From Energy Now

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments

Senator Rosa Galvez’s recent op-ed in the National Observer champions the reintroduction of her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (Bill S-243) as a cornerstone for an “orderly transition” to achieving a low-carbon Canadian economy. With Prime Minister Mark Carney—a global figure in sustainable finance—at the helm, Senator Galvez believes Canada has a “golden opportunity” to lead on climate-aligned finance. However, a closer examination of Bill S-243 reveals a troubling agenda that potentially risks not only crippling Canada’s oil and gas sector and undermining economic stability, but one that could impose unhelpful, discriminatory measures. As Carney pledges to transform Canada’s economy, this legislation would also erode the principles of fairness in our economic and financial system.

Introduced in 2022, Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments, particularly with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.  The Bill’s provisions are sweeping and punitive, targeting emissions-intensive sectors like oil and gas with what could only be described as an unprecedented regulatory overreach. It requires institutions to avoid financing “new fossil fuel supply infrastructure” and to plan for a “fossil-free future,” effectively discouraging investment in Canada’s energy sector. To that end, it imposes capital-risk weights of 1,250% on debt for new fossil fuel projects and 150% or more for existing ones, making such financing prohibitively expensive. These measures, as confirmed by the Canadian Bankers’ Association and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in 2023 Senate testimony, would have the effect of forcing Canadian financial institutions to exit oil and gas financing altogether. It also enshrines into law that entities put climate commitments ahead of fiduciary duty:

“The persons for whom a duty is established under subsection (1) [alignment with climate commitments] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

While the applicability of the term used in the legislation that defines a “reporting entity” may be a subject of some debate, the legislation would nonetheless direct financial institutions to put “climate over people”.

There are significant implications here for the Canadian oil and gas sector. This backbone of the economy employs thousands and generates billions in revenue. Yet, under Bill S-243, financial institutions would effectively be directed to divest from those companies if not the entire sector. How can Canada become an “energy superpower” if its financial system is directed to effectively abandon the conventional energy sector?

Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow Canadian Energy Focused Newsletter Here
Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow US Energy Focused Newsletter Here

Beyond economics, Bill S-243 raises profound ethical concerns, particularly with its boardroom provisions. At least one board member of every federally regulated financial institution must have “climate expertise”; excluded from serving as a director would be anyone who has worked for, lobbied or held shares in a fossil fuel company unless their position in the fossil fuel company was to help it align with climate commitments defined in part as “planning for a fossil fuel–free future.” How is “climate expertise” defined? The proposed legislation says it “means a person with demonstrable experience in proposing or implementing climate actions” or, among other characteristics, any person “who has acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” Bill S-243’s ideological exclusion of oil and gas-affiliated individuals from the boards of financial institutions would set a dangerous precedent that risks normalizing discrimination under the guise of environmental progress to diminish executive expertise, individual rights and the interests of shareholders.

Mark Carney’s leadership adds complexity to this debate. As the founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, Carney has long advocated for climate risk integration in finance, despite growing corporate withdrawal from the initiative. Indeed, when called to testify on Bill S-243 in May 2024, Carney praised Senator Galvez’s initiative and generally supported the bill stating: “Certain aspects of the proposed law are definitely achievable and actually essential.”  If Carney’s Liberal government embraces Bill S-243, or something similar, it would send a major negative signal to the Canadian energy sector, especially at a time of strained Federal-Provincial relations and as the Trump Administration pivots away from climate-related regulation.

Canada’s economy and energy future faces a pivotal moment.  Bill S-243 is punitive, discriminatory and economically reckless while threatening the economic resilience that the Prime Minister claims to champion. A more balanced strategy, one that supports innovation without effectively dismantling the financial underpinnings of a vital industry, is essential. What remains to be seen is will this federal government prioritize economic stability and regulatory fairness over ideological climate zeal?

Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based energy analyst. Ron Wallace is a Calgary-based energy analyst and former Permanent Member of the National Energy Board.

From Energy Now

By Jim Warren

Like it or not, the supporters of conventional energy production in the West, even those who bleed maple syrup, will be best served by a substantial leave vote. A poor showing on the part of the leave camp would weaken the bargaining power of the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector in their dealings with Ottawa.

The political dust-up between the leavers and the stayers is about to commence.

The petition calling for an Alberta referendum on separation will get the required signatures. And, the Moe government in Saskatchewan may yet decide to do something similar.

And, there is a good chance the federal Liberals and their allies in the environmental movement will launch an anti-separation/anti-oil campaign in response. The Liberals need merely to reinvigorate the flag waving campaign they ran during the federal election. All that needs to change for that tactic to work is the name of the boogeyman—from Donald Trump to alienated Westerners.  Government subsidized environmental organizations will help do the rest.

This will present something of a dilemma for some supporters of the conventional energy and pipeline sectors. Should they lay low, stay quiet and perhaps avoid becoming part of the controversy? Alternatively, should they face reality and admit oil and pipelines will feature prominently in the debate whether they like it or not. The federal assault on oil, gas and pipelines is after all one of the principal motivations inspiring many who wish to separate.

