Business
Government Subsidies and the Oil and Gas Industry
A look at Strathcona Resources Ltd.
Does the Canadian government subsidize companies operating in our oil and gas sector? According to research by science and technology journalist Emily Chung, between $4.5 billion and $81 billion of public funds are spent each year for assistance to the industry. But Chung notes how ambiguous definitions (what exactly is a subsidy?) mean that those numbers come with serious caveats.
I thought I’d make this discussion a bit more manageable by focusing on just one industry player: Strathcona Resources Ltd.
Strathcona is big. They produce around 185,000 barrels of oil equivalent each day and the company is currently ranked 98th among publicly traded companies in Canada in terms of market cap ($5 billion) and 88th for operating margin (21.59%).
The Audit does this work in part because paid subscribers share the load. Why not join, too?
What Is a Subsidy?
In the context of their report on the fossil fuel industry, the Department of Finance Canada asserts that “subsidies” can include:
- tax expenditures,
- grants and contributions,
- government loans or loan guarantees at favourable rates,
- resources sold by government at below-market rates
- research and development funding
- government intervention in markets to lower prices
The report defines tax expenditures as:
A type of tax measure, such as a preferential tax rate, exemption, deduction, deferral, or credit, with which the government aims to achieve public policy objectives through the tax system.
In the specific context of Strathcona, I could find no evidence that they’d received any direct public funding or “bailouts”. The government did recently announce a billion dollar partnership with the Canada Growth Fund (CGF) to build carbon capture and sequestration infrastructure, but that’s clearly an investment and not a subsidy. CGF is a Canadian arm’s-length crown corporation whose investments are managed by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board.
Strathcona’s 2023 Annual Report includes a reference to only one loan liability, but that had already been paid off and, in any case, wasn’t guaranteed by any level of government.
What Tax Benefits Does Strathcona Receive?
Many. The company’s annual report discusses its $6.1 billion “tax pool”. The pool is made up of deductions and credits that it can’t use this year, but that can be deferred for use in future years. Here’s how those break down:
 |
The “Other Tax Deductions” item includes the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SRED) deduction. That represents amounts spent on SRED-eligible research that companies can deduct from their payable taxes.
What Grant Funding Does Strathcona Receive?
Open Government data reports that only two federal grants were awarded to Strathcona, both in 2023. The first, worth $3.2 million, came from Natural Resources Canada as part of their Energy Innovation Program. Its purpose was development of Lindbergh Semi-Closed Cycle Flue Gas Recirculation and Carbon Capture.
The second grant was worth $12.5 million. It involved Environment and Climate Change Canada looking for an Orion Organic Rankine Cycle Waste Heat Recovery and Power Generation Project.
What Benefits Do Governments Receive From Strathcona?
Government subsidies don’t exist in a vacuum. As a rule, it’s assumed that subsidies to the private sector work as an investment whose primary payback is in profitable economic activity. Governments can also enjoy direct benefits.
In 2023, for example, Strathcona paid more than $405 million in crown royalties to provincial governments. They also spent $2.4 billion as operating expenses that included labor, energy costs, transportation, processing, and facility maintenance. Most of that money was spent in Canada.
A very rough estimate would suggest that total annual personal income taxes generated by people employed by Strathcona would be somewhere around $14 million. Vendors might pay another $13 million in corporate taxes.
There are also indirect benefits. For instance, those with jobs around the oil patch are, obviously, not unemployed and receiving EI benefits.
We could also take into account the larger impact Strathcona has on the general economy. Think about the food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment spending done by the families of Strathcona (and their vendors’) employees. That money, too, performs important social and economic service.
So does Strathcona receive more from government subsidies than the money they feed back into government accounts? Well, the $405 million in crown royalties are likely annual payments, as are the $27 million paid as income taxes. That’s what governments get. On the other side of the balance sheet, there is the $6.1 billion in deferred taxes and $16 million in grants. Those will probably be amortized over multiple years.
But does the word “subsidy” really describe tax benefits in any useful way? After all, there’s no company in all Canada – my own company included – that doesn’t deduct legitimate business expenses. And each and every Canadian receives similar benefits whenever they file their T1. For illustration, a Canadian whose total income happened to match the national average ($55,600) pays around $5,600 less in taxes each year due to various deductions and credits – including the basic personal amount.
Does that mean we’re all receiving government subsidies? There’s nothing wrong with thinking about it that way, but it does kind of strip the word of any real meaning.
Now you could reasonably argue that $6 billion is an awful lot of deferred tax, especially for a company with a 22% operating margin. And you could look to the tax code’s complexity for answers as to how this could have happened. But that’s not a subsidy in any coherent sense.
