Connect with us

Alberta

Emissions cap “will not be tolerated in Alberta” – Letter to Environment Minister Guilbeault

Published

5 minute read

Dear Minister Steven Guilbeault,

The federal government’s draft Regulatory Framework to Cap Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions represents a de facto production cap on Alberta’s oil and gas sector. This cap is not realistic or effective, will not achieve its grandiose emissions targets, and will not be tolerated in Alberta.

Today, Alberta is efficiently and effectively regulating and driving emissions from all industrial sectors, including oil and gas, and has been doing so successfully for decades. Our technical submission outlines how your proposed oil and gas emissions cap will undercut this work, and the severe consequences that it will impose on Albertans and all Canadians.

In no way does Alberta’s technical submission alter our province’s position that the proposed emissions cap is unconstitutional. As set out in Section 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867, Alberta has exclusive jurisdiction to manage the rate of non-renewable natural resources production and operational aspects of their development in our province.

If implemented, this cap would have a devastating impact on the economies of Alberta and all of Canada. Analysis from the Conference Board of Canada shows that it would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040 and create up to 151,000 lost jobs across Canada by 2030. Oil and gas production would be curtailed, tens of thousands could be out of work, and the economic impact would be felt from coast to coast.

We have identified an overwhelming number of flaws in your government’s proposed framework. For example, your assumed production forecasts – which form the basis of the cap – are from 2019. Alberta’s total oil and natural gas production has already risen past 2019 levels, and multiple forecasts project oil sands production to increase significantly by 2030. Similarly, the technologies needed to massively abate emissions in the oil and gas sector either don’t yet exist or aren’t being developed at the rate and scale that your modelling requires.

Many of these technologies and investments are supported by Alberta and will eventually deliver real and sustained reductions, but not by 2030. As well, our submission clearly demonstrates that:

• The proposed cap would violate Section 92A of the Constitution, and result in oil and gas production cuts and shut-ins in Alberta.

• It is based on a flawed regulatory framework and policy design that is ineffective, inefficient and will not produce the intended emission reductions.

• The proposed cap will negatively impact Alberta’s economy, as well as the economies of provinces and territories across the country, including the Canadian economy overall.

• It will undercut Canada’s competitiveness and drastically reduce investments in clean technologies like carbon capture, which are critical to meaningfully reducing emissions in the coming years.

• It is unnecessary and will undermine effective provincial-led decarbonizing approaches and initiatives already underway or proposed in Alberta and across Canada.

• It will lead to carbon leakage, with oil and gas production and greenhouse gas emissions increasing in other countries with less robust environmental and human rights standards.

Alberta is confident that the many of issues raised in this document are shared by other provinces and industry leaders, both within the oil and gas sector and beyond.

All greenhouse gas emissions have the same global impact, regardless of the sector or region in which they are produced. Instead of pursuing this unconstitutional cap, we are calling on your government to immediately halt further development and begin meaningful collaboration within established provincial regulatory regimes on oil and gas regulation and emissions reductions.

Alberta would welcome federal investment to help the oil and gas industry – and other industries – advance and adopt technology to reduce emissions to support our goals of carbon neutrality by 2050.

Alberta aspires to achieve a carbon neutral economy without compromising affordable, reliable, and secure energy for Alberta, Canada and the world. We know this relies on and requires investment to advance clean technology solutions.

We invite you to join us in implementing our Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan to achieve carbon neutrality while continuing the development of Alberta’s world-class natural energy resources for Canada and the world.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Schulz
Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in  Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy 

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.

Continue Reading

Trending

X