Energy
Mistakes and misinformation by experts cloud discussions on energy
From the Fraser Institute
By Jason Clemens and Elmira Aliakbari
The new agreement (MOU) between the Carney and Alberta governments sets the foundation for a pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, at least conceptually. Unfortunately, many politicians and commentators, including the bureau chiefs for the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, continue to get many energy facts wrong, which impairs the discussions of how best the country can and should move forward to capitalize on our natural resources.
For example, commentors often wrongly describe the tanker ban on the west coast (C-48) as a general ban on oil tankers. But in reality, the law only applies to tankers docking at Canadian ports. It does not and cannot prevent tankers from travelling the west coast so long as they’re not stationing at Canadian ports. This explains the continued oil tanker traffic in the northwest region for tankers docking in U.S. ports in Alaska. Simply put, there is not a general tanker ban on the west coast.
Commentators also continue to misrepresent the current capacity on the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX). According to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), the average utilization of the TMX since it came online in June 2024 is 82 per cent (reaching as high as 89 per cent in March 2025). So, while there’s some room for additional oil transportation via TMX, it’s nowhere close to the “doubling” being discussed in central Canada. Critically, though, according to the CER, from “June 2024 to June 2025, committed capacity was effectively fully utilized each month, averaging 99% utilization.”
Similarly, there’s a misunderstanding by many in central Canada regarding the potential restart of the Keystone XL pipeline, which apparently President Trump is keen on. Keystone would not diversify Canada’s exports because while oil does make its way down to the southern U.S. where it can be exported, the actual sale of Canadian oil is to U.S. refineries, so our reliance on the U.S. as our near-sole export market would continue unless a west and/or east coast pipeline is developed.
There also continues to be an artificial and costly connection made between Ottawa removing the arbitrary emissions cap on greenhouse gases by the oil and gas sector and the approval of a new pipeline with the proposed Pathways carbon capture project, which is a collaboration between five of Canada’s largest oil producers. This connection was galvanized in the MOU.
The idea behind the project is to reduce (conceptually) the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted from oil extraction and transportation projects linked with Pathways. The Pathways project produces no economic value or product—it simply collects and stores GHG emissions—and reports suggest the total cost for the first phase of the project will reach $16.5 billion.
Should Canadians care about adding costs related to GHG mitigation? There are several factors to consider. First, Canada is already a low-GHG emitting producer of oil. According to the Carney government’s first budget (page 105, chart 1.5 which ranks the world’s 20 top oil producers based on their GHG emissions per unit of output), Canada already ranks 7th-lowest in terms of emissions. And more importantly, it’s lower than every country—Venezuela, Russia, Iraq and Mexico—that produces a similar type of oil as Canada. Any resources spent further reducing GHG emissions via carbon capture will result in small incremental gains contrasted with large costs (again, at least $16.5 billion). A number of analysts have already raised concerns about the investment and competitiveness implications of increasing the cost structures for Alberta producers.
Second, according to the federal government, in 2022 Canada produced 1.4 per cent of global GHG emissions, and the oil and gas sector produced roughly one-quarter of those emissions. In other words, if Canada eliminated all GHG emissions from the oil sector via carbon capture, the process would consume vast amounts of scarce resources (i.e. money) and result in a nearly undetectable change in global GHG emissions. One can only conclude that this is much more about international virtue-signalling than the actual economics and environmental implications of Canada’s potential energy projects.
At a time when Canada is struggling with crisis levels of private business investment, falling living standards and as the Bank of Canada described, a break-the-glass crisis in productivity growth, it’s clearly not wise to spend tens of billions of dollars on projects that might make politicians and bureaucrats feel better and enable them to use near Orwellian language like “zero-emissions oil” but that actually deliver almost no detectable environmental benefits.
To borrow our prime minister’s favourite phrase, kickstarting Canada’s oil and gas sector is the easiest way to catalyze economic growth given our vast energy reserves, know-how in the sector, and high productivity. To do so, we need a national dialogue rooted in facts.
Energy
Unceded is uncertain
Tsawwassen Speaker Squiqel Tony Jacobs arrives for a legislative sitting. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck
From Resource Works
Cowichan case underscores case for fast-tracking treaties
If there are any doubts over the question of which route is best for settling aboriginal title and reconciliation – the courts or treaty negotiations – a new economic snapshot on the Tsawwassen First Nation should put the question to rest.
Thanks to a modern day treaty, implemented in 2009, the Tsawwassen have leveraged land, cash and self-governance to parlay millions into hundreds of millions a year, according to a new report by Deloitte on behalf of the BC Treaty Commission.
With just 532 citizens, the Tsawwassen First Nation now provides $485 million in annual employment and 11,000 permanent retail and warehouse jobs, the report states.