Think the tax code should be reformed? The line forms right behind me. However, the problem with playing around with the tax code is that changes apply to everyone, not just Strathcona or some other preferred target. Successfully anticipating how that might play out in dark and unanticipated ways isn’t the kind of thing for which governments are famous.
The Audit does this work in part because paid subscribers share the load. Why not join, too?
From LifeSiteNews
RBC’s dropping of its ‘net zero’ finance targets came just one day after the Liberal Party under Mark Carney was re-elected in Canada.
Just one day after the re-election of the Liberal Party under Mark Carney, the Royal Bank of Canada joined the growing list of top banks withdrawing from a United Nations-backed “net zero” alliance that supports the eventual elimination of the nation’s oil and gas industry in the name of “climate change.”
The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) on Tuesday quietly dumped its UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) sustainable finance targets, which called for banks to come in line with the push for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The NZBA is a subgroup of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which Carney was co-chair of until recently.
RBC’s departure comes despite the fact that it was one of the NZBA’s founding members.
RBC joins Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) who earlier in the year said they were withdrawing from the NZBA.
The bank announced the move away from a green agenda in its 2024 sustainability report, noting it would no longer look to pursue a $500 billion sustainable finance goal. It cited changes to Canada’s federal Competition Act as the reason.
The changes to the act, known as the “greenwashing law,” now mandate that companies provide proof of their environmental claims.
“We have reviewed our methodology and have concluded that it may not have appropriately measured certain of our sustainable finance activities,” noted RBC in its report.
RBC also noted it would not make public any of its metrics regarding its energy supply ratio.
Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Carney beat out Conservative rival Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.
Carney worked as the former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and spent many years promoting green financial agendas.
The GFANZ was formed in 2021 while Carney was its co-chair. He resigned from his role in the alliance right before he announced he would run for Liberal leadership to replace former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Large U.S. banks such as Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all withdrawn from the group as well.
Since taking office in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Trudeau and now under Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.
From the Montreal Economic Institute
The federal government’s growing regulatory burden on businesses is holding Canada back and must be urgently reviewed, argues a new publication from the MEI released this morning.
“Regulation creep is a real thing, and Ottawa has been fuelling it for decades,” says Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI and coauthor of the Viewpoint. “Regulations are passed but rarely reviewed, making it burdensome to run a business, or even too costly to get started.”
Between 2006 and 2021, the number of federal regulatory requirements in Canada rose by 37 per cent, from 234,200 to 320,900. This is estimated to have reduced real GDP growth by 1.7 percentage points, employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points, according to recent Statistics Canada data.
Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the proliferation of new regulations.
In 2024, firms with fewer than five employees pay over $10,200 per employee in regulatory and red tape compliance costs, compared to roughly $1,400 per employee for businesses with 100 or more employees, according to data from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Overall, Canadian businesses spend 768 million hours a year on compliance, which is equivalent to almost 394,000 full-time jobs. The costs to the economy in 2024 alone were over $51.5 billion.
It is hardly surprising in this context that entrepreneurship in Canada is on the decline. In the year 2000, 3 out of every 1,000 Canadians started a business. By 2022, that rate had fallen to just 1.3, representing a nearly 57 per cent drop since 2000.
The impact of regulation in particular is real: had Ottawa maintained the number of regulations at 2006 levels, Canada would have seen about 10 per cent more business start-ups in 2021, according to Statistics Canada.
The MEI researcher proposes a practical way to reevaluate the necessity of these regulations, applying a model based on the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.
In the 1990s, the federal government launched a review process aimed at reducing federal spending. Over the course of two years, it successfully eliminated $12 billion in federal spending, a reduction of 9.7 per cent, and restored fiscal balance.
A similar approach applied to regulations could help identify rules that are outdated, duplicative, or unjustified.
The publication outlines six key questions to evaluate existing or proposed regulations:
- What is the purpose of the regulation?
- Does it serve the public interest?
- What is the role of the federal government and is its intervention necessary?
- What is the expected economic cost of the regulation?
- Is there a less costly or intrusive way to solve the problem the regulation seeks to address?
- Is there a net benefit?
According to OECD projections, Canada is expected to experience the lowest GDP per capita growth among advanced economies through 2060.
“Canada has just lived through a decade marked by weak growth, stagnant wages, and declining prosperity,” says Ms. Wittevrongel. “If policymakers are serious about reversing this trend, they must start by asking whether existing regulations are doing more harm than good.”
The MEI Viewpoint is available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion
History in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral
Carney’s budget is worse than Trudeau’s
Columnist warns Carney Liberals will consider a home equity tax on primary residences
Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances
It Took Trump To Get Canada Serious About Free Trade With Itself
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change
-
Agriculture2 days agoLiberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk
-
Alberta2 days agoIt’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoThe Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power
-
International2 days agoNigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report
-
Business1 day agoTrump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre
-
Business1 day agoCanada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
Crime15 hours agoCanada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links