And, whether we like it or not, the supporters of conventional energy production in the West, even those who bleed maple syrup, will be best served by a substantial leave vote. A poor showing on the part of the leave camp would weaken the bargaining power of the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector in their dealings with Ottawa. This is one of the immutable laws of the negotiating universe. A union that gets only 20% of its members voting in favour of strike action knows it is impotent should management call its bluff.

This is not to say the leave side will need a majority vote to produce a win for the energy sector—a large minority could do nicely. The Parti Québécois’ goal of “sovereignty association” in the 1980 Quebec referendum was supported by just 40.4% of those who voted. Yet, it nevertheless added leverage to Quebec’s extortionate demands on Ottawa and the rest of Canada. Although, after the separatists garnered 49.4% of the vote in the 1995 referendum (aka Canada’s near death experience), Quebec did even better.

True, the two producing provinces on the prairies lack the electoral power of Quebec. In combination with Ontario, Quebec has been integral to Liberal success in federal elections for decades. The power of the West lies in its ability to generate a large share of Canada’s export revenues. That’s mainly why Quebec is able to count on $14 billion in annual equalization welfare. Threatening separation turns the economic importance of the West into a political weapon.

We can expect a highly divisive referendum debate–potentially far more fractious than the federal election campaign. Signals coming out of Ottawa suggest federal-provincial negotiations over conventional energy and emissions policy are about to take a nasty turn. We could be facing a perfect storm of disunity with Westerners bashing Ottawa while Ottawa denounces separatists and resumes its assault on oil, gas and pipelines.

Chances for lowering the political temperature don’t look good. The prime minister has been distancing himself from his initial pre-election pro pipeline position. Early in the election campaign Mark Carney said he would employ the emergency powers of the federal government to get new export pipelines running from the prairies to tidewater. The next week he told reporters Quebec would have the power to veto the approval of any pipeline crossing its territory. On May 14, Carney presented reporters with a word salad that seemed to be saying he would include evaluation of the potential for new pipelines along with other energy policy ideas being discussed. And, if a consensus favouring pipelines emerged, one might be built.

This is not comforting. These statements cannot all be correct at the same time. At least two, if not all three, of them, are disingenuous.

Exactly who will be included in the consensus building discussions is unclear. Will they involve meetings with the premiers of the provinces that generate huge export revenues for Canada. Will they be restricted to the emissions reduction zealots who dominate the cabinet and the Liberal caucus? Or, is it something Carney will work out at Davos when the World Economic Forum next convenes?

The Liberals and their media allies put a lot of stock in the polls once they showed the Liberals in the lead during the election campaign. They briefly acknowledged election period polling that showed 74% of Canadians support the construction of new export pipeline including 60% of Quebecers. But reporting on the growing popularity of pipelines ended after about a week when Carney’s unqualified support for a pipeline to the Atlantic coast evaporated.

Furthermore, the popular vote totals from the federal election demonstrate that Canadians’ support for the Conservatives and the Liberals was divided fairly evenly, 41.3% for the Conservatives and 43.8% for the Liberals. A slim 2.5 percentage point spread. It seems reasonable to assume many Conservative supporters outside of the prairies shared Pierre Poilievre’s strong and consistent support for conventional energy production and pipelines. The fact people in the producing provinces are not alone in seeing the wisdom of new export pipelines strengthens our position.

If the thumping the voters of Alberta and Saskatchewan gave the Liberals in the April 28 election didn’t convince the government its energy and pipelines policies have caused a national unity crisis, maybe a high vote in favour of separation will. Many people will figure this out and will vote strategically to ensure the leave side wins a respectable portion of the vote. Who would want to try to negotiate a good deal for the producing provinces and the conventional energy sector following a weak performance by the leave camp? The Liberals will claim that a big win for the stay camp shows that Albertans are happy with the status quo.

The anti-pipeline misinformation campaign is already underway. Steven Guilbeault was already at it last week. According to Guilbeault, since the Trans Mountain pipeline is not operating at full capacity we obviously don’t need any more pipelines.

Guilbeault knows full well the pipeline is running under full capacity. The reason being the residual fall-out from the $38 billion in cost overruns the government chalked up, which was in turn due to its own regulatory morass and system pains associated with issues like the poor design features built into the Burnaby terminal. The government expects oil producers to pay exorbitant shipping rates designed to rapidly recoup the embarrassing cost overruns. Producers are not prepared to lose money bailing out the government. Guilbeault also knows most producers making use of the Trans Mountain today had negotiated much lower rates with the pipeline prior to its completion.

We can expect the flow of this kind of misinformation to become a gusher in the days ahead.

One hopes there will be adults in charge of both the leave and stay camps. The cause of Western separation can be expected to attract enthusiasts from the fringes of the political spectrum. There will be crackpots and mean-spirited people cheering for both sides. Unfortunately, we need to prepare for the fact the mainstream media will focus on any loosely hinged eccentrics they can find who support separation. Radical environmentalists and climate change alarmists will be treated like selfless planet saving prophets.