwide reforestation initiative to plant two billion trees, the “Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program” to promote net-zero standards in new construction, and a “Green Municipal Fund” to support municipal decarbonization. That’s a staggering list of nation-impoverishing subsidies, taxes and restrictions.

Those climate measures come at a real cost to the industry that drives the nation’s economy.

The Trudeau government cancelled the Northern Gateway oil pipeline to the northwest coast, which had been approved by the Harper government, costing sponsors hundreds of millions of dollars in preconstruction expenditures. The political and regulatory morass the Liberals created eventually led to the cancellation of all but one of the 12 LNG export proposals.

Have all those taxes and regulatory measures reduced Canada’s fossil-fuel consumption? No. As Bjorn Lomborg has reported, between the election of the Trudeau government in 2015 through 2023, fossil fuels’ share of Canada’s energy supply increased from 75 to 77 per cent.

That dismal result wasn’t for lack of trying. The Fraser Institute has found that Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have either spent or forgone a mind-numbing $158 billion to create just 68,000 “clean” jobs, increasing the “green economy” by a minuscule 0.3 percentage points to 3.6 per cent of GDP at an eye-watering cost of more than $2.3 million per job.

That’s Canada’s emissions reduction debacle. What’s the global picture? A decade after Paris, 80 per cent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels. World energy demand is up 150 per cent. Canada, which produces roughly 1.5 per cent of global emissions, cannot influence that trajectory. And, as Lomborg writes: “achieving net zero emissions by 2050 would require the removal of the equivalent of the combined emissions of China and the United States in each of the next five years. This puts us in the realm of science fiction.”

Does this mean our planet will become unlivable? A U.S. Department of Energy report issued in July is grounds for optimism. It finds that “claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.” And it goes on: “CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed and aggressive mitigation policies could be more detrimental than beneficial.”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright responded to the report by saying: “Climate change is real … but it is not the greatest threat facing humanity … (I)mproving the human condition depends on access to reliable, affordable energy.”

That leaves no doubt as to where our largest trading partner stands on carbon emissions. But don’t expect Prime Minister Mark Carney, who helped launch the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) at COP 26 in that city in 2021 and co-chaired it until this January, to soften his stand on carbon taxes. His just-released budget imposes carbon tax increases of $80 to $170 per ton by 2030 on our already struggling industries.

Doing so increases Canadian businesses’ competitive disadvantage with our most important trading partner while doing essentially nothing to help the environment.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X