Deloitte estimates modern treaties will provide $1 billion to $2 billion in economic benefits over the next decade.
“What happens, when you transfer millions to First Nations, it turns into billions, and it turns into billions for everyone,” Sashia Leung, director of international relations and communication for the BC Treaty Commission, said at the Indigenous Partnership Success Showcase on November 13.
“Tsawwassen alone, after 16 years of implementing their modern treaty, are one of the biggest employers in the region.”

BC Treaty Commission’s Sashia Leung speaks at the Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase 2025.
Nisga’a success highlights economic potential
The Nisga’a is another good case study. The Nisga’a were the first indigenous group in B.C. to sign a modern treaty.
Having land and self-governance powers gave the Nisga’a the base for economic development, which now includes a $22 billion LNG and natural gas pipeline project – Ksi Lisims LNG and the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission line.
“This is what reconciliation looks like: a modern Treaty Nation once on the sidelines of our economy, now leading a project that will help write the next chapter of a stronger, more resilient Canada,” Nisga’a Nation president Eva Clayton noted last year, when the project received regulatory approval.
While the modern treaty making process has moved at what seems a glacial pace since it was established in the mid-1990s, there are some signs of gathering momentum.
This year alone, three First Nations signed final treaty settlement agreements: Kitselas, Kitsumkalum and K’omoks.
“That’s the first time that we’ve ever seen, in the treaty negotiation process, that three treaties have been initialed in one year and then ratified by their communities,” Treaty Commissioner Celeste Haldane told me.
Courts versus negotiation
When it comes to settling the question of who owns the land in B.C. — the Crown or First Nations — there is no one-size-fits-all pathway.
Some First Nations have chosen the courts. To date, only one has succeeded in gaining legal recognition of aboriginal title through the courts — the Tsilhqot’in.
The recent Cowichan decision, in which a lower court recognized aboriginal title to a parcel of land in Richmond, is by no means a final one.
That decision opened a can of worms that now has private land owners worried that their properties could fall under aboriginal title. The court ruling is being appealed and will almost certainly end up having to go to the Supreme Court.
This issue could, and should, be resolved through treaty negotiations, not the courts.
The Cowichan, after all, are in the Hul’qumi’num treaty group, which is at stage 5 of a six-stage process in the BC Treaty process. So why are they still resorting to the courts to settle title issues?
The Cowichan title case is the very sort of legal dispute that the B.C. and federal governments were trying to avoid when it set up the BC Treaty process in the mid-1990s.
Accelerating the process
Unfortunately, modern treaty making has been agonizingly slow.
To date, there are only seven modern implemented treaties to show for three decades of works — eight if you count the Nisga’a treaty, which predated the BC Treaty process.
Modern treaty nations include the Nisga’a, Tsawwassen, Tla’amin and five tribal groups in the Maa-nulth confederation on Vancouver Island.
It takes an average of 10 years to negotiate a final treaty settlement. Getting a court ruling on aboriginal title can take just as long and really only settles one question: Who owns the land?
The B.C. government has been trying to address rights and title through other avenues, including incremental agreements and a tripartite reconciliation process within the BC Treaty process.
It was this latter tripartite process that led to the Haida agreement, which recognized Haida title over Haida Gwaii earlier this year.
These shortcuts chip away at issues of aboriginal rights and title, self-governance, resource ownership and taxation and revenue generation.
Modern treaties are more comprehensive, settling everything from who owns the land and who gets the tax revenue from it, to how much salmon a nation is entitled to annually.
Once modern treaties are in place, it gives First Nations a base from which to build their own economies.
The Tsawwassen First Nation is one of the more notable case studies for the economic and social benefits that accrue, not just to the nation, but to the local economy in general.
The Tsawwassen have used the cash, land and taxation powers granted to them under treaty to create thousands of new jobs. This has been done through the development of industrial, commercial and residential lands.
This includes the development of Tsawwassen Mills and Tsawwassen Commons, an Amazon warehouse, a container inspection centre, and a new sewer treatment plant in support of a major residential development.
“They have provided over 5,000 lease homes for Delta, for Vancouver,” Leung noted. “They have a vision to continue to build that out to 10,000 to 12,000.”
Removing barriers to agreement
For First Nations, some of the reticence in negotiating a treaty in the past was the cost and the loss of tax exemptions. But those sticking points have been removed in recent years.
First Nations in treaty negotiations were originally required to borrow money from the federal government to participate, and then that loan amount was deducted from whatever final cash settlement was agreed to.
That requirement was eliminated in 2019, and there has been loan forgiveness to those nations that concluded treaties.
Another sticking point was the loss of tax exemptions. Under Section 87 of Indian Act, sales and property taxes do not apply on reserve lands.
But under modern treaties, the Indian Act ceases to apply, and reserve lands are transferred to title lands. This meant giving up tax exemptions to get treaty settlements.
That too has been amended, and carve-outs are now allowed in which the tax exemptions can continue on those reserve lands that get transferred to title lands.
“Now, it’s up to the First Nation to determine when and if they want to phase out Section 87 protections,” Haldane said.
Haldane said she believes these recent changes may account for the recent progress it has seen at the negotiation table.
“That’s why you’re seeing K’omoks, Kitselas, Kitsumkalum – three treaties being ratified in one year,” she said. “It’s unprecedented.”
The Mark Carney government has been on a fast-tracking kick lately. But we want to avoid the kind of uncertainty that the Cowichan case raises, and if the Carney government is looking for more things to fast-track that would benefit First Nations and the Canadian economy, perhaps treaty making should be one of them.
Resource Works News
Alberta
Premier Smith: Canadians support agreement between Alberta and Ottawa and the major economic opportunities it could unlock for the benefit of all
From Energy Now
By Premier Danielle Smith
Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here
If Canada wants to lead global energy security efforts, build out sovereign AI infrastructure, increase funding to social programs and national defence and expand trade to new markets, we must unleash the full potential of our vast natural resources and embrace our role as a global energy superpower.
The Alberta-Ottawa Energy agreement is the first step in accomplishing all of these critical objectives.
Recent polling shows that a majority of Canadians are supportive of this agreement and the major economic opportunities it could unlock for the benefit of all Canadians.
As a nation we must embrace two important realities: First, global demand for oil is increasing and second, Canada needs to generate more revenue to address its fiscal challenges.
Nations around the world — including Korea, Japan, India, Taiwan and China in Asia as well as various European nations — continue to ask for Canadian energy. We are perfectly positioned to meet those needs and lead global energy security efforts.
Our heavy oil is not only abundant, it’s responsibly developed, geopolitically stable and backed by decades of proven supply.
If we want to pay down our debt, increase funding to social programs and meet our NATO defence spending commitments, then we need to generate more revenue. And the best way to do so is to leverage our vast natural resources.
At today’s prices, Alberta’s proven oil and gas reserves represent trillions in value.
It’s not just a number; it’s a generational opportunity for Alberta and Canada to secure prosperity and invest in the future of our communities. But to unlock the full potential of this resource, we need the infrastructure to match our ambition.
There is one nation-building project that stands above all others in its ability to deliver economic benefits to Canada — a new bitumen pipeline to Asian markets.
The energy agreement signed on Nov. 27 includes a clear path to the construction of a one-million-plus barrel-per-day bitumen pipeline, with Indigenous co-ownership, that can ensure our province and country are no longer dependent on just one customer to buy our most valuable resource.
Indigenous co-ownership also provide millions in revenue to communities along the route of the project to the northwest coast, contributing toward long-lasting prosperity for their people.
The agreement also recognizes that we can increase oil and gas production while reducing our emissions.
The removal of the oil and gas emissions cap will allow our energy producers to grow and thrive again and the suspension of the federal net-zero power regulations in Alberta will open to doors to major AI data-centre investment.
It also means that Alberta will be a world leader in the development and implementation of emissions-reduction infrastructure — particularly in carbon capture utilization and storage.
The agreement will see Alberta work together with our federal partners and the Pathways companies to commence and complete the world’s largest carbon capture, utilization and storage infrastructure project.
This would make Alberta heavy oil the lowest intensity barrel on the market and displace millions of barrels of heavier-emitting fuels around the globe.
We’re sending a clear message to investors across the world: Alberta and Canada are leaders, not just in oil and gas, but in the innovation and technologies that are cutting per barrel emissions even as we ramp up production.
Where we are going — and where we intend to go with more frequency — is east, west, north and south, across oceans and around the globe. We have the energy other countries need, and will continue to need, for decades to come.
However, this agreement is just the first step in this journey. There is much hard work ahead of us. Trust must be built and earned in this partnership as we move through the next steps of this process.
But it’s very encouraging that Prime Minister Mark Carney has made it clear he is willing to work with Alberta’s government to accomplish our shared goal of making Canada an energy superpower.
That is something we have not seen from a Canadian prime minister in more than a decade.
Together, in good faith, Alberta and Ottawa have taken the first step towards making Canada a global energy superpower for benefit of all Canadians.
Danielle Smith is the Premier of Alberta
-
National1 day agoMedia bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoSometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
-
Business17 hours agoRecent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
-
Daily Caller18 hours agoTech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
-
MAiD19 hours agoHealth Canada report finds euthanasia now accounts for over 5% of deaths nationwide
-
Automotive11 hours agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Energy10 hours agoUnceded is uncertain
-
Business12 hours agoNew Chevy ad celebrates marriage, raising children


